[matter]

hi, i'd like to open a discussion on the difference of fine art and high art, art in general, but most importantly, digital as acceptable "art."

ive finished studying fine arts at an amazing 2-year school, only to realize that most "fine artists" are simply exploring their own "style".. there is no final definition of art, there's even now an "anti-art" movement, and the range of fine art has gone beyond visual or conceptual, so that even painting has been declared dead. art, it seems, is not bounded by any medium, but the better artists have learned to use many media together. for everything that art is in the conceptual world, according to sol lewitt, "the idea is the machine that makes the art." get where i'm going? some people may remember i brought this issue up earlier when i was going to make a report on digital as fine art, but it seems the only acceptable fine artists using computer technology were those taking advantage of internet or more basic digital means... they are a more conceptual art still than visual. i've heard of a new movement in new york recently of young artists going back to realism, a "hyper-realism," and many of the best visual artists ive seen have simplified their art to something like "speedpaintings," because we are all studying light in reality, and trying to simplify it back through concepts and ideas into an understandable "image" that is still limited to what we see by light. and in fact, computers are not limited by this fact, because they create light.

does that make computers less of an art? perhaps, i suppose... if you are still in the conservative camp, the one which is still egotistically insisting that galleries are the best place to expose art. i'm asking, what is art to everybody here, and why do you use your computer? if it is merely a quick way to get "ideas" down, then where does the final idea come into play? are we not logically allowed to admit that a binary programmed file could in fact be as good as any treaty, any declaration of independence, any fully realized idea of "truth?"

i know, this is mostly philosophical and will not solve anybody's problems, but ive been studying fine art and have come back here now, halfway through my studies and ready to begin my career, only realizing that abstract, realism, movments of all kind, are as real as any other, and the real challenge of computer art remains more infinitely daunting than any traditional fine artist could ever admit. i believe this medium's opportunity as "fine art" is only of generational transition... most people who grew up with pencils, paints, and brushes would not relate to such a novel technology.

hm, i could go all day about this and welcome comments. this is me preaching to the choir, certainly, but i also want it to spark ideas.. because if you can believe concept artists are on a level with fine artists, you may begin to understand how much more there is to learn from it than the usual repeated stuff i hear on these boards about compositional rules, color theory, etc... to me, most beginning illustrators think the end is brute-forcing their physical skills towards drawing like a photograph, and that's not the case at all! there are much faster ways to train your eye/mind that lie internally, IMHO this is the forefront of "fine art".. perhaps itd be interesting to start topics about different fine artists (getting away from sargent, the old ones, etc.) to promote discussion/projects related... my teachers here help most often by comparing the similarities of our work to accomplished artists and their directions

-matt
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[Capt. Fred]

I think art should look good.

shamefully, when I had to do a brief two weeks in fine-art on my one-year course, I couldn't understand why I coundn't write an essay instead of making some arbitrary mostrosity that is interprable at best!

I suppose it just means i've got a tiny brain

Maybe it's that 'artist rebel' idea the imprssionists started, gone out of control.

[eyewoo]

change = just do it
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[cheney]

Art is meant to be evaluated in much the same way as everything else in the world:

Why was it created? (purpose)
How was it created?
Was it trying to say something?
Was it trying to say more than one thing?
What materials and tools were used?
What processes or methods were uses?

If an artist does not a definative and purposeful answer for all these questions then their art is garbage or theft from other art. Such garbage, as previous described, definately gives fuel to arguements against digital art even though most art known as modern art is perhaps worse. Picasso's art was thought of as crap by most art patrons of his day, but he is found to be a genius. Picasso's art also influenced Piet Mondrian who would become an enlighted master of minimalism and composition. People who feel digital art is lesser a form of art are fools who are typically operating with an unspoken motive like those who killed Socrates.

