Preserved Topic: How do we as artist?? (Page 1 of 1)

How do we as artist Bridge the gap between computer generated art and the traditional methods that are intrenched in our society.

This is a big topic right now in traditional camps as they see war coming with the computer generated artist.
They see there livly hood in the traditional sense challenged.

What are your experiences and thoughts on what we should do to educate the art community.

Im in the middle.........i love digital art but there isnt enough money there ....and im a traditional artist that knows the difference between a hand painted object and a printed object.........and there is a ton of money in the traditional.

I was able to retire at 45 because of traditional art..........could i have done that with digital?.

This is an important subject....anyone feel the digital discrimination or is the digital world healthy........what are your thoughts..........

Here are my thoughts-scattered as they may be:

I don't think digital art has the stigmatism that you keep referring to.

Why would the so-called "traditional" artist feel threatened by the digital artist if digital art isn't respected as you imply?

Those personal feelings towards digital art being inferior are just that. I see plenty of digital work being done and sold in galleries and online. I took art history classes in school not 4 years ago and they covered digital art. It doesn't seem to be looked down upon as you suggest. Bottom Line-I just don't share your opinion.

I would like to add that I've noticed a decline in graffitied cars since the seventies , so maybe it is affecting other "arts" as well. Glad you retired early if that's the case

Jen in the circles i run.......and thats a big circle.
You do meet a lot of interesting people in 30 years of selling art.

Digital vs traditional is a big deal.

you need to travel in traditional circles to hear whats going on behind closed doors.

And please dont take my post as bragging....i just state facts.
Plus if there are artist here who would like to retire early and would like to know someone has..... well.....thats why i post.

Not everyone gets offended with my post.in fact there are a few of you here who have emailed me on how i did it....its not that hard to do in todays market.

I was just wondering if you all are hearing things based on digital being fine art . Cause im hearing different opinions.

Im not looking at this topic from anything but past discussions ive had with this board and a few other boards on this subject.

Go to a traditional artist billboard and ask them if you can show some digital art in there forums..OUCH

the hate mail will roll in.......anyone

Jen ....also the graffitti cars are actually on the comeback as well as the full blown murals.......nice to see the 10 year cycle return.

It used to be just an american thing hot rods.now its world wide.
right now Australia is en-joying a custom boom.

just thought id open a thread to see what the digital guys think.



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

Jeni, I think you're wrong when you say digital arts inferiority is only Doc' opinions. I realize most everyone in this forum has an extremely biased view on this, seeing how pretty much everyone is a digital artist, but most of the art world and world as well view digital art as inferior. While I don't hangout in the same circles as the Doc does, I do hangout with mainly traditional artists, since I paint. I still get ridiculed for using Photoshop. The price of art brought up yet again is another factor. You don't seen many jpg's created in Photoshop going for a few million, and theres a reason for that.


.sig by Weadah.

quote:

---

...Those personal feelings towards digital art being inferior are just that.

---

I wasn't referring to any individuals.

quote:

---

most of the art world and world as well view digital art as inferior

---

How do you know what the world thinks?

People create fine art digitally and sell it and make money. It doesn't seem to be a problem. What you or your painter friends think of it is irrelevant IMHO. Art is subjective. So is subject matter. Porno Mags aren't well-revered in the media industry, so? What difference does that make? People still like and they buy.
You're never gonna find anything that everyone respects. It just wont happen. I'm saying I don't think there's this stigmatism on digital art that is being portrayed here.

Doc's question was how to overcome the stigmatism. And my response is: You don't. And it doesn't matter. You still create what you want for whatever you want and there it is. Call it what you want. It doesn't matter. It's shown in galleries. It's sold. It's displayed in your home.

That is all I have to say about that.


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

I'd like to note that "artist" is singular..... while "artists" would be the plural form.

This kind of argument extends to a lot more than just art. Jeni is right that your never gonna find something that everyone likes and respects, but Doc is right that the art world looks down on digital art.

Traditional artists probably don't like digital art because you can achieve certain effects far too easily, it's really that simple. Of coures they are gonna have disdain for 16 year old kids creating beautiful atmospheric landscapes in 5 mins in a program like Bryce when after 30 years of painting, they can not achieve something that realistic.

The layman doesn't know the difference, so they will likely be just as impressed by the Bryce rendering since they don't know what goes into it. It's one thing to get replaced by someone who is better than you, but another thing entirely to get replaced by someone who has none of your skills, just a better tool.

Jeni's right that there is nothign to be done about this though. If you need to get everyone's approval to feel good about what you're doing then you're in the wrong profession.



-jiblet

Hmm..any of you ever heard of Dave McKean?

McKean has produced some of the richest mixed media pieces of the last 20 years. He's a devout photoshopper, who, like me, uses old media in his work to blend them.

McKean's original printed pieces go for hundreds of thousands, even though they are digital constructs at the base. They are produced on drum presses after his PS files are completed. He has representation deals through his gallery that validate the "original" print, and then the lithographs.

Contrary to what's said here, the reason that most "digital" art isn't sold as high priced as traditional media, is two-fold. The first is that the concept of an "original" goes to shit when you realize that the original is a collection of data, able to be printed out in flawless quality repeatedly. People pay millions for a Picasso original..they pay 6 bucks for a printed poster of it.

The second reason is that Quality Digital Art is a new genre. Take a trip back through the cubist period, and observe who was making money. The realists, even the modernists..but the cubists were new. Breaking ground, but not appreciated for it. Did it make it any less art? That's subjective.

As for "art circles" I will be the first to say that I don't...travel in DocCyber's circles. However, I DO travel in fine art circles, and I've been painting and illustrating since years before I ever touched an Adobe product. There is a stigma around digital art...as there's a fear that the fine artist will be replaced by someone who can recreate the effect with less effort. Or, on the flipside, they are scared because an emerging artform is far beyond what they've done before, and they are unable to adapt...or think they will be.

I'm a large proponent of natural media. I think that anyone touching a graphics program should have to learn with charcoal first...however that doesn't stand in the way of new media progression.

The idea that there's no money in digital design is just blatantly foolish, though, so I won't be debating that. All mediums have their highlights, and drawbacks...settle into your chosen area, and expand beyond it.

A closed mind isn't an artistic one..it's a useless one.

Give it some thought.

Peter

IMHO, as a newbie to all art worlds, ( yes, I took some traditional art classes in college), Art is not defined by the tools used to create it. Nor by the sale price. Most of the famous painters, whose works sell in the millions per piece today, was worthless in their own lifetimes. Does that make it less than art ? No, I don`t think so.
To paraphrase, Art is in the eye of the beholder.
I`ve never seen it personally, but I have heard that people get paid to do some pretty nasty things in the name of " performance art ". Does that make it art ? Only to the people who enjoy it, I guess.
Is the traditional art world looking down on digital art ? Yes, I imagine they are. It`s new , it looks good( when done properly ) and generally speaking, the attitudes associated with " traditional" and "new" are not compatible. Give it time to grow. There`s a new generation coming up, and soon they may be the "traditionalists ". where the catch phrase may be " Yea, it`s a nice piece , but he had to use a brush to do it."

also, all the traditional artists were a product of their time. As will be the artists of the future. Would Da Vinci have liked digital creations ? Who can say, but I kinda think he would have.

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

the overall tone of this bothers me a bit -

so I'd like to add this:

the art is in the making, not in the selling.

but then again maybe that's just me.

agreeing with dl-44, threep comments:
"i know it sounds stupid coming from one who isn't earning a living off art, but does the fact that one may not be able to retire at 45 by doing digital art make it any less a form of art?
Look at repeat performance - i really appreciate the art shown there, yet i haven't paid a cent for it. does that make it any less reputable than 'real' art?"
Deciding to leave his thousand word essay for another day, threep wonders how much respect for his coding abilities the artistic world would have, and decides to start working on his own masterpiece.

I am most definately not an artist in any sense. I am a communicator...sometimes I use code, video, film, photographs, cg images, voice, light, sound, etc to communicate...I am much better at some of those than others of those. That being said, I must say that I come at this from an entirely different point of view than DocCyber, DarkGarden, and many others who EXCEL at producing things of beauty, talent, skill, and hard work.
I have to wonder, however, did similar arguments exist...

when canvas was found to be a fine artistic medium? (real artists only paint on cave walls)
when oil paints were first developed? (real artists crush their own berries)
when the airbrush was invented? (real artists use brushes)
when Warhol painted his soup labels? (real artists don't paint pop culture subjects)
when Picasso painted funny looking people? (real artists paint with realism)

I don't know the answer to those questions...but it makes me wonder.
Where I work, there is a percieved dichotomy between 'technical' people (who use computers) and 'communications' people (who deal with customers). It is thought that the two cannot ever be one. My analogy to those people is this:
There was some point in history when a pencil was new technology. At that time do you think that they had 'writers' and 'people who used pencils'? I doubt it.
I understand that this is not exactly the same...still, it is the perspective from which I come.
Art is Art. Visual Art is Visual Art.
Understanding composition and color and lighting and shadows and perspective, and 1001 other things that I don't pretend to know, is always going to be important...regardless of the medium.

mobrul

Expressions aren't art though. I could get mad and give you the finger, but is my hand now art? Of course not. As I said in the thread going about this art is a physical thing.


.sig by Weadah.

better not tell that to the impressionists.

But then, you knew that.

don't tell picasso either....man he'd be bummed.

but then, your finger is a physical thing. so by his own definition, jestah giving the finger is indeed art.

but, you knew that.

right?

If you were to stick your finger up your ass... Would that be art?


Well, Mayor Giuliani might not think so...

But you knew that.



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

*starts mopping*

but you knew I was gonna do that...... didnt ya? ~Vp~

well....Jestah did anyway

Im not really in worry too much about what it may be called. I create my designs and graphical..things, as a form of expression and enjoyment. Kind of like how much I like to rave. If other people don't think its called art or whatever that want to call it, then so be it. What is art anyways? I express my design through computer, a tool not as simplicitic as a pencil, but a tool to expressing mood much like a poem or painting.

<--self portrait

jestah : You don't seen many jpg's created in Photoshop going for a few million, and theres a reason for that.

____________________________________________________________________


Can I just say, Bill Gates is THE richest man in the world as of todays polls. I'm not saying he does art so don't go there I am saying.... that the online artist....ARE noticed and in demand more everyday.

AND I want to repeat my post from the other thread..... that being....art comes in lots of forms....I don't care who does it or how they achive it.....be it PS....a pencil or pen or crayons.....airbrush...or shrubs by Edward ScissorHands....or you carve a desk out of wood with your tongue....it's stupid to tear it apart and say well if you use a filter it ain't art...... well... making sand castles is a art....they use buckets and tools....go to a art and crafts store.......THEY make lots of money off tools artist use. If someones work is done to make a living.....it's only worth what a buyer is willing to pay.

I bet... you now that

~People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to pick on rich women than biker gangs~

No DL. Sorry I suppose I went too fast for you. When I said art is a physical thing, I wasn't saying that all physical things are art. I was saying there is a general deffiniton to what art is. It's not some vast thing where anything you assume to be art is art. Is that way too far out there for you? I could look for the Dr. Seuss version for you.


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

And he's got it...you just know he's got it.


but he knew that.

Fun reading.........i love digital art and try to convert my traditionalist every chance i get....and surprisingly do.....hehehe

Just wondering what you all are thinking thats all.............Im doing a traditional piece now that has some real cool textures i build using water and etching lacquers........ive been trying to produce the same effect in PS but its been a bitch.

I love the digital art you all do ......... you guys/gals are impressive.

I am teaching my sons digital........they arnt allowed in the chemical shop...:-)................

Also i have mentioned things in my post that might be interpreted wrong..............for instance my retirement....i say that because being an artist isnt all just living as someone who paints and makes a living in art. There is the retirement side of your work........you might not retire from art but you will retire from clients.......how are you going to do that.

I think its important to mention those elements in post so the curiouse have an outlet for certain situations they might find themselfs in and need answeres............this is a help forum correct.

as artist we have other needs for knowledge other then yellow and blue make green.

Does seem that you all are sensing and hearing what im hearing.....

DG you hit the nail pretty hard.........it is a concern that a better art form will come along and make traditionalist craftsman again....:-)..........................then it will be digitals turn to raign........it is inevitable......gonna be cool ta see what it looks like.

I look on this debate as very similar to the debate I can remember back in my school days, concerning Photography as a "real" art form. It was just the machine creating the art, all the photographer had to do was point and shoot! Heh. (Sarcasm. Please, photographers, do not lynch me! You've heard this all before.)

Art is this thing that lives in our heads, the physical manifestation of it is crated using tools of some sort (paint, wood, film, or pixels). Thje biggest issue I see concerning digital art is not the validity of it, or it's "reality", but instead the scarcity issues. If I paint a painting, that's it, there's only the one piece, hence it's rare and potentially valuable (in $$$). A piece of digital art is much more easily copied, and in terms of money each iteration is less "valuable". This is all about ECONOMICS, not about art at all. Art is still art, and the tools we use, just tools.

