Computer Arts
ris...@news.delphi.com
the aesthetics of computer art. It is lagging behind, although "Leonardo"
is OK, but its articles are often written 1 or 2 years before
publication. Anyone interested?
Dave Poindexter
writes:
Right on! There are at least a few who would be interested in
contributing to discussions on the aesthetics of computer art. Fire
away at any time.
Let me pose this observation and question for a starter.
As photography and later film developed as fine art mediums, they
borrowed the aesthetics and often the techniques of other, more
established mediums. As they matured, new aesthetics and techniques
were developed which differentiated them from earlier mediums.
Currently, computer art borrows much from photography, film and video.
Does anyone think that computer art needs new aesthetics, techniques
and methods of display to mature into a universally recognized fine
art medium, unique in itself?
Guess my viewpoint! The floor is open!!
Dave Poindexter
poind...@scri.fsu.edu
Graphic Artist (for the rent) & Computer Artist (for the soul)
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst. @ Florida State U.
phone: (904) 644-2851; fax: 644-0098
*** It's laa-aug! Laa-aug! It's better than Bad, it's GOOD! ***
Andy Pearlman
>Currently, computer art borrows much from photography, film and video.
>Does anyone think that computer art needs new aesthetics, techniques
>and methods of display to mature into a universally recognized fine
>art medium, unique in itself?
>
>Guess my viewpoint! The floor is open!!
Well, I have a problem with most computer art that I've seen so far:
It is often dominated by the 'gee whiz' factor. i.e. Look what I can do
with the power of the computer. Not, look how a computer helps me achieve
my intentions. This is often complicated by the method of showing, which
is almost always another medium. I think a lot of the artwork is going to be
viewed in a similar light that early photography is now.
Also, the average artist has barely any access to the medium. The larger the
potential pool, the more likelihood that you get a really creative genius to
define the medium. Computers are also getting much more powerful. As long
as that continues to happen, it is difficult to say how much real control of
the promises of computer art you can have.
I'm not so certain that computer art is a seperate medium. I think what
might happen is that computer art will at least partially absorb the other
media. Painting in particular. There are a lot of factors involved. Will
the infosuperhighway allow real-time video? VR? When? How easy will this be?
You could see an artist marketing oneself as either a shareware or actual pay-
per-view and one could easily bypass the entire gallery system. That could
radically change the entire nature of the artworld, and render an answer to the
'What is really popular art?'
Also, what kind of output devices are available in the future? Is it possible
to make a device that applies paint? Works sculpture? To the point of the
human hand? To the point of fooling the human eye?
Andy Pearlman
Dave Poindexter
writes:
>In article <CDxJw...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Dave Poindexter
><poind...@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
>>Currently, computer art borrows much from photography, film and
video.
>>Does anyone think that computer art needs new aesthetics, techniques
>>and methods of display to mature into a universally recognized fine
>>art medium, unique in itself?
>>
>>Guess my viewpoint! The floor is open!!
>
>Well, I have a problem with most computer art that I've seen so far:
>
>It is often dominated by the 'gee whiz' factor. i.e. Look what I can
do
>with the power of the computer. Not, look how a computer helps me
achieve
>my intentions. This is often complicated by the method of showing,
which
>is almost always another medium. I think a lot of the artwork is
going to be
>viewed in a similar light that early photography is now.
>
I!ll go a little further, I think that computer art will only mature
when the presentation is as transparent to the average viewer as other
mediums. Part of the problem will be solved by the artists fully
understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the medium--what all it
can and can not do--and designing appropriate presentation strategies.
More on this idea below.
>Also, the average artist has barely any access to the medium. The
larger the
>potential pool, the more likelihood that you get a really creative
genius to
>define the medium. Computers are also getting much more powerful.
As long
>as that continues to happen, it is difficult to say how much real
control of
>the promises of computer art you can have.
>
I would say that the average artist now and for the last few years has
had reasonable access to personal computers capable of being used in a
fine art context. Costs are not that much greater than many more
traditional mediums. Sure available computers will become more
powerful and versatile, but as my professors used to say to me, !You
work within the confines of the materials and equipment you have
access to now. If you keep waiting for the next best thing, you will
never get on with the business of making art.!
>I'm not so certain that computer art is a seperate medium. I think
what
>might happen is that computer art will at least partially absorb the
other
>media. Painting in particular. There are a lot of factors involved.
Will
>the infosuperhighway allow real-time video? VR? When? How easy
will this be?
