Future of painting? Opinions?
peter nelson
many people said "painting is dead".
But as we know, just the opposite was true. Liberated
from the demands of photographic literalism painters
were free to open up whole new territories of artistic
expression and investigation. Impressionism, cubism,
non-representational painting and many other pursuits
allowed painters to go places that no photograph could
possibly follow. Shapes, perspectives, textures, lighting
and subject matter which do not exist in the real world
(and therefore can't be photographed) could leap from the
artists mind directly onto his canvas.
Today with modern computer graphics people are
saying the same thing: "painting is dead". Shapes,
perspectives, textures, lighting and subject matter
can leap from the artists mind directly onto his display
without the need for messy paints, cleaning brushes,
stretching canvasses, waiting for things to dry, being
exposed to toxic materials and solvents, and so forth.
They can be stored digitally without worry of fire, flood,
humidity, and insurance (assuming you've run a backup)
And modern 3D rendering tools free the marginal draughtsman
from the limitations of his drawing, proportion, or perspective
skills.
Personally, I have no doubt that painting will adapt, just
as it did to photography. But just as painting was not
unchanged by photography, it will not be unchanged by
digital paint. So the question is: what direction will it
go in RESPONSE to computer graphics? 19th century
painting went where photography couldn't. Where can't
computer graphics go? I have several ideas but I'd
like to hear what people here think first.
---peter
Larry Seiler
> But as we know, just the opposite was true. Liberated
> from the demands of photographic literalism painters
> were free to open up whole new territories of artistic
> expression and investigation.
One can consume volumes and volumes of "what is art?" books, arguments and
defenses...so I don't want to necessarily go that way....but, it has a lot
to do with why one paints. I mean....it is nice to have a market for ones
work if one has a passion to paint full time.....all the time, and doesn't
prefer working 8 hours a day in a demeaning job only to come home burnt out
and exhausted, not feeling charged up enough to paint. Many argue that one
isn't an artist if one lives to sell their work. I for one would not mind
someone paying my annual leases or mortgage with a budget for food,
materials, insurances, etc., so I could paint with little to no regard to
the public taste or absense of taste.
That being said....painting has gone on as you have said with a certain
amount of freedom since photography's functional purpose was
introduced....the problem is many things that matter socially or publically
are controlled by the market economy with the principle of "supply and
demand". The camera removed painting also of its prominence of function.
It quickly became art for art's sake....which was/has a nice crusade-like
tone to it....but it had to become art for art's sake...or art for other
artist's, because the aesthetically dead, ignorant and disinterested public
having lost need for an art no longer providing "function" affected the
demand. Artists had to find justfication for continued production....thus
turned more readily to philosophy. Fortunately at the same time we entered
into one of the most individualistic self-interest times of our culture
that helped fuel the importance of "me" "myself" and "I".........for
without that pleasure factor, the arts may have well died left to supply
and demand alone.
Now we have entered into perhaps what I believe will be one of the greatest
challenges for the fine arts....and I'm not speaking the digilized image.
I'm speaking of the multicultural pluralistic age of tolerance geared to
removing all individualistic ideas that threaten the worship of the
cohesive global village. All things that might appear as bigoted or
discrimination.....where the existence of truth is argued down for fear of
narrowed parameters that might lessen the value of other ideas having
"equal" right to be heard and found reasonable.
While there might be some arguable noble things about such...especially as
concerns the issue of prejudice and races, any assemblance of a "standard"
that might isolate any particulars about the arts as one form or style
being above another are being destroyed.
The strange thing as I speak this is...I'm not for supporting hatred one
artist may have for another style, though it may sound this way. I'm
simply observing and trying to think this all out.
I've shared in the past that I see it metaphorically compared to the sports
arena. Because "rules" exist....we are aware of expectations placed upon
the athlete. The athlete can be found out as exceptionally gifted, or may
be able to develop him/herself thru training and conditioning. He/she
knows what sacrifices they must endure to compete and meet the expecation
of the "standards." For example, we know that a bastketball player needs
to dribble so many times per the steps taken down the court, thus when
Michael Jordan leaves the planet behind himself from the freethrow area or
"top of the key" to go what is referred to as "airborne" or "air Jordan"
taking it to the basket....because of existing parameters we can see one
nearly suspend those rules leaving others behind, and thus the "gift"
becomes obvious.
The gift having become obvious sets an ear mark for all others to
compare....and the supply and demand of the public in recognizing this gift
demonstrates its willingness to pay well for it.
While art losing its necessary functional purposes has many advantages, the
"freedom" is like a bunch of boys getting together to play a game without
rules. Having no chance to compete within parameters so as to discover
their own potentials and capabilities as well as show off their "stuff!"
...they lose interest, scatter off...going their own way.
There must be a spark that ignites an enthusiasm....a cause if-you-will,
that unites such that something becomes a mass movement. This freedom to
go anywhere with anything also has so redefined what art is....that the
common "spark" is gone. It has come down to the basic where we simply
idolize the fact that man is "creative" and somehow we expect the world to
sit up and take notice of it.
Having succeeded very little of that....we engage artists in political
agenda, in the media.....or philosophy....and the creatives become "way
showers" or "shamans."......as somehow one refining their creativity gives
them deeper insights to assume the best benefits of mankind.
In the 70's.....the environmental concerns affronted sportsmen and hunting
and fishing groups. Such groups needed to add concerns of conservation to
their habits of enjoying the outdoors. When stamps were deemed necessary
to apply to one's license to hunt or fish particular species....the timing
was right such that competitions to design the stamp "sparked" an interest
in that which eventually became known as "wildlife art." Artists competing
against other artists- yet the judges being ignorant of aesthetics
understanding only that which appeared as greater example of mimetic image.
Artists were forced to leave their philosophical individualism IF they
wanted to participate. Realism...and the most convincing of realism was
the order of the day. It brought with it some inherent rules of
mimeticism.
The mass movement escalated when the stamp winning artist was approached to
make prints by publishers and such prints were first introduced and
auctioned off at conservation sportsmen group banquets to raise BIG money
for habitat improvements and acquisition, as well as increase wildlife
management. Now the artist also became somewhat a "hero" for having become
the point of reference that championed the environmental cause that
justified the outdoor sports industry.
These winning artists then discovered they could take this print beyond the
banquet atmosphere and market it publically. This was to be a movement
that was to last lucratively for artists for about 15-20 years, and only
ceased to move forward when supply and demand were saturated by mediocre
lesser skilled artisans seeking to get in on the bandwagon cash flow.
The rules for becoming a "wildlife artist" had eroded or been suspended to
include those that were not nearly as concerned for anatomic accuracy of
species rendered, where color theory was no longer important, when anyone
could start a publishing company and they were hungry to sign on artists to
get their share of the money pie.
There were a good number of artists...(seeing this thing dying, and
themselves tiring of rules that did not include higher aesthetic
understanding) that began to break the rules themselves to push an artist's
point. An impressionistic way of handling the sculpture for the sake of a
pleasing piece of art, rather than define each feather of every feather
group on a bird, for example.
The public then also began to lose interest in the conservation issue. It
appeared over a decade's time that many issues had been dealt with in the
monies raised, plus other concerns arose. That issue dealt with the threat
of the threat of losing living species.
The gallery market....especially the "print" market, continued to see
trends as I see it that had one interesting common ground. Those things
socially and culturally that modern mankind was in danger of losing became
the object of subject matter that would spark a public interest for a time.
The fear of losing the small family farm....thousands of
bankrupcies....and we see a period of many farm paintings... tractors, etc;
Then the awareness and fear of the breaking up of the traditional
family...what it means to be a parent....a child, and we see a trend of
images of mothers and their children...etc; As far as the market
goes....one might wish simply to chase those things that the public fears
it loses through social change.
As goes the future of painting....unless there are movements that bring the
convenience of right properties together such as this conservation/wildlife
art marriage.....art will only move with interest in minute pockets of time
here and there...changing as frequently as does trends in fashion.
That we must now recognize many art histories....and nearly make amends for
having allowed the European art history to dominate for so long. That no
consensus can any longer be arrived in a tolerance motivated age that might
earmark a preference for one "thing"....like the children leaving the game
with no rules...people will get bored with just the idea that man as a
"being" is creative.....and walk away.
Because people exist, creativity will exist.....and art will be done,
painting carried out. The question is, will painting ever elevate to the
status it enjoyed once... again? Not without a consensus of necessity
that motivates supply and demand. Not without a consensus that recognizes
a standard that will define the parameters of "excellence."
If there is a small cause...it will find a few artists that will target it.
A great cause, will bring about more artists. The greater the cause, the
more likelihood parameters will evolve and be defined. Some artists will
sieze the opportunity to hone themselves to meet the challenge, and other
artists refusing ...calling themselves the truer "fine" artists by refusing
to be distracted from "their thing" will use the opportunity only to launch
a vicious outcry of aesthetic scandal. Their outcry will be heard,
registered, and applauded by others whom also place prominence on their
"own" thing. Then, ironically..many of them will sit around and discuss
the future of art.
I sum it up by simply saying...if you are a painter, then paint! Discover
your integrity....your higher calling, never waver.....and finding a love
for it, just paint!
Larry
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
mdeli
>snip
>Personally, I have no doubt that painting will adapt, just
>as it did to photography. But just as painting was not
>unchanged by photography, it will not be unchanged by
>digital paint.
good point
> So the question is: what direction will it
>go in RESPONSE to computer graphics? 19th century
>painting went where photography couldn't.
All painting past or present that has any merit goes beyond
photography; whether it makes use of photography or not.
> Where can't
>computer graphics go? I have several ideas but I'd
>like to hear what people here think first.
The answer will lie in the product, not in what is said. However the
person who knows how to draw will out-do other computer users in 2D
and 3D.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Fred Hapgood
>computer graphics go?
Touch, smell, risk. A computer graphic can't kill you,
wheras a picture could fall off the wall and break your head.
I'm not sure how you make an art out of this, but maybe
that's my limitation.
