PDA

View Full Version : can CG break into the Art World?


tevih
06-10-2005, 09:39 PM
I had an interesting discussion with my great uncle who must be around 90. He has a pretty solid collection of expensive art from oils to crystal sculptures, and he frequently buys and sells, sometimes at auction.

I showed him Expose 2 and D'artiste and wanted to know his opinion. He thought "it was nice". I asked him if he thought it would be considered art and he said absolutely not. His reason was you couldn't sell CG stuff for the same prices you can sell "normal art." Nobody would buy it, because there is no such thing as an original digital. You can print as many copies as you want. There is no texture of the paint. It wasn't created by hand, it was created by computer.

So, when he said that last line, I whipped out my palm pilot, and drew a little cartoon on the screen. I asked him if he could do that. He admitted, no. I asked him if he thought it was any less of a drawing since it was on computer and not on a piece of paper. He admitted no, but he insisted dealers and collectors would not buy CG since reproduction would be too easy. They would make great wall decorations, but you could never get someone to pay the same prices as "normal art." (I hated every time he used that expression...)

(My grandmother disagreed with her brother about it not being art, but she didn't know what to say about it actually selling at auctions or in galleries.)

Do you guys think CG can crack into the Art Market, fetching thousands? Or are we confined to produce all our works on commission or for regular commercial uses only?

(I'm aware of Ray Caesar selling prints of his works in the traditional art market, but I don't know what the prices are. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66966,00.html )

stepington
06-10-2005, 09:43 PM
The Portland Art Museum has had several prints of digital media on display. It was controversial, sure - but so is the Clement Greenburg (http://www.bkpix.com/writing/greenburg.php) collection.

In a way - the art world is a bit outside of any one definition - or a singular moral.
One of the most beautiful aspects of the art world is that it is far bigger than one person's opinion. To really state a strong opinion is to really shut down a larger view that is necessary to even attempt to encompass what the hell is going on.

I'm just trying to enjoy the ride. :)

dmonk
06-10-2005, 10:02 PM
Your grandfather has a point, but more importantly, people are too closed minded to view in that way.


Look at Graphic novels, some of it is very much ART (and often much more time to produce), but many still look at it as childish no matter how sophisticated.

NOOB!
06-10-2005, 10:55 PM
i think what ur great uncle is trying to say is that cg doesn't share the same values and effort (not saying it doesn't require effort).

There are lots of *tricks* in cg,where as a traditional painter would have to mix all his own pallette,paint for hours,no ctrl z stuff,and its one and only,he/she did the whole thing with no tricks.

digital art can take hours on end aswell,but it doesn't really EXIST if u think about it,yeh u can print it out,but the actual thing u worked on....OH GOD DAMN I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT LOL!u know what i mean

but ur great uncle is old,just think of what he's seen,he is just backing up his generation,just like you are all doing now.

i'll leave u with the Quote i always say

*CG is like junk food,and traditional like a good home cooked meal.........u can eat loads of junk food and be satisfied,but at the end of the day,theres nothin like ur mothers home cooked meal...uuuuuuuummm um.*

eks
06-10-2005, 11:01 PM
well, it seems that the only strong argument of your uncle is the "not buying copies". (?). if itīs so, then something is wrong, or he have never bought an engraving. as far as i know, thereīs a whole system for numbering engraving copies, and some artists leave a will stating how much copies of that engraving is allowed to be done.

depending on the technic, even sculptures can have many copies.

and back at the subject of CG being taken as "normal art", whatīs the point? thereīs so much BS being done in contemporary art, that sometimes i like CG being taken more as a product than as art by curators and collectors.

sometime along the 20th century art has completely lost itself. the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th is wonderfull art-wise, but then all references were broken and limits were so broadened that everyone seems a little (maybe a lot) lost.

but still, this unlimited madness is also wonderfull, and i completely agree with stepington:

In a way - the art world is a bit outside of any one definition - or a singular moral.
One of the most beautiful aspects of the art world is that it is far bigger than one person's opinion. To really state a strong opinion is to really shut down a larger view that is necessary to even attempt to encompass what the hell is going on.


eks, the ambiguous

xmarek
06-10-2005, 11:11 PM
Replying to the main question:

No, not now I think.

All our societies are full of prejudices and STEREOTYPES. Everything, from people to cultures, from thoughts and actions is attached to stereotypes. And art is the same. Its attached to stereotypes too.

And, to me, for now at least, CG is still attached to the 'not normal art' stereotype. Just a simple example of this is what Dmonk said: A graphic NOvel cant be art by the current standards because its simply attached to the stereotype of childish/comic.

And, as we know, dealers and collectors and curators and all these people decide what to buy/sell, not us artists. And, as Tevih's uncle said: a very few people would buy CG as 'normal art'.

Kargokultti
06-11-2005, 01:14 AM
I don't see why CG art should break into the traditional arts market. There already is a market for CG art.

There's many ways to define art, high art, modern art, whatever you want to call it (I personally prefer spam-egg-spam-spam), but I think thing in itself has far less to do with the market than with the ways it changes people and their perception of things. Or the ways it doesn't change people but simply portrays the change. Or the current condition.

Most of the CGtalk stuff is hardly cutting edge, philosophy-wise... Hm. A deja vu. I think I've said that before. Better go sleep now.

XLNT-3d
06-11-2005, 10:31 PM
CG Art will never command the prices a fine artist can make. I used to work with an animator that was originally and still is a fine artist. We had the same conversation and he shows his work regularly a well know galleries. The highest priced, most rediculously simple works sell because the wealthy ecentric buyer wants something no one else has. He knew an artist that just gessoed huge canvas and sold his works close to a million dollars a piece. It was his artsy fartsy attitude and pre-madonna aura that helped him. Also, his and his galleries salesmanship.

Comes to the same thing though, texture and unique item. Anything that is easily duplicated and cannot exihibit itself as a true original cannot hold the same value.