Here are some motives for hating digital mediums by art patrons:
1) Devaluation of art as a tangible collector's antique
2) A lack of understanding for art created with different methods
3) Fear of expanded competition in gallery art circles
4) Fear of death of production type cottage industry art
5) Those who exist in art socials for social reasons exist to pursue a social perogotive rather than artist ambition and would not want such deflated
6) Art is a marketplace for even crap art, modern art, that is built on social arrogance and the devaluation of this garbage art means loose of loads of money to people who have no talent

I am extremely weary of those who find reason to consider digital art a lesser form of art, and would like to hear arguements confined to mediums rather than works in specific.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Heysoos]

cool topic. I was a fine art major in art school as well. The way I see it Fine art came about when artists started to explore "what is art, and what makes something a work of art". Before that it was just art, I don't think Michaelangelo really saw himself as a "fine" artist or commercial artist, but just an artist. The history of art theories is basically a seesaw of thesis/antithesis. Everytime someone puts some sort of rules or limitations on what defines "high" art another group will do the opposite to prove that those rules aren't what make something art. I think the people who say that digital art can't be fine art are the same kind of people that said screen printing can't be fine art a few decades ago before andy warhol did his thing.

The biggest barrier I see for digital art is in terms of presentation. When looking at all the cool pictures on this site I feel like I am just looking at the image of the art rather than being face to face with the REAL artwork, like you can be with a painting. For digital art to be conceptual art it has to incorporate the whole idea of being presented on a screen or on the internet, or it has to be printed in some way and be presented like a form of printmaking. I've seen a few digital conceptual artists, though nothing thats really blown me away.

[pxy]

what you see in an artpiece, no one else will. or: everyone interprets art differently. and for me: i can always look into / experience art, and find more. so a defitinition of it (even just a single) is stupid, since i'll never find everything.

ok. maybe i should read the topic more.

a lot of people define artisticness as technical skill. but computers can do technical stuff much better, right? are computers artists? what's the problem with 3d renders (or was before, or whatever)? it was too perfect. so one can say that art is imperfection: what it is to be human. what it is to be natural. organic.

there are some people which turn into caring more and more about technical skill, and what happens? well, it's easier to notice, or it happens more, with music: "studio'd" sound. soft. pussied out. tame.

maybe i'm too abstract still? oh yeah. analog vs digital. the biggest thing is time: or then again, how much technical skill you use. then one should say, the person shouldn't use brushes, or should make the brushes yourself! same for colours.

and i'm explaining badly. so i'll just let other people talk:

oh. wait. i was thinking.

reality, in eyes: 3 dimensions. computer screens, or often, at least: 2 dimensions.

senses: 5. so eyes are 1 sense then. it could be called, we percieve the world in 5 dimensions.

so trying to replicate a photo, you're replicating 2/3 dimensions. (are cameras artists?) so there is something beyond that. yeah. brain melts.

"image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression"
- ansel adams

people that compare machines vs computers, and say using machines is more "pure", are missing the point: don't relate enough.

well, and that was more about photography. yeah, replace "machines" with "tools".

you'll always use those.

maybe we should only do the purest art: dreams.

and that techy thing:

"too many composers become involved in intellectual speculation which seems to matter more to them than the sound that comes out of all this speculation"
- louise talma

equating "beauty/art" with perfection.

"when you start hearing artistic and non-artistic sounds, you no longer appretiate (ugliness/something), and thus shut yourself off from a part of the experience"
- ?

oh yeah. i think the less technical you have to do, the more creative you can be.
(which is why i love webcams. oh yeah. point n shoot. no processing. and then that they are cheap pieces o crap: makes unique tones, colours. and the grain looks nice. yep. and i noticed the less i think when photoing, the better it gets. i've done some times where i just held the photo button for 10-20 mins on continouos mode, and it was surprising the amount of photos i could use)
technical is only a hindrance. but then again i say: if you analyze art, as in some science, you find techniques. but they don't exist before the analyzation. no. that sounded better before. art shouldn't be about bragging what skills you got, but using those skills as organically as possible. only the beauty should be noticed.

"- why did you paint this? what does it mean?
- if i could tell you that, i wouldn't o painted it"
- ?

