Computers & Photography
Bev Thornton
>Ok, I'm not a conventional "artist". . . I'm a photographer.
>My question is, why don't I ever see people discussing photography as
>manipulated by computers as fine art.
The medium is very new. There are many artists working in it right now but
most are still at the experimental stage.
>I'm in the process of experimenting with PhotoStyler 2.0 and will eventually
>learn to use Fractal Design Painter. I've produced some very "artsy fartsy"
>works that no longer look like conventional photography.
"Artsy-fartsy" is not art. Conventional photography can be.
There is already some digitally manipulated imagery being exhibited. I
remember seeing an image of all different races made into one face, can't
remember artist's name though.
Have patience, it'll come.
See Ya,
Bev
edward brian paul
>photographer. My question is, why don't I ever see people discussing
>of experimenting with PhotoStyler 2.0 and will eventually learn to use
>Fractal Design Painter. I've produced some very "artsy fartsy" works that
>working like this. And this is one of several
>places to post about this topic, but I've never really seen anyone here.
Well I'm a photographer learning to make use of new tools and I
would consider myself a "conventional artist" who is actively
exploring the potential of computers. Perhaps you might answer
your own question by initiating a conversation relating to your
work and,if not where you see it going, what you would like to be
doing. Since this is a fine art, not rec.photo forum or comp.graphics
where do you see these new tools being of importance or interest
to us...
__________b__r__i__a__n_______/____h__a__l__i__f__a__x______________
--
Thomas C. Waters
jger...@wln.com writes:
> I've produced some very "artsy fartsy" works that no longer look like
>
> conventional photography.
OK, I'm an artist, who uses photography extensively in my work. I
think the answer to your question may be that "looking Artsy Fartsy"
has little to do with being Art, or more accurately, Art is about more
than looking like something other than a photo.
My guess is that if you keep working with these techniques, you'll
discover more about this. Since this is a new technique for you, you
have the potential to learn to use it in a way that is very much about
the creation of Art, if you work towards that.
I use computers a lot in my work. In my most recent exhibition there
were three 7" tall photographic images, Cibachrome print constructions,
made from negatives manipulated in Adobe Photoshop. Software like this
is available to any computer owner who wants to buy it. Having
software, or playing with it does not make art any more than someone
who plays with a few brushes makes Fine Art Paintings.
Thomas C. Waters
Direct replies to: twa...@pitt.edu
GFA/S$ d---(+) H--- s-: !g p? au++@ a w+++(+) v++ C+>C++ U-? P? !L !3
E? N++(+++) K- !W M+>++ V- -po+ Y+ t !5 !j R- G? tv-->! b++(+++)>+
!D-- B 3++ u**>* h+ f(?) r n+++ y++(**)
The opinions expressed are my own, take what you like and leave the
rest.
Thomas C. Waters
thor...@nbnet.nb.ca (Bev Thornton) writes:
> I
> remember seeing an image of all different races made into one face, can't
> remember artist's name though.
> Have patience, it'll come.
Nancy Burson is the Artist. She has done quite a bit of work with
manipulated images, and this is not really recent work... at least
several years old. I have a catalogue from a show of hers I saw in NYC
about two years ago. I'll look it up and post later.
BTW, I love her work. The work she was exhibiting in NYC at that time
were images made witha plastic, "Diana" type camera (maybe a real Diana
or a Dories) and what was exhibited were beautiful silver-gelatin
prints and also dagueratypes(sp) from the same negs. The Dag. prints
were amazing and beautiful!!!!
I wish more photographers who wonder why photography isn't accepted as
Art by some would get out to see what's in galleries more. Work like
Burson's, or Barbara Ess, or Sandy Skoglund, or Cindy Sherman (to name
only a few) provide a wonderful education.