I think there are some large format printers that are trying to emulate the texture and feel of traditional paintings by printing a specific type of ink on canvas.

paperclip
06-11-2005, 11:40 PM
I think you meant to say prima donna, Jon. :)

Aside from that, I'm afraid I must agree with most of the people here- digital work is fine for CONCEPT and ILLUSTRATION work- that is, work that is for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE. However, if the work is purely aesthetic, it can't hold a candle up against traditional work.

We all buy posters for our rooms that aren't once-off though. Digital art is good for that purpose, but who would fork out millions for something that could be easily copied? When you are buying an original, you are buying something that has been carefully thought out and translated to the paper/canvas by the artists' own hand and you own THAT. The artist actually touched and painted THAT thing that you own and hang on your wall. Digital art just can't have the same appeal.

Blue-demon
06-11-2005, 11:44 PM
I can see both sides here, it's a rather thin line. Art isn't about money ! Well if the artist painted it on the comp then printed and deleted the file, then wouldn't this be an orriginal piece and would be worth something... If they call modern art, art i see no reason why digital pieces be called art .

Blue-demon
06-11-2005, 11:54 PM
After thinking about this i questioned myself why i do digital art but now reading again through the reasons seems like i've waisted my time o.O Think i will brake out some accrilics or water colour tommorow

Mario The ][
06-12-2005, 12:33 AM
Depends on what you think art is.
I cannt really go along well with the saying; you could copy it, so it isnt art.
If you would for example build a machine who copys a rembrant exactly, wich would be possible, it wouldnt be art anymore?

Digital art could be sold like "normal" art, if for example the artist only gives out the really detailed and big picture to the buyer.

Do i think digital art will brake into the art market? No, not yet.

Many people think, oh its done on a Computer, its easy, the computer does all the work, so its worth nothing. There are many things like this for example wich will prevent cg art from beeing sold.

When you are buying an original, you are buying something that has been carefully thought out and translated to the paper/canvas by the artists' own hand and you own THAT. The artist actually touched and painted THAT thing that you own and hang on your wall. Digital art just can't have the same appeal.

But this is a very strong point from paperclip. Its the uniqueness wich seems to make art worth something, at least for some people.

Maybe in the future there will be a way, to make unique art in cg?

Dearmad
06-12-2005, 12:49 AM
To OP:
CG art is already sold as high art all over. You're thinking inside the box. The trick isn't if it's created by computer, but if it can be recreated en mass. If it canm, then it is not considered unique and therefor not art of the same caliber as a unique piece. Saying that, there are plenty of unique CG pieces out there that have already proven your Uncle wrong; they sell for thousands of dollars. They aren't, usually, simply prints, though.

And what gives with this topic popping up so often when for YEARS CG crafted stuff has been selling in the high art circles? Check around and do some research before you conjecture.

jmBoekestein
06-12-2005, 01:18 AM
I know of a site where you can sell a hiigh res version, and are no longer allowed to sell it anymore by contract. I think this could work.

I'm not sure that I like where this is going though. IS all this going into a dusty museum? I like browsing on-line galleries and I have no problem making art for them. I think that if it gets really tough to make money from it though, it might have to happen. I hope people just realise that digital art really is worth a lot and start paying real money instead of kudo's and credits.
maybe, if you only sell highres versions for a lot and just show of the smaller ones for free? Who knows, looks like a good idea. But millions? I hope not, and the 'artworld' is pretentious anyway;).

Gord-MacDonald
06-12-2005, 01:47 AM
I have a couple of comments on this one:

a) the accessability of digital art, could be argued as a form of democitization of art. (Rembrant printed his etchings en mass to allow broad accessability to his work).

b) While digital art appears to be a mature technology, there are many aspects of digital art that are uncharted, and the technology has lots of room to grow.

c) digital arts' success depends on whether or not it is embraced by the best artists out there - whether they be filmmakers, photographers, illustrators, architects...

I don't think DG will ever replace other art forms, but I think it will hold its own.

I think that the strongest manifestations of DG to date are in the 3D and animated film domains, as well as its usage as integrated components of high quality, big budget films.

Gord

XLNT-3d
06-12-2005, 02:15 AM
I think you meant to say prima donna, Jon. :)

Thanks. I guess my term would mean before Madonna's time :D

I do think CG has the possibilities, but it should not emulate traditional art. I think it should break that mold and offer something completely different and unique to CG. I think frames on the wall should be huge flat screen monitors with perhaps a rotation of art or something. Holographic art could be cool too.

Seratogui
06-12-2005, 02:21 AM
Simple, they will hire officials to watch them work and not copy the file making it an original.
+ a contract saying that item is the only one being sold, ever. If another copy exists, the maker simply returns the money that was paid + a fine.

Giving temp jobs to the flood of IT'ers that are now being trained and cash in the pocket of the people creating the art.

This will also bring more money to companies like adobe and corel and the people behind max and maya and so on because the versions will be checked for legality.

Stahlberg
06-12-2005, 03:45 AM
Selling a single original for a million bucks is an impossible dream for a cg artist. It will never happen, not even with DNA coding or whatever. Let's just let go of that silly notion right now.

But what if a cg artist sells copies (prints or DVD's or whatever) of his work, and one of the pieces makes more than 1 million? What about several hundred million, like certain cg movies of late? Which of the two scenarios would you prefer? Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.

We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.

tevih
06-12-2005, 03:57 AM
Hey! I'm into CG to tell my stories, or make people laugh and smile! I couldn't care less about having my own work sell in galleries or auctions.

I was thinking of CG as a tool for any artist - can the medium be embraced by all and accepted in all cirlces?

Is High Art really just for old and stuffy people and Cg will never be a major part of that?

Stahlberg
06-12-2005, 08:29 AM
Hey! I'm into CG to tell my stories, or make people laugh and smile! I couldn't care less about having my own work sell in galleries or auctions.

Me too, and I think it's the same with most of us.

Is High Art really just for old and stuffy people and Cg will never be a major part of that?

I'm fairly sure the definitions will be different in the future. At least I sincerely hope so... today you could define high art by the prices, by the places it's sold, by its customers. This is obviously ridiculous - you should define art only by the work itself and the context it was created in. Nothing else. The digital paradigm can help with that... perhaps it even makes the change inevitable, by removing the cult of the 'original'.

