RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Community > Salon
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Salon Just hanging around...
(Social area, where non-retouching talk is encouraged)

Is it really "art"?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 03-10-2007, 07:00 PM
Peter S's Avatar
Peter S Peter S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,142
Re: Is it really "art"?

I've got this picture in my head of a cave man painting a mammoth in his cave, with the first ever paint brush. Behind him are two so called art critics and one is saying to the other "It'll never catch on, this new technology, its not real art if its not done with the fingers!"
So short sighted eh!!!!

Peter
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 03-10-2007, 09:13 PM
yelhsaneerg's Avatar
yelhsaneerg yelhsaneerg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: southeast texas
Posts: 150
Re: Is it really "art"?

very clever comment Peter!
ashley
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 03-11-2007, 06:18 AM
palms's Avatar
palms palms is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 5,685
Blog Entries: 30
Re: Is it really "art"?

Show them Swampy get a "retiree artist " stick them infront of a pc and tell them to paint. plus they should let your art speak for itself, How about a one of display to see if there is any interest, it could mean more people going and looking at there "art"

Palms
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 03-11-2007, 09:35 AM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
Re: Is it really "art"?

Funny, but one of the board members told me that computer art doesn't have "brush strokes" or texture such as caused by watercolor being absorbed into paper, and she also mentioned chalk dust (I thought chalk artists used a fixative to "set" the chalk when they were done so there would be no more chalk dust).

Doug, you mentioned replication. It's almost ironic they they do accept note cards done by a woman who sends her art off to be digitized then printed on note cards in 4 color process all done on digital presses! Talk about replication... you can buy a box of her 12 note cards with envelopes for $20. No brush strokes there.

I haven't seen too many photographic works for sale at the co-op. I have to think there are a number of photographers in the area to supply the co-op with photograpic pieces. In this case I don't know if it is a matter of "no brush strokes" or just a lack of appreciation for the art form. Perhaps they've never heard of Ansel Adams?

I appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. My home town is so rural and conservative minded on such matters. We always lag 5-10 years behind the trends, so there's always hope that we will "catch up" to the rest of the art world.
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 03-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Peter S's Avatar
Peter S Peter S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,142
Re: Is it really "art"?

Swampy
Our local Museum had an art display on today. This was the biggest picture on show. They had all sorts there Watercolours, Sketches, Oils etc. and this, all mixed up and in no particular order.
All may not be lost, at least one place seems to be coming round.

Peter
Attached Images
File Type: jpg comp-art.jpg (98.9 KB, 19 views)
File Type: jpg comp-art-2.jpg (80.6 KB, 25 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 03-11-2007, 05:21 PM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
Re: Is it really "art"?

That's very encouraging, Peter! It also looked like a great piece of photo-art. Thank you for the pictures. :-)
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 03-12-2007, 12:24 AM
Photo678's Avatar
Photo678 Photo678 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
Re: Is it really "art"?

Well it really depends....if you are taking someone elses work and enhancing it, or painting over it, etc etc....then i have to say no...that isn't really art...it's improving on what's been done.

But digital as a medium of art is expanding...mostly the bigger cities for now, and has been for the last few years....and it really, really does depend...are you using a combo of filters to achieve your final result?...it's really a computer doing the work.....which greatly differs in my opinion from that of photography....now of course there are those that say any joe schmo can take a brilliant picture, but i disagree. I was showing my own work (black and white photography) once, and someone approached me and said, "i can do that"....i took their number, called them in a few days...asked them to meet me....handed them a camera and some film and said "go ahead, create what you saw"...not in a cocky way, this was all very candid and the guy wanted to know more about photography....he took the camera, went and shot some stuff, for which i matched his shots..came back, and i developed the film, and printed a few large shots of from each roll of film....when he saw my shots, compared to his...he asked how, and i began to explain about light, composition, exposure, etc etc...he realized that not just anyone can take a decent shot.

now, back to the computer/digital talk....i think the line becomes drawn when you think of the canvas....is the work that is generated from the computer, better than it would have been had it been created "by hand"?...or are you dealing with something that could not be created "by hand". I think that is what it comes down to...if the computer itself, or your filters, or your brushes are doing most of the work, in an automated way...then we are not really dealing with art.


