Convergent Media

[BarneyDavey]

The term giclee was coined into usage as marketing jargon. It successfully allowed printers, publishers and artists get away from using the term digital art and digital printing at a time when using either was certain to cool the ardor of potential buyers of this new media.

To keep things in context, in 1990 there was no Internet to speak of, the desktop computer revolution spawned by Windows 95 was five long years into the future. Cell phones and digital cameras weren't the norm as with today. Fax machines exemplified the cutting edge of instant communication technology. (For those of us who worked in an office then, standing around waiting to send or receive a fax was the modern day equivalent of the proverbial water cooler.) So, using digital to describe anything related to art was not going to warm the hearts of any buyer and as such the usage of giclee was brilliantly, if no luckily, conceived, received and passed into the vernacular.

Today, we have a much different environment. People are swimming in digital gadgets everywhere. Photo manipulation software comes on PCs and with digital cameras and printers. In short, we are no longer afraid of using the word digital to describe exquisite things. That said, I don't think digital art or digital artist serves the purpose of adequately describing the kind of art typified by what those who contribute to this board create.

The process of creating art using digital means is involved and multi-stepped. There is image capture whether through digital photography or image creation using a Wacom Tablet or other hardware/software. There is a manipulation of the imagery through any number of software programs such as Painter, Photoshop, Illustrator and so on. Then comes the output onto a myriad of substrates including paper, canvas, vinyl, metal, wood and more. To produce a final desired result, the artist must print or collaborate with a printer on calibrating the equipment to get the output desired. Often pieces at this stage are further enhanced to make them yet more unique, one-of-a-kind and original.

I don't see how calling a piece of art so created a giclee makes sense. Giclee has come to mean digital reproduction which is far different than something created from the artist's imagination and skill in a digital environment and brought to life using digital printing techniques. To my mind, the term Convergent Media makes more sense. It reflects the usage of Mixed Media, which is an ages old widely accepted art term. Mixed media describes a multi-stage process of using different techniques and media to render an original piece of art. Convergent Media does the same thing but implies the use of technology not available to previous generations of artists.

Giclee is a marketing term. I see Convergent Media as a descriptive term. Like its cousin, Mixed Media, it requires a simple explanation of the blending of techniques and media. An artist creating Mixed Media will give the details to a point and let it go at that. That is, there could be torn paper, cloth, paint, wax, items from nature and so forth that went into the piece. But exactly how it was rendered is not a subject of conversation. Just as a Mixed Media artist doesn't give minute trite detail such as, "I used a No. 2 lead pencil to outline on a gessoed canvas." I don't believe a Convergent Artist needs to give all the details and a step-by-step of how an image was created in order to satisfy a buyer. They are subjectively and emotionally buying the finished vision of the artist's imagination and creativity, not her or his computer skills.

Convergent Media Artist is an accurate, honest description of what a person using any number of current technologies and techniques uses to create art. It distinguishes from using giclee and expands on the limited term, digital artist. Agreed, it requires a brief explanation as does Mixed Media, but it does not obfuscate as giclee does. I think it enhances without detraction, it embodies what's available now and in the future for cutting edge artists to incorporate into their oeuvre.

I hope this sparks debate and opens the door for using Convergent Media as a useful descriptive term.

[cmvscrapper]

I am sure the term will have its uses, but for me, an artist currently marketing my paintings to the public, it is not something I would use...it is to me a term that would invoke more questions then a term that would be an explanation in itself.

For now, until a term I am comfortable with comes about, I simply tell potetntial clients and interested individuals that I paint, but instead of using oils or chalks IRL, I apply them to the canvas via my computer, then use a printing process (I print on canvas mostly) that results in an heirloom quality print. Keeping it simple seems to work for me...

Christina VanGinkel
http://northwoodsliceoflifephotography.blogspot.com/

[GeoBen]

Excellent approach, Mr. Harvey, well stated and well written. Thanks for posting this.

Certainly there will be other distinguishing terms to come to differentiate the specific methods used in any individual work, but Convergent Media is a good jumping off point, though it could be argued that the largest audience initially inclined to ignore the elite status of Art with a capital 'A' which rhymes with 'pay' and purchase artworks created using computers are likely to understand neither term very well.

You do make what I consider to be an essential point:

"They are subjectively and emotionally buying the finished vision of the artist's imagination and creativity, not her or his computer skills."

in other words, it is only the subjective merits of the work that matter (gee... i like that picture). Anyone paying for any other reason is making an investment or simply guilty of pseudo-sophisticated bunk.

geo.

[perianthal]

I agree. In the end it is the power/quality etc of the image that matters not how it was created. The technology is fun to talk about, but very easy to get derailed entirely from what makes it "Art".

[wrangler]

Thanks for starting this excellent and up to date tread,times are changing,and there's a need to educate the public,to accept reality.