Gord-MacDonald
06-13-2005, 04:48 PM
Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.

We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.

Stahlberg,

I think the artists motives are key:

Not all artists are going for a big market. I know and know of many artists who paint for the love of painting, pure and simple, (and sculpting whatever). For them its not about the money, in fact most of them know that they will live in a relatively low income bracket.

Yes we are definitely in a new paradigm, but I don't think pre CG artwork is going to go the way of the dodo bird (traditional commercial art will likely dissapear, because it for the most part ended up in a production enviroment anyways). So called fine art is another story.


today you could define high art by the prices, by the places it's sold, by its customers. This is obviously ridiculous - you should define art only by the work itself and the context it was created in. Nothing else. The digital paradigm can help with that... perhaps it even makes the change inevitable, by removing the cult of the 'original'.


There is alot of hype and crap in the 'high art' realm. There is also work which is not crap, and could only exist as a singular entity - a lesson I learnt standing in front of 'the red studio' by matisse (reproductions will never do it justice, and it could never have been done in CG) There are many contempory artists who could be used as examples - Philip Pealstein, Chuck Close, Jasper Johns (who I am sure would be hated by most people on this forum).

As far as the definition of high art you have given - you are defining the art market - not the art - two totally different things (and I know you knew that :) ).

Gord

Stahlberg
06-13-2005, 06:07 PM
Yes, but I think many people define it that way too, and that's the problem. That causes many cg artists to feel 'inferior' or left out, because they know (rightfully so) that no one will ever pay a million for a single print of a cg image.

But this I think will change, it could take 50 years or more but it will happen.
(reproductions will never do it justice, and it could never have been done in CG)
One day printers will be able to synthesize or reproduce on a molecular level. Then everyone in the whole world will be able to enjoy perfect copies of high art, no one will be able to sell originals for millions anymore, no one will be able to tell if a work was originated in "traditional media" or digital media, and we can finally say goodbye to the opportunists and speculators and just enjoy art for arts sake.

tharrell
06-13-2005, 06:37 PM
I've sold a few prints of my CG work, but I've always compared it more to photography than works on canvas -- it's a better analogy, I think.

Photographers can also make more-or-less unlimited duplicates of their work, so in order to maintain the value of the work, they commit to ten prints at size X (large print), twenty at size Y (medium), one hundred at size Z (small), then all of those are signed and numbered and the negative is retired -- although not usually destroyed. Either that, or the photographers sell the rights to their image for a certain amount of time (stock company or agency), but that's getting more on the commercial end of things.

The trick with CG art, like photography, is giving the appearance of safeguarding the investment people are making in the art.

It can be argued, however, that many of those who buy and sell 'fine art' don't really care about the art at all -- it's the perceived value they're interested in.

We're talking about completely different markets, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.

If you're talking in terms of CG artists getting respect on par with 'fine' artists, however, that day is coming soon.

eks
06-13-2005, 08:36 PM
i completely forgot Walter Benjamin. in 1936 he wrote the essay:

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm)

about the impact of cinema and photography on the art world. a must read on the subject of copies.

and this is a really interesting perspective :)

We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.

i think that what makes CG goes banana, or anything digital, is really this ability to have an image, a sound or a movie anywhere in the world in just a couple of seconds. itīs a much deeper step than the one Benjamin talks about.

and thatīs something many people have not grasped yet (read: the movie and phonographic industry for example). the most recent big event being the revenge of the sith in the internet (read: anywhere in the world) a couple of minutes after opening in cinemas. without a single penny from a corporation to back this kind of huge distribution.




eks

fabianv
06-13-2005, 08:42 PM
If you're going to look at art from a business perspective.. then its arguable.

If youre going to look at art from an Artistic perspective.. then the person trying to argue should shut his closed minded trap.


Art is a business when it comes to making money, like any other thing. The beauty of working on digital art for films and games is that youre not only creating this for your client; you are creating it for the audience as well.. and for your name out there. Digital art is very much a community thing.. its not just enclosed for rich buyers and the sorts... I believe its better to get a fixed job doing cg than hoping someone buys your paintings. You have to remember.. traditional artists only sell paintings at such insane prices when theyre considered ''mature'' artists in their 50's.

Anyways, if youre doing art only for the money.. then stop now.

Em2
06-13-2005, 11:58 PM
Art is Art. No matter how its made! You put effort in it all and you always get some results(aint saying they have to be good), Maybe you do use a bit more time if you do it manualy but that shouldnt matter, should it? You use maybe even more time on digital art, caus when you have finished the render you probably wil go back to it and maybe change something. Anyways to come to the point.

These days we can make copyes of anything with the technology we have in our hands. And lets face it, if oyu only make 10 prints of sumin you have made, and you dont want to make more prints (ever) then the value can go up in the future.


haa im tierd soo im probbably talkin about sumin i know very little about. But anyways i just want to tell you all that you can never set a price on art even if it is digital or not.

Night all @@
---------o

Lunatique
06-14-2005, 07:32 AM
What about several hundred million, like certain cg movies of late? Which of the two scenarios would you prefer? Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.

I think your point is correct, but it only applies to the very top level of film production. If you look at it realistically, what are the chances of someone working in the CG industry actually benefitting from that several hundred million profit? Most people working in CG are production artists--they have no say in the screenplay, direction, casting, and do not get a cut of the pie when the box-office numbers, toy sales, foreign distribution..etc come in. At the most they might get a nice Christmas bonus, and they get to have their names in the credits--which most movie-goers don't read. Your average movie-goer couldn't care less who modelled that creature or textured that building. Film is all about the actors, director, and writer--everyone else gets ignored by the media. The general media always interview the voice actors, but never the actual animators. You could spend a lifetime that way, and no one outside of your life's small circle will remember who you are after you die--unless you make a point to make a name for yourself as an individual creative mind--not just a production guy.

