[matter]

in my college fine arts class we hav to present a certain aspect of contemporary art. with all that "modern" artists say in their work, i'd think a digital artist would have at least a whisper... i basically must prove unique properties of digital art and i'm asking for a little help (i know i've brought this subject up at least once before! and you'd think the simple fact that you can't paint a picture using tiny colored squares would be argument enough.....)

so far, i've found artists who use computers to do complicated mathematical tasks such as fractals or visual sound interpretations, which i will mention, but of course i'm more interested in sijun-type stuff. my idea so far is to compare digital art to printmaking, a media in which process is almost half the art, because of the many, many different ways of doing any one thing on a computer... so find artists with unique styles/methods. obviously not too hard either, but any primary artist suggestions are much appreciated

i know i'm not the only one who's ever argued this point (!), maybe someone out there can give me another idea or two... i'm trying to educate my peers (fine arts and comm. design) as well as my teacher

thanks!

-matt

[stacy]

Wow, what a great topic.

That's a tough one.
I REALLY want to see this paper when it's done.
Sounds VERY interesting.

It's easy to make a case for ILLUSTRATIVE art.
Digital art in that case is nothing more that a step saver.
Painting an illustration digitally and going straight to print
through the software, is identical, in result, to painting on canvas.
The only things missing are, scanning the final piece,
seperating it, stripping the negs, and then burning
the plates to go to press.


FINE ART is in the last step, defined by it's exhibition and appreciation.
Part of that experience is being able to enjoy the object itself and the
richness of the medium like the impasto 'painterlyness' of it.

That's easy to mimic for printed matter but it just
doesn't play the same way, or as well, hanging on a gallery wall.

I REALLY DO what to see this paper when you're finished
I'd love to know how you resolve this!

[frostfyre]

For years I was an art snob who figured that my daily work was not "real" art.

Over the course of the years, I noticed that most of the rennaissance artists were essentially commercial artists, as are many of my other influences. "Art for Art's sake" is a relatively modern concept.

Because of this, I now feel that digital, in its many forms, is valid as art, as is all commercial art. Galling at times, but still - I think its all valid.

I also happen to think that video games are as much their own valid art medium as film. They are far more complex than films, and there are still many new areas to explore in the interactive realm.

Film is a century old medium that has progressed to the point where any tale can be visualized and told. In its infancy, it was considered a side show attraction.

Good luck with your paper-
_________________
-frostfyre-

[matter]

thanks staci n frostfyre

i think fine art has come to a point where literally anything that has to do with any kind of interaction can at least be considered as a conceptual fine art... however, searching the internet i found the biggest argument was that digital is simply "easier" (a misconception, i think, that i also want to address) or less of a mess, which doesn't bare any kind of appreciative merit.

[Yarik]

I believe their is a compant that specializes in printing art with real paint, it takes a while but the final result is a painting which has dried paint and the roughness of a real painting. I am still searching if it exists.

[stacy]

That's a good direction, matter.

RGB has a much larger color space.
CMYK is limited because it has to be a mix
of ONLY Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK.

Raw pigments on the other hand should be
limited only by the physical pigment sources.

I don't recall ever seeing the entire possible
range of known pigmenst ever quantified,
but I'm betting it's a hugh number.

So, I have no idea how real painter's pigment
and it's permutations compare to RGB.

But it sure makes ANOTHER very interesting
question doesn't it...


Yarik...
Is the 'real paint' technique computer or digitally driven?
Or, is it digital output that's given a final "texture coat"
of faux brush marks by hand.

[Yarik]

I aint too sure stacy. I wish I remebered it.

[nathanael]

I've seen some of those printed with paint pictures. The ones I saw seemed to be based on some form of masking proocess.

As for one thing that digital art can achieve which can never be achieved with physical media is the neutral grey phenomenon. Most of the time you have to make sure you avoid it, but technically it could be exploited as a part of the art in order to achieve an effect. In the real world there is no such thing as a 50% black and 50% white mixture. There is always some other colouring mixed in there.
_________________
-Nathanael

[fluO]

[stacy]

flu0, I'm not going to contest any of those points.

My thought is to support 'matter' in making his argument
for digital art as fine art.