Fred
peter nelson
>> Where can't
>>computer graphics go? I have several ideas but I'd
>>like to hear what people here think first.
>
>The answer will lie in the product, not in what is said. However the
>person who knows how to draw will out-do other computer users in 2D
>and 3D.
I would suggest that the person who knows how to
*compose* well will out-do the others.
I've been working in computer graphics for about 15
years - on the technical end, not the artistic end. I've been
a member of ACM/SIGGRAPH for most of that time.
The clear trend in c.g. is towards photorealistic rendering
and anatomically-accurate figures. The high end ($5000
software) stuff is getting close to this now. I think they
have another 5-7 years to get there and then another few
years for prices to drop.
In ~10 years it will be possible for any student to afford and
use software which will can create human forms, facial
expressions and body language, cloth, hair, plants and
all manner of other materials, along with weight distribution,
and deformations due to movement, with an accuracy
that will be indistinguishable from a good photograph.
But with an infinite range of control over lighting, textures,
colors, and, of course, subject matter.
At that point things like drawing (draghtsmanship), anatomical
understanding and subtleties of lighting won't be beyond anyone
anymore. But the ability to compose things will still matter.
. . . none of which explains why PAINTING, per se, should still
survive. But I think it will and I have some ideas about what it can
offer that computer graphics can't, which I will suggest in a
future post.
---peter
mark webber
(snip)
Peter,
I'm not exactly sure what I think of the notion of using computers for
making art - I don't think about it much, and I'm sure that is just my own
handicap. But I do like your neat summary of what will be meaningful and
why, and look forward to your next post.
Mark
Marilyn
>
> > Where can't
> >computer graphics go?
>
> wheras a picture could fall off the wall and break your head.
> I'm not sure how you make an art out of this, but maybe
> that's my limitation.
>
> Fred
Where can't computer graphics go?
They can't have the intimacy of a drawing. (I realize the thread was
about painting).
For a
3 things are required, the artist, the ground and the tool.
The most simple tools being paper & pencil.
They could be a stick and a sandy beach.
Compare that with all the machinery involved in computer graphics.
In a drawing, you can sense the artist's hesitation, sensuality &/or
assurance in his/her line. An artist reveals himself in a drawing.
Compare that with the anonimity of a computer graphic.
Cost:
Someone once said, you can create great art in a computer,
but it costs the earth to get it out.
Marilyn
Marilyn
I like the way you cut my sentence about the simplicity of basic
DRAWING tools, like pencil/paper or sticks/sandy beach.
Then you
go on to describe the complexity of Renaissance painting.
Charles Reid is your mentor, that says enough.
Marilyn
Andy Pearlman wrote:
>
> Marilyn wrote:
>
> > Where can't computer graphics go?
>
> > In a drawing, you can sense the artist's hesitation, sensuality &/or
> > assurance in his/her line. An artist reveals himself in a drawing.
> >
> > Compare that with the anonimity of a computer graphic.
>
> The next paragraph is not meant as an attack. It is as a result of
> seeing this as the most common mistake that artists coming to my classes
> make.
>
> This is perhaps the biggest fallacy possible in terms of viewing art and
> computers. Look at the complexities of mastering oil paint when it first
> came out. You had to know where to get the pigment, how to weave your
> own canvas, what proportions to grind it up in, experiment with new
> mediums, etc.. Oh, did I forget to mention that playing around with
> certain pigments can be extraordinarily hazardous to your health. The
> artists of that immediate era were not the great artists, they were the
> great technologists.
>
> When a new technology comes out in art, only those comfortable with the
> constraints of the technology are going to make art with it. Eventually,
> it will be made so easy(such as paint in tubes) that the technological
> constraints will vanish. It is the same problem today - Anonymity of the
> art created says something about the lack of skill of the artist, not
> the art making medium.
>
> Especially, when you can scan in a drawing and use it in an etching...
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Pearlman - artwork at
> http://www.inet-images.com/gallery/pearlman_a.html
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote in message <36883b47...@news.interlog.com>...
>>> Where can't
>>>computer graphics go? I have several ideas but I'd
>>>like to hear what people here think first.
>>
>>The answer will lie in the product, not in what is said. However the
>>person who knows how to draw will out-do other computer users in 2D
>>and 3D.
>
>
>I would suggest that the person who knows how to
>*compose* well will out-do the others.
>
True. However, if you know how to draw you will compose better than
others. Drawing gives you the ability to visualize. form in space, why
and how light works and how to formulate ideas.
>I've been working in computer graphics for about 15
>years - on the technical end, not the artistic end. I've been
>a member of ACM/SIGGRAPH for most of that time.
>
>The clear trend in c.g. is towards photorealistic rendering
>and anatomically-accurate figures. The high end ($5000
>software) stuff is getting close to this now. I think they
>have another 5-7 years to get there and then another few
>years for prices to drop.
>
>In ~10 years it will be possible for any student to afford and
>use software which will can create human forms, facial
>expressions and body language, cloth, hair, plants and
>all manner of other materials, along with weight distribution,
>and deformations due to movement, with an accuracy
> that will be indistinguishable from a good photograph.