However, a gallery painter is the entire creative force onto himself. He doesn't get told what to do by the director, producer, art director, lead artist..etc. Everything he does is his idea, his inspiration. What he paints is his, and what gets sold, is split between him and his agent (or the gallery). If you can make a name for yourself, your pieces will sell from $10,000~$50,000 each easily in galleries. If you are good, you will be in demand, and you would basically sell everything you paint before you even paint it--people will have to fight for your paintings, to the point of using lottery systems to see who gets to purchase your next painting. There will be monographs of your work published, and you will leave your mark in this world in a more tangible way than any modeller, texture artist, art director, or animator at a CG studio. Even if you're not a fine artist but an illustrator, you will still go down in history, and you will still have monographs published of your works.

I think this is really a personal choice. Some people want that personal achievement, and no amount of working on other people's ideas will satisfy that need. You can have your artworks you've done for a studio published in one of those "The Art of XXXX" books, but you are sharing the limelight with dozens and hundreds of others. But as an individual creative mind that has an individual career that doesn't require a whole group of people, you are remembered as an individual. (And that's why people like you and me write screenplays and aim to have our own stories told, because we will never be satisfied only working as a cog in the machine on other people's creations)

For many people, they stopped being a production guy and became creators because of malcontent with the creative vision of the person that's calling the shots. There are times when people just want to be part of a team and work on something they could really believe in, without having to be responsible for making any vital calls on anything, but if what they're working on no longer satisfy that need to feel proud of the work being done, then that malcontent rears its head and they're off to wanting to be a creator instead of a production guy. But for some, they are lucky enough to have always worked for a great visionary, and they are content with just helping to bring those visions to fruition. I can imagine the guys who work at Valve on Half-Life series, or people working with Steven Spielberg, or people working at Bioware..etc being totally satisfied working on creative ideas they can be proud of. But if one day the creative ideas start to suck, then there's a chance one of the production guys will jump ship and try to become a creator himself, so that he could once again be working on a creative idea he could be proud of. I mean, why would Doug Chiang try to do Robota? He had a cushy job at ILM working on one of the most famous IP's in the universe, but something drove him to want to be a creator of his own universe.

To get back to the CG job vs. being a gallery painter comparison--look at it this way. The chances of you becoming a good fine art painter (or commercial illustrator) and be known as an individual creative talent, is higher than becoming a well-known creator in CG film. You could work a lifetime in CG and never get to write and direct a CG feature film.

Stahlberg
06-14-2005, 09:05 AM
I think your point is correct, but it only applies to the very top level of film production. If you look at it realistically, what are the chances of someone working in the CG industry actually benefitting from that several hundred million profit?

Yeah that wasn't maybe the best comparison... I was kind of thinking more towards the future, when a single CG artist can do - well whatever I think of is probably going to be too small. For us CG artists the sky is literally the limit... not so for the traditional artist, who will be working exactly the same way a hundred years from now (or he won't be a 'traditional' artist). This is not necessarily a bad thing (though it does seem like it would get boring in the long run).

I just can't believe people who get paid 5 or 6 digits for painting something that could be done by anybody off the street, in about less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich, are being 100% honest about their art and motivations.

Hey, I think I just invented a new art form - Delegative Art. I hire a bum off the street, sit there and have my lunch, while I direct him how to fill a canvas with paint. When my lunch is done, the art work is done, the bum gets paid his ten bucks and leaves, and I call my agent. He tells me the New York art scene is so hot for my new art that it's already sold - and I just made another cool 45,000 dollars.

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 09:21 AM
However, a gallery painter is the entire creative force onto himself. He doesn't get told what to do by the director, producer, art director, lead artist..etc. Everything he does is his idea, his inspiration. What he paints is his, and what gets sold, is split between him and his agent (or the gallery). If you can make a name for yourself, your pieces will sell from $10,000~$50,000 each easily in galleries. If you are good, you will be in demand, and you would basically sell everything you paint before you even paint it--people will have to fight for your paintings, to the point of using lottery systems to see who gets to purchase your next painting. There will be monographs of your work published, and you will leave your mark in this world in a more tangible way than any modeller, texture artist, art director, or animator at a CG studio. Even if you're not a fine artist but an illustrator, you will still go down in history, and you will still have monographs published of your works.


I totally agree! I have been fighting with myself over that exact same conflict. Whether to work for a company and just do their bidding, or to take the risk and fulfill my own creative purpose in life. I have decided on the latter! :)

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 09:51 AM
Yeah that wasn't maybe the best comparison... I was kind of thinking more towards the future, when a single CG artist can do - well whatever I think of is probably going to be too small. For us CG artists the sky is literally the limit... not so for the traditional artist, who will be working exactly the same way a hundred years from now (or he won't be a 'traditional' artist). This is not necessarily a bad thing (though it does seem like it would get boring in the long run).


Yeah, I personally think that there always will be something special and unique with something that is "paint on canvas" or "sculpted wood/marble" etc. And some people will always be drawn to the hands-on "authentic" feel to it. Digital art definitely has its own unique qualities but I don't think it will ever replace traditional art practice.

When photography was first invented in the 19th century it was thought that it would/could destroy painting and the other traditional arts. 200 years later photography has developed into its own unique art form, and painting is still thriving and developing just as before.

And I would personally prefer to be using real paint and creating art in the real natural world than sitting in front of a screen for my whole life :) But that is just me!

Lunatique
06-14-2005, 09:57 AM
I just can't believe people who get paid 5 or 6 digits for painting something that could be done by anybody off the street, in about less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich, are being 100% honest about their art and motivations.


Well, I'm not a fan of abstract expressionism, conceptual, or any other type of "intellectual masturbation" type of art. The painters I pay attention to are the painters with true talent and skill that I respect--people like Richard Schmid, Jeremy Lipking, Scott Burdick, Pino..etc. They are very successful and demands for their works far exceeds their ability to fulfill them. Morgan Weistling, another of the successful painters I respect, is so hot that collectors use lottery system to see who gets to buy his next painting. These guys are the real deal--master painters in ever sense of the word. The DVD's of their painting sessions are real eye-openers. Watching them actually painting each brushstroke and explaining the creative choices they make as they paint--you cannot fake that. I'm particularly fond of these painters because they carry the tradition of Sargent and other bravura painters. No guy off the street can do what they do.