[sir_real]

First let me say: Mr. Davey, I follow your blog and appreciate it very much. Ok, so here are my thoughts:

I loathe the term "giclee" it is indeed a marketing term and a bad one at that. While, I'm sure that there was some thought put into it, it seems to me that the people who had to sell the first "giclee" prints sat around for a while and said "well, we need something that sounds complex and artsy...hmm, france is artsy, what french words would be good?" and then they had their term. I assume that's not what happened, however, it sure seems like it at times.

Anywho...

With that said, I do like the idea of "convergent media"--it's broad but also inviting. For example, I am currently likening it to printmakers. When you deal with a term like "printmaking" you understand that the object in question was created using any number of printmaking methods, but ultimately what you have is a print.

The same could be said with digital work. Whatever your method, ultimately, you are still left with a digital work. My only caveat would be the end result of a digital work could be many. You can print it, project it, etc. or its entire life could be left in the world of 1's and 0's never seeing the "physical" realm. So, while as a broad term "convergent media" is perfect--secondary terms still might be necessary.

Finally, I agree that it presents a nice departure from "digital artist". Too often digital art is relegated to an inferior category, even though the product can surpass that of other mediums. Of course, here's where the stubborn Norwegian comes out in me. Digital art does accurately describe what we're doing--to a certain degree--therefore (and here's the stubborn part) I'd say we stick by being called digital artists, come hell or high water. However, Convergent media covers the whole a lot better. If you do a run of digitally created prints, are the prints also called "digital art"? No, they're now prints. Yes, the process was digital, but the digital was transferred to the physical. Therefore, a word like convergent does a great deal more to not only explain the process, but, in my opinion, also open up the art up to a whole new level of thought/philosophy about the process and not just the end results.

-Leif

[GeoBen]

actually, I would abjure any label... i expect OTHERS to label my work, but to me they are just pictures.

geo.

[Smokin]

Originally Posted by GeoBen

actually, I would abjure any label... i expect OTHERS to label my work, but to me they are just pictures.

geo.

Dito, Art making and art marketing are two very different things. I stay away from the marketing aspect of things myself.

[barryt]

I wasn't sure about the name Convergent Media, until I finally gave Norman Holmes the picture I created (see the thread link). Trying to explain how I did it, 'convergent media' seemed to explain and pull together all the various bits. Freehand 'Painter' painting, photographic manips, text, pigment printing and mounting. The use of the term caused wide eyes, but they seemed to accept the explanation better than if I'd said it was digital whatever.

[BarneyDavey]

I appreciate one wanting to avoid labels and marketing when it comes to one's art. Unfortunately eschewing either is impractical for any artist wishing to have her or his art be widely appreciated. It's one of the many struggles artists deal with in balancing the interwined components of art and business. Neither of which stand on their own in the success of a living artist's career; assuming success means recognition and financial gain borne from the fruits of the artist's talent. Of course as with most personal endeavors, what success is is a purely subjective. Nonetheless, the general standard is recognition, critical acclaim and increasing monetary value.

I don't construe the term mixed media to be a marketing term. As far as being a label, it is no more so than oil painting. My thought in coining the term convergent media was to help convey a multi-step process involving mastery over and utilization of multiple techniques and disciplines. They could include digital photography, digital drawing and painting, manipulation of software such as Photoshop and Painter to name the most prominent, and digital output onto an appropriate substrate or media with yet potentially more steps before a piece is finished.

Here is the Answers.com definition for mixed media:

pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
A technique involving the use of two or more artistic media, such as ink and pastel or painting and collage, that are combined in a single composition.

I propose this definition:

convergent media
1. A technique involving the use of two or more artistic digital media and software, such as digital photography, digital painting and drawing, Photoshop, Painter, digital printing and other techniques and software that are combined in a single composition and typically digitally output onto paper, canvas or other media.

If this suggestion takes hold, the term convergent media artist would be apropos to artists who employ Convergent Media to create their work.

[sir_real]

I'm still in strong support of this idea--which is odd--I'm usually the last be won over on anything.

During school, they'd kick us day in and out about having to be able to accurately describe your work and/or talk about it, label it, etc. And up until now, the words used for digital work weren't really doing the trick for me, however, this seems to really pull it off and pull it off well.

[perianthal]

I like where this is going conceptually but without reference to the word "digital" in the name isn't it going to compel the user of the term to add some further description to get the listener on the same page?

[sir_real]

Hmm...that's a good question, actually.

Unless the term gets so widespread, clarification will be necessary. Conceptually the term plays out nicely, however, a description of the process will almost always be needed. Of course, an easy solution may be just listing the programs/methods involved in the creation of the word (eg. instead of listing: charcoal, paper, glue, etc. as you would with a traditional work, you list: photoshop, painter, ink, paper, html or whatever your doing your work in).

However, the use of words like "digital" won't leave the vocabulary, regardless of the outcome. Digital explains part of the process and should be used accordingly. When someone asks an artist what they do and they respond with "I paint" that still needs further breakdown into oils, acrylics or watercolours and then even further still to subject matter.

I guess, conceptually, what this would be doing is adding one tier above what has sort of been established.

Convergent Media>digital work(3d, photoshop, painter, etc)>output(web, print, film, etc)