PDA

View Full Version : Good Topic :)


Excalibur
12-19-2000, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by joemajury:
I had a debate going on in the Cafe and I stated that I thought that Computer manipulation was not art.
Joe

Honestly, I've had that same discussion many times with people. I, too, beleived for a while that digital art was NOT art. But the more I study the tools, the more creativity it seems to exude.

There is a FINE line in digital art which rides the border of being called a Fine Art. The problem with the medium in the present day is the large number of people that are just taking photographs they 'stole' from somewhere and 'collaging' them and adding a few filters to make a peice of artwork. Well, that is NOT art in my oppinion (unless, of course, you have taken the photos yourself). But most have NOT! The other problem is most people have the tendency to go (what I call) 'Filter Happy'. They think that throwing a bunch of filtings together along with a couple 'stolen' images makes a beautiful peice of work. Well, sure it may be beautiful... but it is Art? I tend to disagree.

This is NOT art, and as a matter of fact, this practice is holding back this new medium from being seen as a respectable form of art.

------------------
X
Art Gallery - http://www.xtremegallery.com (http://www.xtremegallery.com)
Web Design - http://www.mysticx.com

Shriner
12-19-2000, 09:54 PM
When photography was invented, it was said painting was dead. Then, people claimed photography was not art. When moving film was invented, it was said it is not art... every new medium, especially when based on a new technology, at the time it is introduced is criticized as not being art. Yet, all of those are considered art forms now.

Every medium, when used in such a way that it simultaneously takes advatage of every aspect of the medium, and also TRANSCENDS that medium, can produce a work of art.

This argument of whether digital imaging is art will be dropped over the years. Instead, it will be treated like every other medium. When done poorly, it is not art, when done in a way that introduces its viewers to a new level that medium can achieve, a new way of seeing, it might attain the lovely little "art" title...

IMHO

------------------
Shriner

TeAnne
12-21-2000, 06:22 AM
If it isn't art then why is it accepted in University as a painting or drawing medium? Why also do they teach this subject as a major or minor? I had an exhibition in 1998 of my digital art and it was accepted and appreciated as such. Why? Because the mouse was my drawing tool.
<IMG SRC="http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/thateley/auv2w4.JPG" border=0> Some of My digital Art (http://members.nbci.com/thateley/lafex.html)

------------------
THE HIT LIST (http://members.iinet.net.au/~fireice/List.html)
Poets utter great and wise things which they do not themselves understand.
Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.), Greek philosopher.

Excalibur
12-21-2000, 01:14 PM
OK, maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that digital art IS ART! The only thing that bothers me is people who take stock photography, add a few filters to it and call it art. Not only that.. but it's stealing (ie, copyright infringement, etc, etc.). Until people avoid that temptation, digital art will remain in the balance. So it's up to the artist to be responsible with the medium.

Help us make digital art a respected FINE ART!!!

------------------
X
Art Gallery - http://www.xtremegallery.com (http://www.xtremegallery.com)
Web Design - http://www.mysticx.com

Kevin M
12-21-2000, 02:52 PM
The artistic and technical excellence of the oldest images made by humans which grace the walls of various caves is not in question. Most of these were executed with fingers and extremely crude implements. If the camera or computer is a questionable art implement then the paintbrush is also suspect.

Shriner
12-21-2000, 08:32 PM
haha... I understand you Excalibur. I am just trying to give you ammo against the arguments that digital art is not art. That agrument will go on for some time to come. I would choose to ignore it and prove it is art by actually CREATING art digitally. Let your art do the talking for you.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Shriner

TeAnne
12-22-2000, 08:30 AM
I do know what you are saying, I just elaborated on (Computer manipulation was not art) because I believe it IS. As is all visual art http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif
I agree on the other, peoples photos being stolen etc. That is a no, no!.

------------------
THE HIT LIST (http://members.iinet.net.au/~fireice/List.html)
I give back what I receive

Excalibur
12-22-2000, 11:44 AM
ok, Kewl... I went back and re-read my original post and thought it was kind of confusing too... so I felt the need to elaborate.

------------------
X
Art Gallery - http://www.xtremegallery.com (http://www.xtremegallery.com)
Web Design - http://www.mysticx.com

digistyle
12-22-2000, 10:36 PM
Using the same criteria (non-original images), would collages cease to be considered original art?

Just playing devil's advocate ;)

Digistyle

Excalibur
01-18-2001, 03:09 PM
aye, good point. honestly, I never liked collages myself but I supposed there must be some merit to it, no? If so, what aspects of a digital work deam it art?

I personally, am a firm beleiver in freedom of expression no matter what medium. But, I have to be honest, that it does drive me nuts to see a painting with 2 strokes of paint on it sport a $10k price tag.

