Art and Computers
Emmanuel Ho
With the advent of computers and the whole process of computerization our
Art school is undergoing some rather hefty debate, the main point of
contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw. Others
feel it is more than that, a language, a medium. Anyhow, any helpful
comments would be much appreciated.
--
--------------------------------------
|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Emmanuel Ho
Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
--------------------------------------
Martin
> the main point of
> contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
> See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw. Others
> feel it is more than that, a language, a medium.
Hi Emmanuel
Can you give us more details of the debate that goes on amongst you and
your classmates?
My own view is this:
I think that a computer can easily be thought of either as a tool, or as a
medium, or both at once. This is because you need both materials to make
art from (the medium) and tools to make art with, and the computer can do
both.
My strong feeling is that language is not an appropriate concept in this
context. A computer is no more a language than a book is. Both are
intricately bound to language, but are not language themselves.
I think itÄ…s very confusing to distort the meaning of words. If you try
to make the identity; computer=language you end up doing so much damage to
the word Å‚languageË› that it becomes of little use in discussions of art or
anything else.
So I have a question for you: Why do people want to equate computers with
language? What purpose is served that makes it worth dealing with the
confusion?
Bye
Martin
ps
I like you kitty
Brother Alphabet
On 28 Mar 1997, Emmanuel Ho wrote:
> Computers. Tool or Language.
This is not really a two-sided issue as much as it is two aspects of a
singular one. The computer can be either a tool or a media in itself.
Depending on the desired 'form' you can designate digital work as print
media, photographical hybrids or digital photography, and some have even
felt comfortable accepting the output as painting or drawing - It really
depends upon how broadly you wish to see the potential of the
computer-as-tool. On the other point, there are some 'forms' that would
not exist outside the technology, such as animation, multimedia and
enhanced installations - The art could not be presented without the
machine, so then the machine, in effect becomes at least the presentation
facility if not the actual media. Again, that would depend upon how you
regard the potential of the machine.
I wouldn't necessarily choose the term 'language' to apply to computer art
either - It isn't so separate as to be an entirely different THING, it is
only a different way to explore and create artistic ideas.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Tony Karp
e...@eciad.bc.ca (Emmanuel Ho) wrote:
>With the advent of computers and the whole process of computerization our
>Art school is undergoing some rather hefty debate, the main point of
>contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
>See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw. Others
>feel it is more than that, a language, a medium. Anyhow, any helpful
>comments would be much appreciated.
Take a look at:
http://www.techno-impressionist.com
For some relevant art and for some discussions on real media versus computer
media, etc.
Tony Karp, TLC Systems Corp
- tk...@tlc-systems.com - tk...@interport.net
Visit our web sites:
Techno-Impressionist Museum: http://www.techno-impressionist.com
TLC Systems: http://www.tlc-systems.com
Web-Scope (tm) statistics: http://www.web-scope.com
David Peel / Tim Peel
TJP:
computers can not be taken for granted, they are a tool that can perform
complex tasks of many descriptions. in many ways they can be classed as
a medium but only in a computerized form and not a classic artistic
base.
now if that doesn't get a reply i don't know what will !!
Ade Oshineye
David Peel / Tim Peel wrote:
>
> Tony Karp wrote:
> >
> > e...@eciad.bc.ca (Emmanuel Ho) wrote:
> >
> > >With the advent of computers and the whole process of computerization our
> > >Art school is undergoing some rather hefty debate, the main point of
> > >contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
> > >See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw. Others
> > >feel it is more than that, a language, a medium. Anyhow, any helpful
> > >comments would be much appreciated.
> >
> > Take a look at:
> >
> > http://www.techno-impressionist.com
> >
> > For some relevant art and for some discussions on real media versus computer
> > media, etc.
>
> computers can not be taken for granted, they are a tool that can perform
> complex tasks of many descriptions. in many ways they can be classed as
> a medium but only in a computerized form and not a classic artistic
> base.
search using the title "Computers vs art" you'll find the recent threads
on comp.graphics.apps.photoshop and rec.arts.fine which discussed these
issues to death.
BTW computers are neither a tool nor a medium I'd go so far as to say
that the computer is a hybrid which goes beyond the limitations of
either approach.
It is a tool which can simulate other tools and a medium which can
simulate and subsume other media.
--
Ade Oshineye
If at first you don't succeed,
destroy all evidence that you tried.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330/homepage.htm
itt...@mail.netvision.net.il
The question we should ask what computer contribute to art ?
The first answer is technology and effects, but what else ?