Kargokultti
06-14-2005, 10:32 AM
The CG images on CGtalk are mostly what I'd call "fast delivery". The thing with illustrations, animations and whatnot is that they have to deliver their content instantaneously. A frame will only last so long and you can't expect people to really look at an illustration for more than a few minutes, not if the message is aimed for any audience wider than just the enthusiasts.

I admit that I'm not a big fan of hanging around art galleries, but I'm the first to admit that that's probably because I prefer fast delivery over slow. There's lot's of that "I could do that in five minutes" -stuff around, but you have to take note of the fact that those traditional artists responsible for it are mostly immersed in a slow delivery culture.

There's no telling what you can find in a splotch of paint, if only you spend enough time looking at it. And most importantly, get over the first negative reaction. I rarely do, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's just opportunism and greed behind those splotches.

robotJAM1
06-14-2005, 12:06 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while as well, to me there is CG art which is as good as any other art form now. The problem comes when you talk about selling it as art. Since there is no "original" you will never get a comparable price for what traditional art sells for. Its only cmparable to other prints.

However as a commercial venture it is sold in different forms, such as games/films etc.

Someone mentioned Ray Ceaser, yes he does sell prints and they do fetch a reasonable amount but generally only the same sort of price that prints go for of traditional paintings. Compared to the originals of traditional paintings they go for pennies.

Stahlberg
06-14-2005, 12:40 PM
And I would personally prefer to be using real paint and creating art in the real natural world than sitting in front of a screen for my whole life :)
But that's what I'm trying to explain - in just a couple decades from now CG will have changed a lot.
What do all CG artists want? A better interface. Looking back 20- 30 years, have they gotten their wish? Yes, and then some. There's quite some difference between today's Cintiq and a card hole-puncher! Now imagine another 30 years into the future. Maybe the interface will be so cheap you can have a different one for each type of painting you want to do - a paper one, a canvas one, a watercolor board one... you un-roll it, press a button, and it takes on the look and feel of whatever ground you can imagine. Same with your brush tool. Then you paint, and the image is saved as a molecular file, 500 Terabyte or whatever, but you can re-use the "canvas" later. Then you print the image using nano technology, and it looks, feels and smells just like a real oil painting. With the difference that you can animate it if you want, or make the colors glow in ultraviolet if you want, or... I'm sure someone will come up with something wild none of us can even imagine yet. :)

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 12:47 PM
Another issue I have been contemplating over the past few months is what does CG, whether it be 2D or 3D or a mix offer over a traditional painting on canvas. Say you have an absolutely perfect and stunningly rendered 2D or 3D CG image and you also have a traditional oil painting of the exact same standard. The only way you can get the CG piece out the into the real world is to print it as aforementioned. With the painting it already exists in the real. But its existence in the real offers it many advantages over a print - canvas texture, paint texture, paint reacting to light/shadow etc. With current technology there is no way that a CG can match this.

When it comes to displaying a static (non-moving) image a traditional painting is still far far ahead of what any digital piece can offer. When an audience is viewing the work it shouldn't matter what tool was used to create it, whether it be Maya, Photoshop, or oil paint. The only thing that matters is the final resulting piece of art. There is just something special about the texture, feel, and light of an amazing traditionally painted image. I have yet to see anyway a CG still could match this unique quality.

The place CG art obviously has something incredible to offer is in moving-image art, whether it be animation, video art, or film. Here we have something that a traditional painting cannot easily excel at. And even if you were to hand paint every frame of an animation traditionally it could still only be displayed through a TV or a projector - no different from how a CG piece would be displayed. There is still that special unique "natural" quality that hand-drawn animation, or hand stop-motion animated characters can offer, but CG art is a whole lot closer than it is in the static image art space.

Just something theories I have been going through in my head, debating the merits of traditional and CG art...

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 01:06 PM
All those ideas about new digital canvases sound great and exciting. I definitely look forward to all sorts of things like that happening, and I'm sure they will change and create various new art forms.

I still think that there will always be something unique and special about creating something with traditional media. It comes down to how far you think computers will be able to replicate the real, and if they will truly be able to replicate the randomness of what nature and real life offers. The problem is someone always has to design how a digital watercolor brush will work, or how spreading differently colored thick oil paint into itself works. If you are creating a traditional water color every slight movement, breath of air, slant of the paper, of the brush affects the drip and flow of the colored water. Every instant the artist is at the canvas is unique. The complete randomness of life and existence is affecting their work. Computers (unless something like AI truly happens) will always be programmed and "told" how to do certain things, they will be replicating what we can already do in the Real.

I think where computers stand out is where they are generating something we can't in the real. I'm thinking of electronic music compared with midi of traditional instruments as an example. Uniquely computer generated sounds and music really are special and different - they could not exist if it were not for computers. On the other hand, midi is recreating and replicating what already exists in the real. Even the best midi sounds pale in comparison to a true unique orchestra.

I really can't see the computer ever completely replacing a violin or paint on canvas. It will however bring its own special gift to art, generating exciting and new, still unheard of techniques and ideas.

eks
06-14-2005, 02:05 PM
i completely agree with everything stated in your post, but i want to pose a question:

There will be monographs of your work published, and you will leave your mark in this world in a more tangible way than any modeller, texture artist, art director, or animator at a CG studio. Even if you're not a fine artist but an illustrator, you will still go down in history, and you will still have monographs published of your works.
in this world where we see an ever far more computing power, an ever broadening possibilities of doing art with computer, an ever increase in technologies able to produce art (cintiq vs hole-puncher cards as Stahlberg put it), does a traditional artist will leave a "harder mark" in the world than the CG industry?

i agree that the names remembered will be from the creative minds using these new tools to create unique and completely new art, but a hundred years from now, in 2105, will historians look back at this year, for example, and pay more attention to traditional artists that sold their works to a handfull of rich people or the creative minds inside de CG industry that, sometimes, reached huge masses?




eks

Lunatique
06-14-2005, 02:23 PM
in 2105, will historians look back at this year, for example, and pay more attention to traditional artists that sold their works to a handfull of rich people or the creative minds inside de CG industry that, sometimes, reached huge masses?