------------------
X
Art Gallery - http://www.xtremegallery.com (http://www.xtremegallery.com)
Web Design - http://www.mysticx.com

digistyle
01-18-2001, 08:35 PM
I have to agree with you there, unless I'm the one getting the $10K http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif

Digistyle

yiotta
01-18-2001, 11:00 PM
I totally agree that digital art CAN be art, but more often than not, I think, it really isn't. The digital tools available to most everyone today have extended the spectrum of 'art' -- there's way more bad stuff than there would be if folks who can't draw actually had to do it the 'old-fashioned' way, but conversely, in the hands of those who are actually talented or who have at the very least taken the time and effort to educate themselves about the basic principles of what makes a good painting or drawing good, there can be some pretty amazing stuff. But if they haven't learned the principles of good composition or visual design, etc., I believe far too many people are mightily impressed with the 'magic' of visual creation on a computer and really proud of their 'achievements,' when it's really just the same old digital cr*p! I call it 'programmer art' (not that all programmers produce that same cr*ppy stuff, but MAN, so many of them do! And it all looks alike -- yawn...).

On the other hand, you have different fingers http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/biggrin.gif -- Ooops -- on the other hand, while I've been working digitally for many years for pay, there ain't nothing like the smell of oils and turpentine, and the physicality of standing at an easel and creating in a large way, if you know what I mean. There's truly, for me at least, a real difference in what happens at an easel versus what happens while sitting hunched up at a computer drawing with my mouse or pen...both in the process and in the result.

------------------
Marilyn

www.inforapenny.com (http://www.inforapenny.com)

"The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable."
- Robert Henri

pixelscapes
01-19-2001, 12:27 AM
Yiotta, I know what you mean about people being obsessed with the "magic" of digital creation. Here's an analogy. Remember how people reacted when electronic music synthesizers first came on the market? Why... all you had to do was press a few keys to make 'music'! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif It eventually matured of course, and some artists matured more quickly than others.

As for digital art ...

Some people don't think photography is "real" art (I do, but this is part of an example). After all, all a photographer does is record a view of the environment, right? Maybe they make some modifications to the view based on exposure time and print methods... but there's not a lot of direct involvement, not always anyway.

Then you get people who say, blanket statement, that ALL digital art is not "real" art. Often this is a reaction to folks who think that all digital art is Photoshop filters (ugh). And yet often those same people accept photography itself as art! Even though digital art can be much more analogous to say, painting, in some cases.

For everybody who says digital art is just computer manipulation, I'd say that painting is just pigment manipulation. If I used a robotic arm that followed my own movements, to paint a picture or make a sculpture from far away, the painting or sculpture would still be "real" art. Similarly if I use a digital tool on the computer to paint something that exists in digital memory, it can still be "real" art.

Of course then people get into discussions of "what is an original", and prints, and... how much work the computer can do for you... all sorts of things. It's very messy conceptually, even if some of us do find solutions.

-=- Jen "DF/X" de la Cruz
http://www.Pixelscapes.com and http://www.BewareOfArt.com

Excalibur
01-19-2001, 01:52 PM
Aye, I totally agree with you yiotta. Graphic design and multimedia is what pays my rent... but there is NO feeling in the world as good as completing the final touches on an oil painting for me.

------------------
X
Art Gallery - http://www.xtremegallery.com (http://www.xtremegallery.com)
Web Design - http://www.mysticx.com

yiotta
01-19-2001, 02:56 PM
Also, I guess another way of looking at digital tools is that they are like 'power' tools for the artist; in the hands of a skilled practitioner, perhaps even more outstanding work can be produced, while in the hands of an -- ah -- let's say amateur, the tools can help them produce even worse stuff than they would have otherwise.

Or as my sweetie says, the tools are agnostic; they don't care whether they are being used for 'good' or 'ill.' http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

------------------
Marilyn

www.inforapenny.com (http://www.inforapenny.com)

"The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable."
- Robert Henri

digistyle
01-19-2001, 06:08 PM
Digital artists, like traditional artists, can produce "good" or "bad" work. Digital art has been a positive experience for me. I hadn't done much artisticly for the last few years. Then, while web surfing, I discovered the work of some artists who were creating works with various graphics programs. Some were excellent, some were not. In any case, it piqued my interest enough buy the some software and eventually a tablet, followed by a scanner. Now, I draw almost every day (on paper and/or digitally)and I have tried new mediums (oil pastels, charcoal and soon watercolors and acrylics). The last time I was creating this much was probably 20 - 25 years ago. I even recently began to investigate the art program at the local university to get some formal training. I'm not sure that I would have gotten reaquainted with my Muse if not for my experiences creating digital art.