>You could see an artist marketing oneself as either a shareware or
actual pay-
>per-view and one could easily bypass the entire gallery system. That
could
>radically change the entire nature of the artworld, and render an
answer to the
>'What is really popular art?'
I believe computer art is a seperate medium (or at least will be). I
see a split in the near future in artists using the medium. Artists
who use the computer as a tool to create works visually (or otherwise)
similar to other mediums will be recognized not as computer artists,
but as an example, a painter who uses a computer as his primary tool.
Computer art as a distinct medium will be (should be?) that art which,
when presented, can only have been done with a computer and using all
or a large subset of the computer!s capabilities, i.e. real-time
visuals and sound, machine control and interactivity. I think the real
computer artist will be a person that uses more than one capability of
the computer, one who is capable of using all the strengths of the
computer to their fullest (then current) levels.
By the way, I like Andy!s idea of shareware/pay-per-view presentation
ideas. I have already seen a few examples of this idea such as the art
pieces in the Verbum CD-ROM(?) and a few other places. This is part of
what I meant by the artist needs to fully recognize the possibilities
for presentation.
>
>Andy Pearlman
Dave Poindexter poind...@scri.fsu.edu
Graphic Artist (for the rent) & Computer Artist (for the soul)
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst. @ Florida State U.
phone: (904) 644-2851; fax: 644-0098
** Are you happy yet?! I don!t think you!re happy enough!! **
Andy Pearlman
>In article <282p9n$h...@panix.com> Andy Pearlman, apea...@panix.com
>writes:
>>In article <CDxJw...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Dave Poindexter
>><poind...@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
>>Also, the average artist has barely any access to the medium. The
>larger the
>>potential pool, the more likelihood that you get a really creative
>genius to
>>define the medium. Computers are also getting much more powerful.
>As long
>>as that continues to happen, it is difficult to say how much real
>control of
>>the promises of computer art you can have.
>
>I would say that the average artist now and for the last few years has
>had reasonable access to personal computers capable of being used in a
>fine art context. Costs are not that much greater than many more
>traditional mediums. Sure available computers will become more
>powerful and versatile, but as my professors used to say to me, !You
>work within the confines of the materials and equipment you have
>access to now. If you keep waiting for the next best thing, you will
>never get on with the business of making art.!
Well, yes and no. To get a computer is a large step, one most people do when
they are sure they will get something back from it. The minimum for a
Mac + monitor + keyboard + digitizing tablet is around $1800($1500 w/o tablet)
This is assuming you get the software for free and the system is going to be
very slow.
The critical thing here is not whether or not a successful artist can afford
a computer, it is whether or not a student(or even kid) can afford to be
playing around with it when deciding what medium to use.
>I believe computer art is a seperate medium (or at least will be). I
>see a split in the near future in artists using the medium. Artists
>who use the computer as a tool to create works visually (or otherwise)
>similar to other mediums will be recognized not as computer artists,
>but as an example, a painter who uses a computer as his primary tool.
>Computer art as a distinct medium will be (should be?) that art which,
>when presented, can only have been done with a computer and using all
>or a large subset of the computer!s capabilities, i.e. real-time
>visuals and sound, machine control and interactivity. I think the real
>computer artist will be a person that uses more than one capability of
>the computer, one who is capable of using all the strengths of the
>computer to their fullest (then current) levels.
Well, a problem here is what is happening with film/video. Kodak currently has
an SGI setup that allows them to digitize film without generation loss(it has
a little actually. My guess about their process is that there is a little
loss in the first, but the 2nd and thereafter have all the same values)
Film and video are starting to be edited on computers. At the edit house I
work at, on an AVID(Macintosh + boards), an entire 40 minute film was edited.
Another 12 minute film was edited and won a Palm D'Or at Cannes for best
short story last year(Coffee & Cigarettes III)
I see video and film ending up in that grey area of interactive, machine
controlled, or at least claiming a large chunk of it.
Andy Pearlman
Melynda Reid
In article <CDxJw...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> (rec.arts.fine), Dave Poindexter <poind...@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
> Let me pose this observation and question for a starter.
> As photography and later film developed as fine art mediums, they
> borrowed the aesthetics and often the techniques of other, more
> established mediums. As they matured, new aesthetics and techniques
> were developed which differentiated them from earlier mediums.
>
> Currently, computer art borrows much from photography, film and video.