I mean, art is not just a pretty picture, or painting....it needs to convey something..it needs to hold emotion of sorts to it...it rarely is about the technique and more about the finished product.....if its a crappy picture going in, its a crappy picture coming out.

I personally do not do any "digital art"....sure, i retouch fashion shots, etc etc...but i don't consider that art...art is imperfect, and my job is to perfect the imperfect...

Then again, look at the works of rothko and pollack...both abstract expressionists, but simplistic in it's idea......is pollocks work any less art because it is random?....i don't think so, it has more to do with his vision.

So in a nut shell, i think i am siding with the digital is not art camp for now...until i see digital work that really utilizes, deconstructs, and really makes a name for itself other than "oh, this was done in photoshop". Because i don't think the medium should get in the way of the piece itself, and with most digital work I see...the "digitalness" of it, far outweighs any technique, or idea held within.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 03-12-2007, 01:50 AM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: Is it really "art"?

Quote:
Funny, but one of the board members told me that computer art doesn't have "brush strokes" or texture such as caused by watercolor being absorbed into paper, and she also mentioned chalk dust
this always cracks me up ... in a sad sort of way. it would seem that the great mystery, 'ART' is lacking a distinct definition. and following that definition would need to be an extensive re-education of said definition to a LOT of people.

'art' is not the medium/media. it has nothing to do with brushes, lenses, wood types, clay types, thread types, and a plethora of other means of achieving art, except for one thing, that those things might or might not actually be used to reach that level of technical quality called 'art'.

it always cracks me up when watching figure skating competitions that these are judged by two criteria, technical merit and 'artistic merit/interpretation/style' or some such wording. these are basically the same thing. when you see 'art', no matter what the means of communicating it, there IS a certain 'technical quality'. and that IS art. it's there. you'll never see a sloppy dance routine that you would call art. there's no technical merit, no technical quality to it. art is about aesthetics and a high technical quality. it conveys the communication in a manner that evokes a response simply because of the technical rendering itself. it doesnt have to be that all elusive 'perfection'. it just has to communicate whatever is the theme or point of the rendering and do so in a manner that doesnt detract from and does enhance that communication through technical skill and merit.

have you ever watched a fine chef prepare a meal and commented 'that guy is a real artist'? i certainly have. there is a quality to his work and a technical skill that as you watch him work sort of floors you. he just sort of flows through the whole process, flawlessly. i've seen this in lots of different areas. a good magician is an artist. he goes through his routine with flawless precision and the audience is awed. i've seen work by a guy with a chainsaw on a tree slab. this guy is an artist. he turns on this loud, clumsy, rough old chainsaw and starts hacking away at the slab and after a bit you start to see something emerge and pretty soon there is something there that you go, wow! how the hell did he do that? he's an artist.

and carrying this even further or to other areas of life, there are artists that would never even think to call themselves artists. i've known housewives that go about their daily routine with a precision that an engineer would drool over. i've seen office workers, especially some managers, that can run an office better than a swiss clock can keep time. this is artistry. it's a precision and skill that gets the job done with no only with an efficiency but a real flair. and that flair, that level of skill, communicates all by itself. and THAT is art!

so, when some hooty snooty know-it-all comes at you with 'this isnt art', just look down your nose and know that they havent got a clue.
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 03-12-2007, 05:26 AM
DannyRaphael's Avatar
DannyRaphael DannyRaphael is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Seattle, Washington, USA
Posts: 6,300
Re: Is it really "art"?

A whole forum dedicated to this topic from the photograph perspective:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...p?showforum=19

------

Interesting reading...
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 03-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
Re: Is it really "art"?

I marvel at the artistic talent of someone like Bert Monroy

He starts with a blank (computer) canvas and creates such marvelous art. His attention to detail, perspective, light and shadows is just amazing. His electronic paintings are so detailed and accurate they look like photographs.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Community > Salon


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
But is it "Art"? (part II) Doug Nelson Salon 23 02-21-2004 03:10 PM
Digital "Art"? Ed_L Salon 7 11-08-2002 07:31 PM
But is it "Art"? Doug Nelson Work/Jobs 23 05-23-2002 07:10 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved