[Reuss]

I study at the university in Aalborg, Denmark.

I work and study at the Virtual Reality Media Lab - i've been looking at a lot of theoretical stuff about multimedia.... mostly at a very theoretical level. Apart from that i paint 'old school analog' with a brush

I have plans about looking into the concept about digital art - on a highly theoretical level. Why? Well.... when i search the net for digital art i usually get photoshop rendered images. And i dont see anything that could not be done in 'the old fashioned analog way' - ie. photomontage, painting, drawing, airbrush. All i see is several tools merged into one - the computer, or rather a tool that has the wonderful ability to imitate any other tool in the world. And that actually says a lot more about the significance of the computertechnology than it does about art.

So what makes digital art special? Apart from the fact that its easier and more approchable to a lot of people to use the computer to whip something up and call it art?!
How do you define the concept of digital art?!
Why does the so called 'digital art' that is actually out seem to be mere imitations of analog art?
Is it possible to create something absolutely unique with the digital technology?! Something that no other technology or tool could ever create?

What about interactive art, 3D art that you can submerge the viewer into etc?!....

And all of this of course has to be related to the very big question - what is art... and how does that aplly to digital art......


Those are just my initial thoughts - without any theoretical layers apllied.....


Feel free to answer Any type of input, ideas, whatever is very welcome.

At this stage im just sorta gathering thoughts and ideas - the project will not begin until spring 2004. I'd just like to discuss these issues with people who either create art themselves or are interested in the concept of digital art.


John Reuss

[AndyT]

I hope you won't approach this too theoretically.
There really has been a lot of this crap.
Better look through the threads here to see how this board works.
For example don't stay away and expect pages full of great information when you return.
Keep the thread going by showing that people are not wasting their time.
You'll get more out of it.

There are threads about the definition of art.
(Not digital art though ... more about art in general)
Most of the threads here are about concept designs or illustrations though.
It's just easier to say digital art even if it's not quite right.
Sometimes people mix this up.

People here don't think of the photoshop renderings you mentioned as real digital artwork.
Most artists here can paint and draw with traditional media.
If you are interested mainly or only in actual art you should know that it's not a proudly cherished specialty here.
But I'm sure there still are a lot of people with interesting and professional opinions on the subject
(me not being one of them)

If I find threads that might be interesting I will add links here.
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[Meaty Ogre]

Hi, Reuss. As you can see, this type of forum is pretty useless when trying to talk about anything more complicated than comic books and Bouguereau.

Personally, I have not found a lot art that would be considered truely digiatal (have atributes realized only with a computer) very interesting. Web sites can be fun. Sculpture and instalations that incorporate computers are also fun, but for me I find that kind of work to be temporal. And that a painting or an oblect can project a certain kind of sublimity that digital art lacks. I dont know why. Maybe because you can turn digial art off.

But what about art made with digital means that is then seperated from it's process?

What do you think digital art is?

[Les Watters]

I believe that digital tools are designed to look and act like traditional tools for this one important fact. Humans like to see the mark of the hand.

If the art is to clean, to perfect, to crisp, it alienates people from it and it becomes cold and distant. the same is true with digital music. It can be too perfect. when I look at art of any kind I like to know that there is a human being behind it.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Reuss]

Well.. im not quite sure what digital art actually is - and if it really exists as a truly independent artform/concept. That is why im trying to stir up a discussion about it - and i AM gonna come back here to look at replies and take you up on your viewpoints.

And i have similar feelings towards what people call digital art - for me it lacks a undefinable quality....... im not sure what it is - but it just does not invoke any feelings in me.....

The trouble is that when u finally find something that can be seen as a true digital work... well... its just doesnt seem to be very interesting.

If art is perception in the second degree (or is it third).. that is: you looking at me as an artist looking at the world (get it?)..... would it not be interesting to create alternative worlds in virtual reality.. worlds that would give you some sort of experience that would change the way you see yourself, the 'real' world and what have we?! I mean to me that somehow looks a lot more like 'true' digital art than drawing on your pad or whatever. I think the true strength of digital art is it its interactivity - which cannot be obtained in any other way. You can create art that adapts to the viewers actions - his voice, touch, even his unconsious bodily functions (sweat, heartrate, etc....)


....

[Reuss]

Les Watters - i think you are partially right. But the computer differs from all other tools and medias in the fact that it can contain the physically bound architecture of other tools/medias in a symbolic, editable form...in sequences of editable binary strings..... If you look at the alphabet of the computer - it can contain any type of text and non-text symbolical expressions (pictures, video, sound, u name it) and that is unlike ANY alphabet we know. The alphabet consists of two units: 1 and 0...and just like the alphabet im using know they hold no meaning in themselves. Unlike formal notation units (numbers, mathematical rules, etc) they are semantically empty - and therefore they can act with a completely free variable - they can shift meaning....ok im getting way too brainy here HAHAHAAHHAAHAH

So yes - we make the computer to imitate other medias...because it CAN! But painting and drawing still is on the scene - not because some of us are old sentimental fools... but because that kind of art still contains a quality that the computer cannot match...but why are we trying so hard to make it to?!

[Reuss]

...let me say.. i have no definitive answers on my questions myself. I just want to discuss it. And i want to hear what people have to say about this subject.

[Meaty Ogre]

Whether or not virtual reality is a true digial art form or not I dont know but it does seem like an obvious extention of things like film and computer games, however greatly advanced and more visceral. It could come across as entertainment or high art. But, one thing I think it could do is to make people (artists and non-artists) more sensitive to the relasionship between life and art.

Reuss, what is the near capabilty of virtual reality? Are we ever going to see it like Hollywood has shown us? I mean being totaly convincing and immersive?

[liv the fish]

[Matthew]

Well this is like those discussions where it has been discussed upon if Computers will be aware of their own existens or not, will there be a virtual reality, will everything evolve into digital thinking, I think it will.
In times like these we are going for more fast-thinking, more fast solutions and things have been given a more tight deadline.
Thus has the becoming of faster ways to work been more important too us and the needs of new equipment such as digital ways.
Benefits = cheaper, faster, easier reproduction.

I can�t see any negative ways with digital approach, if we can reproduce brushes and clone real way behaviours in a digital manner, why not?
I wonder if this question will come up in a 200 hundred years? when Cameras are only digital and painting may be only digital too.

If you start out with Digital art you won�t think of it more differently than with your traditional art, just maybe that you once and a while try to undo on one of your acrylics painting, I know I tried to do that once, funky way the brain works sometimes.
Well the difference is that you manipulate pixels, it�s all a riot with pixels.

One small step for the future and one giant leap for the conspiracy
Later
Matthew

[Reuss]

Liv The Fish...hmmm well actually you just prove my point hehe. We use the computer because of the fact that it can represent any symbolic system - and in a fully editable way. But still... this does not advocate for the existence of such a thing as digital art... it just shows that the computer is used to make imitations of artforms already present... wheres the innovation?!

And as for the computer as a time saving, efficient device ..yeah RIGHT! hahah you are absolutely right there. But that is actually a whole other discussion. That has to do with the fact that computers and software are ingeneered in a less than fortunate way. The ideal system should bury the technology so that the user is not even aware of its presence... you should be able to focus on the task rather than the technology. A solution to that is being worked upon in the brach called human-centered system design......

And Matthew...well i guess the above also is an answer to you
Btw. does reproducing brushes and cloning real way behaviours in a digital manner include the actual texture of lets say...an oilpainting? I mean you would have to have a machine to 'print' out your artwork in textural 3d-ish oilcolors hehehehehe....

Meaty Ogre... im not sure if Hollywood like VR is within reach That being said theres some really interesting research going on where i study. We do have a socalled CAVE system, which is a room where all 6 surfaces are monitors. A coherent 3D VR world can be seamlessly projected onto these surfaces.... you wear shutterglasses... the result is immersive VR..and you can actually have object floating in the room and you can walk around the and watch them from all angles. Theres further resarch going on right now in the concept of presence...the concept of 'being there' with actually being 'there'...hehehe

[Les Watters]

ART and Digital technologie are two seperate things. Art is independant of the medium. It matters not what it was created with. What matters is the emotional expressin it reveals to the audiance.

Art can and is being made digitally and traditionally. It is not the medium that makes the art.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Reuss]

ok... newspaper layout is no longer done by hand... its done with a computer. Does that make the content another or better... do we call i a digital newspaper?!

And yes its true its not necessarily the medium that makes the art.. although id say that i can in some cases be a very important part of the art work. But i still wonder why digital art just seems to be mere reproduction of analog art? or should we say translation of the art from one symbolic system to another........call me stupid or what ever hahahaha

[CwStone]

this is prebably off topic, but i just want to say that i think digital art is art, and that the computer doesnt do any work (besides mixing paint, providing it, and giving u a full array of brushes) for you. It still takes the same skill of the artist to make something beautiful in photoshop, just as much as it is to make something from actual paint. That all i needed to say.
_________________
-Chase

[Reuss]

CwStone..actually i dont think you are off topic

[Rubber Duck]

hmm.. well..
according to your definitions at least fractals would be real visual digital art. finding an algorythm and computing it into a picture.

[Matthew]

Well I am starting to get confused here, not really sure what you wanna say Reuss, do you mean Digital art can never be compared with traditional art?
Regarding what art is or not, that is a discussion that will continue even in 1000�s of years but remember one important thing and that is, The real art should be what the brain interprets and translates onto different surfaces, shouldn�t matter what media or medium used. The brain can�t do more then what it has learned and can only translate what the brain know, perspective, color, values.
Not sure what I am talking about myself anymore but a Virtual World would be really cool.

L8er sk8er
Matthew

[liv the fish]

[Reuss]

liv the fish...

I can see why people use the term digital art for simplicity purposes.. its kinda easier to refer to..... but being the nerd i am.. and coming from the unvirsity/science super anal environment... poeple like me have a tendency to want clear and scientific definitions of words hahaha...

