PDA

View Full Version : Digital Art--- the next big movement?


6foot5
05-24-2005, 02:02 AM
a thread questioning the validity of cgi as a medium for art appeared on another forum and got me thinking.

i came to the conclusion that cgi or 'digital art' could be considered a new chapter in the history of art and not simply another medium. However it dosnt seem to have penertrated into the conscience of world of serious high art. when was the last time a digital work won the turner prize? and im not talkin about video installations either, they are not recognised as digital but rather as film.

Perhaps its because the self appointed experts are too aloof to notice what is happening right under there upturned noses. Perhaps because of its proliferation its seen as too common?

i think its because digital artists themselves have not understood the uniqueness of their chosen medium and not set out to create or define a movement which promotes it. i also think the type of works created by digital artists does not , generally, make full use of the possibilities of computer generated art. in short, they dont take themselves seriously, so why should the art world at large do so?

There seems to be no one(or collective) championing the cause, yet we are all together...from programmers, those who paint stills in photoshop, 3d artists , cganimators, to website designers. A seemingly disparate bunch yet all our paths cross, we all have many things in common, above all our work is digital, ones and zeros, a sequence of electrical currents stored in tiny transistors.

so can CGI/digital art and all it encompasses been seen as a new and distinct chapter in the history of art?

stepington
05-24-2005, 02:27 AM
I think it's already there to some extent. I don't think it's yet reached its vintage - but it will. Several pieces have already exhibited in major galleries world wide of digital photography. Digital is already in most art history books. It'll take a little more time - but not long to really steamroll.

Another issue is that it isn't a physical object - sure many high resolution images printed for several hundred smackers have sold in the thousands. - But it'd definately be difficult to sell mass replicated digital information alongside a one of a kind Keith Herring at the same price.

That definately challenges the philosophy of the old school way of "high art" - but then art always has.

6foot5
05-24-2005, 03:25 AM
.

.......Another issue is that it isn't a physical object - sure many high resolution images printed for several hundred smackers have sold in the thousands. - But it'd definately be difficult to sell mass replicated digital information alongside a one of a kind Keith Herring at the same price.

That definately challenges the philospphy of the old school way of "high art" - but then art always has.

this is one of the reasons why digital art is unique, and one of justifications that it deserves more respect. it is changing our very understanding of what art is. Yet there are more reasons, eg, internet art opens up all sorts possibilities never allowed before, possibilities to do with interaction and communication that spans the globe. questions on how a viewer engages with a piece of art and more over , who is the author of the piece? infact through programming into the mix and it opens up a whole new can of worms. fractals generated by simple algoritms. this all come about because of computer technology.

more specifically, photorealism, and physics simulation within computer, the questions posed in many cases transcend art. it would be great if the world of high art could embrace this digital phenomena and move on from wallowing in post modernism and conceptualism. sculpture and paintings, film and music have been swallowed whole by digital technology and this has yet to be recognised in the vaulted, esotric, circles of arts cognoscenti.

Lunatique
05-24-2005, 08:35 AM
IMO, all these talks CG not getting respect, is the new chapter in history of art..etc are like the choir talking among themselves or to the already converted. It has zero impact on the real world of art. Respect is given. When the world feels that it is deserved, it'll freely give the respect. I'm not surprised at all that CG doesn't get respect--majority of the works done in CG are immature and cheesy. The minority of good works are far out-weighed by the bad. Until the genre grows up more, it'll always be seen as commercial entertainment and nothing else.

Other forms of art got their respect after paying their dues for decades. We gotta pay ours too. Other forms of art also had their body of works that stunned the world and moved them with their profound ideas and artistry--and that body of works is what gained them the proper respect. CG needs to build that body of works that deserves respect.

NOOB!
05-24-2005, 09:12 AM
i dunno,i wudn't really call digital art an ART MOVEMENT u know? i can't really explain.it doesn't have any main characteristics apart from that fact that its digital.

hard to explain,sumone else must know what i mean.

paperclip
05-24-2005, 09:26 AM
I think the biggest element of digital art is that it will bring together all nationalities (as we see here on CGTalk) in order to change the current face of regional styles into more widely developed styles- i.e people from Ireland will be inspired by current designers from Mexico. This was not the case before and still is not. This means that countries less well known for their art will be able to push their boat into the sphere and be judged alongside everyone else.