But to come to a valid conclusion in his paper, he has to
look at as many aspects of the issue as he can.

And if he can't look at all the points of why it isn't really
fine art and then overcome them, then there's no academic
integrity in just saying, "Well digital art is modern, cool, it's
going to happen whether you like it or not. My opinion is golden.
Shove off." ...so to speak...

When looking at the Sfumato in, say, the Mona Lisa it is
still possible to analyze the process and how the pigment
was built up regardless of how polished it is.

That's why I think 'matter's' idea about another way of
thinking about the enhanced color richness of digital adding to the
final fine art experience, is a genuinely valid way of extending the
boundry of art and therefore validating it as art. ...fine art.

Your pseudoscientific notion about embedding captured images
with spectral reflectance and colormetric information is a great idea.
If you could present it as a feasible process, I think that would add
quite a lot to help support 'matter's' thesis.

And I hope we don't get off into any infantile fantasy about
StarTrek Holodecks and little holographs of Princess Lea and whatnot.

[fluO]

Sorry if I offended you Stacy


I was talking about this, and actually it s already been done quit a lot amongst photographer
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/expert/calibrate.mspx

here is a spectrophotometer specially designed to calibrate monitor :


you can google it for more infos http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=spectrophotometer+calibrate+monitor&meta=

I didnt get the joke about star trek and leia; the only Sci-FI part was for the receiving end to set his monitor to match your profile ( the one you created the image on) .

I still dont get the difference between analyzing "the process and how the pigment was built up" and "analyzing "the process and how the pixel/Photoshop brush stroke was built up"


ps : just for reference here is a reflectance profile curve sampled from Pyrole Red PR254 watercolor pigment ( plz disregard the three thin colored lines on top portion of the graphic they symbolize cone response and are irrelevant here )

definition from handprint : spectral reflectance curve.

"The reflectance curve describes the proportion of incident light that a surface reflects at each wavelength, so it identifies the profile of light stimulation that creates the perception of a specific color. "

[stacy]

flu0,
You didn't offend me. Why? Where you trying to?

The only spectrophotometer I know of is a real one
in the school's physics dept. and is a uv/vis double beam
scanner using a holographic diffraction grating to
eliminate nonlinear dispersion for more accurate scans.
Hence, the reference to holograms and holo'decks'.

Pixels are only points of light on a screen.
They can not be 'built up' they can only be replaced.

If you're suggesting that a digital piece being presented
as fine art, should be required to be archived and shown
in a raw format that contains the history of all the strokes
and all the layers done in the creative process, I think
that's a valid concept that could be very useful to 'matter'.

[fluO]

joke : In the end its just photons reaching your eye wether its traditionnal or digital, sure you cant feel it with your finger if its digital, but I dare you to touch a piece in a museum without getting bludgeonned by the security.
( I know on the other hand that many specialist x-ray pieces to try and understand how/what happened )

[mr.wonton]

it's the final product that matters to me.....I don't really care if its created with mud....as long as it appeals to someone!

[Tomasis]

I don't understand the point with the fine arts and x-ray, history and so on. Those silly things don't need associate with the fine arts. Therefore what does the words "fine arts" mean ? is the photography also fine arts? though digital photos have numerical pixels.

[stacy]

Nobody said anything about X-rays...
What in THE hell are you talking about?

This started out with 'matter' as a really fine
discussion about his paper and what a great
topic it is.

I knew it wouldn't take long until the nitwits
and the jerkoffs took over.

I'm outta' here.

[matter]

haha, wow.. thanks guys. so i can also add a universality concept... no deterioration, and i take it that everyone *should* be able to view an image exactly as the artist theirselves did with things llike this spectro-monitor calibrator? whereas with a painting, you'd really have to see it at the exact time and place it was painted at to see it perfectly...

so digital really is art's most communicable medium... i forgot to mention there are also real live *fine artists* who make online websites built for user interaction.. mostly conceptual stuff, but based on audience interaction.. gotta find those links again heh.

stacy, i don't completely understand/agree with the idea that an artist should be required to save steps of the creative process... perhaps it might add a certain quality to the work (maybe another point to mention.. all those opencanvas videos and whatnot), but i think the history is as visible in a final product as in any other media.

the fact that things do move quicker could be useful, in that it leaves more extra time not wasted watching paint dry, so more work, more possibility. seems to make sense.. and this may be more opinion, but it seems to me that the medium lends itself to its own digital community.. so that artists of the medium are more likely to communicate with more diverse artists, and more often.. the world is always a click away from ur canvas. more artists, better communication b/w artists *cough* sijun *cough*, more possibility..
the medium opens artists to more control and more opportunity. i think that's really important.

thanks for all the help so far.. i'll post a link to my paper when/if i get to write one (find out monday, mh). keep talkin guys...