>But with an infinite range of control over lighting, textures,
>colors, and, of course, subject matter.
>
>At that point things like drawing (draghtsmanship), anatomical
>understanding and subtleties of lighting won't be beyond anyone
>anymore. But the ability to compose things will still matter.
>
Great painting goes well beyond realism. A portrait by Holbein or a
scene by Bouguereau or Dali doesn't resemble the realism of
photography. These works will look unique in spite of computer
accuracy because they are a result of the combination of drawing
composition, posing the elements, light and shade and imagination.
>. . . none of which explains why PAINTING, per se, should still
>survive. But I think it will and I have some ideas about what it can
>offer that computer graphics can't, which I will suggest in a
>future post.
>
I also think it will. However there will be a fusion between the two.
The tool influences the outcome. Like all technical change in the
past. What is now time consuming and tedious will become easier and
easier to do.
I believe that the present state of computer graphics already makes so
called fine art abstraction look ridicules. One can imitate Matisse
and Mondrian, Diebenkorn, etc. on a computer. I doubt that there will
be many Jr. Vermeers or Ingres' even in twenty years.
god...@my-dejanews.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
<stuff on computer tech>
> At that point things like drawing (draghtsmanship), anatomical
> understanding and subtleties of lighting won't be beyond anyone
> anymore.
I can feel you salivating, care to try my cock instead?
> But the ability to compose things will still matter.
Ever read Mind Children by Hans Morevac, why won't Graphics
generators not also be able to compose via Artificial Intelligence?
The Cray-4 is supposed to contain the computational power
of a rat!
If AI does spawn conscienceness there is no reason that it should
become the slave of art-school ambition!
> . . . none of which explains why PAINTING, per se, should still
> survive. But I think it will and I have some ideas about what it can
> offer that computer graphics can't,
Like being one of a kind, accmplishable on a desert Island,
Archivable, etc.
> which I will suggest in a
> future post.
Narcicism, present realization. If Morevac has his way everyone
can have their own virtual Dali, that p.Mutt can sign with his own
name. But is this the point?
Is art merely entertainment and social judgement or is there
something about the creative and sensual experience that is
valuable in itself with or without the society money objects?
> ---peter
BAONA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andy Pearlman
Marilyn wrote:
> Where can't computer graphics go?
> In a drawing, you can sense the artist's hesitation, sensuality &/or
peter nelson
>Where can't computer graphics go?
>
>about painting).
>
>For a
>3 things are required, the artist, the ground and the tool.
>The most simple tools being paper & pencil.
>They could be a stick and a sandy beach.
>
>Compare that with all the machinery involved in computer graphics.
>
>assurance in his/her line. An artist reveals himself in a drawing.
>
>Compare that with the anonimity of a computer graphic.
I would disagree with that.
My wife is a pianist and, as many people have pointed out, the
piano removes the human from the sound more thoroughly
than any other instrument. Between the pianist's fingers and
the sound itself is a devilishly complex mechanism that ends
up striking the string with a mechanical hammer at the request
of the pianist. (Contrast this with a harp, which is basically
the same instrument minus the mechanics - every stroke and
touch of the harpist's hands transmit the texture directly to
your ears.) But despite this every piano can somehow send
feelings from the pianist's heart to yours. It's amazing.
Modern computer graphics doesn't stand between the artist's
feelings and your awareness of them; it provides many avenues
to express them. You can certainly see the difference between
a hesitatnt artis and a confident one, a hurried artist and
one who took his time, a distracted one and a focussed one.,
etc.
>Cost:Someone once said, you can create great art in a computer,
>but it costs the earth to get it out.
That's just temporary. Costs are dropping rapidly and in 10
years top-of-the-line setups will be cheaper than a decent set
of brushes and acrylics or oils.
Here are *some* things computers can't do for the foreeable future:
o Texture, e.g., working thick oils or acrylics with a knife.
o Tranlucency and glazes
o Mixed media - incorporating sand, glass, cloth, wood etc into a work
o Unusual surfaces: painting on wood, handmade paper, unusual shapes, etc
o Guaranteed uniqueness (not sure why this matters from a artistic pov)
The first four make the work part of the environment, i.e., things like
the angle of the light or the humidity change its appearance. What
are the implications of this?
What are some other things which make painting different?
---peter
peter nelson
>They can't have the intimacy of a drawing. (I realize the thread was
>about painting).
>
>For a
>3 things are required, the artist, the ground and the tool.
>The most simple tools being paper & pencil.
>They could be a stick and a sandy beach.
True but two things to note:
Painting really is a very complex endeavor - lots of paints and
pigments to mix, brushes and other tools, palettes and easels,
etc. And then there's all that cleanup (my least favorite part!).
Granted I'm only a beginning painter but it's not clear to me
that real painting is any less complex than a computer.
The other thing is that the whole trend in computers has
been ever greater ease-of-use and accessibility. 20 years
ago only specialists could even USE computers; today
ordinary people use them every day. There is no doubt that
in the next 10 years or so this complexity will decline further,
along with the cost.
