[thebort]

Im doing a project for one of my computer science classes and I've chosen to basically survey a large group of people on the topic of computers as a valid art form.

Basically I'd like as many peoples opinions as possible on the question of why is/isnt digital art valid art? especially people like spooge who have lots of work in both digital and traditional.

Im not going to try to twist the outcome towards either end in the presentation just simply sum up the arguements I hear. So in that spirit please keep flaming to an absolute minimum as I'd like as many unique responses as possible.

feel free to email me if you'd rather
[email protected]

Edited:
One of the main things Im discussing from the flip side of the arguement (ie against Digital) is the perception that with all the programs and tools available (from raytracers to filters and rulers to perfect circles) art on a computer requires less artistic skill. maybe I can get some responses to that statement...

also the question of editing a copy and calling it you own art came up.

anyways Im playing Devil's advocate on both sides to try to inspire some excellent discussion sorry if I offend

Thanks in advance
The Bort

ps. I understand that this is perhaps a more valid random musing topic but this forum seems to attract more traffic from exactly the type of people I'd like to have responses from... forgive me

[This message has been edited by thebort (edited November 05, 2000).]

[Jezebel]

I agree with Sa'ge. Personally, I think it's silly when a "traditional" artist feels that a digital artist has no talent. It takes just as much knowledge about basic art theory to paint an image in Photoshop as it does to paint an image on canvas.

Not only that, but from my experience most digital artists are traditional artists as well. They attend the same schools, take the same classes, read the same books - it's just another medium. You can easily tell the real artists from the "easy-way-out" artists that run KPT filters on pictures of their nostrils and call it art

It's just another medium, and those that work hard at it are well-deserving of the recognition they get because it's certainly not "easy". I think that's a common misconception.

[coconutmonkey]

I agree with these guys's using a computer to do art is just using another medium.

[Isric]

It's the same, just no paint to clean up.

[Sumaleth]

Digital art is just like any other medium, and I'm sure just about anyone who does digital art at some professional level will tell you this.

But I think there's certainly a perception from people who don't use the digital medium (even artists) that it's in some ways a cheat, or is easier than it really is. But in reality, to get the same level of professional results will take the same types of skills and practice that any other medium requires.

The biggest problem faced by digital art is probably just the -large- amount of average-quality product seen by the public. And to be fair, a lot of that average-quality work probably was (relatively) easy to produce, and it probably only gets used because many art directors aren't totally in tune with the medium yet. A lot of digital work gets used professionally where traditional mediums of that same quality would not.

Time will hopefully overcome this trend, which will then stop diluting the good examples of digital art seen by the public.

Row.

[Dean Welsh]

Without someone working the wacom the computer will just sit there idly cycling. A computer can't tell you what's good composition or bad, Give me something that makes an artist an artist and not simply a human photocopier and I'll give you something a computer can't do.

You mentioned Rulers and perfect circles. I'm pretty sure most traditional artists have used a straight edge and a compass at some point in their career. This is just a much more accurate version of those tools.

So yeah. Digital's just a more efficient (for me anyway) way of working.


Here's a suggestion. Take digital piece of spooge's (with his permission of course) that he did and compare it to a traditional piece. I don't think anyone can deny the value of his work solely on the fact that it's digital. In fact. I don't think many people will even realize that it's digital.

-Dean

[Rinaldo]

BORING! not even an issue. only somone who can't use a computer would say that digital is not valid.

the problem is that with the invention of computers, everyone can produce art. they do so badly unless they practice but most just are satisfied with the filters and the stock model renders. and they call it art and everyone goes "that's shit". people say that tradtional stuff is shit too when a person is starting off, thing is that no one gets to see that stuff 'cos it doesn't look like anything. people are too ashamed to show it. the amature is just able to get a better result with digital than traditional.

the same thing happens all over the place. Happend with design a while back. now everyone thinks they can become desktop publishers. they can..it's just that they produce crap.

As always it is people that define a tehnique or medium, not the medeium itself. most people don't recognise good digital art as beging digital. the technique is, and should be transperant.




[This message has been edited by Rinaldo (edited November 06, 2000).]

[Transcendent]

Why do teachers keep insisting on giving their students such silly thesises to write ?? Pehaps it's the ignorance. Damn, damn ignorance.

Oh, a sidenote, we are a group of digital artists ... think about it logically, would anyone at ALL give a negative responce ?

[wakestarr]

Digital is most definitly art, no question about it.

However the resulting image isn't always as satisfying as having finished a piece on canvas... hanging monitors on the wall isn't really a option But I guess this is where the really expensive color laser printers come in...

/W

[thebort]

This is good stuff. I like the illusion of proffesionalism that was brought up by Sumaleth and some others. I think its one of the main points I'll have to discuss.

As far as why I posted this here, in a digital art forum. I was not expecting any negatives, this was hopefully the bulk of the surveyed opinions that would be pro-digital in some way shape or form. I've made other arrangements to get negative responses.