"art is a form of therapy.
sometimes i wonder how all those who do not
write, compose, or paint
can manage to escape the madness,
the melancholia, the panic fear,
which is inherent in the human situation"
- graham greene

"poetry
is man's rebellion
against being
what he is"
- james branch cabell

"the role of art
is to make a world
which can be inhabited"
- william saroyan

"space light order.
those are the things that men need
just as much as they need
bread or a place to sleep"
- le corbusier

"i think most artists create out of despair.
the very nature of creation
isn't a performing glory on the outside,
it's a painful, difficult search within"
- louise nevelson

ok that's enough

[matter]

ah, nice everybody... i have more faith in illustrators than fine artists, at least more of the general populace see use for it!...

i guess, in my first post i was a bit spread out, but i've been reading a lot more lately just on modernism, what it means.. i find there are "fine artists" anywhere you go, but there are also still many more "craftsmen," yet we are all learning, regardless! the difference of the two simply is that one finds goals from interior insight, but the other suffers from exterior dreams. interior/exterior directives intermingle, for instance competition and influence don't necessarily mean you are making art only to be better than the next guy or be like everybody else, but sometimes we neglect to act on our own ideas, because they seem unrelated to the tasks at hand... it's definitely a zen of the two that must be kept in check.

my teacher explained to me we should study art practices and ideas, but as soon as we enter our studio we must forget everything... this is the problem i find with myself, and suddenly i catch myself in processes. and yet, i'm still trying to grasp photoshop.. just trying to learn how all its little parts can work together, let alone make something identifiable!

gonna make one more argument sort of returning to what i said before: i agree we can only ignore how fine art elitists view digital art (to me it is still basically all 1s and 0s, positive and negative like anything else), though, i think there may also be a reactive stereotype from digital artists, that we have nothing to learn from them. we change individually, and that is the key to progression, but digital art to me is not merely a hallucinatory experience, or a means to a commerical/consumer end...

okay, i guess, the real question in my mind, to ask, is Why are there so few digital "abstract" (visually non-representational) works? certainly it's a daunting task to manifest a dream reality, but much more the task of an unrealistic dream... perhaps a detachment from so many varied and unrelatable computer programs effectively nulls the reason?

i think then, if that is true, it would be good to center focus on techniques and crossing programs, which can be found in many tutorials and indeed seems to be the best avenue (use 3d programs to layout 2d, etc.)... but has yet to be highlighted as its own expression beyond the artist's "style," which seems more about shortcuts than an identified issue. i think that, for instance, would enable greater insight than trying to use them for a 3d realistic end... i would _love_ to see spooge attempt a photoshop abstraction (or any of these other illustration gods), but, allegorically, i would not expect sargent to paint like kandinsky!

ill move to start an abstraction thread, if only after i start proving myself-gotta go

-matt

PS. eyewoo, i think you said it best... i'm taking a year off school, and plan to start spending more time with my computer
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[pxy]

[matter]

pxy: ah, yes... i agree, i have dreams, as anybody, but have been going through more stress lately... to talk about!

i just googled "art is dead," found an interesting article... that art is dead only in the sense of painting and sculpture, but it explained in much more depth, that art has merely changed forms from its old visual ideals. To me now, *artists* would be defined as the engineers who study a subject and learn from their experience to make it work more efficiently, if only so other people may leech from and draw their own conclusions. like a theoretical modernist using postmodernist ideals? thats as far as i should explain it!

i will shut up, but pretend i am not an artist for once... certainly what i was talking about with experimenting in digital media to find a workable process [for my own purposes, real or abstract] is nothing new, but i still feel it has yet to be genuinely _practiced_ as its own end to better techniques. i want to try and go back into a dreamstate ignorant of realizing higher "personal dreams," past modernism, past post modernism, hopefully better defined by this postpostmodernism i've been seeing references about (seems like a theorized "return to reality" movement)!

-matt

perhaps, time will tell
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[Drew]

[Heysoos]

I Strongly agree with drew. I think that criteria like that is what makes a lot of people, like capt. freds experience in fine art, feel like the artwork is just an excuse to write an essay about it. Fine art to me is about discovery and learning about yourself. If you already know why you are doing it and all your motives than there is no reason to actually do it. Good art should leave you in a state of wonder and let you revel in the mystery as opposed to giving you concrete answers. If I can sum up everything that a piece of art "says" in a single statement, essay, or even book then I would say that it is a very shallow work of art. It should take at least a life time of creating art before you even start to understand what its purpose might be. Obviously this is just my take on it, others go about it from other directions and have a very clear goal or statement they are trying to make. For me, the second that a piece of artwork loses its sense of mystery is when it starts being boring. If you had a chance to talk to someone like van gogh or joseph cornell about what they thought the "purpose" of their art is, do you think they would have a definitive answer? Is their artwork garbage if they are at a loss for words?
_________________
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/wfkeil