If our goal as artists is to make money, then working in a media that allows only one copy makes much sense. If our goal is to reach as many millions as possible, then working digitally makes more sense. That being said, I still find much joy in creating physial, one-off works of art, they just make me feel *special*. Someday soon I'll actually have some studio space and start producing some of my creations in large multi-media form, physical stuff you can hang on the wall - that'll be cool, I'll enjoy it and maybe will sell some of them for decent money, maybe not. I'll also continue doing my more "virtual" creations, I like the impact I get with 'em.

Whatever I create, it'll still be "art", by most reasonable definitions.

Your pal, -doc-

oh yes, please...spell it out for me jestah - so far you've been *far* too cerebral for me..


so tell me, what is this thing called art? you obviously have a very definite answer to that question....but for some reason you've been very elusive with it. 'it's a physical thing'

oh....I see.

coincidentally: the light particles emitted by my monitor are a 'physical thing'. if they weren't, well gosh, I wouldn't be able to see them.

so.....I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere......what was it exactly?

-maybe he didn't know......

Well, I live in a household of artists. But, not everyone would see what they do as art.

Arryn: A traditional artist, studies Fine Arts at QCA Uni, Exhibits in many galleries around brisbane.
Nicola: A musical Artist. Studding Music Technology at Griffith Uni. Composes her onw musical art pieces using well, anything.
Luke: A Martial Artist. Has studied over 10 forms of martial arts (I lost count), currently studing some form of Shou Lin Kung Fu.
Me: .... .... humm... A digital Artist and an Illustrator (pen, pencil etc..) My current focus being web design...

Depending on what way you decide to view things everyone could be an artist. On the other hand no one is really an artist wholly and truly.

There isn't a hard fast definition for 'art' I don't care what text book you read it in!

However, what we do need is an art train!! One of my late night discussions with Arryn was about well the Art Train. This train did one thing, moved along it's tracks (what else does a train do). The catch being it was fuelled by art! You put your art in the art engine inside the train and depending on how far the train went was how good your art was. The uses of this seemed a tad pointless at first but when the hours started to get light it just made more and more sense. If we had an art train, we could actually see how much 'art' was in a can of beans compared to xxxxxxxxx oil on canvas. We could then see how much art was in the print compared to the original. We could see how much art was in a digital work compared to a traditional one.

But you see, that would be completely impossible! These is no way of judging an artwork. It's all based on opinions, and opinions are based on social issues, influences and upbringings. But I'm not even going to get into that debate.

Just my view on things....


everybody needs a swamp bear

Lifes experiences will tell you that ignorance and fear run most opposition to change.............and those who speak out against the most are those that havnt done any hands on research.........i find that all the time with my airbrush counter parts.........resistance is futile i tell them..hahahahaha

I think in a wierd sort of way digital is making better artist of us traditionalist......

Being able to change your designs on the fly is awesome to us who have to create in the real world. I can put a nice paint scheme together much quicker for a client then the ol acetate designs on enlarged photo of vehicle days...........wish i had that capability 20 years ago...........man id be spoiled rotten with ideas.

I view art like this....we all have an imagination that needs to be birthed........if we dont give life to our imagination we lose..........so im trying all the time to give birth to images that are in waiting...............:-).....enjoy what ya do you will all have a turn at the wheel of fortune.................

And software has given me another level of ideas that are now in waiting.................i dont know how you all feel but after spending thousands of dollars to play in the digital realm......id like to see some traditionalist that dedicated to there craft...............my spray gun collection wasnt cheap though.......hahaha.........i guess theres expenses in everything....................

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

Erm..maybe a little off topic, but - if I use PS to create an eyecatching design for the cover of a magazine, does that make me a non-artist? Especially considering Warhol painted the Campbell Soup series...
Sorta similar to me..

I guess to me art is just an expression of ideas. You can use PS, but not every image is an art form. Only those that are pleasing to the eye due to the mastery of the techniques of composition, lighting and the rest of it can be counted as art. Anything that is pleasing to the senses to YOU can be called an art form by you.

Be it buildings, sculptures, paintings and yes, even digital images :P

Little off-topic but just an opinion...


Me. Loony. 'nuff said.

Whoa, Shii. Carve a desk out of wood with your toungue.. Can you do that ? Now, that`s performance art !

isth's a thob ... thumebobies dotta do bit. Bedward ScissorHands isth dah MANnnnn

buth it boesn'th beffecth by thongue vat dall


isth art


~If rabbits' feet are so lucky, then what happened to the rabbit?~



[This message has been edited by Shiiizzzam (edited 06-29-2001).]