And actually, DRAWING on a computer is very UNcomplex.
My WACOM tablet has one stylus (pencil) (compared to my
boxful of pencils and charcoals) The stylus can have a huge
range of points (sharp, broad, different shapes and colors and
textures, etc, ) and it responds to pressure so I get a darker
line by bearing down harder or a broader line by holding it at
an angle, just like a real pencil. If I flip it over it erases, again
with my choice of eraser characteristics - clean, smudgy, etc.
There are still plenty of limitations but they are falling away
rapidly. I assume that in the relatively near future issues like
cost, portability, and ease of use will become non-issues.
---peter
Andy Pearlman
Marilyn wrote:
> Andy,
> I like the way you cut my sentence about the simplicity of basic
> DRAWING tools, like pencil/paper or sticks/sandy beach.
> Then you
> go on to describe the complexity of Renaissance painting.
> Charles Reid is your mentor, that says enough.
>
> Marilyn
Drawing Tools are not a fair comparison to Computers. There is very little
technology involved in the act of drawing. Marking object and drawing
surface. There's a lot of technology involved in Painting, though we're
fortunate enough today to not have to worry about it for the most part. If
one had to make your own linseed oil, what percentage of artists today do you
think could do that? I'm sure some encaustic artists said the same thing
about oil paint - look how simple it is to get wax. And in the first 10 years
or so, they were probably right.
I cut the simplicity, because that has little to do with your other
statement. Drawing expressive, computers anonymous is a common idea among
people who have either found using the computer frustrating, haven't tried at
all, or look at bad 3-d films or current designs and think that's what is
capable of being done by a good computer artist. I've done work on paper,
that another computer artist thought was a nice simple, expressive wash
drawing. I've yet to have anyone ask me was it done on computer.
Charles Reid is someone who I find to have a lot of good ideas about teaching
art. Practical ideas about how to look at things, sense of humor, critical
about his own work, and talking about what he thinks make art strong. I'm not
the only one - I found the book while wandering through a friend's college
bookstore, mandatory for a painting class. I'd like to hear what you don't
like about his teaching method. If you don't like his art, that's another
thing entirely. I'm perfectly capable of separating what I think of someone
as an artist and what I think of someone as a teacher.
Marilyn
> >
> >about painting).
> >
> >For a
> >3 things are required, the artist, the ground and the tool.
> >The most simple tools being paper & pencil.
> >They could be a stick and a sandy beach.
> >
Peter:
Thanks for your reasoned reply. As you may have noticed, I am resisting but I am
not opposed to art from a computer. I actually have done one project, a label in
a computer. Because of the limited equipment available, I found it very tedious,
lacking immediacy and it required expensive equipment as limited as it was.
I'll take the last point: guaranteed uniqueness, or originality because it is
the crux. Once you make art on a computer you have given away the "one of a kind"
criteria important to a work of art. Print media has already chipped away at this
criteria.
So, expense
and
proliferation
are two objections you cannnot reason away.
There is also a certain sensuality absent from computer art
and I mean the sensuality of the materials, first in the application:
like pushing a piece of charcoal over very good paper, and the
visual sensuality of looking at that. You can imitate it but you
can't produce it on computers.
Marilyn
Marilyn
Hey Andy,
I got a 404 for your URL.
About C.R.
I was discouraged by what I thought was weak work,
also flesh & blood good instructors are better than
instruction books. Their encouragement is invaluable.
Marilyn
peter nelson
god...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76cf71$2fd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <76aslo$85d$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
><stuff on computer tech>
>> At that point things like drawing (draghtsmanship), anatomical
>> understanding and subtleties of lighting won't be beyond anyone
>> anymore.
>
>I can feel you salivating, care to try my cock instead?
You need to get your medication adjusted.
Because someday when they find a cure for whatever
you have, and you have a family and a place in the
community, someone will find your posts on deja news
and embarass you and your loved ones with them.
Right now that's hard for you to believe, but that's just
because of your current mental condition.
---peter
CROCUSDES
>and I mean the sensuality of the materials, first in the application:
>like pushing a piece of charcoal over very good paper, and the
>visual sensuality of looking at that. You can imitate it but you
>can't produce it on computers.
>
>Marilyn
>
What you say is true Marilyn however you are holding on to the idea that
computer art should in some way resemble analog art (how about that for a
term?). This is like expecting an oil painting to have the same
characteristics or properties as a watercolor. Both mediums are different and
fulfill different functions.
Computer art really has to be seen on it's own terms and evaluated as an art
form that is unique in it's own right. It will have its own rules and its own
particular properties that really shouldn't be compared to something created in
an entirely different medium. This is where I sometimes think we become
confused about the legitimacy of a new or different art form that is in the
process of evolution.
Artists have taken hold of current technology throughout the ages and
transformed an unfamiliar process into a medium that turns out to be useful for
artmaking. This isn't always the case but the jury is out right now on the use
of computers and it's value as an artmaking tool. So far it looks very
promising, however.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
Alfred Glass
>
>Ever read Mind Children by Hans Morevac, why won't Graphics
>generators not also be able to compose via Artificial Intelligence?