Historians are already looking at the world of CG as part of the film industry. Animation and special effects have always been part of the film industry. Video games, on the other hand, might have a chance of breaking out into a medium that claims its own spot in history. The interactive nature is what sets video games apart from special effects and animation.

I think even in the best case scenerio, CG still image artists will only rise to about the same prestige as illustrators. But to even get to that level, CG still images will have to have their own roster of talents comparable to illustration giants like Norman Rockwell, JC Leyendecker, Howard Pyle..etc. That hasn't happened yet--not by a long shot.

jmBoekestein
06-14-2005, 02:47 PM
how about, the more prints I make, the more will survive into the future. Including future technologies for better digital storage with no data loss in the long run, you're all in for quite the surprise. I think the monograph is a thing of the past. It will never completely disappear completely but I think that you will be more easily noticed and respeted for actual ability through the digital media. Making money from a digital painting which can easily be reproduced is an entirely different story.

I mean, we all know the movies, but what artists do we really know :curious:?

eks
06-14-2005, 03:14 PM
I think even in the best case scenerio, CG still image artists will only rise to about the same prestige as illustrators. But to even get to that level, CG still images will have to have their own roster of talents comparable to illustration giants like Norman Rockwell, JC Leyendecker, Howard Pyle..etc. That hasn't happened yet--not by a long shot.
does it needs to happen now? does an artwork needs to be sold and known when it was created to have some artistic value? or "historic artistic value"?

again the most classic example of this, Van Gogh paintings were sold only after he died. one of the things that set Van Goghīs painting apart was the emotion each brush stroke breathed. during a period where there was still many academic painters fighting against photographers for the position of better represeting the world, something Van Gogh was not worried about, this expressive brushes went unnoticed. only after paiting turned to itself and to the act of painting that those emotional brushes stand out in the general public eye. it was an era of revolution (that, in my humble opinion, with traditional painting, ended in Pollock and abstract expressionism). and, eventually, Van Gogh artwork was more important and relevant than his contemporaries.

and we are, still, in an era of revolution, in an era of new paradigms. the work from many many people here at CGTalk excel in quality, be it creative or technically or both, sometimes a piece can make you breathless as a traditional painting. the fact that such work is in a CG forum and not hanging in a museum gallery or in the dinning room of one of the Rockefellerīs does not make it less or better art. itīs still art. probably many people will stand out eventually, but that only time will tell. itīs hard to see the future when so many things are changing so fast.



eks

Lunatique
06-15-2005, 04:06 AM
I mean, we all know the movies, but what artists do we really know :curious:?

Can you really speak for everyone? The cultural standard for each person is different. There are people out there who don't watch movies at all.

And even if the general public knows more movies than artists, unless you wrote/directed/acted in those movies, do you think it really makes any difference?

Lunatique
06-15-2005, 04:13 AM
I was thinking about what Steven said about the advancement of technology erasing the distinction between tradtional and digital, using molecular duplication methods. As much as I'm an optimist and and idealist, I'm also a lot more realistic now than I was when I was younger. Even if that technology becomes widely available to the average person, it's not going to happen in our lifetime, and we can't even be sure if it'll happen in our children's lifetime. Shouldn't we be doing things that make a difference in our own lifetime, thus fulfilling our needs and desires during our living years?

Shaidar
06-15-2005, 04:20 AM
I always think of films like 2001 that came out about 30 years ago. They had incredibly idealistic and fantastic ideas about the future but it definitely was and still is science fiction. I don't doubt that there will be incredible advances in our technology, but I don't necessarily think that we will be seeing everything in such a short time as it sometimes seems possible.

Stahlberg
06-15-2005, 06:40 AM
it's not going to happen in our lifetime
Who can say for sure? You might live 60 more years, perhaps much more if a longevity drug is perfected before you kick the bucket... :)
Look 60 years back, where was CG then? (And it's not overly optimistic to say that MAYBE the rate of change will accelerate, because it HAS been accelerating for the last... well for ever basically.)

1945 or earlier - compare that to today. That's roughly the ballpark of change we're looking at for the second half of our lives. For damn sure our kids are going to see something really different before they die. In any case, my point is, unlike traditional arts, CG will gradually keep on changing. This single fact to me makes it more exciting.

Yeah, sure, it's fun to be a traditional artist in some ways, but it has drawbacks too compared to digital. And only 0.000...1 percent of all of the active traditional artists in the world today reach anywhere near the kind of immortality you talk about. Not that much better than the situation for us CG artists actually.
And - as I said, if you choose that way and turn your back on CG, you're stuck in a time-warp where nothing changes.
Until the day, a few decades from now, when
1. anyone will be able to have an "original", because any copy will be indistinguishable from an original. Also,
2. no one will care that you did it the 'old' way, because the 'new' way will have indistinguishable results. And,
3. even most artists won't care because the 'new' way will smell and feel like the 'old' way (if they want it to do so).
Not much will change for most artists, they still won't get paid, they're still going to have to work a 'normal' job just to afford the tools... just the top artists selling originals will loose their main source of income.

edit:
I know this doesn't change much for the individual artist today, but it's a reply to the question will CG ever break into the Art world? I guess my reply is, CG will break the Art world (in its present form). :)
Or absorb and assimilate it, like the Borg.

edit:
hey cool, my 2000th post

Lunatique
06-15-2005, 08:09 AM
Digital really spoils you. I had one of those "I wish this was digital" moments just the other day. I was working on an oil painting and painting this one area where the brushtroke is vital to the way the painting looks; you lay it down and you cannot fudge with it afterwards by blending or feathering--it's that bravura painting style. I was doing fine, when one stray stroke destroyed all the surrounding strokes I worked so hard on. My immediate reaction was a clear, concise, and very LOUD mental scream of "WHERE THE F$CK IS MY MOTHERF$CKING UNDO?!"