Emily Gertz
This is not an irrelevant concern to someone spending much or even some
$$ on a piece of work. And it shouldn't be irrelevant to whoever's
producing the work, if you want your work to last through even the initial
buyer's lifetime. An HP 550c just doesn't cut it. And that is certainly
not the top limit to the medium.
Good output is obtainable but of course, it's expensive. A good copy
shop, and maybe even the local Kinkos, ought to have high quality direct
output available, and allow you to bring in or themselves supply acid
free paper.
I've seen several shows in very reputable locations on both coasts that
either included or featured computer manipulated photograhy, in the past
year. It's also discussed in journals such as AfterImage, ArtWeek (a
west coast publication), and Aperture.
I have an HP. It's nice for proofing the color balances.
jger...@wln.com
> Perhaps you might answer your own question by initiating a conversation
relating to your work and,if not where you see it going, what you would like to
be doing. Since this is a fine art, not rec.photo forum or comp.graphics where
do you see these new tools being of importance or interest to us...
>
OK, I'll give it a quick shot.
What I'd like to do is to create portraits that are a combination of painting
and photography. My personal hitch is that I'm NOT a painter and have very
little eye/hand coordination. PhotoStyler/PhotoShop plus Gallery Effects give
me the ability to create a totally new image without eye/hand coordination that
is required in painting or other manual skills.
I have done work that is simply fascinating and defies conventional
photographic description. I've won a couple of ribbons in the local county
fair this year, because the rules were changed to explicitly enable "computer
manipulated" prints.
I've seen photographers, however, who are adament that my computer work is NOT
photography and must not be described as such.
I assume that if I took my work to a painting group that they would have
collective cows!! Since I didn't use paint or anything like that.
Where am I going? Hell, I'm not sure, but it's a hell of a lot of fun getting
there!
Andy Pearlman
>Computers & Photography
>a number of reasons. 1) Archival quality images. A pretty good reason,
Not a problem - too many people forget that you have access to all the tools of
photography. Make a chrome, take it to a competent lab, and have them develop
it into a print(s). As archival as any photography, which is reasonably well
established.
>Bad investment.... 4) I have encountered a real prejudice amongst art
>types when I say that I
>use my computer to do art. "It's cheating!!!"
It is a new medium. Also, this is a critical thing. 99% of the art out there
is the 'LOOK, I found out what filters do in photoshop!'. It looks ad-like,
glitzy, and computer generated. My response to those people is to show them
what is possible with art and computers, both with paintings and writings.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
"He would have written the book on anal-retentiveness,
except he is still doing revisions..."
Neal Johnson
No wonder... I have also been working in this area. I use a video camera
to take "photos" into my
machine. I love doing portraits. Using Photoshop/Painter/etc. I turn what
was photographic into something more painterly (to coin a phrase.) I have
asked around and found that most of the
art market, that is collectors, won't touch anything out of a computer.
Why? There seems to be
a number of reasons. 1) Archival quality images. A pretty good reason,
but it would be nice to
think that someone just likes the picture and isn't too worried about
leaving it to their grandchildren to
sell and be rich. 2) Quality of the output. Hey, I use an HP 550C. It
works, looks o.k. and I like
to live within the limitations of my medium. Not wanting to drop names
(but I will anyway!), I
talked to Graham Nash over a year ago about why he started his Nash
Editions printing house. He saw a need for artists to get their stuff out
of the computer onto arty mediums like canvas, etc.
so people will think/know it's art. 3) Unlimited editions. Hey, you can
print 1 - 1,000,000 copies.
Bad investment.... 4) I have encountered a real prejudice amongst art
types when I say that I
use my computer to do art. "It's cheating!!!"
But surprisingly, I was in Carmel a couple of years ago (yeah, not
exactly a home of good art, but
it is a real home of commercial art), at a photo gallery. I asked the guy
there about computer
based photography. he said there is no market at all for it. BUT.... He
started pointing a row
of large CibaChrome prints (nature stuff on the wall. He said that all of
those came out of a
computer. The photographer takes the picture, scans in the slide,
retouches, adjusts highlights
and shadows, prints out to 35 mm slide and then makes his prints. The
buyer ain't the wiser.
