Preserved Topic: Is it Art (Page 1 of 2)

pulled this off of Slashdot. I think the problem is listening to art critics from such cultural mecca's as Little Rock and Glasgwo what are your opinions?

As a young artist and a computer geek, I am interested in converging the two fields of study. I had an art show in Little Rock, Arkansas last year of computer-generated art, but it was very poorly received. The art critics there claimed that computer-generated art was not a 'fine art' but more of a graphic design, regardless of the quality of the work. I have received the same response from art professors here in Mississippi, and from other schools (such as students from Glasgow School of Art in Scotland)." So what makes something art exactly? Does having a computer between artist and object somehow detract from the results?

"These responses come from (in my opinion) ignorance about computer graphic programs as a valid art medium, and a lack of vision as to the possibilities of computer graphics as an art form. Movies such as Shrek and Final Fantasy are bringing the medium more and more into the public eye, but not necessarily into the art world.

My question is: am I alone in believing that computer-generated work is valid field of fine arts? If not, has anyone else had similar experiences of attempting to push computer-graphics as an art form and then met with resistance? What are the slashdot community's thoughts on computer graphics as an art form in general? Is it a medium which will be forever banned from acceptance as an art form, or are there ways to push the medium into the field of art?"



Walking the Earth like Kane

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 06-26-2001).]

I dunno about all that but I think it's art. Matter of fact, I wanted to be a 'fine' artist when I left high school, I never really had art lessons, I had some drawing lessons from a teacher in high school but I was never taught painting techniques. I figgered paint is the accepted medium and I oughta do that. There is definite skill and techniques to be LEARNED if you want to be a whiz with oils. I learned quickly that good drawing skills were nothing in the world of oil paints and frankly I didn't know where to turn for instruction.

Ten years later a friend shows me a copy of PS 3 and I begin thinking that I could do something with that. By version 5 I had a copy and started LEARNING the techniques and tools available. I sit here now all atwitter waiting for me Intuos to arrive. I believe that with a 'pencil' in hand and the palette available through Photoshop I can give release to the things that have been in my head for years that I'd given up hope on. Cool I say, and if you tell me my art ain't art when I'm done whippin it out, I may punch you in your nose.

Is it a crutch? Mebbe. Is it art? definitely.

Jason

I'm not out of high school, and don't want to be a painter for a living but I have taken many art classes. From basic sketching to oils none of the classes ever mentioned computer as art. There were discussions and many teachers and some of the more... energetic students were outraged that anyone would even think of it. Most felt that art came from the artist and expressed their emotions and that somehow u couldn't do that with a mouse and clicking... maybe we should get paintbrushes with touchscreens... anyways I think computer generated stuff is art in its own right but that computer generated and oils don't go together cause their 2 diff mediums.

As ACO said ..art comes from the artist and expresses their emotions.

Matters not one iota whether its computer, oil, acrylic, chisel, wood, stone, paper, cork, canvas,or voice.

Art is art. It`s not defined by the tools. IMHO



I hate it when people assume I`m stupid.

At least give me a chance to prove it.

I bet if you did something up in PS, then printed it, reception might get better.

I think that art critics had the same initial resistance to airbrushed art as being 'more related to graphic design' but few could argue that some of the stuff that noah is cranking out is fine art.

Art Critics are a different breed. Its said that those who cant do teach, well I think that those who cant do or teach become critics. I can think of few things more vile and repulsive than listening to some arrogant critic pontificate on the neo-classical inspirations of a piece of art, some talk just to hear their heads rattle.

"PAINTING, n: The art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather and exposing them to the critic."
-Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary

In the end the art is yours, if its widely accepted or even accepted at all is not very relevant, art is so much more personal and viceral than that. Just make it and if people are paying hundreds of millions for it long after you're dead then you have become a successful artist. Just take comfort in the fact that you're artistically inclined in the first place, screw the critics.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude."
-Nietzsche




[This message has been edited by moaiz (edited 06-26-2001).]

I once saw a toilet mounted on wheels and painted in camouflage. It was displayed in a gallery along with a tower of 3-inch nuts welded together. This was considered art.