> Does anyone think that computer art needs new aesthetics, techniques
> and methods of display to mature into a universally recognized fine
> art medium, unique in itself?
yes.
computer art offers the possibility of bypassing display settings which favour
privileged urban white males with large egoes. gee i sound bitter. perhaps.
but the distribution of art via electrons allows an artist to remain unknowable.
i like that aspect of electronic media.
computer art right now is being done to imitate or emulate other media. the
names of the software packages say so much---mc draw. superpaint. canvas.
to me painting divorced from the texture and scent of paint is like virtual
sex---utterly tasteless.
computer art will have to overcome its flatness or else enshrine its limitations
as an aesthetic. look at how photographs lead to the nasty school of painting
termed photo realism in which paint was applied as if the brush no longer
existed. the horrid tendency of the camera to collapse depths has now become
for some artists and their patrons a desirable aesthetic. yuckola.
what concerns me about computer art is its ability to churn out images. i am
concerned that art may be perceived as an information rich image stream where
manipulation of canned material usurps direct observation and modeling from
life. there is a kinesthetic link between the hand and the eye in physical
media. the computer can obviate the necessity of athletic skill in art. what
i have witnessed among academically trained students is a tendency to assume
that art must have some type of message embodied in the imagery, as if all
visual and plastic arts were narratively structured and dominated by verbally
derived philosophies. i suppose i am concerned that computer art will push
non-verbal and non-textual art aside.
enough enough. a bad virus is luring me into fevered ramblings. melynda
p.s. dave, could you tell us what aesthetics you value as an artist who uses
computers? what you write is cogent. write more please.
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mel...@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
Matthew Lewis
>
>Well, I have a problem with most computer art that I've seen so far:
>It is often dominated by the 'gee whiz' factor. i.e. Look what I can do
>with the power of the computer. Not, look how a computer helps me achieve
>my intentions.
There is a strange phenomenon in computer art however that seems
fairly unique to the medium: given two equally talented artists
(whatever that means) the artist with more money has a *radically* better
chance of making better art. Doesn't work that way in oil painting.
This is not to say that someone cannot make a better work on a Mac+ than
on an SGI Onyx, just that it's much easier with more magic at your disposal.
Karl Sims, for example, has begun the ground work for some very interesting
areas of art generation/computational creativity. But only those with
a connection machine need apply. What would Harold Cohen be creating,
I wonder, given Karl's computing power?
Good "intentions" are easier to come by in computer art than the hardware
(and software) to implement them on.
--
Matthew Lewis
mle...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
tshe...@cc.curtin.edu.au
Surely Computer Art or any other Art is only Art because of its
'accredited artistic value'. The medium is secondary and dependant
mostly on its appropriateness to a given discourse that the artist
is engaged in. If one wanted to designate a description to what
constitutes computer art then one would have to acknowledge that
the 'accredited art' could only have been produced via a
computer. Therefore it becomes 'Computer Art'.
The challenge to anyone working in this medium is to create work that
can in turn challenge the very essence of what we acknowledge to be
art today. In other words, much of the critical art theory of today
does not address the aesthetic of tommorrow. That being the case
crital analysis of say an exhibition of inter-active VR work is
based on pre-silicon mentality and in fact is rooted in the pomp
and ceremony enjoyed by most third rate painters still enjoying
a free ride in todays materialistic object based society.
Direction depends on a point of view .... any point of view !
Marius Ibenhardt Watz
> There is a strange phenomenon in computer art however that seems
> fairly unique to the medium: given two equally talented artists
> (whatever that means) the artist with more money has a *radically* better
> chance of making better art. Doesn't work that way in oil painting.
Although I agree with you that this is a general trend, this also depends on
the ingenuity of the artist. There is definitely a large room for garage
computer artists, if they are willing to work hard enough for it. Money
might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to back it up,
but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity. This will be even
more true when people get bored with flashy show-off graphics and computers
get cheaper.
> Karl Sims, for example, has begun the ground work for some very interesting
> areas of art generation/computational creativity. But only those with
> a connection machine need apply. What would Harold Cohen be creating,
> I wonder, given Karl's computing power?
Karl Sims is undoubtably a clever fellow, and I respect him for his
work. However, I can imagine a few people whose creativity would
be boosted by a flood of brute force computing power. My own, for example.
Ha ha, only serious.
Nevertheless, there are workarounds. A lot is achieved by reaching
for the attainable rather than those high-flying pies. After reading
about Latham & Todd's work I was really keen on using genetic algorithms
to create 3D forms myself. However, seeing as rendering a frame with
several complex forms would take hours even though I have access to
average Unix boxes, I realized that the interactive process the genetic
approach relies on would be virtually non-existant.
