[Moose]

I was posed with this same question in my advanced digital imaging class here at school, and i thought it would be a nice discussion for this forum.

I will put my answer to this when i get home from work, i dont have my paper here with me

until then, if you have some input, please post, and open this up for discussion!

[Frost]

I personally don't care if it's considered art or not. I (try) illustrate to learn and have fun. Art... possibly the most versatile word in the english language (next to 'f*ck').

[ April 25, 2001: Message edited by: Frost ]

[black_fish]

I don't care about art.

[runt]

"Art is communication" and i feel as long as your communicating your thoughts and feelings through a visual way... its art. digital is pretty much running the world now and art has changed so much... from mashed berry paintings on cave walls to the computer... So yes, i do believe the digital art we do is art. anyone aggree or disagree with me? id like to hear both sides.

[pimphofoo]

I'll just copy/paste my answer to another thread with a similar question

I think we deserve the second rate treatment we get. For a lot of reasons

1)Anybody who has tried to actually paint with acrylics and oil can understand the huge difference in difficulty from real world and computer painting.
2)A lot of digital artists complain that computers are not a shortcut, but then they treat it like a shortcut, explaining the widespread HORRIBLE anatomy and composition out there from digital artists.
3)Assuming we're counting animation as digital art, programs like maya are infinitely easier than traditional animation.
4)Textures are reason enough to see it as second rate. Mimicking vs. copy/paste
5)People who either a)download jpegs and modify them to post as if they did it and b)manipulate photographs c)are using pre-existing models like the one that comes with the latest lightwave instructional book and acting like they built them from scratch.

The biggest problem with digital artists is that they are content with fooling themselves and laypeople who don't look at art, but artists can see through what they are doing. to illustrate my point, both Britney Spears and Beethoven make music, one of them is a great musician, one of them is not.

[Moose]

frost: i agree with you, i started this discussion without stateing my opinion to hear the opinions of everyone first. i think that doing art for arts sake is the best way to live. and yeah, art is as virsitle as the work f*uck

runt: what about things that that dont communicate ideas and thoughts? when they dont communicate ideas and thoughts, does it make it not art? or is it all about the process of communication?
i agree with you that expressing ideas does make for sucessful art, but do things such as graphic design, where things are produced for communication but dont express the ideas and thoughts of the artist , but the client, make what they do not art?

just posing more questions for further discussion

[pixualize]

quote

Quote:

do things such as graphic design, where things are produced for communication but dont express the ideas and thoughts of the artist , but the client, make what they do not art?

Good topic.
Michaelangelo was one of the greatest commercial artists that ever lived. He was commissioned by the church to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and got rewarded handsomely for it. Although I've read that he was at odds with the Bishop or someone and could not stand him. During the rennovations they found a portrait where a snake was biting his crotch. Subtle yet effective.

Anyway - would anyone argue today that Mic was a truly exceptional artist and his paintings are a great inspiration to fine art today, when most of famous and well-know peices were considered "commeercial" or "graphic" art at the time? I'm more of a Reubens kina guy

So will they be looking at our digital art 600 years from now and shake their heads because it not a hologram or whatever? I think it will still be art if it's expressed by the creator regardless of the motivation or medium.

And for those of you who are creating in one way or another, don't ever let anyone tell you that you are not an artist because you are.

quote:

---

art.ist
Pronunciation: '�r-tist
Function: noun
Date: circa 1507
1) one skilled or versed in learned arts
2) one who professes and practices an imaginative art b : a person skilled in one of the fine arts
3) a skilled performer; especially : ARTISTE
4) one who is adept at something

---

[Moose]

yeah, infact, supposedly, saint peter (the man who commisioned him) is depicted in the lower right corner of The Last Judgment, amogst the beasts and "damned" in hell. hehe, kinda funny.

that is an interesting point, what the people of the sixteeth century thought of those paintings. The only way to really get to be a "big" artist of the time (as to what i believe) you had to do the church proud by honoring them in art.

due to the time of change, and the change of people and thier thoughts towards art (impressionism, post impressionism, and expressionism/flauvime played a big role in this change) that art will never be viewed the same way is was back then.

the same will probably happen to the art happening today in this forum and in the world in the future. heh, the folly of time. hah.

i agree with you that creation plays a big role in art. It is really hard for me to explain art to someone, mainly because i "see" art as a state of mind, and emotion, more over a physical state of existence. It is an experience, and even though Webster's (or whatever english dictionary) cannot truely capture the word "artist" or "art." However, some people demade explanations, and thats cool, but its not my cup of tea

Rubens? Yeah, that dude is the man, but i would have to call my self a Velasquez dude, Venus with a Mirror is the most beautiful depiction of Venus in art history.