So it's not just computer photography, it's computer art, which is either
not art or it's a trendy
toy, but it isn't taken seriously yet. Any other opinions??
neal
Thomas C. Waters
jger...@wln.com writes:
> What I'd like to do is to create portraits that are a combination of painting
>
> and photography. My personal hitch is that I'm NOT a painter and have very
>
> little eye/hand coordination. PhotoStyler/PhotoShop plus Gallery Effects give
>
> me the ability to create a totally new image without eye/hand coordination that
>
> is required in painting or other manual skills.
This can be quite interesting. I have played around a fair amount with
Photoshop and these filters, but I don't find it all that interesting.
With software available to anyone, it is important to remember that for
an image to become important as Fine Art as opposed to hobby art it
needs to go a bit further than just being neat images.
>
> I have done work that is simply fascinating and defies conventional
>
> photographic description. I've won a couple of ribbons in the local county
>
> fair this year, because the rules were changed to explicitly enable "computer
>
> manipulated" prints.
Congrats on the ribbons!!!! One of my first Juried exhibitions was the
Ohio State Fair Fine Arts competition. Its a start. As for
fascinating or defying conventional photography... You may really like
the images, but I don't get the sense you have a broad understanding of
the breadth of work being done by image makers today. I don't mean to
dampen your enthusiasm... keep going, you're doing great for
starters... but you haven't discovered the wheel or anything.
>
> I've seen photographers, however, who are adament that my computer work is NOT
>
> photography and must not be described as such.
No, it isn't photography. It is computer manipulated photography, and
if tyhe output isn't photographic in nature then per haps it souldn't
be described as photography at all, I dunno. As a medium, this is too
new, no one has all the answers about this yet.
>
> I assume that if I took my work to a painting group that they would have
>
> collective cows!! Since I didn't use paint or anything like that.
Actually you do use something like painting, but the mode of
application is different. And don't assume too much about what artists
would think. It has been my experience that you will always be able to
find someone to tell you that what you are doing IS art, as well as
someone who will tell you that what you are doing ISN'T art. As an
artist, I choose to do what I do and not worry too much about what
others say...
>
> Where am I going? Hell, I'm not sure, but it's a hell of a lot of fun getting
>
> there!
I teach art a local art center. I love seeing people get excited about
what they are doing. IMHO, anyone can be creative and make art by
learning some techniques. They can use those techniques to creatively
express themselves. But every piece of art made is not necessarily
Fine Art, nor will anyone, no matter how skills proficient they are, be
able to make Fine Art.
Can the art made by an average kind of person be fun?? Beautiful??
Interesting?? Desirable?? Saleable?? Fascinating?? YES YES YES.
Does that make it Fine Art... Not necessarily.
Does it matter if it isn't Fine Art... not really except that I think
it can help us when we wonder why such and such isn't being discussed
here or where ever.
Keep up the good work!! Enter more shows, preferably at galleries, and
continue to enjoy what you are doing!! Good luck.
Christina Leicht
wrote:
(stuff deleted)
>Since this is a fine art, not rec.photo forum or comp.graphics
>where do you see these new tools being of importance or interest
>to us...
statement but this offended me a little.
I'm a professional illustrator and I do a majority of my work on the
computer. This in and of itself would probably exclude me from the fine
art set in some folks eyes. However, I believe the distinction between
"fine art" and "commercial art" is not always a clear one. This arguement
asside, I feel this is just the place for such discussion. The problem
with computer art is that it is almost exclusively being discussed and
used by groups of computer nerds more facinated by the tool than the art.