I don't think we can consider digital art as its own 'genre'. As noob said, it's merely a tool. I think it's analogous to the time they moved over from tempera to oils. Look at the amazing developments in art as a result of that. I think eventually digital art will have the same impact on the general art current.

ashakarc
05-24-2005, 09:36 AM
i dunno,i wudn't really call digital art an ART MOVEMENT u know? i can't really explain.it doesn't have any main characteristics apart from that fact that its digital.

hard to explain,sumone else must know what i mean.
On the contrary, true digital art is highly influenced by the technique. The look of CG cannot be mistaken. Art produced using a computer is quite unique in its characteristics. Whether it is for the better or worse, is not the point, but the major difference in this form of art is the way the idea is processed. Even with the best CG artists, you sense that machine is taking over. What I mean is the way the artists allow the capacity of the tool to take centre stage in representation, allowing more critical weight to be given to the "how" than "why". It is partly evolutionary, and it is bound to change into an art with a message.

NOOB!
05-24-2005, 01:18 PM
hmm,i guess what i mean is,i think of movements as a dramatic change in the art itself,not the tool used,

example: if an artist uses a small brush....then a few months later he uses a big brush...u wudn't call it an art movement,hmm maybe thats bad example but it explains whats i mean about its the actual artwork itself thats evolving,not the tools or media used to produce it.

and i think thats what paperclip is also trying to say.*correct me if i'm wrong

in medievil art the characters where flat,simplified and basic.it had no real perspective etc....then some time later classical art came about,where characters where proportionally correct,physically *perfect* and characters had*ideal* physical beauty.thats what i call a movement.

maybe thats a better explanation of what i meant,best i can do heh.

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 01:32 PM
Certain kinds of people are interested enough in computers to be bothered to work with them, and I feel that the majority of these people are not really interested in the things they ought to be interested in in order to produce anything that'll compare with any kind of piece produced with any more thought than "Will it look anatomically correct?"

Maybe tech oriented people are the ones who end up developing also their art techniques, and not that what matter: the the place the art originates from.

6foot5
05-24-2005, 01:38 PM
not only is digital art a new genre, it is the biggest thing to happen to art since history began.

it has completely revolutinised our perception of art, or rather it should have...as i said i dont think it is accepted yet, perhaps because of its percieved impact is seen as a threat.

Lunatique: i agree many works dont exemplify the unique nature of digital art, but i think the fantasy theme that i think you allude to is the tip of the iceberg. artists are failing as a whole, nobody is really being imanginitive in the use of digital technology. anyone using photoshop to paint a 2d picture is like driving a ferrari down to the corner shop for a pint of milk. its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. theres nothing wrong with making 2d stills with photoshop, but can we not use it in a more imaginitive way? also the proliferation of digital art , brought about by the easy availibility of software, has resulted in a deluge of mediocre work which may have tainted peoples view of the whole gennre. But this proliferation, this easy availibilty of such powerfull tools is more liberating and revolutionary, its one of the great aspects of the digital phenomena, and ulitmately it will result in many people getting into art who may never have otherwise. it converges the disciplines of artisan and technician and ultimately they will cross over, technicians/programmers will be creating art and artists making programs and who knows wher one will stop and the other starts.

ofcourse digital art will be accepted in time, its weight and force is irresistable, it will wash away all that has gone before it. i just wish some would give it more respect and recognise it, those both within the field and outside.

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 01:46 PM
How do I get the feeling that there are lots of people here with strong ideas about digital art and art in general (myself included), shooting our mouths off, still producing nothing very fancy, compared to our fancy ideas?

paperclip
05-24-2005, 01:47 PM
. anyone using photoshop to paint a 2d picture is like driving a ferrari down to the corner shop for a pint of milk. its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. theres nothing wrong with making 2d stills with photoshop, but can we not use it in a more imaginitive way? .

I'd be really interested in an example of what you mean.

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 02:00 PM
And I'd like to add that in order to use the current technology to the full extent of it's capabilities, you have to be so into the technology that you'd have little time for anything else, including the all important down-time you need to produce anything meaningful.

So the so-called traditional artists often have no clue when they work with modern media. Same goes with CG-people, content-wise, or more like ideas and philosophy -wise.

DrFx
05-24-2005, 02:06 PM
not only is digital art a new genre, it is the biggest thing to happen to art since history began.

it has completely revolutinised our perception of art, or rather it should have...as i said i dont think it is accepted yet, perhaps because of its percieved impact is seen as a threat.



What? Since when is digital art a genre?!? Since you said so? Look at watercolour! Is it a genre? Even though many watercolours have a "similar" look? You can say whatever you want, the way you want to say it, with almost any medium, including CG!