Im not sure if i agree that theres no such thing as digital art because humans programmed the software that did it or whatever... somehow i just think its a matter of refining/defining the concept of digital art properly. What if we defined digital art as something that could only exist in a digital environment?! - A work of art that in no way was comprehensible outside the context of a digital environment?!

Sorry - i need some sleep right now.. but ill be back tommorow - feel free to post thoughts, replies, comments... ill read it first thing in the morning )

[Reuss]

Matthew - im trying to find a definition of the term digital art.... hehehehe

Rubber duck..hmmm interesting... ill have to think a bit about what you said

[_mario]

well... in short:
if someone creates something with "digital tools" that you (can) accept as art, then you could put it in the category of digital art.

in the end the digital tools are like brush, paint and pencil, just a tool

art is defined byeveryone very for himself, whatone thinksto beart could be for the next just some bad painting

there are paintings that are consideret art no matter what "analog" tools were used? oil or acrylic paint? it doesn't really matter, and it should not matter is your tool has the undo feature

it's like discussing if real art need a fundamet of learned rules to be good
some see the rules as needed because once you know the rules you can brak them and work with them, others see the rules as restrictions because you got muchinflunece by others (who taught you these rules).
in the end:
whatever art is, is defined by you for yourself, and nobody else

if you want some stuff that some people consider "digital" art thenyou could try this http://www.aec.at the ars electronica center

if you have never heared of it: it's based in linz, austria and each year they present something like the "digital art oscars" (again it's for everyone to decide if that organisation can be considered the "digital art oscars")

but they got some very interesting stuff every year and they present a mix of "art and science"
for everyone who lives near austria (like in south germany) and get's ORF2 on the TV: on sep 28th they are showing some part of this year's "prix ars electronica" at 11:35 pm

[Mikko K]

Interesting thread.

I think it's difficult to compare and analyze what's art, what's digital art etc. I don't feel a need for that now.

What I think is very important about the whole digital art scene, is that it's a truely global thing. We can communicate via the net in ways people couldn't possibly do when they were painting some hundred years ago. The process of creating becomes more public and is part of the art itself. Beginners can easily get guidance and critique from more experienced artists. You don't have to remain a underground secret. People will notice good works.

I often underestimate the possibilities of technology, but in the future people might look back at us and think the digital tools really opened doors for people to experiment and just do their stuff, paint things they like and create their own galleries. There's a great freedom now, and who knows what's gonna happen when computers get faster and programs more advanced.

I know this sounds VERY dramatic and silly but I think people are often blind to see the good things in modern technology, while whining about the need for more traditional Bouguereau's

[Snakebyte]

Well, I haven�t read through all the post and I may be way off but�.

Art too many of us comes in images, to others music, and still other writing is all a form of art. But there are many people who would consider programming language and the act of writing a program a form of art. It isn�t much different than writing a book or an instruction manual, but unlike a book the program language can be executed and ran only by computers which we know are digital.
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com

[liv the fish]

[balistic]

_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint

[Reuss]

BAlistic...uhmmm..erh? - care to evaluate that a bit? hahahahahah


Liv the fish - its not that im trying to force a definition... im just trying to figure out if it makes sense to talk about digital art or not. And second id like to start an academic tradition or what ever you wanna call it. Id like to make the academic community take a thoroigh look at digital art.. since i think its a area of digital science that has been negleted.

And if course it ok for everyone to use the term as they like.. and im not gonna judge anyone. If i come of as provocative or whatever its all for the sake of the discussion here hehehhe.

And as for the definition - i could very quickly whip something up... especially designed for the CAVE system that i mentioned before....some sort of 3D representation that you could not just print out via screen shots...let alone remodel in reality. And i could include elements that add to the experience...and it would give you expressions that you would not be able to reproduce from the screenshots or whatever...if it would be art is another question hahahahaha

[Reuss]

Snakebyte... thats interesting..actually..very interesing.... im not quite sure what to answer hahhaha. I hadnt even thought of it that way... thank you!

[spooge demon]

Photoshop as a work of art outshines anything ever created with the program. Same goes for Maya

I think it is possible to formulate questions that are grammatically correct but really have no answer, or at least the answer is entirely subjective. You can answer, but you have to list about a hundred assumptions you are making first.

Most (almost all) on these forums are really illustrators. The ideas of context, meaning, POV, philosophical constructs, bla bla are not really part of the digital world that I see. And stylistically and most influences are illustrative.

The few places I have seen "serious digital art� it has been very surface stuff, more in love with the tool than in being art. Give it a few hundred years and see what happens.

There is such a thing as digital illustration! I do exist! Oh, the word is in on acrylic paint. Officially, it is not OK to use it in Artwork. Only oil. So sayeth the watchers of all things righteous and good.

[AliasMoze]

The ones who agonize over the labels, like art and entertainment or art and illustration, are too concerned with being, not doing. It's like the fools who argue, violently sometimes, that there are "films" and "movies".

[IDrawGirls]

The way I see it is that art is more about being (or theory ... or labels)
and illustration is about doing.
There are differences so labels are ok IMO.
It's just annoying if people complain even if they can tell how it was meant from the context.