Instead I have settled for developing tools that allow to
me to generate some rather interesting shapes. I use the free
raytracer POV, which can be compiled on any platform and has an
interface well-suited to programming. I lose the genetic approach,
but I can't afford not to. Yet.
My point is that a lot of artists would be better off coping with what
they have rather than whining about it. Those who cope and still
produce intriguing work have a much better chance to survive the winds
of change that sweep like hurricanes across the ripe field of computing.
If an artist relies on an excess of processor power to sustain his
work, his base is a weak one.
> Matthew Lewis
> mle...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu
> Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Marius
mar...@ifi.uio.no
Jonathan Herbert
: In article <1993Sep27....@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>, mle...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Matthew Lewis) writes:
: > There is a strange phenomenon in computer art however that seems
: > fairly unique to the medium: given two equally talented artists
: > (whatever that means) the artist with more money has a *radically* better
: > chance of making better art. Doesn't work that way in oil painting.
Actually, it would be hard to define "better art", but nonetheless, the artist
with more money always has access to better materials, be it an Indigo 2
running Barco Creator, or the finest hand ground paints and Belgian linen.
The "better" the artist, the better use the artist will make of batter
materials.
: {stuff deleted} Money
: might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to back it up,
: but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity. This will be even
: more true when people get bored with flashy show-off graphics and computers
: get cheaper.
There is an insidious covert statement here that by wanting to purchase the
most powerful algorithms, the most intelligently thought out bases for
rendering, selective ray-tracing, or the ability to quickly, and intuitively,
manipulate moderately large files, one is falling prey to fashion and that
one who works with these materials is shallow and merely flashy. This is
yet another repetition of the poverty is necessary for the soul of the true
artist crock sold by liars.
: My point is that a lot of artists would be better off coping with what
: they have rather than whining about it. Those who cope and still
: produce intriguing work have a much better chance to survive the winds
: of change that sweep like hurricanes across the ripe field of computing.
: If an artist relies on an excess of processor power to sustain his
: work, his base is a weak one.
I applaud your statement that whining is not a positive action. Working
is even better than coping, however. An artist may rely on the power of
a workstation to sustain 'his' work, and yet have a foundation in art tech-
niques and aesthetics. 'He' may even have a soul and a vision.
Olm
>: {stuff deleted} Money
>: might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to back it up,
>: but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity. This will be even
>: more true when people get bored with flashy show-off graphics and computers
>: get cheaper.
jona...@echonyc.com (Jonathan Herbert) writes:
>There is an insidious covert statement here that by wanting to purchase the
>most powerful algorithms, the most intelligently thought out bases for
>rendering, selective ray-tracing, or the ability to quickly, and intuitively,
>manipulate moderately large files, one is falling prey to fashion and that
>one who works with these materials is shallow and merely flashy. This is
>yet another repetition of the poverty is necessary for the soul of the true
>artist crock sold by liars.
This interpretation of the quoted text strikes me as grossly
inaccurate, probably motivated by some sort of insecurity.
Who on earth was talking about "poverty and the soul of the true artist"?
The link between professionalism/"quality" and the expensiveness of
computer systems most certainly exists and has an enormous impact on
the kind of work being produced. Lev Manovich discussed these simple
facts quite eloquently in a recent-ish `Design Issues'. If you're
a nerd that considers criticism to be "whining", you probably haven't
read any - that's OK. You probably think that the version number of your
image synthesis/manipulation program determines the artistic merit of
its output, too.
>I applaud your statement that whining is not a positive action. Working
>is even better than coping, however. An artist may rely on the power of
>a workstation to sustain 'his' work, and yet have a foundation in art tech-
>niques and aesthetics. 'He' may even have a soul and a vision.
blah, blah, blah... go and dig up a ten-year-old book on 'computer art',
if you can find one that hasn't been trashed, then tell us whether
'computer power' has made pen-plotter doodles and oscilloscope dumps
any more interesting. (If you can only find a 5-year-old book, substitute
with 'mandelbrot set'.)
Marius Ibenhardt Watz
In article <28llg9$g...@echonyc.com>, jona...@echonyc.com (Jonathan Herbert) writes:
> Marius Ibenhardt Watz (mar...@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
> : {stuff deleted} Money
> : might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to back it up,
> : but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity. This will be even
> : more true when people get bored with flashy show-off graphics and computers
> : get cheaper.