Perhaps this is possible. But the fact is.. the individuality and
subtlety of human conciousness will never be duplicated by technology.
Every person is an individual, not only for the fact that their DNA is
unique, but that their life is also unique. Our experiences mould our
perceptions of reality.. and these perceptions are the basis of our
expression.
>
>> . . . none of which explains why PAINTING, per se, should still
>> survive. But I think it will and I have some ideas about what it can
>> offer that computer graphics can't,
Painting can offer a lot that computer graphics cant. Being a digital
artist also.. i know the difference between the two for me.. *S*
>Narcicism, present realization. If Morevac has his way everyone
>can have their own virtual Dali, that p.Mutt can sign with his own
>name. But is this the point?
No it isnt. I could scan a Dali and work my name over his. So what? The
image is an expression of Dali's mind, not mine. The whole point to art
is to express something, not to make a pretty, pleasing, saleable image.
>Is art merely entertainment and social judgement or is there
>something about the creative and sensual experience that is
>valuable in itself with or without the society money objects?
Definitely. The creation of Art can be a highly theraputic experience..
and looking at any number of other ppls works does not compare to the
catharsis of making one of my own..
Stee G
god...@my-dejanews.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> god...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <76cf71$2fd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> You need to get your medication adjusted.
My medication is caffeine, alcohol, and theococoabromine
in that order!
> Because someday when they find a cure for whatever
> you have, and you have a family and a place in the
> community, someone will find your posts on deja news
> and embarass you and your loved ones with them.
I will rue the days that I posted here on usenet. Not because I
said something outrageous but because I've been wasting my time.
> Right now that's hard for you to believe, but that's just
> because of your current mental condition.
No substantive response. I thought I mixed De Sadian humor with
Neichian enlightenment quite well.
> ---peter
Andy Pearlman
Marilyn wrote:
> Hey Andy,
>
> I got a 404 for your URL.
Unfortunately they did a reorganization and all the gallery links got lost.
President of the company is a friend of mine, but she's about to have a baby, so
things are a bit hectic there. I can email you an image if you'd like.
> About C.R.
> I was discouraged by what I thought was weak work,
> also flesh & blood good instructors are better than
> instruction books. Their encouragement is invaluable.
I agree with that in general. But I think he deliberately puts in a lot of work of
his that he considers substandard. At least that is what he does in that
particular book. "I overdid the coolness on her torso." "I wish I could always get
this look, but it usually eludes me." "I often give up too soon(while discussing a
piece he wished he had worked on more)." It might just be that his work as an
artist is not that strong, but I felt that he was trying to establish that he as
an established artist feels pangs of doubt, worry, and tension. More importantly,
when he talks about work that his students did in the book, he clearly talks about
them in glowing tones. He uses himself, rather than others. I really like that
from a teacher point of view.
One of the things I think books are invaluable for is that for beginning artists,
it represents another point of view. The instructor is rarely always right, yet
students have a tendency to take what they say as gospel. They're a good
supplement to a strong flesh & blood instructor.
god...@my-dejanews.com
So you don't evade the question I'll put it to you like this.
In your post you come of as sounding like you can not wait
for technology to replace the human element in generative
realism so you can come in with your pure esthetic abilities
previously unable to outdo Vermeer realistically and take the
Gold Medal for all eternity.
> ><stuff on computer tech>
> >> At that point things like drawing (draghtsmanship), anatomical
> >> understanding and subtleties of lighting won't be beyond anyone
> >> anymore.
<Stuff on Mental Illness and my thing deleted>
I am of course flattered to death, everything in a post-modern art
gallery looks like it was made by a crazy person, not like it was
made by a person with good esthetic taste. Thats for the fashion
mall! No mental illness no modern art, no skill no classicism.
Esthetics is for shoe designers and hair dressers. Have fun being
pissed for all eternity at losing the art lottery.
mdeli
>So, expense
> and
>proliferation
>are two objections you cannnot reason away.
Certain sensuality?
Your's perhaps?
>and I mean the sensuality of the materials, first in the application:
>like pushing a piece of charcoal over very good paper, and the
>visual sensuality of looking at that. You can imitate it but you
>can't produce it on computers.
Having used a brush most of my life I prefer the "sensuality" of a
drawing tablet. You can't imitate it and you can't produce it on
paper.
>Marilyn
I guess Marilyn whose vision of antiquated Modern Academic Art hasn't
gone beyond 1923 has good reason to be a bit ancy about computers.
Complaining about the use of computers in art is as silly and
pointless as the author who insisted on the use of crow quills and
complained about all the drawbacks of using expensive typewriters.
Marilyn
>
> >There is also a certain sensuality absent from computer art
> >like pushing a piece of charcoal over very good paper, and the
> >visual sensuality of looking at that. You can imitate it but you
> >can't produce it on computers.
> >
> >
>
> What you say is true Marilyn however you are holding on to the idea that
> computer art should in some way resemble analog art (how about that for a
> term?). This is like expecting an oil painting to have the same
> characteristics or properties as a watercolor. Both mediums are different and
> fulfill different functions.