Stahlberg
06-15-2005, 08:15 AM
Heh, yeh I feel your pain brother.

fabianv
06-16-2005, 10:02 AM
The best is to taste from all 3 worlds.

1. Working for a Production company
2. Plotting your own titles through whichever medium that will have YOUR name on it.
3. Working Traditionally as well.

Doing all 3 will keep you so artistically refreshed its not funny.

;)

Shaidar
06-16-2005, 10:12 AM
Hehe, the time though? Where is the time??

fabianv
06-16-2005, 10:45 AM
You live long enough to achieve all 3...

Its more a question of..


The discipline?

Where is the discipline?

:twisted:

Live life.. work hard.. be disciplined.. be cultured.. dont smoke, dont drink, eat healthy, sleep 8 hours.. (most of it during the first half of the day, the night is yours!) Watch lots of movies, play lots of games, read lots of books, make art.. be happy...

Eat chocolate (who said chocolate wasnt healthy?) , drink coffee...

Mario The ][
06-16-2005, 04:36 PM
I have thought about this whole discussion for some time now.
I think it could be compared to music, while there is music wich is considered a great achievment and lets say, originals of the music are sold for high prices, theres also music wich is thought of as well, nothing big, or not art.
Its also the same with the possibility to copy it, still theres a market, and for some things high prices are paid (guitar of hendrix for example)
Wich brings me to my point, i think yes, you could sell digital art for high prices. But it needs a great person and mind to do so, like for example hendrix was for some.

And stahlberg put it right, who knows what has happend to cg art in the next 50 years, what comes with technique and advancement.
I hope that cg art gets its own place sometime...

ToddD
06-16-2005, 05:41 PM
Hey, I think I just invented a new art form - Delegative Art. I hire a bum off the street, sit there and have my lunch, while I direct him how to fill a canvas with paint. When my lunch is done, the art work is done, the bum gets paid his ten bucks and leaves, and I call my agent. He tells me the New York art scene is so hot for my new art that it's already sold - and I just made another cool 45,000 dollars. -Stahlberg


Just a side note--- it's been done already! hehe Mark Kostabi hires "assistants" to create work under his supervision. A few years back there was a piece on a television news magazine about him, was quite funny to me :)


Todd

cyartist
06-16-2005, 06:15 PM
Then you print the image using nano technology, and it looks, feels and smells just like a real oil painting. :)


Nano technology. Aint going to happen at the consumer level will be deemed to dangerous. When we are able to recombine matter and manipulate it the paridgm shift will be so large digtal art we be erased forever. A new form of expression we be created that will change art and the world as we know it.

tevih
06-16-2005, 07:32 PM
Nanotech would be cool, but we really don't know our capabilities yet about it. It would have to be a long way off.

My neighbor had an art show; somebody convinced her to go "pro". Her paintings were nice and all, and I guess the $700 ~ $1,300 price tag on her paintings must be considered kind of modest compared to other galleries out there. And if that stuff was done on computer, it would be considered illustraton. (And I bet her paintings could be done in a matter of only one or two hours - analog or digital)

I wonder if people started selling digital prints on canvas (only one of each digital painting/3d rendering) what would happen in smaller galleries? Forget museums and competing with guys like picasso and reusseau who fetch millions. Maybe putting down a solitary Real-Paint brush stroke (or signature?) after the print will be enough to get in? A thousand bucks for an hour's work in some spare time aint bad. I've seen much more talent and skill in these forums than many art galleries.

tevih
06-16-2005, 07:35 PM
My immediate reaction was a clear, concise, and very LOUD mental scream of "WHERE THE F$CK IS MY MOTHERF$CKING UNDO?!"

Hehe.. my immediate reaction is to first reach for ctrl-Z... only after realizing it's not there... http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

mosconariz
06-17-2005, 03:21 AM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art) says: But the work of digital painters and printmakers is still not widely accepted by the established art community. It is not represented or collected by any major institution. Only the Victoria and Albert Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum) print department has a reasonable but small collection of digital art.

So, I think that's a start...


About the impact of modeling that building or texturing that tree for a movie or videogame... Well, for me, we're like neurons in a brain (society)... so that maybe you have a cool idea or concept or design or style or hability, and you create something cool out there; well, that will influence another and another artist like a chain reaction. No matter which kind of art, at the end of the day, a great artist, that will be always remembered will create something that was affected very indirectly by your art (as a final idea in your brain, it went thru thousands of neurons to be a complete conscient idea)... That, without considering all the changes you made for all the people affected in the process...

And, 4 me, people, we're the same person trying to understand ourselves in this world... So that any kind of communication, including art, make us more tuned with the rest of the world... Maybe I'm talking too much about my philosophy, hehe...

amphibiac
06-17-2005, 04:13 PM
The problem with CG being considered "real" art or not yet is fundamentally an issue of time. When everyone has flat panel screens that line their walls (a la Bill Gates, etc.) and the price of said display technology goes down, CG Art will be an acceptable art form. As a New Media/CG artist, we have to consider that we are at the very beginning of a revolution in aesthetic and formal development. There are techniques, or strategies that could be applied to CG that can help to reinvest CG with the "aura" that Walter Benjamin talked about was missing in "the age of mechanical reproduction." This is why, Video art, as single channel, is not as worthwhile as a painting in terms of marketability, but a video art INSTALLATION, is.
If you were to conceptually (and all art is conceptual art now given the "post medium age" which is why Thomas Kinkade is so successful, he understands that even if he is painting quaint little scenes, his total art is very tight conceptually) acknowledge your materials, the computer, the display, the projector, etc, and it was done in a way that seemed tight, and consistent with your overall thematic, than yes, CG art is definitely already in the art world. But if you just want to draw/paint in PS, print it, and hope it will sell, well, that may never be very lucrative, unless you explore the channels that it was originally intended, for design, print advertising, and commercials.
This is the crux of the main problem: Advertising is much faster, more widely understood, and better distributed, than fine art. AND it is a oft practiced strategy to co-opt the aesthetics of fine art for advertising, like for example the Cadillac commercials that borrowed Mathew Barney's aesthetic for a recent campaign. Simply put, the tools we use are developed with profit in mind, which raise the cost of the best tools out of the reach of the "casual" user, so that the best CG is done by the ones with the most money. And like paint in the renaissance, the casual user doesn't have access to the best materials. This is changing, however, but not as quickly as some of us would like.