From my point of view computer is a way to the random thinking on one
hand and option to let logic enter to the field of art. To use the
computer on those directions the artist should became a programmer.
To draw with computer is nice but not enough. the artist should merge
the computer into his creative actions. Notice I don't talk about
conceptual Art.
Ittai
itt...@netvision.net.il (Ittai Altshuler)
Erik Johnson
>The question we should ask what computer contribute to art ?
>The first answer is technology and effects, but what else ?
Inexpensive media (once you've got the bloody beast)... you don't
run out of ink, you don't need to run out and buy more paper, you
can experiment with a wide variety of natural media effects (given
good software like fractal painter) without having to own your own
art supply store. You don't have to worry about toxic fumes (just
radiation, eye strain and repetitive stress disorders). And the
computer makes it very easy to share one's work with the rest of
the world (i.e. the web).
>From my point of view computer is a way to the random thinking on one
>hand and option to let logic enter to the field of art. To use the
>computer on those directions the artist should became a programmer.
Well, I AM a programmer, and don't want my art to have anything to
do with programming. Art is my escape, and if it requires all the
facets of what I escape from (computer programming) then I wouldn't
want anything to do with it. Fortunately art requires nothing of
programming (though some of the website support borders on
programming). Purely programmed graphics (i.e. fractals, fancy
filters, graphic algorithms, and the like) in my mind are not art at
all, though I am not trying to reopen *that* debate.
>To draw with computer is nice but not enough. the artist should merge
>the computer into his creative actions. Notice I don't talk about
>conceptual Art.
I think drawing with the computer is enough, and I'm not sure how
one could draw with the computer (in an artistic sense) without
merging it into their creative actions... for if they cannot, they
probably aren't going to come up with 'art'. Not sure how this
differs for conceptual Art, perhaps you'd like to clarify?
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
D.E. Williams
>>The question we should ask what computer contribute to art ?
>>The first answer is technology and effects, but what else ?
Computers contribute nothing. Artists contribute technique, that technique may
involve using a computer to acheive the end result. What have computer artist
contributed? Who are the computer artists?
>>From my point of view computer is a way to the random thinking on one
>>hand and option to let logic enter to the field of art. To use the
>>computer on those directions the artist should became a programmer.
Why? If we are talking about random thinking, what does it matter if they are
a programmer or not. They should be competent with their tools, and if that
means programming to achieve a desired effect, then programming becomes
another tool the artist uses to communicate their imagination.
>Fortunately art requires nothing of
>programming (though some of the website support borders on
>programming). Purely programmed graphics (i.e. fractals, fancy
>filters, graphic algorithms, and the like) in my mind are not art at
>all, though I am not trying to reopen *that* debate.
Art 'requires' nothing but an artist, irrespective of the tools or media they
use. And if you ar not trying to reopen a debate then don't. You have voiced
your opinion that certain 'graphics' are not art. Why not? I respect that you
have such an opinion, but can you explain your position further? No debate
here, just curious. Reply via email if you wish.
>>To draw with computer is nice but not enough. the artist should merge
>>the computer into his creative actions. Notice I don't talk about
>>conceptual Art.
Not enough for what? Why should the artist(s) merge anything (are you
referring to the Zen of art - becoming one with the brush)? And just why is it
you don't talk about conceptual art? Are you simply stating that your opinions
shouldn't be applied to conceptual art? Conceptual art is not worth talking
about? You are unfamiliar with conceptual art?
>I think drawing with the computer is enough, and I'm not sure how
>one could draw with the computer (in an artistic sense) without
>merging it into their creative actions... for if they cannot, they
>probably aren't going to come up with 'art'. Not sure how this
>differs for conceptual Art, perhaps you'd like to clarify?
One might draw with a computer by dipping one end into a large barrel of
ink...
So art requires that one merge their creative actions, probably. Hmmm, so by
becoming one and merging with oneself the artist becomes the 'ART'!!!
Sorry, to both of you for making light of your subject. I myself have come to
rely more on the digital media for artistic expression, than any of the other
medium that I have worked with. You both bring up some very interesting points
about the state of acceptance of digital media artwork. Both of you make good
points, and ask good questions (even if those questions simply spawn more
questions, the quest becomes more enriched). Computers cannot create art. By
definition, only a human can produce art (handy the way humans define things
in such a way as they are the only ones that can perform certain acts by
default). If humans were less egotistical they might view things like
geological events as art (volcanic performance art!), but how do we interpret
the 'mind' of the volcano? Well, say many, art is not a natural phenomena.