To accept things like this and not a well executed, imaginitive and moving image created using a mouse and/or stylus is sad.

Paintbrush, arc welder, hammer, video camera, voice, body, thread and needle, computer...they're all just tools. It's what you do with them that counts. Hell, one of my favorite artists is Andy Goldsworthy who creates beautiful works from natural elements -- stones, leaves, twigs, ice. They're just things you find in a field, but he can arrange them into captivating creations.

I think it's appropriate in the face of this relatively new medium to remember the denunciatory opinions of many painters on the subject of photography as an art form during its birth.

"...Art is art. It`s not defined by the tools. IMHO"

Mine also.

"...Just take comfort in the fact that you're artistically inclined in the first place, screw the critics."

Yes and yes again!

nj

uhh.. this may be a stupid question, but what IS the difference between art and graphic design?

Commercial? ALL art is commercial..... right?

...and the Glasgow School of Art rocks! I love the Mackintosh(s)!

Is the rainwear really that good, lotiss?

I suppose I'm going to be the odd man out on this discussion.

I personally, don't consider computer-generated an art actual art. Being a talented drawer and painter, I can appreciate the talent needed to create files in Photoshop or other image editing programs. I'm not going to lie, it does take a lot of skill to work these programs. I don't think the lack of skill is the issue here, I believe it's are you actually creating the work. The answer? Of course not. The computer is creating the work you ask it to. The trick is figuring out how to ask in the right way. Let's face it, when applying a gradient, you don't actually apply each color and blend them together, you select two colors and tell the computer where you want to apply it. In the real art world, you don't have things such as plug-ins and you can't type in your own text. You can't copy and paste. To me, programs such as Photoshop is like telling a talented painter exactly what to paint. You can tell him the create a sky with different colors and add the clouds in another color, but does that mean YOU'VE actually created anything? Again, of course not.

The computer just does too much of the work for me to consider the 'artist' still doing it and consider it an 'art' form.


I do however, have pretty traditional standards when it comes to art. The toilet bowl, described in bit's passage, would not classify as art for me. Neither would movies, newspapers, magazine and book illustrations, etc. I don't consider most modern day music where computers are involved or electricity is really used art. A lot of the books I read today I could never bring myself to considering it art. To me art belongs on a canvas, stone, etc. , not a computer screen.


.sig by Weadah.

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 06-26-2001).]

docilebob stole my answer.

~blames DB too~

everybody needs a swamp bear

Hey, Jestah, that was my toilet reference. I don't make toilet references that often and would like to be credited with them when I do. :P

Anyway, as for your gradient example, I could say the same thing about a painter's brush. Does a painter create every little color in-between? Of course not. He chooses two colors and the brush blends them for him.

And your logic is a little flawed when you say, "programs such as Photoshop is like telling a talented painter exactly what to paint." You're adding a sentient being in the middle there -- one person telling a painter what to paint. Well, when I use a computer, I don't tell an artist what to put on the screen for me; I do it myself using unintelligent and uninspired tools. I, the artist, am telling the software what to do, the same as a painter tells his brushes what to do. Saying a computer creates an image for me on it's own is like saying a sketch artist says he wants an oak tree and his charcoals dance for him.

I mean, take a look at Doc's front page. Could a computer have come up with that image by itself? No. Did Doc simply say, "Computer, create a mesh ball with fire coming out of it", and it was so? Don't be silly. But, you seem to be implying that the computer did all the work for him.

Sure, the computer, like the brush, blends two colors together -- but what told it which colors to use, where the gradient should go, how it should blend with the other elements in the image, whether the gradient was necessary in the first place, what texture should go on top of it, whether that texture looks good, what angle it should be applied, and on and on, ad infinitum?

Personally I'd think that it's not the tools you use, but how you use them that defines art.

I think the professors mentioned in this post are soon going to be proven horribly wrong.
Also I'd hate to tell the animators at Pixar or the producers of the new Final Fantasy movie that what they are doing isn't "art"


Walking the Earth like Kane

ha silence... got that one but noooo I wasn't referring to a rain coat

Hasn't rained in SD in months.... neeener neener neeeener

OOOHHHH
I like this topic........i spent years trying to convince oil painters that airbrush art was fine art......took a long time to convince that crowd differently........same here.

I love digital art but it gets no respect in the real world....yea its great for advertising..blah-blah-blah

the bottom line is computers have replaced craftsman and computer generated art is now saving money in the industry not building up reputations for fine art.

Most people think the computer stays up all night long and does your work for ya.....ouch....

A funny thing is happening though.........computer art is making my hand done airbrush work more valuable because its done by hand...........coool

my digital stuff blows away my freehand stuff but the difference is in technology.........i cant cut and paste or delete an airbrush stroke........makes pulling off a real nice piece very difficult...And that is what makes it collectable...sometimes its the not so straight lines that give something style........not the perfection you can achieve in PS.....How hard is it to copy past an image and reverse it.................well try painting something on oposit sides of a box and see how hard it is to paint left to right and then right to left..............

In PS you can cover a ton of ground where in the real world you struggle to keep things progressing

Some day digital will be excepted but right now its.....advertising and internet only crowd...................................




[This message has been edited by DocCyber (edited 06-26-2001).]

Well gotta give credit where credit is due and its due for Wes, good toilet reference

Anyway, I don't think Wes was getting what I was saying. Of course when you use Photoshop you aren't telling another artist to paint the image for you. You move your cursor over where you want to be selected, click the button and the computer selects what you've asked it to. You then move your cursor over the paint bucket and click the button and the computer picks up the paint bucket. You then move the cursor over your selected area and click down once more and the computer applies the color. If that's not telling the computer what to do and having it carry out the work, I don't know what is. I realize the actual thinking is being done by the user, but the bulk of the work is being carried out by the computer.


Doc I agree with ya 100%


.sig by Weadah.

This is a tough debate. I am inclined to agree with Jestah, because I am a studio arts major, and I have a little more respect for traditional art. The problem is that there are generally two ways to judge art... most people judge art by technical skill, but art historians and artists are generally more concerned with the emotive aspects of art. Still others judge art simply by whether they think it's purty.

There is no resolving this debate because art is defined by a person's values. In my case I view art as a visual statement using subtleties that are achieved only through dedicated talent to communicate a unique emotion or thought to the viewer.

By that I mean I don't really consider something art if there was little effort leading up to it. I also don't consider it art if it doesn't reflect something personal about the artist. I don't consider it art if it's done in some attempt to be hip or avant-garde by jumping on an art movement bagwagon and following a formula. I don't consider anything art that's created by someone who is arrogant about their work.

In short you have to be creating for the joy of creation.

This can be done with computers, but it is much much much much much much harder. The reason I say this, is because it's easier to push the limits of somethign simple. You aren't making art until you've mastered your medium, and can then infuse it with creativity to push the envelope. With a pencil, you quickly learn how to make marks with it, and what it's capable of. On a computer there are so many tools, and so many upgrades coming all the time, it's easy to make lots of great looking stuff with just simple techniques. You aren't creating art until you know all your tools so well that all your thought is devoted strictly to the image you are creating.

Graphic Design is not art, because it is fundamentally driven by a practical reason rather than a person's creative drive. I believe that art can be sold, but something can't be art if the artist was thinking about the money while it was being made.



-jiblet

quote:

---

Graphic Design is not art, because it is fundamentally driven by a practical reason rather than a person's creative drive. I believe that art can be sold, but something can't be art if the artist was thinking about the money while it was being made.

---

What about commissioned art? As in painted portraits of the aristocracy? Churches and cathedrals - paintings and stained glass work, etc? I am not trying to be argumentative, really, I don't want to spout off an opinionated rant, I would like clairification? Were not some of the greatest works of art (renaissance) ever created either advertisements (for god) or done to pay the rent, as in just strictly for the money?