BTW, I love the way Linda or Aly go get milk!

6foot5
05-24-2005, 02:23 PM
What? Since when is digital art a genre?!? Since you said so? Look at watercolour! Is it a genre? Even though many watercolours have a "similar" look? You can say whatever you want, the way you want to say it, with almost any medium, including CG!

BTW, I love the way Linda or Aly go get milk!


perhaps it would help to define digital art. the reason it is seen as a medium like watercolours is because of reasons i stated before, mainly that nobody acknowledges its full impact, the artists that work with it and those outside the field. watercolours dont do away with the concept of original creation, dont question the signicance of copying, watercolours dont place the tools of creation in the lap of almost every school kid, watercolours dont allow viewer interaction..these are name just a few, hopefully you'll realise that digital art is not comparable to 'watercolours'. i think NOOB said that there is no distinct style emerging with digital art and therefore cant be seen as a genre, that maybe right, but i am saying it is more than a genre, it is bigger than cubism, it swallows dada whole and spits it out, it tramples over impressionism , it brushes aside abstact expresionism, it crushes pop art, it mocks de stijl, and it dosnt even stop to look as it steam rolls over tracy emin.

DrFx
05-24-2005, 02:44 PM
Who is tracy emin?
Watercolours are one of the first tools of creation on the laps of schoolkids, certainly more affordable than a PC and software!
You're right about interaction, though. The computer allows some pretty awesome stuff to happen at the viewer's guidance! But it still is not enough to define it as a "genre". A genre is something much more specific, for example "Interactive Abstract Installations" could be a "genre", or a "trend". Or "Parametric Design" could also be one. Or "self-evolving automata".
But not "computer art". It is too vague, too widespread, and frankly, a little demeaning. Like saying "he paints oils" to sum up Velasquez.

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 02:51 PM
Obviously the medium is different. And I'd say that with the current state of things we're actually discussing more than one (2D, 3D, 2D+3D).

Do we go the McLuhan way then? The medium is the message? I never could actually figure out what that meant, beside that the medium is important because it affects the message.

I still wouldn't say that CG is very revolutionary, content-wise, but if you look at it in a weird crooked way, then you might start to think that this "backwardness" in itself is the revolution: if the expected thing is to go forwards, go back.

Hm. Seems that I might have to concur with you on some points, 6foot5.

6foot5
05-24-2005, 03:35 PM
DrFx, you are right, digital art cannot be seen as a genre, it is too big and too vague, its boundires are nubulous, thats why i am saying it is bigger than that. yet there seems to be no acknowledgement of this, its a revolution on a tectonic leval, shaking the very ground art has become rooted in. those whose job it is to comment on art should have stopped discussing all that has gone before and used the past history of art simply as a yardstick by which to measure digital art and yes , Kalgokultti, the medium is the message. It would be great to see more artworks commentating on and exemplifying the uniqueness of the digital revolution, and exploring the extra dimensions CGI opens.

one case in point is the two catergories for the master servant competition. now, i ask you what is essentially the difference between the two? in terms of the work produced. could not every entry been accomplished in 2d? perhaps the use of 3d tools aids some in creating their final image but find a skilled enough artist with enough time and any 3d entry could have been painted directly in photoshop, infact that is exactly what he computer is doing in a 3d render. what sets these entries apart in essence, what could be accomplished in 3d that could not be in 2d is what we should be concerning ourselves with. and so i compare digital art to that what has gone before. we should put the emphasis on showing what can be done in art with digital technology that never could before .

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 03:50 PM
Tectonic, schmectonic, the real world's not going to go anywhere soon. (To put it bluntly, I prefer traditional art, if only for the simple reason that viewing a drawing, painting, sculpture or performance is so much more pleasing than viewing any screen there is).

But seriously: I have to admit that I haven't perused the M+S 3D entries very thoroughly. Will have to do it, some of these days, but still I would like to argue your supposition that 3D can do what 2D cannot.

The 3D created for the challenge is still images, neh? As are the 2D ones, obviously. So, the end products are, in essence, the same, when it comes to material: ones and zeroes on a drive somewhere.

I'd say that creating original images is easier in 2D. There are no presets. Well, there are, but if you paint a ball on a surface in Photoshop, the image will have more you in it than many 3D things out there. So being unique is very easy in 2D, easier even, I'd say. How bout that?