[Max]

My problem with the word "art" is that people still use it to value somethiung. When you say something is art you say it's "good". Since EVERYTHING can be art today (51% of the poeple have to say its art and it is), it's not very intelligent to use it to value something.
Art should be used like the word "music". Something is music, but that doesn't mean its good, since theres all kind of music out there. There's all kind of different art out there, totally different art concerning quality, style ,meaning, simply everything. How can you say something is art meaning its good? My definition for art it that it's noit constant and that people define it altough the definition will alwas change, everyday, therefopre I don't care what art is, it doesn't matter.

[Heysoos]

ah, but what is "music"? is the sound of me banging my head against the wall music? what if I do it in tempo? birds make musical sounds but is that music? etc. etc.
_________________
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/wfkeil

[watmough]

heysoos,that is definitely one of the things that differentiate fine art from...say illiustration,for example.illustration has a definite purpose and function.
fine art,is much less.....concrete.i have had this argument with people many times.this is not to say that illustration cannot be self-expressive ,it is ,by very definition,a means to an end.one could say the same for many "craft" type arts.i am,by profession a tattooer,and i do NOT make art.plain and simple. i am a craftsman.though many people might call what i do "art".
that is not to say that tattooing is not artistic,it definitely can,and should be. however,i NEED to work in a very strict and technical way,not unlike pinstriping a car or painting signs.
now,when i paint,that is a different story.
when i go through the process of determining subject matter or responding to light and the environment,or experiencing a mood,or studying colour and value...these are things that ,to me at least,are "art". for me,"art" is study.but study in a deeply personal,expressive,and ultimately experimental way....all things that in my profession,could actually be quite damaging to the finished product."art" fro me asks questions,whether they are answered or not remains to be seen.

[matter]

mm continuing.. i've been studying some interesting artists, such as jean dubuffet, leader of the art brut movement... quoted as "the thorn of 20th century art"... found more art in the conversations of average people than stuff hung on walls. collected art of the mentally ill (similar in intent to children's art), actually, and worked diligently until he found his own style, though one seemingly lacking in style that used red, blue, and yellow inside black outlines of varied form. his work became efficient when he took it off the flat surface of the page and built "practicables"... he saw the world as a stage, effectively, and built "props" that represented landscapes, chairs, telephones, figures.. but only symbolically. to me, he broke the rules of media to its most simple form, although only becuz it was a means to an end, and in fact it only allowed him to continue his search.
my definition of a fine artist is one who eventually finds a mature "technique," a key comfort zone that allows them to "break through" traditional problems. sargent had his process, picasso had cubism, pollock had drippings, kandinsky had abstraction, calder had mobiles... these are contributions to art that allow us to believe in the craft of fine art. these, you could call modernists...

it seems in today's art world, the very definition of art is impossible. postmodernism, if u study it, isnt even very identifiable, and is more about a collection of different artists who build their own realities based on "normal" concepts (like stacking bricks...). its already past, now, becuz we identified it, and its not "new" anymore. to me, it's useless even to consider it art becuz it still has not found way to serve the people. what would artists be if not for the non-artists? but the critics and artists of our time will find something else to give a new name to...the point of art, i believe, is to be progressive in whatever you do. we cant define art anymore: we need to be progressive about our own notions of making art.
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[Ragnarok]

Personally, I'm a bit sick of the constant pursuit for originality. Nowadays you make art if you are considered original.
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[Heysoos]

I kinda agree. I think originality and all that is a good thing and I like seeing new ideas. But, I think some artists take it too far and just do things that are New for the sake of being New. If the only merit something has is that its an original idea that hasn't been done before I think thats pretty weak.
_________________
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/wfkeil

[eyewoo]

Well... in truth, it has to be an original idea that hasn't been done before... that works...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Impaler]

I have to disagree about the originality; it's an essential function of art.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, let me define art as human expression. Human expression (abstract) comprises the branch of human evolution called "culture." The other two (practical) branches are biological and technological.