One last thought; a few months ago, I was having this same discussion with an artist friend. He uses traditional media exclusively and is not a fan of the digital medium. He outlined all of his reasons why digital art is not "real" art. My response was basically this question, "Is a novel that was created on a computer, wordprocessor or typewrite less of a novel than one who was written by hand?" An hour or so later, we agreed to disagree.

Just my two cents worth.

Digistyle

Shriner
01-20-2001, 04:49 AM
HA! You guys are cool. I agree. There is good and bad digital art just as there is with any other medium. And, like any other medium that is built on a new technology, you have to be careful not to worship that technology or it will overwhelm the art (for example: Photoshop Filters, as was mentioned by Jen)

------------------
Shriner

Dudi
01-23-2001, 07:48 PM
I personally don't like to do filter-intense graphics, but I don't think people who do this should be worthy of calling themselves artists, even if this can be done relatively easily. If the painting expresses a feeling, contains beauty, looks interesting, or whatever other purpose is achieved, I think it should be worthy of being called artwork - even if it was done in 2 minutes with a bunch of plug-in filter tools. Though such a technique really pushes my faith in this belief, I still think that just because something was created with less effort that it is any less artistic.

If so, my work is less worthy of being called an art now than my work from my childhood. When I was a child, I had no understanding of fundamental techniques. I didn't know about the simple rules of perspective, canons and the use of guidelines in creating the human figure, and my drawing tools certainly made it difficult for me to draw a plausible picture - a crayon and some typing paper.

I've also seen photo-manipulated digital art that looked like it took some, time, effort, and creativity to produce, and also done from photos the artist took or had permission to alter. These people shouldn't be placed in the same category as those 2-minute filter artists.

What I really wish for is that digital art is divided further into categories - perhaps "Photo manipulation", "Virtual Paintings", "3D models/Virtual sculptures", etc.

I especially hate the term "computer-generated" to be used to describe digital artwork that was painted in a similar fashion that traditional paintings are done. To unknowing people, they might mistake that to mean that the computer did all the work. It's like calling a painting a "paint-generated image."

Also, some of the people I know don't know the difference between a 3D computer model and a digitally-colored 2D painting. They think the same techniques are used in creating the sprites for Lara Croft in Tomb Raider as the 2D, cartoonish cover art, which was probably drawn on paper, then scanned and colored.

More people need to be taught more about digital art, and the techniques and processes used to create digital images. If so, it would be easy to distinguish an effortless 2-minute filter manipulated photo from one that is well-done. To an untrained eye, any digital manipulated photo would probably appear to look pretty and original and appear as though some hard work was put into it.

Blah blah blah, ok I'm tired of typing!

[This message has been edited by Dudi (edited January 23, 2001).]

auntie_chaos
10-29-2001, 11:34 AM
I got looking through OLD posts ... just to see what I missed before I joined wc (and my life changed). This thread I found very interesting as I've always wondered where the lines are drawn when it comes to digital art. I started my <i>digital art</i> work doing collages (but using my own photos always) and then I took the step into manipulating my own photograhs with such programs as Paintshop Pro, Photoshop & eventually Bryce. I then wondered where the line was drawn from photography to digital art ... I posted a poll on just this question a few weeks back. I'm, at present, trying to figure out what direction my interests lie when it comes to <i>digital art</i>. In my opinion I think photography, digital art are different forms of art just as acrylics, watercolors, sculpturing, etc are.

Thought it would be interesting (to me anyways) to see what some of the newer people feel and to also see if anyone who has posted on this thread earlier has changed their ideas on their feelings about digital art.

digistyle
10-29-2001, 08:04 PM
I'll bite! I've including one of first digital paintings and my latest. Do I feel that I've become a better digital artist? Not exactly; I feel that I have become a better Artist. My digital art has gotten better because I have been learning and applying basic artistic techniques. This has improved not only my digital work, but my traditional work, as well. My point is the same as before, the medium doesn't matter. No matter what medium the first piece would have been created in it would still lack the effects of light and shadow, complimentary and contrasting colors, etc. The second piece would work in any other medium because it takes into account many of the elements which are lacking from the earlier work. As I've done more work with various traditional tools and media, it's helped me to understand how their digital counterparts should behave. To me, digital is no more or less of an art medium than any of the others.

digistyle

reynolds
10-30-2001, 11:56 PM
you know i am one of those artists that is learning the craft. so it is hard for me to read about "amateurs" as even the best artist was an amateur once upon a time. i also have seen some exquisite digital work on this site. if i can look at a piece and feel the soul of the artist in the midst of the work for me it is art.
what i most appreciate about this site is those people who are farther along in their development as artists treating me with respect and kindness while at the same time gently nudging me to the next level of competency. the thing that is the hardest for me is when someone in any forum thinks that they know what art is and does not treat the honor of getting to critique someones work gently.
so that is my story and i am sticking to it.:D