6foot5
05-24-2005, 04:04 PM
when it comes to the Master/Servant challenge, i wasnt arguing that one catergorie was better than the other. i was using the fact that there were two catergories, yet the art produced could have been made in either one, as an anology to how digital art needs to differentiate itself from traditional art. although there is nothing wrong with creating digital works that could have been made in a traditional medium, it is not progressive.

Kargokultti
05-24-2005, 04:21 PM
Now I get it. And yup, you have a point again.

jud
05-24-2005, 04:43 PM
Digital art can be re-printed over and over again, copied, pasted, e-mailed, hosted on a website etc. and this makes it disposable, therefore it's value becomes less and less.

If you could paint an image like some of the top-class images we see here in oil,watercolour or acrylic etc. then that image would be worth a small fortune.
Also peoples view of digital art is that many tricks are used to create things like rays of light,straight lines, rain and perspective etc. or they just think that everything in the image is done using some form of computer trickery like pressing a "magic button" which we all know is ridiculous as many a traditional artist will use every trick at their disposal to acheive the right effect, like masking paste, salt, tea, a ruler, a view finder etc.

The general public need to be educated, so lets educate them.

Enayla
05-24-2005, 04:45 PM
I'm sure that there will be people who will use the computer to create some wonderfully innovative, interactive art - but even so, I find saying that using the computer to paint regularly being a waste is a little presumptuous. Since when is the creative process only about trying new things and inventing new ways to look at something, and not at all about exploring ourselves and focusing on the heart behind something rather than the ways in which we can do any one thing differently?

I love painting on the computer. I never feel like I am, in any way, wasting the great potentiality that the computer has by doing so - to me it is, and will always be, a tool and I will always use the tool to create what I love and what I feel deeply for. That's not taking the Ferrari to buy a pint of milk. That's jumping into the car and going for a wonderful drive down a road you love, with the wind whipping your hair and a big grin on your lips.

'Digital art' is too big to be clumped into a single movement or genre. It's an entirely new tool and this tool will be, eventually, used to create some awesome, new types of art -- and those will be the movements. Maybe one day there will be interactive 3D movies that are considered the height of art (ha ha, yeah, a little like games), where the artsy people will wander around and go oo and aa over this new, wonderful thing. I'm sure there will be. This new genre will likely have a new and catchy name. It will be using the same tool that I use to create my work - which is the computer - but it will be something else entirely. That will make it not better nor worse than what us regular people are up to. Don't rain on our parade. It's not up to someone, anyone, to decide that a tool is used wastefully - anything used to create something that expresses genuine emotion is more than worth the while in my eyes, be it a painting that is very archaic in style or some kind of installation that is very modernistic.

I will never think of a tool as the greatest thing to happen to art in any kind of way. It all comes down to what's going on in our hearts and heads, not what kind of tool we're using to express it with.

I'm probably just repeating what's been said already though, ha ha.

NOOB!
05-24-2005, 05:02 PM
A Painter :sumone who actually uses paint to produce art

digital painter: ????

lol...theres a new topic for u guys.

:twisted:

so many digital artists are trying to make art that actually looks like traditional art *thus the program painter was invented*

i don't class that as a movement really,an ART BUISNESS movement *sellin,reproducing* YES!,

but an actual artistic movement...not really.

So i guess my answer is no.i don't think its the next art movement.

interesting topic though.

JohnDes
05-24-2005, 05:15 PM
I think didgital art is wwonderful ( I myself do it all the time) but there is much more degree of training and talent when it comes to traditional...as I ve noticed many of the great digital painters have only marginal traditional rendeitions, none Ive seen are as good as their digital ones. traditional requires perfection and proper technique from the very beginning.

Perhaps it is because traditional has much more room for error as digital has the ALL POWERFUL Cntrl+Z( I wonder how many of the digital artists use that!) Any way mixing paints for a color pallette is a science in itself especially mantaining a consistency for the whole painting.

I dont think the experts remain aloof in regarding traditional over digital but I think people also dont feel connected to the piece in terms of buying it because the original remains on someone else's hardrive and owners want a unique piece.

jud
05-24-2005, 07:23 PM
will never think of a tool as the greatest thing to happen to art in any kind of way. It all comes down to what's going on in our hearts and heads, not what kind of tool we're using to express it with.

Damn right!!!
It's not about the tool, it's about the person behind the tool and the innovative ways in which that person uses whatever they have at their disposal.
But having all the right tools adds to the perfection of the piece also.