Evolution is a perceivable development from one stage to something more complex, right? Biological development would be the growth of opposable thumbs or a complex dental system. Technological development would be a move from cart to car, abacus to computer, et al.

Cultural evolution then would be the move from a logographic-phonetic language system like Egyptian heiroglyphics to a phonetic system like Greek or Hebrew, or the move from the 20,000 year-old stick figures in French caves to the 200 year-old Impressionist paintings of French avenues. In art, this progression means a new, inventive way of communicating an abstract idea. The introduction of color, light, perspective, oil paint, silver halide emulsion, pixels have all radically changed the way we perceive art and thereby the world around us. The same holds true for the various "schools" of art, e.g. po-mo, futurism, cubism, impressionism, chiaroscuro, marble sculpture, cave paintings. They all represent, in some way or another, a progression of how the artist (the social niche) chooses to represent an abstract idea.

That's where originality comes in. It can be said that if a piece of art (or philosophy, or prose, or music, or fashion or whatever) doesn't represent something new, then it's not evolving. It's fine and admirable of a 21st century artist to paint something that exactly evokes the same qualities of a Monet. It may even be a very pretty painting, a true masterpiece. However, unless that painting presents some new idea ABOUT impressionism or art, it can't be called progressive. It's like a modern-day engineer spending all of his time and effort on inventing the lightbulb, or rediscovering electricity.

That brings up an interesting similarity AND distinction between culture and technology. While biological evolution has more or less come to a halt over the last 50,000 years or so (save for a marked increase in body mass), technology and culture have been evolving at an exponential rate. It was what, 230 years from when Newton understood the laws of mutual attraction to the Wright Brother's flight at Kitty Hawk. 60 years after that, man was walking on the moon. If you had told me 15 years ago that I could OWN a computer as powerful as the old CRAY 1, I would have laughed at you. Similarly, art schools have progressed at an alarming rate.

Frescos dominated the first half the last millenium, followed by the 200 or so years of chiaroscuro, then by 100 years of impressionism, another 100 years of romanticism. The 20th century wave of -isms broke and things changed at a geometric rate. Dadaism changed into futurism and cubism and pop art and realism and photorealism and modernism etc etc etc, all while photography and rock and roll and blues and jazz and pop were raging on in the background. It was hectic.

Technology, on one hand, has a clear and empirical progression. Engineers and scientists implicitly understand the limitations of their current research, and so while developing one technology, they're already inherently reaching for that next frontier. Microchip research is a perfect example of this; we have 3 ghz microchips right now, but we KNOW there is a way to reach 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192 ghz. We just have to find it. Art, on the other hand, has no clear game plan for how to reach the next stage. This is why the pure definition of "art" is so confusing these days. Art is this mad machine that keeps accelerating at a frightening rate into the night. It's getting harder and harder for the theorists and critics to keep pace with this bullet train, and the only thing the artists can do is hold on and pray the bridge isn't out.

What do I think lies ahead? Pure creation, the human ability to instantly perceive the gestalt of originality as a whole. The appreciation of art as the abstract concept in itself.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[matter]

impaler: couldn't agree more.

i dont ask anyone to believe illustration should be original, quite the contrary; but we deserve to understand ourselves as artists, not craftsmen. commissioned work played a role in the roots of rennaissance art, the birthplace i'd trace to the cultural definition of "fine art." according to impaler's branches illustration seems to always be one step behind fine art, the culture, although more accustomed to technological innovations. to me, technology is slowly catching up to full integration of our "culture," especially as we minimize our understanding down into nanotechnology/quantum physics. we use it to define culture (a paintbrush is technology!), but i see culture and binary technology fighting now for dominance. the only direction for us is away from culture as technology into technology as culture!

before digital age, u had to take pen and paper, make a letter, put it through the mail... just to reach another person. now, that process is instant. is there a difference? yes. the communicated idea is the same, but the method has changed. fortunately we still depend on programmers, artists of the computer, to build these avenues, but is it bold to ask why can't we do this within ourselves? to me, this is the essential question of any artist, because it has been proven not only that you can, but many do, once they find their own "medium," which works for them but no one else... a technology for each person ingrained inside... i believe artists first create art on their own, but find a way to release themselves of it.