-matt

[metaphoracles]

Another unique property of digital art is choice. With digital art you can choose to print your work on a different-textured paper or choose a different size (without cropping). You can experiment without doing damage to the original. With any "traditional" medium once its done you risk destruction by experimenting.

[ozan]

i wont try to talk about what fine art is, that gives me a headache every time.

matter, you mentioned fine art websites- i remember a bunch of them being highlighted in the whitney biennial catalog. i dont have it, but i'm sure you could did that up. i think that from the modern view on fine art, those sites that utilized the structure of the internet itself to make art would be considered more of a "fine art" form. when i first started using this forum, fresh out of a bfa program i started trying to use the forum itself to do art. it generally got no response or was regarded as spam or a joke so i quit. and let my appreciation for illustration take over.

as for the kind of work we tend to do here, sorry but i have to agree that working digitally is mainly just a timesaver. for me. it's true that working digitally, we can come up with effects that would be uncommon in a traditional painting, but there is not digital painting that could not be copied perfectly in oil and canvas. and there's no oil painting that cannot be scanned and digitized, and reproduced all over the internet. but even if photshop is just a time saver, it's fucking awesome! a big part of why we love craigs work I thnk, is the power, that we recognize, he has to display an idea with such specificity and with so much speed and efficiency. that should not be overlooked. that speed/power will help us to make our games and films even better and regarded as fine art.
_________________
ozan

[matter]

ozan, i try to understand your point, as it seems to be the majority's view...

but the fact remains to me that if all a computer does is mimic results, then why use one in the first place, period? as soon as you begin to give me any answer, time, whatever, i think that's already a valid argument for digital's sake. great painters such as sargent emphasized minimalism - everything to its most basic components. and even recently, the great action painters have shown that even the simple rhythmic movement of your hand across a canvas is something to appreciate.

and in your last sentence, u mentioned speed/power contributing to games and films, digital media, considered as fine art.. i agree... it may be a stretch, but id say simply the fact that artists are allowed to produce more work that has the potential to be infinitely more precise is something to be appreciated. it has a place in the halls of art history, perhaps more important than even art museums, which i was reading hav only been around for over a century, two?

computers combine the creative process of just about every technique into one. bits of 1's and 0's that can mimic to a certain extent literally any media and you can work with them all seamlessly without future deterioration. so far, the bulk of digital programs focus on how natural media interacts/appears, but i don't see why they should be so constrained to only the media that has come before it. given the relative 20-30 years lifespan of the computer age, the arts created on a computer, and the technological advancements made, i think we can only expect more improvement and more ideas coming to surface... photography has been around for a ~century, and still seems to continue evolving.

at least in my report i will be able to explain the benefits and future possibilities.. i see digital media as a seed of something that still nobody entirely understands, and something so truly basic and unique that hopefully it will never stop growing

[sweetums]

Good, now that "Terminally PMS Stacy" has left, we can discuss the issue with more open-mindedness, with the nitwits and jerkoffs more free to express opinions and thoughts different from Stacy's, eh?

Matter, my first issue with your topic is, what constitutes "Fine Art" for this project? Are you discussing tactile vs. flat visual? Subject matter? What? Once you've narrowed your topic a bit, it would then be easier to find a stance to take and defend concerning convincing someone.

Media have changed since man first sprayed ash over his hand in a cave back when. Michaelangelo, amongst others, continually experimented with different media, a trend that evolves to this day. What defines "Fine Art," from one century to another changes as do tastes and color schemes...