... and someone will now have to break the news to Fred Durst that he is NOT an artist....

since using a computer to create something is not considered art.. what about photography? i mean, you use a little box and press a little button. but many people consider what Ansil Adams does is art.

when we did a study on "art" in my 12th grade english class, it included painting, music, and film (and something else.. i forget, that was 8 years ago).

this is not art??: http://www.dreamshadow.net/gallery-digi.htm

------
this rose has a thorn...

I'll be brief.

I've sold pieces of my 100% digital work at galleries around town here in Denver. It's art. End of story. I'm not selling a web design printed on paper and framed--I'm doing art.

lotiss. That's a very good point. And like I said, there is no clear definition.

What I would say though, is this, if someone is truly an artist they can take a very specific commission and make a great work of art out of it. It's all in the artist. The money thing doesn't have anything to do with it per se. There was plenty of shitty painting done in the renaissance for money, but we just don't remember it cuz it sucked

The point where it gets tricky is when someone has unbelievable technical skill but doesn't try very hard because they don't have to. In those cases work gets created that looks like fine art, but i would argue that it isn't unless the artist has great personal involvement. Once again, this definition doesn't work for everybody (or anybody but me probably).

To distill my previous thoughts down, the simplest way I can define an artist is someone who is dedicated to the PROCESS of creating art, and not the ends of BEING an artist. Obviously everyone has ends that they are hoping to reach (money, fame, glory, etc), but if that's what's in your head while you are creating, your work will be hollow and false regardless of technical skill.

-jiblet

Twitch^, the fact that you sold it doesn't make it art. The local store can sell computer paper and people will buy it, does that make it art?

For all of you claiming that the computer does not do the work for you, that you do it yourself, do you also people that using 3rd Party Plugins (Eye Candy) to create an image is art? It really is the same thing.


.sig by Weadah.

Plug-ins are tools.

If you select a different brush, does that mean you're not creating art?



[This message has been edited by Jeni (edited 06-27-2001).]

Jestah, lets put it this way. That sig of yours was done on a computer. however you didn't make it. Why not?

Did Wead make it because he's better with Photoshop?
I think not. I'd say because he was the better artist. However it's not art? hmmm.


P.S. I'm not knocking you, I can't design worth a lick either.


Walking the Earth like Kane

All this discussion has definitely touched on but not covered the topic of art vs. decoration. As time progressed in human society and as classes, heirarchy, and social status became more defined such individuals of the higher castes sought to embelish their homes with expensive pieces of culture to display their status. Painters, notice as they were not referred to as artists, began to lay down renditions of objects on canvas: windmills, apples, other various still life, that the rich decorated their homes with. Now at the same time such artists as Rembrandt were producing beautiful pieces showing people. This could be considered art as it was not meant to decorate a home and define status through material posession. However throughout history the more endowed families would hire painters to produce portraits to hang in their homes to show that they could afford such a thing and display status. Same went for photography, the rich had their portraits taken as photography was evolving to show they could afford it, and even today photographs are taken more often not as a piece as of its own per se but of a visual aroma in homes. So is art determined by intent? Even if the artist intended it to be art it still could be bought and hung in home as a decoration. Is it still art, is it decoration, both? If the buyer intended it to be art, is art in the eye of the beholder? The eye of the creator?

More on the digital vs. traditional or whatever. This also raises the question of photography being art. A camera isn't a paintbrush. You are definitely not making a complete unit all of its own, you took a picture of something else. Is it the view that this was taken as the art, is it the object that is the art. Sort of a devolved arguement would state that any still life isn't art because you are copying something as it exists. So if we are to consider all pieces described, drawn, or photographed from life as art there is no validity in the arguement that tools define art.

Art as found in the dictionary seems only to relate to the so-called artists rendition of his/her shall we say view of whatever as far beauty is concerned. Beauty has been described as to giving a quality of pleasure/pleasantess to the mind or senses. Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Hence art is in the eye of the beholder? Who the fuck is the beholder anyway? Artist - Creator, Viewer, or Owner.

netmosisdotcalm n. - from latin netmosisusdotuscalmus - fuck it all.

[This message has been edited by netmosis (edited 06-28-2001).]

