[winwintoo]

I'm from the "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" crowd.

I just had a discussion with my son the artsy university student. One of his classes is looking at art and computers and the internet and all that. I'm not sure what they are trying to prove, but he has been in several discussions about whether tools like Photoshop are ligitimate tools to produce art.

The feeling seems to be that "art" produced on the computer is not really art.

The same people who are arguing against computer art are the ones who listen to "techno" music.

Anybody have any thoughts on this??

Margaret

[Blacknight]

Yes.

Techno art and techno music are both viable forms of their namesakes. What passes for music to those who create it with more common instruments such as guitars and pianos is often less pleasant than what is generated by a computer. What about Hendrix, who played his guitar in years gone by and made very un-guitarlike sounds from it? The modern keyboard, with it's different sounds available. Several big-name artists use computers to generate music. And that's just the music side.

Art is art, no matter what is used to make it. If it pleases the eye and evokes a feeling, then it is art.

[Ed_L]

I'm from the same crowd as you Margaret. I think that's a very good question, and in my mind, art can be learned, but it's not as simple as using filters or actions in Photoshop. To me, real art is something that takes a lot of study, or maybe some people are simply born with ability in that field. Of course art is, by nature, subjective, so what some people consider art, others might consider junk! Then there might be different forms of "art". Is photography an art? What about quilting? Needlework? I guess what I'm trying to say is that "art" is in the eye of the person viewing whatever it is. To me, a Picasso is nothing I would want on my property, but there are many works of art worth far less, that I would really enjoy.

Ed

[LQQKER]

Interesting thought,

Although I'm somewhat in agreement, I would have to differ with you a bit.

I think what this individual is talking about is "talent". It's hard to disagree with an effort that an individual may come up with on a computer as being art, compared with someone that conjured his creation in his mind and completed his thoughts freehand. There's really no comparision.

The ability to create without nothing "is" no doubt different. However, the question is about "what is art". Art is whatever floats ones boat, so, it's about a persons best effort on what he or she is trying to convey . . . and . . . If it is appreciated by others, it's art, if not, it's another caveman wall drawing.

[Jakaleena]

I'm with you, Margaret.

I think a paintbrush, as well as a musical instrument, are tools to produce an end product. So is a computer and a computer program.

Art (IMHO) is something you make to evoke an emotion or to express one. Art has nothing to do with how it's made or what tools are used to make it. It has everything to do with how you feel when you create it and how others feel when they view or experience it.

[sjm]

I see no difference between manipulating pixels and vectors to create a work of art and using the traditional mediums like oils, acrylics, watercolor, pastels, or a lump of clay.

ALL require a good eye, some education, and many hours of practice.

[Ed_L]

Looking back at my earlier post, I realize I didn't answer the question. I think it is possible for real art to be created on a computer, but that doesn't mean that everyone who produces something that I might like would be considered an artist by me.

Here's something from a 17 year old girl I know, and to me, that's art!

Ed

[DannyRaphael]

The responses so far on this topic are exceptionally gentle and polite when compared to flame fests I've seen other places. I've read threads that go on for PAGES of back-and-forth insults, where you get the impression that participants, if they could, would reach though their monitors and strangle those with opposing views. Talk about people getting all riled up: it's amazing to me.

One thing's for sure: There's no consensus.

For me it requires no defense: It's entertaining and has given me reasons to learn dimensions of Photoshop (and aspects of digital imaging) that I otherwise would never have explored.

Is it art? Makes no difference to me one way or the other.

'nuf said.
~DannyR~

[Sanda]

I believe that art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To illustrate my point there has been a story in our local news this week about a painting purchased for $75,000 by our state Art Gallery. Now this painting is just white paint on a canvas, I don't particularly like it but some do and that's their choice. In their view it's art but I'm not quite sure how much talent it took to create it. But as most art does it sparks comment and in that light maybe it's doing as is intended.