> There is an insidious covert statement here that by wanting to purchase the
> most powerful algorithms, the most intelligently thought out bases for
> rendering, selective ray-tracing, or the ability to quickly, and intuitively,
> manipulate moderately large files, one is falling prey to fashion and that
> one who works with these materials is shallow and merely flashy. This is
> yet another repetition of the poverty is necessary for the soul of the true
> artist crock sold by liars.
Hmmm... "sold by liars"?
My opinions are free when I post them on the net, and I prefer to think
that I'm not a liar. I get a feeling that you aren't doing me much
justice by your response, nevertheless I will adress your points
without the sulphur level going critical.
If there was a covert statement in my article stating that having access
to good(and expensive) equipment is equivalent to being a flashy artist
lacking on substance, it must have been more covert than I usually am.
I know as well as anybody that having access to powerful equipment is
a major boon for the creativity and the abilitity to realize computer
art. I have access to more than moderately powerful equipment(workstations,
an SGI Indigo 2 and some Mac Quadras), and I still feel hampered by the
equipment I use. In fact, often a trade-off in quality is necessary to
get work done at all.
It is not my point to claim that suffering(i.e. in this context: not
having access to the neatest computers) is good for the moral substance
of a budding artist. In fact, it often cuts that bud before it even gets
near the act of flowering. If I had access to hardware that could render
a 1000+ 3D objects in a few minutes, my work would probably progress by
leaps and bounds(assuming, of course, that I'm any good in the first
place). It would allow me to realize more of the potential inherent in
abstract 3D graphics. I would be able to explore the pathways of genetic
art that have so far been closed to me.
I'm no stranger to working within limits, and I would hesitate to say
that it has improved the quality of my work. That would be lying.
But I still feel that a good computer artist will work with what's
accessible. It is quite possible to create art within the limits of
a four color CGA display. It's hard, but it's possible. My real point
is that just as the clothes don't make the man, equipment don't make
the artist. In fact, there *are* pitfalls...
An example: The KPT PowerTools set of plug-ins for Photoshop has gotten
a lot of attention among Photoshop users, and rightly so. I use it a
lot, as it gives an edge in trying to avoid that classic "Made by
Photoshop" feel. However, a lot of KPT users are falling right into
the trap of using the filters in a very obvious way. Recent examples
include the staff of the excellent "Wired" magazine, where glass lens
effects abound in the latest issues. This is a major turn-off to
someone in the know(it is to me, anyway), and provides a good example
of a powerful tool actually undermining its own effect. It's easy to
do, and requires conscious use to avoid.
A powerful tool or machine is not enough to create good art and design,
the human factor prevails. Anyone working with powerful equipment
should be aware that that power alone will not make them better artists.
And while expensive equipment has never hindered anyone in creating
art, there is always the danger that the temptation of creating flashy
graphics becomes too great...
Anyway, I think this argument will lose a lot of it relevance as
processing power grows cheaper and people get jaded with the use
of powerful but overused effects like morphing, flying logos and
the like.
Marius
mar...@ifi.uio.no
Matthew Lewis
>
> Money might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to
> back it up, but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity.
Hrmm. That's true, but, given roughly the same level of skill and
creativity, in CG, the kid with the most money wins. Hands down. By
an order of magnitude. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm just
saying it's much more true in computer art than in any non-digital medium.
>I realized that the interactive process the genetic
>approach relies on would be virtually non-existant.
>Instead I have settled for developing tools that allow to
>me to generate some rather interesting shapes.
If you had access to better hardware (and better software) you'd be
able to do the same work you're doing now, but you'd be able to
evaluate and modify at a much faster rate. Your work would improve,
as a result.
>If an artist relies on an excess of processor power to sustain his
>work, his base is a weak one.
If an artist relies on *any* one thing to sustain his work, his base
is probably a weak one, true. But given a work that has some merit,
the more computing power I have, the more variations I'll be able to
explore, the better my rendering will be, etc...
How about this? The quality of an individual computer artist's work
is proportional to their ability to experiment,
is proportional to their available computing power,
is proportional to their available monetary resources.
In the more traditional "fine" arts, ability to experiment is not
nearly as related to monetary resources. For a few thousand dollars,
if one had the skill, (which comes from experience i.e.
experimentation) one could experiment as freely as the most
internationally recognized leaders.
Not so in computer graphics.