What Im finding more and more is not that artist who go digital are NOT cheapening themselves but instead its the beginners that have the ability to show-off the learning curve so to speak. Its easier to post your first digital painting than it is to get your first acrylic into an art show. Unfortunately John Q. Public doesnt see newbit looking for crit he looks and says , "BAH!" and hence the misconception.

-The Bort

PS. yes tis a silly topic yet the allmighty hammer of partial-credit will smite me if I dont at least give it a shot

[This message has been edited by thebort (edited November 06, 2000).]

[Starseed]

I strongly believe digital art is art.

I read the first dozen or so responses to this thread, though, and I feel it is unfairly one sided. Though I believe digital _is_ art, it can definitely be easily copied, and things can be ripped off that explicitly steal others work. You may not be aware of it in what seems to be a largely photoshop saturated community here, but in 3D art (gaining huge popularity as you all well know thanks to fast pcs that can run the software and easy access to ripped 3d animation packages) a lot is copied . . . and not just eyed, or screenshot, then worked with in photoshop. Geometry, textures, character designs - they're taken and used all the time without permission - or with permission. Either way, that in my mind, does not qualify that 'piece' as the 'artists' work. If it is something created in a team at a company for a game or television show, thats another thing.

That sort of thing bugs me ( I dont think I've ever had anything stolen ) so I can imagine the feeling ripped-off, truly talented 3d artists have.

So yes, digital art is a whole new 'art' medium and should be classified as such. But the inherent glaring problems presented by a medium where cut and paste is a term that represents perfect duplication of anothers work with simply a keystroke . . . well, these make it understandable why people question this 'art' from an originality standpoint too.

[Wyatt Turner]

This is simple for me.. If I spend a few moments looking at an image, then its done it's job. Simple as that.

People like "Spooge" may make you just look a little longer.

And that would be the result most of us are looking for.

Just like that "SIMPLE".

Later

[Starseed]

Your remark annoys me. That doesn't even address the subject.

-mt

[Mergatroid]

I believe that Transcendent is right by saying that this is a silly topic and is fated to go nowhere. Instead the auther should discuss the evolution of computer graphics and where he/she thinks that it may be headed. He could also talk to certain artist's to see how the medium has changed the way they work and think.

Another topic that could also prove to be interesting is why some people choose to go digital instead of staying traditonal or vice versa. The outcome of a research assignment like ther ones mentioned may prove to be more valuable in the long run as opposed to a popularity contest over which medium is better, traditional or digital.


late,



------------------
Mergatroid

[Kaput]

Well, this is a funny place to ask your question.
This is a DIGITAL Art Forum, you need a computer to post anything here and most people are artists here and do most, if not all their art on the computer. (with a few exceptions)
It's like calling people and asking them if they have a phone and if they enjoy it

just my humble opinion,

Kaput

[Danny]

sigh... another 'what is art and what not' discussion. Cos' that's what it inevitably all boils down to in the end. Artists failing to see the intricacies of a medium diffirent from theirs. Talk about wasting time.
A little true story...

I was watching the news today and on came a subject where prizes were given to this years best photograph made here in Holland. Winning photo was ofcourse one containing misery (how original ). It featured a person dying on the street (blood splattered from body) after the firework factory explosion in Enschede this summer. Perhaps you've heard about this. The photographer who took this image told us that he stumbled across this scene by chance and decided then and there to take pictures (rather than do the humane thing and attempt to aid the person). What is it that grants this photo all the effort and fuss and attention of a national award ceremony? Members of the jury were discussing the winning photo as a piece of art, rather than reflecting on the fact that we were looking at somebody's loved one dying again on national TV.
I couldn't help myself but ask what the photographer could possibly be commended for on such a large scale? A good eye for a powerfull image? A bit of 'luck' to come across such a situation? His skills in photography??
While this particular case was an extreme and to me an exception, I remembered that photography ofcourse is an artform. The fact that a photographer uses all this equipment (camera, lenses, lights, film, processing equipment) to do his rendering hasn't detered global opinion from accepting photography as a genuine artform. Why? Perhaps because there is an understanding that a lot of work goes into making a truely good photograph. Should it be any diffirent with a 3D artist who switches on his raytracer to get that extra bit of realism after all the painstacking modelling, texturing and lighting he's done? Ofcourse not. Sadly though, the reality of it all is that too many people still think all digital artists do is press a few buttons on the keyboard and out comes this fully modelled, textured and animated T-Rex ready for the final cut-scene of Jurassic Park 3. This delusion is fuelled on by all those Do-It-Yourself programs like Poser and Bryce. Cheaper hardware. Anybody these days can afford a 1200DPI 42Bit flatbed scanner to modify his photographs with. Marketing is aimed at the mass consumer levels showing us how easy everything is. As easy as taking a photograph. Does it mean that because anyone can take a photograph it automatically devalues the work and talent of photography heroes like Herb Ritts, Frans Lanting, or Art Wolfe? The same question can be transferred to the digital medium. Both answers should now be so obvious, even for those adhering to that misguided perception we are debating, that I won't even bother taking the time to provide it... There are better things to do with time..



------------------
[email protected]

Trust in Trance