Really. Are artists somehow doing something unnatural then? Is art created in
some null space and magically transported here? If not, then perhaps art is
natural. Must art have a concept to be art, or does it 'merely' need to please
the senses? Does it need to speak to the 'spiritual' side, or perhaps evoke
emotion? But perhaps it's all a crock and art doesn't exist....
D.E. Williams Artist
dwil...@mindspawn.com http://www.mindspawn.com
Erik Johnson
>>>The question we should ask what computer contribute to art ?
>>>The first answer is technology and effects, but what else ?
>
>Computers contribute nothing. Artists contribute technique, that technique may
>involve using a computer to acheive the end result. What have computer artist
>contributed? Who are the computer artists?
>
>>>From my point of view computer is a way to the random thinking on one
>>>hand and option to let logic enter to the field of art. To use the
>>>computer on those directions the artist should became a programmer.
>
>Why? If we are talking about random thinking, what does it matter if they are
>a programmer or not. They should be competent with their tools, and if that
>means programming to achieve a desired effect, then programming becomes
>another tool the artist uses to communicate their imagination.
I'll pass on your responses to the quoted material from the previous
poster.
>>Fortunately art requires nothing of
>>programming (though some of the website support borders on
>>programming). Purely programmed graphics (i.e. fractals, fancy
>>filters, graphic algorithms, and the like) in my mind are not art at
>>all, though I am not trying to reopen *that* debate.
>
>Art 'requires' nothing but an artist, irrespective of the tools or media they
>use. And if you ar not trying to reopen a debate then don't. You have voiced
>your opinion that certain 'graphics' are not art. Why not? I respect that you
>have such an opinion, but can you explain your position further? No debate
>here, just curious. Reply via email if you wish.
I think we agree here... art requires an 'artist' regardless of tools
or media. But many computer graphics, such as fractal generation
require very little of anybody, let alone an 'artist'.
>>>To draw with computer is nice but not enough. the artist should merge
>>>the computer into his creative actions. Notice I don't talk about
>>>conceptual Art.
>
>Not enough for what? Why should the artist(s) merge anything (are you
>referring to the Zen of art - becoming one with the brush)? And just why is it
>you don't talk about conceptual art? Are you simply stating that your opinions
>shouldn't be applied to conceptual art? Conceptual art is not worth talking
>about? You are unfamiliar with conceptual art?
More response to prior poster... hopefully you aren't mistaking their
statements as mine.
>>I think drawing with the computer is enough, and I'm not sure how
>>one could draw with the computer (in an artistic sense) without
>>merging it into their creative actions... for if they cannot, they
>>probably aren't going to come up with 'art'. Not sure how this
>>differs for conceptual Art, perhaps you'd like to clarify?
>
>One might draw with a computer by dipping one end into a large barrel of
>ink...
One might. But one might also get a hernia trying to sign their name.
>So art requires that one merge their creative actions, probably. Hmmm, so by
>becoming one and merging with oneself the artist becomes the 'ART'!!!
>Sorry, to both of you for making light of your subject. I myself have come to
>rely more on the digital media for artistic expression, than any of the other
>medium that I have worked with. You both bring up some very interesting points
>about the state of acceptance of digital media artwork. Both of you make good
>points, and ask good questions (even if those questions simply spawn more
>questions, the quest becomes more enriched). Computers cannot create art. By
>definition, only a human can produce art (handy the way humans define things
>in such a way as they are the only ones that can perform certain acts by
>default). If humans were less egotistical they might view things like
>geological events as art (volcanic performance art!), but how do we interpret
>the 'mind' of the volcano? Well, say many, art is not a natural phenomena.
>Really. Are artists somehow doing something unnatural then? Is art created in
>some null space and magically transported here? If not, then perhaps art is
>natural. Must art have a concept to be art, or does it 'merely' need to please
>the senses? Does it need to speak to the 'spiritual' side, or perhaps evoke
>emotion? But perhaps it's all a crock and art doesn't exist....
All food for thought.
Daniel Jay
> > >With the advent of computers and the whole process of computerization
our
> > >Art school is undergoing some rather hefty debate, the main point of
> > >contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
> > >See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw.
Others
> > >feel it is more than that, a language, a medium. Anyhow, any helpful
> > >comments would be much appreciated.
Okay, heres my two cents.
To me, computers are both. Tool and language. I'm a painter and I primarily
work in oils and acrylics. However, the images I can create, and the
variations that I can try on my computer, would be impossible with
traditional media. I can take a sketch that I've done with gouache, or
watercolor, scan it in, and manipulate it endlessly using Photoshop. I
would never be able to do that without my Mac. Ultimately though, I feel
that there's no substitute for the real thing. The computer screen is flat
and lifeless. A painting has texture, intensity, and infinite subtlety that
nothing else comes close to. As far as I know, the best color output is
still the Iris print, which is just a four color process.