-M
--
Andy Pearlman
>In article <1993Sep30.2...@ifi.uio.no> mar...@ifi.uio.no (Marius Ibenhardt Watz) writes:
>> Money might provide the most fashionable tools and the horsepower to
>> back it up, but in the end it boils down to skill and creativity.
>Hrmm. That's true, but, given roughly the same level of skill and
>creativity, in CG, the kid with the most money wins. Hands down. By
>an order of magnitude. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm just
>saying it's much more true in computer art than in any non-digital medium.
Sort of. When you get into animation, it is *extremely* true. Just try
running a quicktime movie on a Classic, let alone anything approaching Beta or
D1, or Film.
But for two-d graphics, the hard part for me, because I typically use a Mac,
is laying down the base. Once I get to a certain point with a given artwork,
I either A) keep going, or B) abandon it completely. I'm sure I'd spend a lot
more time working up the failures to passable. I might become a better artist
and my output would increase. However, you do learn how to spot what is
going right and what is going wrong much faster with a slower computer. You
can afford to be sloppy on a faster computer.
Andy Pearlman
Eugene N. Miya
In article <CDxJw...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Dave Poindexter
<poind...@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
>Let me pose this observation and question for a starter.
>As photography and later film developed as fine art mediums, they
>borrowed the aesthetics and often the techniques of other, more
>established mediums. As they matured, new aesthetics and techniques
>were developed which differentiated them from earlier mediums.
>
>Currently, computer art borrows much from photography, film and video.
>Does anyone think that computer art needs new aesthetics, techniques
>and methods of display to mature into a universally recognized fine
>art medium, unique in itself?
First my biases: Semi-professional photographer. I nearly married into
a family of four generations of artists. My almost father-in-law is the
chairman of a well known art department, but is apparently distinguished in
his own right as is his wife an artist. I took the usual required GE class
and had a very nice class on the history of modern art (so I have some
appreciation). Dad was an architect (not a great one, but he worked with
Richard Neutra). Took a class in that. Now my real biases: I'm a computer
hacker, I try to understand computer systems: networks, computer graphics.
I ran (was the President of a SIGGRAPH Chapter, the best in my opinion).
We started a series of very good discussions on a new computer aesthetic.
We had the equivalent of net discussions except face to face (all the
"I can't understand this." in the open). It was fun. These were
held at the SF Art Institute with people from places like Silicon Valley
to Lucasfilm. I gave out copies of the f/64 Manifesto at one meeting.
Unfortunately, TIGA as we called it, didn't catch on save two SIGGRAPH
panel sessions.
I think most computer art is far too visually based. That's because
artists are groping for a medium. Correction, call them computer painters.
We don't have many computer scuptors. Computers are too expensive for most
artists. That has to be acknowledged. The visual bias is merely an artifact
of our sensory apparatus.
While photography is an accessible media to many, I think we forget it
completely changed the art field. It put thousands of painters out of work.
I think the emphasis on photo-realism in computer graphics which essential
for some engineering and science, and useful for its own computer
science sake is like the Turing test in that it tries to fool humans.
Fooling humans has limited application. But I think this shows where
the real computer "art" of the future will come. The painters, the sculptors
etc. aren't going to like this.
I went five years as a SIGGRAPH member and officer and ex-officer and the
computer generated imagery was boring, dull. We have our own in-jokes:
just another set of flying logos. And then one evening, we had a speaker
on a panel who combined imagery with artificial intelligence. It was barely
AI, very crude, but it the effort which counted in my opinion. I recommended
this woman as a Hackers Conference attendee with my highest rating (behind
two physicists and a computer scientist). This woman represented the
balance that I think the real future in computer art will be: software
systems, not mere imagery. She works at Lucasfilm, now, and I suspect she
will do some interesting things. She is clearly very talented.
The important thing is to involvment of the viewer/audience with the art
and she has some very interesting ideas. I hope she does well, and I also
hope she someday attends our Conference.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from name server): Address family not supported by protocol family
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Matthew Lewis
>blah, blah, blah... go and dig up a ten-year-old book on 'computer art',
>if you can find one that hasn't been trashed, then tell us whether
>'computer power' has made pen-plotter doodles and oscilloscope dumps
>any more interesting.
I was paging through an 18 yr old one recently (Davis: untrashed).
"Sin-curve man", made in the late 60's, was still quite interesting.
Are you implying that all computer art of ten years ago was worthless?
What was your point about computer power?
-M
--