Is Weadah the better artist? Not to sound conceded, but without any training at all, and with much less experience, I'm can probably draw, paint, sculpt, and anything else you can think of better then he. As far as Photoshop goes, none of you, to the best of my knowledge, have ever seen anything I've ever created, but I'm not too shabby myself. However what is Photoshop? It's a program designed by programers to allow someone to draw. You can create perfect images in Photoshop in minutes. They have plugins that actually do the effects for you. There are actions that do entire image for you. To apply lighting in Photoshop, you merely click a button, and choose which numbers look better. You can zoom in to see each pixel to create precise designs. Make a mistake? No sweat, hit undo or consult your History window. To the best of my knowledge, at least I haven't come across it, there is no undo button on a canvas. I can't just apply effects with a push of a button. I don't think there's anyway, aside from getting better eyesight, to zoom in. Where is the actual artistic ability? With proper training and time, how is it possible to not be a Photoshop master. Look at some of the people in this forum. I've only been using Photoshop a year at most, and while I wouldn't really consider myself overly great with it, I can create professional looking designs.

I see where you're going with your post net, but art, as we are referring to, is a physical thing. I think a lot of people confuse it with being an idea or a perspective. It's not something that has to be liked. Whether it's bought or sold is irrelevant, and who's looking at it is irrelevant. People can look at a boat and not like it, but the object is still a boat. A garbage can can float in the ocean. A garbage can can also carry people in it in the ocean, but does it make it a boat? Of course not, it's a garbage can with people in it in the ocean. Just as a piece from Photoshop might be sold in an art gallery, but it doesn't mean it's specially art. Just as I don't consider digital art a serious form of art, I don't consider photography a serious form of art. You can argue that the one taking the photograph is showing his expressions through the camera till you're blue in the face, but when all's said and done he clicked a button and the camera created an exact replica of the image, an exact replica that anyone, no matter the experience level, can create.

Jeni, switching from a round brush to a flat brush is hardly the same as using Eye Candy in Photoshop. When you switch brushes, that doesn't automatically mean you've created fire. You yourself still have to paint it. In a third party plugin, or a tool of Photoshop as you consider it, the tool does the work. There's no point in saying ridiculous things as "the brush is really creating the work." The artist uses the brush to create his shapes, the Photoshop user merely clicks "OK."


.sig by Weadah.

ummm...


whatever.


bye.

quote:

---

There was plenty of shitty painting done in the renaissance for money, but we just don't remember it cuz it sucked

---

hee hee... well, maybe the test of time will be the deciding factor in the "is digital art art" argument that seems to be raging outta control 'round here....

...and good for you twitch^! Gallery.. nice!

[This message has been edited by lotiss (edited 06-28-2001).]

Jestah : dont push your luck squirt. you know nothin of mi work.

~LMAO~

~LMFAO~

~LMFFAO~

~ROTFLMFFAO~

Oh...jestah....

~chokes~

Oh man...

Does it hurt?


~lmao~

~calms down~

~wipes tears~

~chuckles again~

Now then, where was I?..Oh yes..talking about tools.....~looks over~.....~chuckles again~

By Jestah's standards then, airbrushing isn't art if you use a mask to set your shapes...especially a prefabbed french curve. You do know what a french curve is, right Michelangelo?

After all, that would be creating the shape FOR the artist.

Of course, if we consider that Weadah does most of his PS artwork using freehand brushes, and no prefabbed marquee shapes, then we have to amend jestah's vision, and say then that a PS artist is actually a real artist, where and airbrush artist would just be letting the tool do it for him.

Of course by that standard, anyone who used prepped and gessoed canvas would be cheating as well. After all, oil work is half the preparation of the surface to hold the seepage and pressures properly. But jestah knew that. So he would do his own gesso layering.

How is the gesso these days, jest?

Jest?

Joke?

hmm.

Maybe it is, at that....maybe it is.

Being the nurse and stuff............

~Leaves pile of band-aids for the spankie session~


~Grabs the mic~ VP......... can we get a mop in here.....Jestah is a spot in the day room floor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But he knew that..........


~Everyone has a right to be stupid. Some just abuse the privilege~



[This message has been edited by Shiiizzzam (edited 06-28-2001).]