It's quite obvious that, as a medium for communication, the Internet is as
significant an invention as television, radio, or the telephone. I feel
that it's much more important in some ways then television because it's a
two way street, and a level playing field. Art schools should teach web
site development the same way that they teach photography, cinematography,
theater or design. Is it art? I don't know. Who cares. It is what it is.
Lets just enjoy it.
D.E. Williams
>I'll pass on your responses to the quoted material from the previous
>poster.
Thank you.
>I think we agree here... art requires an 'artist' regardless of tools
>or media. But many computer graphics, such as fractal generation
>require very little of anybody, let alone an 'artist'.
Agreed. A fractal image is often quite striking without any 'human
intervention' (i.e., one generated straight from a program or application).
but just consider taking that striking imagery and using it as a 'base' from
which to work. An artist can greatly enhance the image, sometimes...sometimes
they just muck it up, but that's why we have a term like 'bad' art.
<snip>
>More response to prior poster... hopefully you aren't mistaking their
>statements as mine.
Nope. Nor was I really laying into either of your opinions. I was simply
bandying about some thoughts.
>All food for thought.
Yes all is food for thought isn't it, but then again, if you think about it,
it must be....
David Falk
: > >With the advent of computers and the whole process of computerization our
: > >Art school is undergoing some rather hefty debate, the main point of
: > >contention: Computers. Tool or Language.
: > >See, some people feel a computer is like a pencil, or a handsaw. Others
: > >feel it is more than that, a language, a medium. Anyhow, any helpful
: > >comments would be much appreciated.
I'd say both. It all depends upon how the artist decides to
use it. As a tool, it is very useful in spreading the message
of ones art, that's how Sparrow Arts is using computer technology.
However, as either an artistic tool or a language, it offers
the elegance of old techniques but with new precission. For
example, a gradation of color can perfermed in many ways by an
artist, blending of oils with a brush, use of acrylics with an
airbrush spray, but computers can perform the same task with
mathematics. Where these artistic opportunities end, I can't
say, as the horizons seem pretty broad. But, I think that
the mainstay offering of computer art to the public will be
very much like we see photography offered today. It is already
very easy for appealing computer art to be offered in the form
of either prints or photographic originals.
Talk to you later...
Dave.
--
David Falk URL http://www.sparrowarts.com
(da...@sparrowarts.com) Sparrow Arts Gallery
Sparrow Arts has moved! Check out the new Sparrow Arts Web site.
Jeweler, Artist, Bladesmith, Philosopher, SysAdmin, Danzan Ryu - Rokyu
Jon Noring
In article er...@phidias.colorado.edu (Erik Johnson) writes:
>I think we agree here... art requires an 'artist' regardless of tools
>or media. But many computer graphics, such as fractal generation
>require very little of anybody, let alone an 'artist'.
It takes little effort for a person to go to their local hobby shop, buy a
brush, some paints, some paper, and go home and paint. It's actually harder
for an individual to learn how to use a fractal program than it is to paint!
A monkey can paint if you give it the tools, but it takes intelligence and
skill to even begin to use a fractal program.
Regarding fractal art, in my opinion it is very much similar to photography,
which is now considered an art form *for those who practice it as an art form*.
In photography, the photographer searches the world around him/her for that
perfect "shot". Once a candidate is spotted, the photographer sets up his
equipment, selects the film, selects the lens, waits for the optimum light
conditions (or does their own lighting), selects the shutter speed and f-stop,
and then takes the pictures. But it doesn't stop here. The photographer
then develops the film (oftentimes there is even a choice here such as
pushing). The final step is making the print, and again there's lots of
choices, options and skill (a prime example of this is Ansel Adams).
So, in all of these purely "technical" details, where's the art in
photography? The art is in *how* the photographer took all these tools and
technical skills to create a final image that we call art. It could be bad
art, or great art, but nevertheless it is now considered art on par with the
other fine arts such as painting and sculpture. There are good photographers
and bad photographers, but rarely is there any dissension to the current view
that photography is an art form.