(If you disagree, check out what's going on with 3D graphics. I've yet to
see anything done with it that excites me). I feel computer art will not
come of age until artists overcome their fear of and about the tool-until
they start seeing it as just another tool the same as graphite, oil
paint... The collectors will change their veiw only when we do. (Besides,
who gives a rat's ass what the collectors have to say anyway? I thought
the whole point to fine art was art for art's sake or something like that.
Hum. This concern sounds little _commercial_ to me). Just like everyone
else I believe we artists are going to have to learn to live with
technology. Say, didn't we go through this with the whole photography
thing a few years ago? ;-)
----------------------------------------------
christin...@email.sps.mot.com
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectus Nunc
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us"
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine! Mine! All mine!
And you can't have 'em!
Neal Johnson
twa...@pop.pitt.edu writes:
>This can be quite interesting. I have played around a fair amount with
>Photoshop and these filters, but I don't find it all that interesting.
>With software available to anyone, it is important to remember that for
>an image to become important as Fine Art as opposed to hobby art it
>needs to go a bit further than just being neat images.
What is the point here? What is the difference between Fine Art (notice
caps) and hobby art (notice no caps)? If it isn't the image itself then
you must imply it is how the image was made. If it took me 2 weeks to do
a watercolor portrait versus 20 seconds to get the same image/effect with
photoshop and a plug-in, then obviously the importance here is time and
effort. Being human we invent tools and tools help us do the same job
faster and sometimes better. The computer is a tool. Period. The amount
of time it took me to paint something coupled with the amount of time it
took me to learn how to use the medium has no connection whatsoever with
whether or not I have something to say. It is the expression itself that
is important. Not how I expressed it.
neal
Bev Thornton
>I'm a professional illustrator and I do a majority of my work on the
>computer. This in and of itself would probably exclude me from the fine
>art set in some folks eyes. However, I believe the distinction between
>"fine art" and "commercial art" is not always a clear one.
Damn straight! I know "fine-artists" that design their work with "commercial"
interests. What are they buying this year?
>The problem with computer art is that it is almost exclusively being
>discussed and used by groups of computer nerds more facinated by the tool
>than the art.
Exactly.
>I feel computer art will not come of age until artists overcome their fear of
>and about the tool
We're trying to get something going in the line of workshops between a local
artist-run space and a nearby geek garden (comp sci faculty).
>Besides, who gives a rat's ass what the collectors have to say anyway?
Those fine-artists with the subscriptions to Better Homees and Gardens and the
trendy palletes. :)
>Say, didn't we go through this with the whole photography thing a few years
>ago? ;-)
I work in photomedia, it's still going on.
See Ya,
Bev
Thomas C. Waters
my post and generalize it to mean something that approximates your
assumption.
Now lets go through your post. My comments, as always, are just my
opinions...
In article <38oid8$g...@badger.3do.com>
Neal Johnson <ne...@3do.com> writes:
> What is the point here? What is the difference between Fine Art (notice
> caps) and hobby art (notice no caps)?
Did you miss my comment at the end of my post about all people being
capable of learning a technique and using an artistic medium in an
expressive way?? As for the difference between hobby art, or hobby
Art, or Hobby Art... and Fine Art. I refuse to start that thread all
over again. I contend that there is something that elavates some art
created to have meaning beyond what the average person does. This is
not to say that hobby artists aren't good, or that hobby art is less
than. Whatever defensiveness you are feeling about the difference
between Fine Art and Hobby Art, is your baggage, not mine.
>If it isn't the image itself then
> you must imply it is how the image was made.
I never implied anything of the sort. It may be how the image was
made, but it is also the image, and the thought behind the image, and
the ability of the image maker to say something that is of value to
someone... it is a lot of things.
>If it took me 2 weeks to do
> a watercolor portrait versus 20 seconds to get the same image/effect with
> photoshop and a plug-in, then obviously the importance here is time and
> effort.