if you believe this, you may start seeing other questions... what can we do with this power, how have we not developed it, but what could we do to increase it?

considering the current temperature of art, ask me where fine art is headed, and i say down the drain. art in galleries of tomorrow should be made by more than one artist, and redirect itself outside of galleries to confront any "non-artists," especially the ones who ignore galleries. it should be asking what can we do with art when multiple artists of individual "cultures" combine their individual technologies? how can multiple artists push their technologies together to increase originality?

this may be a grandiose dream... the fact i can post this on a "forum" would make me believe, that at least if we live in The Matrix, we would learn to control it by working together after we find control of our personal ideas by forging them together first within ourselves, and second within eachother...

a selfish idea is simply that we should be able to learn to find personal comfort zones for originality at much earlier points in life, if this idea hasnt already lost its grip on reality. i dont believe anyone has to be called an artist, but i believe in the existence of one.. where can we draw the line?

-matt
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[Heysoos]

I don't know if art is really "progressing" in the same sense as technology, its expanding for sure but thats not the same. Is the "cutting edge" art of today any better than art of past ages? Is the goal of art really to simplify itself to its most base form? Can an artist not be brilliant and unique without trying to force a revolution? Throughout the last half of the past century art has become more like fashion with its weekly trends that come and go, and schools especially seem to push onto fineart majors that their main goal as an artist is to start the next trend. As soon as someone comes up with something new the art elite clap their hands, throw a party, then throw it away for the next "revolution" bandwagon. Is that what progress is?

[matter]

i agree, and thought along the same lines until i met modernism, and right after, post-modernism... art gets harder and harder to define according to any one artist. i dont ask that artists be brilliant, i ask that they find art in themselves before they call even themselves an artist... take note, im still in context of my last post!

i suggest two sides to the beliefs of artists: the belief that art is only an individual culture regardless of technology, and we cannot change it, therefore we will happily die crying "art for art's sake," or the belief that art is fundamentally changeable as a _shared_ culture experience, and therefore has power to improve more than individual culture as we slowly realize its potential within technology. it is more nature than culture or technology. in this extreme, i could go so far as to promote art as a religion (and i would not be the first)!

i've read (in Introducing Modernism by chris rodrigues and chris garratt) that "For the most part, the output from the commercial sector went against the grain of the modernist aesthetic. Hollywood has a bad record of usefully employing the creative talents of modernist artists, writers, and its more adventurous film directors.".. it uses artistic ideals, but in an entertainment fashion quite different from the goals of art. it came around to us with art and technology, but its more a cultural phenomenon?.. perhaps we just need better movies?
_________________
Sorry! for any digressive, pompous, or just plain off-topic rants.

[Impaler]

[watmough]

i bet every culture feels previous cultures are inferior.

[balistic]

[watmough]

yes,but revivals are generally either nostalgia-induced,or attempts to add modern "twists" on a past style.

[Heysoos]

[Affected]

If art has become hard to define it is because the same has happened to everything else as well. Although it would be nice to believe art changes the world around it, honestly it more just reflects it. And the world we live in now is so fragmented, how could art have definite shapes? Socially we identify much less with nation-states now, and more with smaller groups of our own choosing. Nationalism was a unifying factor for many people, but in europe at least it has a bad reputation nowadays. There's a void that may or may not get filled by something new. Maybe we should stop worrying about what art is so much. This new freedom of social mobility combined with technological advances could make for interesting times.

Collaboration was mentioned before. A key feature of this day and age seems to me to be self-organization. People and ideas move around and combine seemingly on their own to produce unexpected results. Maybe art will reflect that and become a more collective experience. Already you've got things like geocaching, which in essence doesn't necessarely differ that much from performance or environmental art, except it's idea is not to be art. Flash mobs come to mind as well here. When will people start to use things like google's satellite images to try to draw huge patterns on the globe for example?

Maybe we should just let go of the idea that art should be made intentionally. Right now, we have a lot of people with a lot of fun toys and they are doing a lot of interesting things with them. How does it matter what art is really? A lot of what we do is self-expression, whether it's considered art or not.

[pxy]

the art you mention sounds like design / minimalism. which i suppose pays good and is needed, so it could be the mainstream art, if you want that. architect.