Quick Art i.e.- Computer/Digital Art

[Katharine Gilbert]

Ever get the feeling that people think that computer generated art is not really art? and that because of the process and means to achieve the results implies that it should be inexpensive? anyone can do it attitude?

[Katharine Gilbert]

In 08, I had a show in which I had to give an artist statement and talk. I knew that I needed to research not to explain away my chosen media but to give some insight- hopefully. Below are some excerpts that I gathered and I think everyone here has hit upon the same conclusion- all art has always been in the arena of critiquing pros and cons.

digital image creation had it's beginning in 1956...

"There are three distinct parts to the imaging process: image capture, image processing and image display." Roger Macintosh

"Artistic programming is by no means a matter of routine, but rather is one of the most complex tasks imaginable located on the border between heuristic problem solving and 'artificial intelligence' techniques. This, however, means that involvement in computer art sets free not only artistic creativity, but, in addition, an all-round creative potential. The computer is often seen as situated between contrary forces, human needs on the one hand and on the other a world that is becoming increasingly technical and which is opposed to human nature...
Art is a special form of communication- a message subject to certain esthetic considerations. Art is not a material but rather an intellectual process...
It is interesting to note that the arts, despite highly different results, have one common origin in the imagination of the artists: chemo-electrical engrams in the artist's brain. It is only the choice of the specific means of expression - language, music, images - that leads to outwardly different results. The functioning of a computer suggests an interesting analogy: during processing, the data are encoded in electronic impulses; it is up to the programmer (artist) to choose the output device - printer, sound generator, plotter... "
Herbert W Franke Scientist and Artist, Germany 1982

What is of interest to artists is the fact that they have instruments at their disposal that enable them to go beyond the small, limiting frame of a picture and to present instead comprehensive image of an environment or the world.

Artists working with computers focus their attention on entirely different things. They construct their objects in three dimensions which, although more difficult than confining themselves to depicting the surface, is the prerequisite for depicting an object from all angles. As a result, artists will start to consider structural problems, e.g. the shapes of a mountain range, the distribution of trees in a forest. Their task becomes even more difficult when they work.

...in computer art the physical boundaries of the architecture of the machine are bypassed by the fact that it is a symbol-processing system.

[Michael Lownie]

Good background indeed.

I wasn't sure how to interpret this though:
"Artists working with computers focus their attention on entirely different things. They construct their objects in three dimensions which, although more difficult than confining themselves to depicting the surface, is the prerequisite for depicting an object from all angles. As a result, artists will start to consider structural problems, e.g. the shapes of a mountain range, the distribution of trees in a forest. Their task becomes even more difficult when they work."
It seems hard to generalize on that when so many actually are interested in producing flat imagery for the sake of the image. I always find "Layering" in Photoshop and Illustrator is an intriguing aspect but it doesn't "read" when printed out, it reads flat, except for any illusion of depth and space (shading etc), just like a painting I think...did I miss the point there? I'm not sure which "3 dimensions" are specific to artists working with computers.

[Katharine Gilbert]

When I found this quote it also left me with questions. I have produced 3-D prints but not for a while. I think your note on layering in photoshop hits upon what is true today. I am still looking for a way to merge my sculpture with my prints- right now they seem about as far removed as they could be though I have used shadows produced by my sculpture in the prints. My other thought was that with progs. like Flash the movement produces the depth but then we are still looking at a flat screen unless holograms are introduced. The thought of producing transparent images with which you can move through would be wonderful! Oh well, hope this rambling makes a little sense.

[Michael Lownie]

I just happened to notice, since I was remembering a digital projection show I saw at The Albright Knox in Buffalo a couple years ago...I went to their site to try and find the woman who did it and guess what...they have another digital projection work they purchased for their collection-
http://www.albrightknox.org/exhibitions/index.html
I still can't remember the name of the woman whose work I was taken with but she projected on huge walls, moving abstracts and some representational, some rooms all four walls had moving scenes, flowers waving in the breeze.
It's certainly a media that has come into it's own in fine art.

[Katharine Gilbert]

Michael, I googled the name and came up with lots of info that I need to delve into when more time permits.
http://www.ktfineart.com/artists/jeremy_blake/
There is lots on him, thanks for the link.

[Michael Lownie]

excellent link, thanks! I'm liking what I see.

[Katharine Gilbert]

me too...

[James MacMahon]

From a love one: would you rather get a letter, open it, hold it in your hand and read it or get an e-mail? In the end was Marshall McLuhan right? "The Medium is the Message".

 

[Andrew Schlageter]

I feel that digital media makes drawing/sculpting easier.  That being said, that's really all it does, which doesn't justify it as "not art".  If anything, since you can do more, it raises the standard for the quality of art.  In a nutshell, it's a different medium so it's like saying technical pen drawings aren't art because that medium has an advantage of detail, or that chalk pastel drawings aren't art because of how easy it is to blend them.  And the way I see it, people with that opinion on things like digital drawings either have never created one, or drawn digitally with too much of a closed mind to truly pushed their limits.  But if you by chance are talking about things like fractals, then this isn't my place to comment.   

[Linda Rzoska]

I'm new to this group -I'll give an overview of my experiences to offer my point of view. In 1985 I started using a Macintosh computer and it's related software to create illustration work. In my perception the computer is just another tool at the artist's disposal. Since that time I have continued to use both traditional methods and digital methods to create my artwork. I have taught (and still am teaching) at the Center for New Media here in Kakamazoo, Michigan. The variation of the quality and success of work from our students is an everyday reminder that "not any one can do it". Our students are taught design theory, color theory, and drawing with a variety of different media before they start utilizing the computer as a tool. They are taught the tools and methods of digital art. The success of their digital work is based on the understanding and utilization of design, color, and the tools and methods of digital art. Also a committment to take the time needed to practice, for itvis labor intensive to learn.

The term "computer generated" sounds as if someone pushes a "make art" button on a computer keyboard. The truth is the term "digital" is a medium. I describe my own work as Mixedmedia and then list the media used - Graphite, Watercolor, Oil Pastel, Digital.

I do find that there seems to be a bias regarding digital art (not real art) I have seen this mostly when exhibiting in Ireland and The Netherlands.