No I think I meant to just give characteristics which computers could not
produce, to answer a question in the thread. There is a problem when
computer work tries to ape hand work. As you point out it should be its
own medium with its own characteristics.
>
> Computer art really has to be seen on it's own terms and evaluated as an art
> form that is unique in it's own right. It will have its own rules and its own
> particular properties that really shouldn't be compared to something created in
> an entirely different medium. This is where I sometimes think we become
> confused about the legitimacy of a new or different art form that is in the
> process of evolution.
>
> Artists have taken hold of current technology throughout the ages and
> transformed an unfamiliar process into a medium that turns out to be useful for
> artmaking. This isn't always the case but the jury is out right now on the use
> of computers and it's value as an artmaking tool. So far it looks very
> promising, however.
>
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
Yes, Chris, promising and exciting. However, you know that some of the programs
are now selling for $5K. That is pretty high for the average artist, and that's
only a program, the hardware is something else. As for killing painting as an
art form, paintings will have to have their own edge, something which will
differentiate them from computer generated works. Maybe get more 3-dimensional.
If computers start generating more landscapes & still life, that's no threat
to original contemporary painters.
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
>programs
>are now selling for $5K. That is pretty high for the average artist,
Well don't think of the cost pertaining to a program Marilyn, it's actually a
kind of virtual studio and at a relatively reasonable cost to boot. A sculptor
working in metal has expenses that far exceed this and equipment costs alone
can be astronomical sometimes depending on the artists needs. I know that
there are watercolor brushes that can cost $500. alone for one special one, so
is that expensive too, or just the cost of doing work?
When you quote the relative cost of a program as being expensive for the
average artist, I will agree but the normal cost of some materials alone is
also a bit high for some. It all depends on your needs and how badly you need
to have them satisfied.
>As for killing painting as an
>art form, paintings will have to have their own edge, something which will
>differentiate them from computer generated works.
Here I again will have to disagree. Computer generated art isn't going to
compete with any other form and there is absolutely no way that painting or
sculpting in the traditional manner will become obsolete. To try and outdo
what another medium can do with the advantages of technology is
misunderstanding the differences in the inherent nature of art produced by
each. There is space for all of it so no one is going to knock anyone else out
of the arena.
If artists using traditional media are beginning to feel threatened by the
incursion of electronically produced works, I think that it's a needless worry.
There may be a shift in preference for artforms sometime in the future but if
that's so it'll probably be due to current tastes or fashion but that's true
already as it has been in the past. Painters continue to paint, sculptors
continue to sculpt, everyone using the medium of their choice and it really
makes no difference.
Finally there is one aspect about producing works entirely by hand that will
most certainly guarantee its continuance. That is that there is a personal
degree of satisfaction that one gains from doing such work and it fulfills a
very unique need that many of us have built into our system. This applies
whether one is creating fine works of art or just artwork.
This is also one of the reasons that there are so many folks who just paint or
sculpt for their own pleasure as well as so many aspiring to be artists as
well. Artmaking can offer more to some than just making art, it sometimes
supplements a missing ingredient in our lives. This is why it will continue as
it has.
god...@my-dejanews.com
croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) wrote:
> If artists using traditional media are beginning to feel threatened by the
> incursion of electronically produced works, I think that it's a needless
> worry.
As it stands now there is no threat from Electronic arts, just as there is
none from film. Several years ago I had my own kind of online exhibit of
applet's and in the future I will again do the same. I expect no money
from this, computer paper is non-archivable, I can place archivable paper
in the computer but then the inks are non-archiavable and also are not
the desired pigments. The applets themselves change and are not seperable
for sale nor is there any way to keep every viewer from saving a copy
since downloading is what HTML documents actually do. PA you have down-
loaded my text here its saved in netscape/cache or the equivalent for
your browser. Computer Art that I have done is virtual and changing,
and has used photographs and paintings as base images. Just like
performance art it isn't where the big-bucks are unless you work for
dreamworks where this all has already happened.
Money wants ownership which means that it needs "originals." An
original napkin by Picasso is worth more than any real attempt at
computer art that is not inacessable.
> There may be a shift in preference for artforms sometime in the future but
if
> that's so it'll probably be due to current tastes or fashion but that's true
> already as it has been in the past. Painters continue to paint, sculptors
> continue to sculpt, everyone using the medium of their choice and it really
> makes no difference.
>
> Finally there is one aspect about producing works entirely by hand that will
> most certainly guarantee its continuance. That is that there is a personal
> degree of satisfaction that one gains from doing such work and it fulfills a
> very unique need that many of us have built into our system. This applies
> whether one is creating fine works of art or just artwork.
Virtuality theoretically can offer personal interaction in theory which is
where this thread rests.
> This is also one of the reasons that there are so many folks who just paint or
> sculpt for their own pleasure as well as so many aspiring to be artists as
> well. Artmaking can offer more to some than just making art, it sometimes
> supplements a missing ingredient in our lives. This is why it will continue
as
> it has.