I'll believe this when you show me a computer output that looks like a
water color. The hypoythetical painting it took you two weeks to paint
is an object. That object has a look, feel, texture... it is an entity
that has an identity. While the image you painted my have a similar
pattern to the colors, similar sixe... the paper that comes out of the
laser printer (or other printer) looks absolutely NOTHING like the
water colr painting. The texture, colors, weight of the paper... as an
object the computer printout is very very different than the water
color.
IMHO, it has little to do with the amount of time and effort. (BTW,
I've made graphics for slide presentations that took several days and
took lots and lots of effort... if you think the computer work takes
less effort, you are wrong.)
It has everything to do with the object produced.
Do an experiment. Make a "water color"look alike on your computer and
frame it and put it up on the wall. Live with it for a while, and see
if your perceptions of it change over time. See how well it "holds up"
next to more conventional artwork. Does it have enough weight, tonal
depth, texture... style, enough of whatever it is that allows a Fine
Art work to continue to be engaging.
I would suggest that the computer made image and the hand painted water
color are two different things. Just like a water color and an oil
painting may both use paint, but are very different things.
>Being human we invent tools and tools help us do the same job
> faster and sometimes better.
I doubt the computer printout on a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper is better...
it may be and it may not.
The computer is a tool. Period.
Wow... such a profound thought.....
>The amount
> of time it took me to paint something coupled with the amount of time it
> took me to learn how to use the medium has no connection whatsoever with
> whether or not I have something to say. It is the expression itself that
> is important. Not how I expressed it.
Exactly. I never said anything to the opposite. And depending upon
when you entered this thread, I have mentioned several artists, or
commented on other's posts about artist such as Nancy Burson who make
wonderful Fine Art using a computer as a tool.
Andy Pearlman
>In article <38oid8$g...@badger.3do.com>
>Neal Johnson <ne...@3do.com> writes:
>>If it took me 2 weeks to do
>> a watercolor portrait versus 20 seconds to get the same image/effect with
>> photoshop and a plug-in, then obviously the importance here is time and
>> effort.
Yes and no. You really can't get the same effect. When I see a watercolor
painting on paper, I know what I'm seeing. There's no really comparable
way of getting a true water color effect without spending a lot of time to
do it(in particular, the way the pigment tends to concentrate at the edge of
the stroke)
>I'll believe this when you show me a computer output that looks like a
>water color. The hypoythetical painting it took you two weeks to paint
>is an object. That object has a look, feel, texture... it is an entity
>that has an identity. While the image you painted my have a similar
>pattern to the colors, similar sixe... the paper that comes out of the
>laser printer (or other printer) looks absolutely NOTHING like the
>water colr painting. The texture, colors, weight of the paper... as an
>object the computer printout is very very different than the water
>color.
However, as an example, I have a matchprint sitting on the floor of my
apartment. This matchprint is the result of a 2400dpi/150ls image that I
worked on for myself.
I would bet it more than feels a little like a photograph, even though it is
quite different(and yes, it took around 15 hours to make) Paper is
photographic paper, very continuous tone, and it has the same glossy quality.
If you look real close, you can see a dot pattern, but you have to look
really close.
Andy Pearlman
>asside, I feel this is just the place for such discussion. The problem
>with computer art is that it is almost exclusively being discussed and
>used by groups of computer nerds more facinated by the tool than the art.
>(If you disagree, check out what's going on with 3D graphics. I've yet to
>see anything done with it that excites me). I feel computer art will not
>come of age until artists overcome their fear of and about the tool-until
Well, computer art has a problem - in order to do it, you have to have
somewhere around $3000 to plunk down. Artists are more known for starvation
at the younger end. Which means you are going to see people who are
established in another field, those who are naturally rich, or those who
happened to have spent the money already anyway.
Then the occasional odd person driven to do computer art.
I don't think 3-D art will come of age until the price involved drops
drastically *and* the tools become accessible in an art-like fashion. They
are getting much closer, but now currently, I can view exactly what I'm doing
with 2-D while doing it. 3-D just doesn't cut it at the desktop level without
having a lot of tech knowledge.
jger...@wln.com
In article <38lrff$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, <twa...@pop.pitt.edu> writes:
> This can be quite interesting. I have played around a fair amount with
> Photoshop and these filters, but I don't find it all that interesting.