[Rinaldo]

hehe....what Frost said.

[Socar MYLES]

Ugh. In my case? Nope. Some people here--everyone knows who--are just as good on the computer as they are without it. Some are even better. Myself...I've never figured out how to do the things I do with traditional media on Photoshop. I do my best, but my 'real' work always comes out better.

Then again, I've been working in traditional media for years, and I've just got into the digital arena quite recently. (Less than a year ago.) So...a little more work, and.... (Actually, I'll probably never be as good digitally as I am without the computer, but there's such a demand for people with computer expertise these days. And I'm in it for the money. So I'm not giving up! Dammit!)

[wayfinder]

i always thought that "set" was the most versatile word in english. ah well.

[MrPumpernickel]

I must say that most of the stuff I do is not art (because I mostly model tech stuff)

The closest I would say some of my "art" would be is pop art...

Maybe something like this:

Click here!

But I really wish I had a wacom...I hate not being able to undo when you paint for real

[Myself]

I think anything is art, what you make, when you try to export your feeling, thoughts to paper, sculpture or to computer, these only display it.

maybe it sounds stupid, better sounds in hungarian, but maybe you couldn't understand it on my own language.

[S4Sb]

Art is just a word. Namen sind Schall und Rauch. I agree with Frost

[Lunatique]

Bottomline:

Who cares if it's art or not.

If you enjoy doing it, looking at it, and gets happy when other people likes to look at your creations, and maybe rewarded for what you do(IF you are doing it professionally), and once a while, expresses profound ideas/emotions with it, then that's all that matters.

Right?

As far as the digital vs. trational thing goes, I'm a lot like Socar: my traditional work ALWAYS look better than my digital stuff. So the fact digital is easier to work with doesn't seem to matter, because if it did, my digital work should blow my traditional stuff out of the water.

[Moose]

lunatique: your bottom line is a good one, i kinda feel the same way. In fact, i hated in art class where we would debate the nature of art, but those people were right in front of me. Here, people are from all around the world and have different ideas and viewpoints.

I thought this place needed a little bit more thinking rather that looking in awe at everything that gets posted.So if you have a thoughtful responce, please post it! one sentence replies are meaningless to me, because so much is left open. people dont know how you think, so put it out here. this is a discussion right?

If you dont care about art, thats great, but why do you feel that way?

myself: yeah i understand what you are saying, if i tried explaining the same thing in hungarian (which i cant.. i dont know it) it would most likely sound better in english :P

[synj]

this is so incredibly stupid. of course its art.

[Moose]

you seem to have some pretty strong feelings synj, feel like elaborating? or do you think this is too stupid to put more thought into it?

or do you, and others, just not care enough to think about it?

[swampbug]

Yeah... Digital art is art. They exclusive difference between real art (sculpture,painting,drawing etc..) and computer art is.

Computer art is easyier to show. It is a very hot media. Finish your pic, put it on the net, get reactions almost immediatly. Where as if I do a painting, traditional it is not scanned into a computer, but hangs on a wall where it can be seen. Painting is a lot slower and a more enriching process I believe. Computer art is just cool. ! :P

At least thats what I think

-tom.

[Aphelion]

<begin background>
I got Adobe Photoshop 4 in the middle of 7th grade, about 4 yrs ago... before that, I knew I could draw a little but my talent was pretty latent up until then. Even just using filters (and gradually more and more airbrush) and doin images for friends helped me improve immensely. So, digital art was my first medium... however by the time I had begun doing entire drawings with only the airbrush, I soon discovered my talent for non-digital art as well and got caught up in school, so since then I haven't gotten a chance to really explore digital art.
<end background>

Art is what u make of it.. it can be anything. Even a kindergartener's scribbling may give u insight into a whole world of thoughts, that's art.
Of course there are different levels of art and different mediums (each with their own standards/levels). Digital art is simply another medium (and i abhor the term "computer-generated"...its anything but!).
However, u gotta understand that while digital art may lack physical texture, the detail u can get is tremendous... better than photographic quality (no grain!) IMHO. It is definitely still a very new medium compared to the other centuries-old media and has much room to be developed, but i think once people see what we as artists can do with computer technology, any 'non-believers' will defintely have to reconsider ;) anyway, just my 2 cents.
~Matt