BTW. I pretty much agree with what you said just adding my $0.02
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
BAONA
peter nelson
>Here I again will have to disagree. Computer generated art isn't going to
>compete with any other form and there is absolutely no way that painting or
>sculpting in the traditional manner will become obsolete. To try and outdo
>what another medium can do with the advantages of technology is
>misunderstanding the differences in the inherent nature of art produced by
>each. There is space for all of it so no one is going to knock anyone else
out
>of the arena.
I don't think anyone was suggesting it would. I started
this thread and *I* certainly don't see painting going
away. I'm a beginning painting student and I intend to
invest a lot of learning in this field.
The question was this:
Clearly when photography came along in the 19th century
painting was CHANGED by it. I think it liberated painting
in many ways and much improved it. Also it's not accurate
to say that it didn't displace it to some degree.
So the question is: how will computer-art CHANGE painting?
---peter
god...@my-dejanews.com
> Clearly when photography came along in the 19th century
> painting was CHANGED by it.
Which changes 'clearly' came about by the photograph?
> I think it liberated painting
Or at least helped enslave it.
> in many ways and much improved it.
As it claims to have done.
> Also it's not accurate
-
> to say that it didn't displace it to some degree.
- -
(-)(-)(-) = (-) OK photography displaced painting to some degree.
not archivaly but as the use as a recorder yes.
> So the question is: how will computer-art CHANGE painting?
We will see, but what changes are driven by other factors in society
is indeterminable therefore the question can not be answered either
by future observance, or speculation towards the future.
Wonderful example of profound ambiguity you may have
a luxurious future ahead of you.
> ---peter
BAONA
flames and insults greatly appreciated!
Marilyn
big snip
This is why it will continue as
it has.
Hey, let's hope not. Let's hope for experimentation, new ideas, mixing media...
Marilyn
zi...@interport.net
about their own future as artists or that of other people. It reads
like bad Sci. Fi. not reality.
The proof of the pudding isin the eating. When someone out there uses
all this stuff to make terrific work -inlcuding you guys, then I will
be very happy. Until then I think of it as asembling and
manufacturing and working on GEAR, The great problem of scukptors who
are blocked. They have to build their studio, caollect the tools, find
the wood, move it etx. They have to do so much crap before they can
make a mark. What happens isthat they never do any work at all,
ever.
Well, I know someone like that. He has been assembling the[computers
plus] tools to make complex figure paintings for about ten years.
Before that he was blocked without the new obsession. His last show
was gotten out of him by his dealer, like this. He rented a room for
him and a studio, got him models. Sat him down for four weeks and mad
him make one shots [premier coups] until he had enough for a show. He
hasn't done it isince, so there hasn't been another show. But he keeps
accumulating gear for electronic computer generated paintings.
It is still all unreal. If I were you and I was an artist, I would go
about my buiness and wait until the paint came in tubes.
Gabriel
Fred Hapgood
I am writing as a board member of the Massachusetts state chapter
of NORML -- National Association for the Reform of the Marijuana
Laws.
Every year we hold a large rally for decriminalization on Boston
Common, attracting crowds of well over 50,000. Our promotion,
publicity, and fund-raising accessories for this rally are always
organized around a single dominating image. That image goes on
t-shirts, posters, stickers, flyers, signs, all our advertising,
and so on. It defines the Rally visually.
This year's Rally should be even larger than usual for several
reasons, the most important being that we will be using the Rally
to kick off several initiative petitions campaigns. (Which, btw,
means that the image for this year should have a political element.)
We can't pay for these images -- we're a totally volunteer
group -- but if there are people out there interested in the cause
and would get a kick out of knowing that their work was blanketing
Boston for a few heady days, please feel free to email me for details.
The competition is in February.
You don't need to live in the area or for that matter even the
hemisphere to participate, of course.
Fred
i_hat...@my-dejanews.com
> In the 70's.....the environmental concerns affronted sportsmen and hunting
> and fishing groups. Such groups needed to add concerns of conservation to
> their habits of enjoying the outdoors. When stamps were deemed necessary
> to apply to one's license to hunt or fish particular species....the timing
> was right such that competitions to design the stamp "sparked" an interest
> in that which eventually became known as "wildlife art."
**They sure came up with a great solution! Instead of stopping the barbarous
practice of killing and maiming other creatures for "pleasure" they would
produce stamps! Real conservation there! ;)
--I believe Robert Bateman--who is considered one of the frontrunners of
wildlife art(at least the limited print variety)--has said that his work is
meant to counter the traditional European art depictions of Nature and
wildlife--which was the "swarm of hounds attacking a stag" variety of images
and portraits of hunters standing smugly over carcasses. The domination of
other species was the traditonal image--it wasnt until the sixties(I believe)
that the idea of presenting wildlife in a natural setting(free from the
hunter's shadow) began to emerge. Although, it is ironic that at the current
rate of human exploitation it wont be long before the stamps and paintings
are all that is left to conserve of wildlife!
:\
Larry Seiler
certainly entitled to your opinions, and my response might simply cause
unnecessary friction...so, take care!
--
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
i_hat...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7718bm$psd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...