> With software available to anyone, it is important to remember that for
> an image to become important as Fine Art as opposed to hobby art it
> needs to go a bit further than just being neat images.
The software MAY be available to everyone (at the price of PhotoShop, Gallery
Effects filters, etc., I'm not so sure about the available to ANYONE), HOWEVER,
as with any professional tool, it's the application that makes the difference.
Oil paints are much cheaper than PhotoShop, graphite pencils cheaper still,
but that doesn't mean that anyone who can afford them can use them effectively.
Personaly, I feel that my work IS fine art. . . But I'm just having problems
being accepted by the "general public". Most people are willing to acctually
concede that photography can be artistic, but draw the line at acceptance of a
computer manipulated print as art. That's where I'm having my problems. I'm
having a lot of fun with a new form of art, but not everyone can see the
process as artistic.
> Congrats on the ribbons!!!! One of my first Juried exhibitions was the
> Ohio State Fair Fine Arts competition. Its a start. As for
> fascinating or defying conventional photography... You may really like
> the images, but I don't get the sense you have a broad understanding of
> the breadth of work being done by image makers today. I don't mean to
> dampen your enthusiasm... keep going, you're doing great for
> starters... but you haven't discovered the wheel or anything.
I've seen a lot of graphic art created by photographers and graphic artists.
It ranges from crap to fabulous. Certainly I'm somewhere inbetween.
Thanks for the encouragement, by the way!!
Bev Thornton
> Personaly, I feel that my work IS fine art. . . But I'm just having
>problems being accepted by the "general public". Most people are willing to
>acctually concede that photography can be artistic, but draw the line at
>acceptance of a computer manipulated print as art. That's where I'm having
>my problems. I'm having a lot of fun with a new form of art, but not
>everyone can see the process as artistic.
Try just calling it art. Lose both terms computer & photography. Refer to the
works as pieces or works. Refuse to discuss the tools you use unless you are
discussing them outside of the context of the works.
If you call a rose by another name it may still smell as sweet but you can't
still say it's a rose.
I think the MUDs and MOOs and things are new art forms. I wonder how hard it
will be to get them accepted.
See Ya,
Bev
Thomas C. Waters
comment as a flame, it isn't meant that way...
In article <393sn4$p...@news.parc.xerox.com>
mac...@adoc.xerox.com (Peter MacLeod) writes:
> However, if one did scan a photo, say, of the Golden Gate Bridge, run it
> through a Watercolor filter in Photoshop, and get a good Iris print, one
> could make a perfectly acceptable "Hotel/Motel Art Fair"-caliber "watercolor"
> for only a couple hundred more than the real thing.
Oh, now that's my idea of Fine Art... "Hotel/Motel Art Fair"... I've
seen those commercials on the boob tube... "hundreds of originals all
under $19.95..."
BTW, I am not knocking Outdoor summer Arts Festivals... there are some
really wonderful artists who sell work this way (I used to) and most of
those folks work damn hard for their money.
Peter MacLeod
[essential point of post deleted]
: I'll believe this when you show me a computer output that looks like a
: water color. The hypoythetical painting it took you two weeks to paint
: is an object. That object has a look, feel, texture... it is an entity
: that has an identity. While the image you painted my have a similar
: pattern to the colors, similar sixe... the paper that comes out of the
: laser printer (or other printer) looks absolutely NOTHING like the
: water colr painting. The texture, colors, weight of the paper... as an
: object the computer printout is very very different than the water
: color.
[rest of post deleted, so that I could address minor point]
I've seen some Iris prints done on archival paper that looked quite good,
though I don't think anybody who had the hundreds of dollars it takes to get
an Iris print done on good paper by someone who knows what they're doing had
a print of a "watercolorized-by-photoshop" photo made.