*sits in his cell reading Lord of the Rings, hears the siren rip through the West wing... jumps at the noise and explodes into action grabbing the mop and spilling last weeks bucket (often used as drinking/wash/waste water) and rushes off in teh general direction of the soilage* coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wait for me.. ~Vp~

mmm, liver.


but you knew that.

Oh.. I get it, if you don't paint/sketch/draw you can't be an artist. Bout sums this thread up, yes? :yawn:
Ansel Adams was a button clicker.. OK. Actually uh.. for the record, there is a heck of a lot more to photography, and Photoshop for that matter than clicking buttons. Anybody can smear a brush across canvas for cryin out loud.. do it enough and sooner or later you're bound to learn to do it well. Art cannot be determined by the medium imo. The artists will be those that excel with their chosen medium, thus earning the admiration and respect of their peers.

my2¢
-cyoung

DG,

I'm gonna tip toe around the issues as much as possible because we all know once you get offended, we see a 'good bye forever' thread from you, of course it only lasts a good 45 minutes. Maybe you just don't realize who you're replying to, or perhaps you just haven't read my replies. You're so quick to assume you've stumped me with your little french curve challenge. Of course I know what a french curve is. I'm sure you also know that I don't airbrush which also means I don't use a french curve. I'm assuming that was meant for Doc Cyber, not me. He's the one who airbrushes. He's a grown man and does perfectly well defending himself. Anyway, I don't have a comment one way or another about airbrushing. I don't know what I would consider it. One of my art teachers was a damn fine talented airbrusher, who could do things, without any cheap computer tricks mind you, that you could only dream of. You've also assumed that the only differences between traditional art and digital art is 'prefabbed marquee shapes', when I've never said anything of the sort. It's perfectly fine that in Weadah's work he does most of his work by hand, I just choose to do all of my work by hand. If he chooses to use the modern convenience of undo, then who's to stop him. I just prefer not to. If he likes doing things on different layers so he can fix his mistakes, better see what things are going to look like, or whatever other reason, that's alright with me. I just don't consider using those cheats real art. Usually when I paint with oil I use paper rather then a canvas. I do however prime the paper with acrylic gesso primer. Artists who don't do there own gesso layering are hardly any less artists. Regardless of whether you do your own guesso layering or you buy the pre-guessoed canvas, you still are doing the work, rather then a computer doing it. Also, paper and canvas aren't the only places for paint. Sometimes I get creative and I feel like repainting my walls. I did a real nice mural on the wall of the principal staff at my highschool about a month ago.


I'm sure your not swift enough to have actually gotten the point yet, so I'll say it once more. I don't rely upon a computer to do my artwork for me, my hands work fine. You can brag about your Photoshop skills all you want but the truth is it's computer aided. Basically, it's the same argument as hand written code v. editors. You all seem to hate those editors so much you haven't realized your using one. I don't blame you for not seeing it. You rely upon the computer financially, of course you would be biased.

Cyong, have you ever even painted? Anyone can smear paint on some canvas? I suppose that's true but can just anyone paint a detailed portrait? Of course not. The real question is can just anyone take a picture with a camera? Let's see, point and click, yup that about sums it up. As far as Photoshop goes, has anyone sat down and thought about why there's so many 'web designers' and 'digital artists' coming out now? It seems everyone owns there own company. Why is that? Anyone can learn html and anyone can master Photoshop.

san some of your stuuf Jestah.. lets see it?

~LMAO~

oh..poor jestah.

you're what now..17?

that means I first picked up linseed oil when you were....spanking off to barbie at the ripe age of five.
What does that mean? Oh...you'll get it..someday.

Now where are those scans, kiddo?

Or will you say "I have nothing to prove" so that you don't have to? I pity you jestah.


but you knew that.

Look around...there's more knowing to do.


~drip drip drip~

Addendum: Thank you for proving a point to a couple friends, by saying that a french curve is only used for airbrushing, jestah. I made a nice buck off that...and they at least got a good chuckle.



[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 06-28-2001).]