As stands, it seems too broad a concept to successfully sway opinions about short of a 1300 page tome...
Have you done any type of rough outline of what you are trying to accomplish? Give us some more information to work with here. You know how us nitwits are...
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[matter]

thanks for replying sweetums...

the original problem is that my teacher doesn't even see digital media as valid for any kind of "appreciated" contemporary art. (we've been studying duchamp, jasper johns, pollock..mainly abstract expressionism and beyond). She said she wants to know "why would i use this media over any other?" That is a question in everybody's mind, i think, and there are obviously a wide range of possible arguments on both sides of the fence.

and as far as fine art is concerned, really all it has to do is say something that hasn't been said before. things we see in fine art today are ideas and techniques derived from our experience in the natural world. so they're things that have been with artists since day one, but we're never fully aware until someone throws the isolated idea on its own canvas.
contemporary art seems to me to have reached a very intellectual/conceptual point that champions the creative mind over physical integrity. and where it will go in the next century is anyone's guess.. the role of computers becomes more integrated in everyday life every year, and its role in art should only follow that trend. its role could mean leading us to new ways of thinking and new kinds of art, or it could also continue behind the scenes, bringing technology to other areas, say holographic museums or something..

so to narrow it down, i'm focusing on what are the unique aspects of digital media that allow an artist to do something that could never be done before (visual or conceptual)?


sorry, i'm long-winded when trying to explain myself. i hope that makes it more clear? thanks

-matt

[eyewoo]

It might be importatnt to establish what "fine art" is before deciding what the digital art medium has to offer fine art, and then again the whole matter is so subjective that whatever is put out there is going to find both detractors and lovers.

Your teacher implies fineart = Duchamp, Jasper Johns, Pollack... then I would say the teacher clearly feels art is as much an idea and process as it is a final visual image... Sounds good to me, but why then (especially considering Duchamp) would the teacher feel the digital medium is not legit as a medium. I suspect because she has "not read the novel"... i.e. she really knows nothing about it or thinks that digital artists are people who smack filters over photos and call it art. You need to point out that digital offers an easier path to conceptual art than just about or perhaps any other medium of art. Why? ... the simple answer is because of Ctrl-Z... the undo. The ability to run up a stream of conceptual thought and get back to stable ground if the stream goes all wonky on you. The more complex answer is the ability to be able to jump feet first into an idea a zillion times a day rather than just 10 or 12 because of the restrictions of traditional media.

What are the unique aspects of the digital media?.. as above, that's it. It's wide open and totally willing to entertain just about anything visual.
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[matter]

yes... she does also appreciate visual contemporaries like susan rothenberg, lichtenstein, etc.. she is only following course subject matter and at least up until now has been very non-partisan to any kind of work, and she seems to show us a wide variety of styles, though all fairly modern. she even admitted that she may be ignorant to digital art, but she wants me to educate her before going on to a full class presentation; mainly i think because digital media is not in our course's curriculum and i have to know what it is that i plan to talk about, heh.

i like the idea behind ctrl+z eyewoo, i never looked at it that way. tomorrow i'll have at least a few ideas to throw around with her

-matt

[eyewoo]

When word processors first started to become wide spread for desk top computers in the early 1980s, I actually noticed an interesting thing happening. I personally knew a few writers, journalists, etc. I noticed their writing seemed just a bit more fluid. It flowed with a bit less restraint. I'm convinced it was the new word processors in their new desk top computers which removed the rewrite monkey... it was far less risky to take a risk.

The same goes for digital graphics, which started becoming seriously available about 10 years later in the early 90s when the higher processor speeds, graphics programs, and bigger storage devices became widely available to those interested in digital as a medium.

Yepsir, the Ctrl-Z thang is a lot of what digital is all about... It will also be slammed by many traditional artists who feel it makes it much too easy. That's one way of looking at it it, but I prefer to think that it opens up more conceptual possibilities and fuels imagination. The ride is just much more fun...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[spooge demon]

I know of professional writers who can only write longhand. Strange, but they do.

When I have tried to replicate a digital sketch in acrylic or oil, I have been quite surprised by the result. While I might have been happy with the digital painting, I became aware of how much information was really there in the paint, at an almost microscopic level. Like the pointillist "glow" these millions of discrete particles and tracks of hairs in paint seemed to really make the image alive, far more than the digital version. To scan the painting to be identical would take gigabytes and then would you have the output problem. And we have not even started on 3-d texture.

Going back to the digital tools seemed like a hollow approximation to paint.

If you were to mathematically reproduce all the aspects of throwing ink from a brush (with several thousand hairs) on some paper, it would require more calculation than is easily available now. The brushes in painter or PS are a simplification.

But like a pencil sketch, when is the simpler adequate or even better? I don't know, that is a personal question, and is tied up with what the function of the art piece is. With all the concept work I do I think the computer is just fine. People understand it right away because it uses conventions of traditional art, even though it is not. And it is so flexible. It's kind of a super pencil, with a very effective eraser. I think that having such a great planning and exploration tools benefits the final art a great deal, whether the final is traditional or digital.

If part of the definition of fine art is no compromise in time or materials (you are trying to make the "best" thing you can that has no other utility) then paint is better for my purposes.

But this is just for me, trying to do a very narrow thing.

[watmough]

i can see all your points.nice to see some thinking happening.
digital art definitely seems to affect my process almost unintentionally.because i've done a fair amount of digital paintings(almost everyday for a year),the way that my hand-eye works just seems to happen in traditional painting as well.
this is a side effect of being able to make changes (in the digital medium)so easily that i do not hesitate to make a mark(painting traditionally) like i did before painting with the wacom.
what i mean to say is,that since painting on the computer you can always undo,i dont hesitate to make a stroke,or line,or whatever.now,when i paint traditionally,in my head i'm still thinking i can undo it,so i just put it down.
of course i cant,but its actually making my traditional art much more effective,bolder and to the point than it was.and,if art is more about process,well.....i dont know....still thinking about all this.good discussion,guys.

[sweetums]

Spooge, thank you for the one statement, "...you are trying to make the "best" thing you can that has no other utility." That is one of the best definitions of art I've read in a long time...

Matter, I don't know how much of this will help your project, but you most definitely have started a fascinating thread here!
A few sources for you that might help (or confuse you further!):

http://digitalart.org/index.php (possible image sources for your arguments)
http://www.peimag.com/pdf/pei99/pei1299/pg8Textonly.pdf (an interesting article on one artist's evolution from traditional to digital fine art, and we're talking award winning here...)
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/media/Digital_Artist.html (since your instructor is female, possibly some Women Digital Artists from ArtCyclopedia.com, whose mission is "...to become the definitive and most effective guide to museum-quality fine art on the Internet: )
http://www.schminke.com/in_abt_e.html (Karen Schminke has exhibited in the National Museum of American Art, in Washington DC, has an extensive education and background [BA, MA, MFA in Art Design], and is considered to be a renowned digital artist)

I think in the end, it's like the old adage about leading a horse to water. Your instructor may very well be one of those close-minded individuals who simply cannot grasp the evolution of art into the digital realm. That's okay, although both she and her students are being shortchanged in the long run. At least you were able to look further outwards...
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[eyewoo]

Yepsir, I also know of writers who only write long hand. They have built a foundation for thought and creative production that works and works well, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it - though I must caveat, they are a breed that is harder and harder to find...

Creativity in the arts is different than in the sciences where being on the cutting edge of technology is part of the progress of science. That is not so in the arts... at least not with the same urgency.

Appreciation of art is a personal question and is beautifully subjective. In the sciences for the layman, things are pretty black and white (unless stuff like embryonic stem cell research comes up - but not here), but with art there is legitimacy in just about any direction of thought or argument... and then along came digital. WOW... does it ever open up the questions.

One of the ways I see the traditional vs. digital art mediums is like so: Traditionally, you have an individual working with a well understood group of tools. Digitally you have an individual more like a film director, working with a crew of tools, all of which are continually presenting new and intriguing personalities and possibilities as the medium evolves... probably not being too clear here, but with digital, I do often feel like I'm working with and trying to control tools that have a mind of their own, and it is exciting...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[silber]

I'm not sure if this fits in due to my english and cause I'm on the run,
if not sorry, otherwise good luck.

http://www.groupc.net/

very interesting in my opnion, no random shit btw, if you think so at first glance.
_________________
marek