However, if one did scan a photo, say, of the Golden Gate Bridge, run it
through a Watercolor filter in Photoshop, and get a good Iris print, one
could make a perfectly acceptable "Hotel/Motel Art Fair"-caliber "watercolor"
for only a couple hundred more than the real thing.
By the way, I've tried a few different papers, like watercolor paper, in the
HP Deskjet 1200C, with fairly lousy results. I wanted the ink to bleed a
bit, but with sized paper, it did the opposite. At some point, I'll
experiment some more, but does anyone have papers to recommend?
-- Peter
Charles Eicher
MacLeod) wrote:
> I've seen some Iris prints done on archival paper that looked quite good,
> though I don't think anybody who had the hundreds of dollars it takes to get
> an Iris print done on good paper by someone who knows what they're doing had
> a print of a "watercolorized-by-photoshop" photo made.
>
> However, if one did scan a photo, say, of the Golden Gate Bridge, run it
> through a Watercolor filter in Photoshop, and get a good Iris print, one
> could make a perfectly acceptable "Hotel/Motel Art Fair"-caliber "watercolor"
> for only a couple hundred more than the real thing.
well, its pretty obvious (to me at least) why this is so.. The skills of
photography are quite different than the skills used in making paintings
and watercolors. Painting requires a series of distortions and value
judgements about the appearance of things that no mere photo can emulate.
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
WYNNK
cei...@ins.infonet.net (Charles Eicher) writes:
>> re "no mere photo" >>
Oil painting is a totally different artform. Anyone who has looked at
Robert Frank's work should never refer to Photography as "mere".
BTW, I usually enjoy your contributions 'tho we do differ on may issues
Charles Eicher
ha.. that remark was 'mere' bait..
I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.. They were talking about making
photos look like watercolors or oil paintings using computer
manipulations.
If you want to apply an 'oil painting filter' to a scanned photo, you
won't get anything resembling a painting. IMHO, the people who are best at
doing manipulated photos have painting/drawing skills and apply them to
the work..
That's all i was saying..
I'm sure you've seen early manipulated phptographs (they even called some
of them 'photopainting'..) Louis Nadeau even mentions the term
'Photo-aquatint' in one of his books, which is a term i really like.. it
implies all the realm of photography, plus printmaking, in a single
image..
time...@inforamp.net
combines the usage of many portraits layered via the computer to create an
individual and unique person...Check out her piece "The Dictator" it
combines the faces of Hitler, Stalin, and a few other infamous tyrants to
create as she calls it- the ultimate dictator...
Also, she is receiving quite a bit of notoriety...
Finally, may I suggest Photoshop- (version 3.0 is the latest) as a very
powerful tool with regard to creating interesting image manipulation art...
Wendy -time...@inforamp.net
Mr AC Cornoiu
>> an image to become important as Fine Art as opposed to hobby art it
>> needs to go a bit further than just being neat images.
maybe when ppl using computers to make art start making things with
a sense of `ownership' and exploit the process for what it is (and
not keep going back to fractal design painter etc for painterly
affects) then computer art will become respected tremendously!
i think it's just so easy to slip into genrelizing when you start out
on a computer.. like you may know something about what makes good
images.. cept that doesnt mean you know anything about *computers*!
remember that ppl have been making so called `computer art' for decades
now; just that it has never been recognized widely.. there is a whole
history of ppl making images with ascii characters, ppl who used
computers to make complex mathematical imagery, ppl who make the pop art
that is in computer games, and other conceptual adventures which no doubt
are still unheard of.. or just yet to be reinvented (rediscovered!)..
only in the last few years have we seen the big slew of photoshoppers
and photostylers, and coming out most strongly from a techno/rave base
which cool though is now beginning to burn out into another cast of
computer art for ppl to fit into.. and unto!
and so it goes..