Perhaps it is because traditional has much more room for error as digital has the ALL POWERFUL Cntrl+Z
This is a very good point, but on the flip side it is quite hard to paint traditionally as there is no undo function so you have to be weary of every brush stroke you make, that is why some artist's can take weeks or months over a single painting and the concentration involved while painting traditionally is quite intense and you need to have the "artist eye" in full effect, and then comes that "timeless zone" you get into where nothing matters but you and the canvas or monitor, in full flow ......mmmmm!

Sulla
05-24-2005, 08:54 PM
I think the lack of respect for digital art has more to do the the bankrupt state of the fine art world in general. I have nothing but contempt for the fine art world after working in it for a while. But I do think the fine art world does a fine job of reflecting the morally bankrupt world we live in.

6foot5
05-25-2005, 12:00 AM
I dont mean to say that painting in 2d using a computer was in any way wastefull or pointless. i was only talking in the context of high art, it the context of the progression of art in an abstract , theorectical way. the place given to digital art in such a context may be of no concern to some, and perhaps it dosnt matter, but there is a definite resistence to or misunderstanding of our medium in some circles. It would just be nice to see art inteligentsia acknowledge the digital revolution. i dont claim to be an artist of any worth myself, and i certainly dont claim to be better than any of you guys, i dont even say that i am practising what i preach, im just making an observation. There is no onus on any of you to explore the unique nature of computer art but i think those that do in a imaginitive and creative way are the true avant garde, the real Picassos of our time.


ps. why do some people have like a light saber in their avatars? a glowing stripe, ive seen it in quite a few, whats with that?? :)

yenvalmar
05-25-2005, 12:29 AM
to my way of thinking, the art piece in digital media is the intellectual property. this concept has been pioneered in the commercial mainstream by franchises such as star wars, or dare i mention, DISNEY, but fine artists have their heads down in their own little worlds.. as to the physical manifestation of this, it can be anything from breakfast cereal to a painting to a toy to an animation to a novel of printed words to a website, whatever. do they have to re copyright mickey mouse for the toy version the comic book the blah blah, no, they copyright a likeness, the concept of a character.

each individual copy is basically worthless, in sharp contrast to traditional physical art objects. but also in contrast, the more that are produced, the more valuable the property in general becomes. so its a trade off of quantity vs. quality of the individual object.

and really this idea of a franchise or IP has nothing to do with digital media. oh but the ability of digital media to LEVERAGE an idea, to make a zillion copies of it for FREE, for anyone to be able to easily get access to it, the ability to take one dataset and use it in every different media basically without extra work compared to before... all that is what digital bring, i think just the sheer amount of work one person can do for $1200 to buy a computer and some software, that is what is new.

i am certainly hoping to promote my work to fine art or other nontraditional art/gallery spaces, as it has no direct commercial venue, i.e. its not a TV show pilot or anything like that. i have some ideas, which i am authoring digitally, and i want to explore every media possible which i can export the data to, physical, interactive, print, video. you name it. i think this is the way of the future and in 20 years a new renaissance of digital artists who are free to explore all media outside the very limited roles you are assigned in commercial production will happen.

arguably it already is happening with artists in these and other online forums, but i think the reason you dont see this work in galleries, is that people arent trying to produce art to PUT in galleries. galliries show photography, they show posters and other prints all the time, the issue of displaying originals died long before andy warhol really. but current CG artists, they are mostly looking to ape commercially viable styles and get jobs working for someone else as a cog in the machine. whereas i am looking to make fun of them :) i think as one person i will easily be able to stuff an art gallery absolutely full of content in a year.

so to more directly answer the original question, i dont see a digital movement so much as a visual aesthetic style or anything like that, but rather as i think it will lead to an explosion of mulitalented people being able to show off all of their talents in new ways that dont necessarily adhere to traditional media format such as a single still image as the output.

for a less abstract example of what iam talking about, say a make a 3d model, as many of us have done :) now i can use that in an animation, use that in a still render, import it into a game engine, have it made into a real object with a 3d plotter, render it with a filter to make it look like a van gogh painting :)... that initial work is now dozens of separate art pieces. change the color, and print it out again, boom, whole new art piece. render it from a different angle and lighting and call it a remix. people have done that for years with fine art prints, again i see it as identical though maybe there is something i am missing. the burden of making it worthwhile falls on the strength of the imagery and concept, rather than the percieved value of the physical object, in this type of exercise, but thats fine with me, i'm too poor for oil paint.

CGTalk Moderation
05-25-2005, 12:29 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.