So, too, with fractal images. If one really understands fractals, they'd
realize that fractals are a part of the universe just as much as a tree, a
mountain, and a bird are. Today, computer and graphics visualization now
allows us to explore this never-before-explored part of the universe -- think
of the computer monitor as special glasses that allows the *artist* to look
into a new world. And, like the photographer, the fractal artist will search
through this new universe, looking for that perfect "shot". Once found, the
fractal artist will then use their artistic skills and knowledge to add color
to the fractal image just like an artist will mix the various colors to make
a painting. Then, like the photographer, the resulting image is saved for
later printing, and like in photography, there's even more options available
to transfer the image to print where the fractal artist can input their
artistic as well as technical skill. In this whole process, it is the fractal
artist, just like the photographer, who makes the technical decisions to
ultimately render something that transcends the technical. Nowhere does a
computer generate the final fractal image -- all the computer does is open a
window to the world of fractals which the fractal artist can explore using
their artistic talents.
Thus, I believe fractal art is an art form on par with photography and thus
comparable to other art forms. The problem is that there are few real good
fractal artists (I don't even consider myself a good fractal artist), so
because of this it is easy to say that fractal art is not "art" based on what
we see today. I believe we will see in the next few years a great improvement
in the art quality of fractal art as more and more color-trained artists
explore this new art form and use their skills and artistic abilities with
color to properly color fractal images (granted, the big argument against
fractal art being "art" has been the terrible color palletes chosen for many
of the fractal images we see today as well as the current limitations in the
color pallette -- for example, Fractint, the most famous of fractal programs,
is currently limited to any 256 colors out of the 16 million color pallette
-- hopefully the programmers will get it into their heads the absolute
*importance* of allowing the fractal artist to have the full 16 million
available for use at any one time -- the VGA limitation is now obsolete and
should be dropped as quickly as possible so we can move to tru-color)
Just my thoughts.
Jon Noring
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
OmniMedia Digital Publishing | E-Books: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Digital/Fractal Art: (coming soon!)
South Jordan, UT 84095 |
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two great mailing lists: FRACTAL ART, and ELECTRONIC BOOKS. To subscribe to
either one, send e-mail to majo...@aros.net and put the appropriate line in
the body of the message:
subscribe fractal-art
subscribe ebook-list
Brandon Van Every
Brian Ross <br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca> wrote in article
<5jleko$2...@butler.ac.BrockU.CA>...
>
> As you say, oils and
> other natural media permit an infinite subtlety in interactions,
> which require appropriate artistic sensibilities and expertise to
exploit.
> However, the same can be said for computer tools. With them, one is
working
> with the toolset, the monitor and printing medium, and pure light.
The resolution of paint is way way way way way way way higher than that of
a CRT screen....
Cheers,
--
Brandon J. Van Every <vane...@blarg.net> DEC Commodity Graphics
http://www.blarg.net/~vanevery Windows NT Alpha OpenGL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle! Join the <<<NORTHWEST CYBERARTISTS>>>
Monthly meetings at the Speakeasy. E-mail me for details....
Jon Noring
In article "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> writes:
>Brian Ross <br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca> wrote in article
>> As you say, oils and other natural media permit an infinite subtlety in
>> interactions, which require appropriate artistic sensibilities and
>> expertise to exploit.
>>
>> However, the same can be said for computer tools. With them, one is working
>> with the toolset, the monitor and printing medium, and pure light.
>The resolution of paint is way way way way way way way higher than that of
>a CRT screen....
It is NOW, but what about 30-40 years from now? With new advances in all
fronts of computer technology, as well as unbelievable improvements with a
virtual doubling of capability every 2 years, it is a foregone conclusion
that sometime in our lifetime we will use computer/video displays with a
linear pixel resolution measured in the 10's of thousands rather than what
we see today (e.g., 1024x768). And with other improvements, including with
painting software and even special painting hardware (virtual painting), I
foresee many artists switching from oils to the computer. And there'll be
great improvements in being able to render computer images onto prints,
including the capability to make fine oil paintings directly from computer
image files which would include brush strokes and paint thickness if one so
desired!
My philosophy is to always look to the future because that's where I'm going
to spend the rest of my life. I *never* predict the future based on a static
present -- I always assume that technology in all areas will greatly improve
and from that basis determine what the future holds. No doubt that I will
always *underestimate* what the future holds because it is hard to shake the
paradigms of today.
Brandon Van Every
Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<noringE9...@netcom.com>...
> In article "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> writes:
>
> >The resolution of paint is way way way way way way way higher than that
of
> >a CRT screen....
>
> It is NOW, but what about 30-40 years from now?
Well to some extent, who cares? I'm not waiting 30-40 years to do my art.
> With new advances in all
> fronts of computer technology, as well as unbelievable improvements with
a
> virtual doubling of capability every 2 years, it is a foregone conclusion
> that sometime in our lifetime we will use computer/video displays with a
> linear pixel resolution measured in the 10's of thousands rather than
what
> we see today (e.g., 1024x768).
You are making a big mistake here, assuming that computer technology
advances uniformly "on all fronts." It does not. CPU speed doubles every
eighteen months and grabs the limelight. But memory access speeds don't do
anything even remotely close to that. Operating systems progress at the
rate of a snail, witness the fact that MS-DOS is still alive and kicking.
Virtual Reality technology has been in existence since Sutherland's first
head mounted display in 1969, and there has been remarkably little progress
in the field since then as compared to other computer technologies.
Now let's talk about high-resolution monitors. How long has the NTSC
standard been with us? Meanwhile, industry has been hemming and hawing
about HDTV for close to a decade. And HDTV merely brings TV displays up to
par with computer displays. There isn't some demonstrable market need for
the zillion pixel monitors that you suggest. Rather, all engineering
efforts have been towards maximizing the display capabilities of lower
resolution devices, because it's cheaper to manufacture a lower resolution
device, and if you can do a good job displaying TV or a Digital Video Disc,
who needs higher? We are going to see some serious "standards inertia"
once HDTV is in place. Much like NTSC, there will become this huge
installed base of HDTV. Everyone will want to keep making money off of
their HDTV equipment, producers, consumers, and broadcasters alike. Thus,
it is quite realistic for display monitors to remain at today's resolutions
for the next 30 years. If 1600x1200 became commonplace, I would see that
as a major victory for pixeldom. That's way way way way way way way way
way way less pixels than the 10's of thousands per line that you suggest
above.
Bottom line: in many technological endeavors, 30..40 years is not a very
long time. You have to consider the real-world market priorities of a
capitalist society.
> And with other improvements, including with
> painting software and even special painting hardware (virtual painting),
I
> foresee many artists switching from oils to the computer.
I don't. They'll never switch. What they might do, is use both.
> And there'll be
> great improvements in being able to render computer images onto prints,
> including the capability to make fine oil paintings directly from
computer
> image files which would include brush strokes and paint thickness if one
so
> desired!
Sorry to break this to you, but technologically speaking, this is totally
fantasy-land. The nearest approximation to what you suggest is NC
Machining of parts from CAD/CAM output, and those rigs are *not* cheap.
Nor will they ever become cheap, as the primary market for such devices is
the CAD/CAM industry, and they will continue to fork over the $$$$$$$$
because the costs make sense in their field of endeavor. What you want is
a Star Trek "replicator," and that's not going to happen at a price point
you can afford until long after you are dead and buried.
> My philosophy is to always look to the future because that's where I'm
going
> to spend the rest of my life. I *never* predict the future based on a
static
> present -- I always assume that technology in all areas will greatly
improve
> and from that basis determine what the future holds. No doubt that I
will
> always *underestimate* what the future holds because it is hard to shake
the
> paradigms of today.
I predict the future based on hard-core technical information, not
assumptions. If you want to see what's going to happen for the next 30
years, you need to look at what happened over the last 30 years. Granted
you can't predict the surprises, but if there's some well-known technology
that you expect to be a zillion times better at some future date, it's not
that hard to compare it to the growth curve over the last 30 years and see
if your expectations are realistic. You have to remember that it isn't all
about CPU's doubling in speed every 18 months. Quite a number of
technologies have langished due to insufficient market interest, there is
always the business end to consider.
D.E. Williams
In article <01bc5272$a7f2fc40$459f...@hammurabi.blarg.net>, "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote in article
>> foresee many artists switching from oils to the computer.
>
>I don't. They'll never switch. What they might do, is use both.
I must agree. I love working with digital media, but I'd not give up my
brushes or pencils to work solely in the digital. That said, I do find the
digital media to be better than traditional media for many projects,
conversely there are many i would prefer to do without the computer, simply
for speed, or sake of convenience. I do think we will see new artists rise who
were trained solely in the digital realm.
>> And there'll be
>> great improvements in being able to render computer images onto prints,
>> including the capability to make fine oil paintings directly from
>computer
>> image files which would include brush strokes and paint thickness if one
>so
>> desired!
>
>Sorry to break this to you, but technologically speaking, this is totally
>fantasy-land. The nearest approximation to what you suggest is NC
>Machining of parts from CAD/CAM output, and those rigs are *not* cheap.
>Nor will they ever become cheap, as the primary market for such devices is
>the CAD/CAM industry, and they will continue to fork over the $$$$$$$$
They may not be able to render a 'handpainted' print anytime soon, but look at
how far, and how much more affordable that high quality computer prints have
become, in only the last five years. Prints of material I did in the early
90's are completely surpassed by even the mid range printers of today.
I have witnessed some very interesting real time painting with computers and
light at MIT. Certainly, this is 'far' beyond the affordable level, but
fortunately some of this technology does trickle down. In the same vein, I was
first introduced to sequenced computer music in the mid eighties. Getting any
performance, let alone a powerful performance, was a feat of sorcery. I
recently witnessed a composer 'conducting' a virtual orchestra, in real time,
and the ability of the computer to interpolate the movements and
expressiveness of the composers hands was stunning! I had seen similar
performances on cable and video, but to actually attend a performance was as
powerful as watching any one person live performance. I can only imagine a
roomful of such 'players' all with a vast array of expressive tones and voices
at their command. Could be very possible, maybe even in my lifetime!
Just some thoughts....
Jon Noring
In article dwil...@mindspawn.com (D.E. Williams) writes:
>In article "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote in article
>>>And there'll be great improvements in being able to render computer images
>>>onto prints, including the capability to make fine oil paintings directly
>>>from computer image files which would include brush strokes and paint
>>>thickness if one so desired!
>>Sorry to break this to you, but technologically speaking, this is totally
>>fantasy-land. The nearest approximation to what you suggest is NC
>>Machining of parts from CAD/CAM output, and those rigs are *not* cheap.
>>Nor will they ever become cheap, as the primary market for such devices is
>>the CAD/CAM industry, and they will continue to fork over the $$$$$$$$
Never say "never". There are things being done today that 20 years ago
were considered the aegis of industry and at that time cost big $$$$$. An
example are color printers. My $299 Epson 600 can render color images that
20 years ago the similar equipment would have cost many of tens thousands of
dollars and would not have performed as well.
Another one is hard disk drives. They've gotten a lot bigger, *and* a lot
faster, *and* a lot more reliable, *AND* a lot cheaper, all simultaneously. I
think that *nobody* 20 years ago, even the visionaries, would have dreamed of
where hard drive technology is today, and the end is nowhere in sight (there's
talk of new technology increasing hard disk capacities by a factor of *10* by
the end of the year at no added cost!)
In fact, it would not surprise me if I underestimate what technology will be
able to do, and at affordable prices. I don't believe I'm visionary enough
to go further than I have. Call me chicken for fear of being called "loony".
Never say "never".
>They may not be able to render a 'handpainted' print anytime soon, but look at
>how far, and how much more affordable that high quality computer prints have
>become, in only the last five years. Prints of material I did in the early
>90's are completely surpassed by even the mid range printers of today.
>
>I have witnessed some very interesting real time painting with computers and
>light at MIT. Certainly, this is 'far' beyond the affordable level, but
>fortunately some of this technology does trickle down. In the same vein, I was
>first introduced to sequenced computer music in the mid eighties. Getting any
>performance, let alone a powerful performance, was a feat of sorcery. I
>recently witnessed a composer 'conducting' a virtual orchestra, in real time,
>and the ability of the computer to interpolate the movements and
>expressiveness of the composers hands was stunning! I had seen similar
>performances on cable and video, but to actually attend a performance was as
>powerful as watching any one person live performance. I can only imagine a
>roomful of such 'players' all with a vast array of expressive tones and voices
>at their command. Could be very possible, maybe even in my lifetime!
>
>Just some thoughts....
It proves my point never say "never". Unless some horrendous holocaust or
civilization-breaking event occurs in the near future, we'll see technology
inexorably marching on, led by the capabilities and *capacity* of computers.
Regarding the *capacity* of computers, one has to extrapolate what the future
holds regarding data storage, data transfer rates, computational speed, high
resolution displays, etc. It is clear that in 20 years compact and cheap
portable storage media will routinely hold 100 gigs, and in 30 years we'll be
talking terabyte range (e.g., holographic storage). Data transfer rates will
approach 1 gig/sec (or greater), computational speed will be 100-1000 times
faster than today, typical high-speed RAM for computers will be installed in
the many GIG range (with power users having near a terabyte), and flat-screen
and dirt cheap computer monitors will routinely display linear pixel
dimensions approaching 10,000 (currently we're talking about 1000).
NOW, we have to ask, with such greatly increased capabilities what are the
ramifications for real world use? The one of interest to this newsgroup is
the ability to easily and routinely handle very high resolution images on the
order of 50000x50000 or bigger. Software like Photoshop could easily load in
such images directly into memory, and image manipulate it as fast as it could
do a 2000x2000 today. The ramifications to art are mind-boggling -- in many
ways.
And with such computer capabilities, the spill-over into all other "hard"
technologies will be revolutionary in all steps of bringing such technology
to the end-user, especially at affordable prices.
Nope, never say "never". My only concern is that I'm not visionary enough
to really predict where we'll be in 20 years -- I think I'm being conservative
so as not to be considered too "loony".
Teemu Lahteenmaki
Brandon Van Every (vane...@blarg.net) wrote:
: The resolution of paint is way way way way way way way higher than that of
: a CRT screen....
Yes it is, but what does it matter if the difference doesn't effect
your aesthetic experience? The human eye has it's own resolution,
there's no point trying to make more detailed images.
--
Teemu Lahteenmaki
to...@tukki.jyu.fi, http://www.jyu.fi/~tola/
Student of digital media, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
mmw
> NOW, we have to ask, with such greatly increased capabilities what are the
> ramifications for real world use? The one of interest to this newsgroup is
> the ability to easily and routinely handle very high resolution images on the
> order of 50000x50000 or bigger. Software like Photoshop could easily load in
> such images directly into memory, and image manipulate it as fast as it could
> do a 2000x2000 today. The ramifications to art are mind-boggling -- in many
> ways.
>
> And with such computer capabilities, the spill-over into all other "hard"
> technologies will be revolutionary in all steps of bringing such technology
> to the end-user, especially at affordable prices.
>
> Nope, never say "never". My only concern is that I'm not visionary enough
> to really predict where we'll be in 20 years -- I think I'm being conservative
> so as not to be considered too "loony".
>
> Jon Noring
on unlimited economic growth,
on the willingness of third world countries like the Phillipines
to continue producing the hardware in their sweat shops,
Have you ever asked yourself where the redundant hardware being
thrown out in the US is going to be stored, for example?
I don't disagree with your statements, I find your thinking limited
because you leave out the organic nature of our survival.
Marilyn
Jon Noring
In article mmw <m...@islandnet.com> writes:
>All the predictions of the advancement of technology is predicated on
>unlimited economic growth,
I disagree. We can have *overall* limited growth, and yet in particular
areas still have great technological growth. I make no assertion that
unlimited economic growth is required for technological growth. And we may
even find that unlimited "economic" growth will be sustainable in a limited
resources Earth if that growth is high-technology based -- the "Information
Era" which many think will replace the "Industrial Era". High technology
can, in my opinion, overcome most resource limitations. I do not hold to the
late 1960's paradigm that we on Earth are doomed unless we reduce our reliance
on high technology and go back to a simpler era before technology.
>on the willingness of third world countries like the Phillipines
>to continue producing the hardware in their sweat shops,
>Have you ever asked yourself where the redundant hardware being
>thrown out in the US is going to be stored, for example?
>
>I don't disagree with your statements, I find your thinking limited
>because you leave out the organic nature of our survival.
Actually, I think your thinking is also limited to a particular paradigm
(which I won't try to guess) because you use the phrase "unlimited economic
growth" as the determiner of technological growth, and with this I disagree.
Anyway, even if you're right, I don't foresee anything revolutionary
happening within the next 25 years that will slow down or stop technological
growth, barring a major nuclear war, a comet impact, or something else
similarly disastrous. The world social dynamics will not change enough to
make any sort of real impact. Thus I hold to my prediction that we will
see improvements in computer technology at least as much I outlined in my
prior post.
So, to get back to art topics, I again believe we will see unbelievable
technological growth with computer technology the next few decades, which
will spill over into many other areas, such as art.
mmw
Jon Noring wrote:
>
> Anyway, even if you're right, I don't foresee anything revolutionary
> happening within the next 25 years that will slow down or stop technological
> growth, barring a major nuclear war, a comet impact, or something else
> similarly disastrous. The world social dynamics will not change enough to
> make any sort of real impact. Thus I hold to my prediction that we will
> see improvements in computer technology at least as much I outlined in my
> prior post.
>
You don't see, major global climate change which is responsible for the
major flooding and breaking all previous records???
My fear is that people will stick their heads in front of their
computers and think, all is well with the world. Upgrade, upgrade,
and upgrade, piling up redundant hardware.
I hear too much praise of computer technology, it is unbalanced.
So "every 12 year old will be on the internet" what then? What
will they do with all the information? Will they be able to bring
back anything from extinction?
As for computer "art" - there will be great advances but the fact
that it can be reproduced in unlimited numbers devalues it. It
is already saturating our vision, to the point where people long for
something simply made with simple tools.
Cdeiner
thank you. you have made several excellent points.
clif