[jeaniesa]

Fascinating question. I looked up art in the dictionary and really liked the first definition:

1. a. The activity of creating beautiful things. b. Works, such as painting or poetry, resulting from such activity.

Of course, as Sanda said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I don't see any mention of specific mediums or technique in that definition. (Or any others in the dictionary entry.) Other entries I found pertinent:

3. The aesthetic values of an artist as expressed in his works. 4. Any of various disciplines, as the humanities, that do not rely exclusively on the scientific method. 5. A craft or trade and its methods.

Seems like computer-generated art fits quite well in these definitions.

But really, I'm another one who is not really "into" art - but I know what I like when I see it. And I've seen plenty of very expensive art that I absolutely do not like (with some I even think - heck, I could do that!) And other times I find inexpensive art that I just have to have - almost always b/c it has invoked a strong feeling or captured a moment/scene that has special meaning to me.

I guess another way look at this question is: If "art" generated on a computer is not art, then what is it??

FWIW, I fall in the "it's art" camp.

Jeanie

[winwintoo]

Thanks for all the feedback on this topic!

The work you folks do takes my breath away so to me it's art!

A couple of years ago my Mother was gravely ill in the hospital. To distract her from her serious condition I would take along various craft projects when I went to visit her. One of the "crafts" I was pursuing at the time was "one stroke painting". My efforts proved that not everyone can produce realistic looking flowers using this "tried and true" methodology. One day when I went to visit Mom, I took along one of my pathetic efforts thinking that we could share a good laugh over my imeptitude.

Mom was moved by my "painting" in ways that I couldn't have imagined. Rather than laughing over it as I expected, we had a long discussion about the placement on the page, the form of the petals - Mom "saw" something in that imperfect mess that was beyond my comprehension. Was it art? Yes, in my opinion it was. It raised emotion in the viewer; it got a response.

I apologise for the heading I used for this thread. Your art form needs no defense!

Take care, Margaret

[clare]

Originally posted by jeaniesa
1. a. The activity of creating beautiful things. b. Works, such as painting or poetry, resulting from such activity.

An interesting question, when I first saw this thread I was going to head for the dictionary but thanks to Jeanie I just had to continue reading

My question is this,

If art is only produced on canvas and computer generated images are not art, then would people consider that poetry typed into a computer rather than written down by hand is any less a poem and a piece of art?

Clare

[chiquitita]

Computer art is subjective, just like anything else. I see very expensive paintings that I think are total crap, but somebody must like them. Same with computer art - it is just a different medium. Look some of the art that is in modern galleries in big cities - you have people peeing on things and calling it art. If you define art, then I think it ceases to be art... maybe.

[winwintoo]

If you define art, then I think it ceases to be art... maybe.

I like that quote - do you mind if I pass that one on to my son??

I agree with you.

Margaret

[Pam]

This same argument was made not too many years ago about photography. Then Ansel Adams' "Moonrise" print became the benchmark for the new "Art Photography" market. Now there are many deep-pocketed patrons collecting fine photographic prints.

Ansel's tools were light, chemicals and an enlarger. Our tools are a photo, a computer and a printer. He manipulated his prints well beyond what the negative documented. We do the same. The tools are different, the ends are the same...to manipulate reality into an artistic view.

I personally think that art can take many forms. Don't forget the fight that "performance artists" had in getting their art recognized as such. It's my belief that, in the end, the image, music, painting, or sand castle stands alone, without description or details as to how the artist constructed, manipulated or created it. At that point is when it should be considered "art" or not "art". When I see an Ansel print hanging in a museum/gallery, I do not see, on the descriptor, "Contrast adjustments with a combination of X film, Y paper and Z developer, extensive burning and dodging." No one asks about the tools or manipulation method used. It simply says "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico 1941 Gelatin Silver Print".

I do think there are valid longevity questions involved with digital art. Print life is being increased almost monthly. Once those issues are under control, I think digital art will come of "age".


Pam