Nerd_Pack
06-17-2005, 04:43 PM
My biggest problem with this whole situation is that high schools and universities often shy away from teaching digital art with the rest of the fine arts because it doesn't 'fit.' The illustration schools are fine, and I'm not disparaging them at all, but especially where I am the entire art department looks down on me because I'm working on the computer, and they're not willing to hire a real digital artist (the last professor was a ceramics guy... complete moron). Digital artists need to learn painting and history and everything else just like the rest of the fine artists, and should be considered fine artists.

If it were acceptable to just print and sign and delete the file, or something, we should do it. If there's no way to make money with digital art, I may start creating paintings with the remains of recently deceased art teachers in my department and see if that sells....

mosconariz
06-17-2005, 06:29 PM
If there's no way to make money with digital art, I may start creating paintings with the remains of recently deceased art teachers in my department and see if that sells....

Art is not about money; is about self expression...

Wanna make unique un-reproducable CG portraits? Well, make an unfinished CG image, print it, finish it in a tradicional media, and voila! there you have an original. Hmm... maybe I should do that to my late 2D/3D project... then I will give as present a 3D/2D/CG/traditional original artwork, hehehe...

And about Stahlberg's future vision... I'm always thinking in that too... in interactive holograms and nanotech CG animated forms... maybe blend-shaping "cars" and houses... woow, the limits between everything will be erased! muahahaha!

Nerd_Pack
06-17-2005, 08:28 PM
Art is about self-expression, etc, I know, but the people that are overly concerned about gallery showings and getting recognized are normally concerned about money. There are the people that really care about making sure that computer art is decently recognized and that it gets the exposure it deserves, but my general impression is that if you're interested in galleries you're interested in money. Just the way I see it.

also, I thought of something, it was mentioned that people don't like computer art because it isn't done by hand... what about any of these digital paintings is not done by hand? painstakingly, each stroke, very rarely do the best use filters and generators and that stuff.

fabianv
06-17-2005, 08:29 PM
This debate is utterly useless

tevih
06-17-2005, 08:44 PM
No, for me, it's a self-esteem issue - I'd rather be considered an artist than a nerd! :D

fabianv
06-17-2005, 09:08 PM
A nerd? Then youre so dependant on societies view of you that it actually makes the situation retarted.

ruukki
06-17-2005, 09:27 PM
The contemporary art theory considers art as anything that someone calls art. You can have a chimpanzee paint a painting in a zoo and call it art, if you want to make a point of it, and nobody cannot claim it isn't. Obviously photography couldn't be called art, either, if CG art won't pass.

As to selling or buying digital art: because the medium is comparably easy to learn (you all know what I mean: drop a photo into Photoshop and add a few effects), I'm not at all sure there will ever be such high class market for it as for traditional art. In any case, there is so much art nowadays that it has practically lost many of the meanings it used to have. If you take a look at art history from the point of purpose rather than media, you will see how and why art has changed.

I asked a friend of mine (one who doesn't make CG art) to have a look at this web site, and he told me there was a lot of kitsch here and not much art. There are people who think art must elevate us somehow to be called art. That means copies of some high-brow art must all be called kitsch (artsy term for something made for decorative purposes or such), as there isn't as much spirit in painting the copies as there was painting the originals.

I have painted about 50 oil paintings - the latest I made were OK in my own eyes - and let me tell you, to me it has always been the idea that counts. If I get a point across, I don't give a flying **** over the media. It can be coal on a cave wall or pixels on the screen, as long as it gives a thrill. So there.

One more thing: what if someone takes a photo, drops it into Photoshop, adds some effects to make it look like a painting, copies it on canvas (a piece of cake if you start with a simplified thingy and work towards the original photo look, going as far as you like), and claims it is his work, all of it? Where do we stand with our criticism then, especially if we cannot tell how the feat was achieved? It would be possible to produce a series of very original-looking paintings that way, and the artist could let the hi-brow people in on it only years afterwards. "Gotcha, suckers! It was CG art before being on canvas!" Probably "a few" do it this way, only they don't talk about the computer side too much.

Have a look at Andy Warhol's and Anders Zorn's work for reference. Zorn probably painted most of his later work from photos, and man they're alive! Nobody ever said: "Forget Zorn, he uses photos!" Warhol, on the other hand, was a bit more in-your-face: "Look, art is just surface." Both were great artists, because both had an idea, a great spirit in what they did. I'm not so sure Warhol painted much, but who cares? He was one to show us what art is.

I hope the great-uncle sees the point.


[QUOTE=tevih]
I showed him Expose 2 and D'artiste and wanted to know his opinion. He thought "it was nice". I asked him if he thought it would be considered art and he said absolutely not. His reason was you couldn't sell CG stuff for the same prices you can sell "normal art." Nobody would buy it, because there is no such thing as an original digital. You can print as many copies as you want. There is no texture of the paint. It wasn't created by hand, it was created by computer.

QUOTE]

cyartist
06-17-2005, 11:32 PM
The real issue hear is how to use digtal techniques to be used as a undepainting then use this to give a final polish of tradtional tools. We need a inkjet that prints Graphite or charcoal onto any surface. These kind of inventions are more a possiblity.

Kargokultti
06-17-2005, 11:41 PM
Why would you want that if you can draw on the paper directly? If you worry abut the reproductions, why not try lithography? A Wacom is a great tool, but the best way to get the traditional look is to do things the traditional way. Seems an awful lot like some people want a computer between them and their work, no matter what.

amphibiac
06-19-2005, 06:29 PM
Seems an awful lot like some people want a computer between them and their work, no matter what.

Good point, and I think its related to how much of our real life takes place in front of one now. Our entertainment, our work, communications, and for many, sexuality, all takes place in front of a computer. So, it would stand to reason that if you are interested in mucking with that reality, in order to get a handle on it, to understand it, that doing computer-related art (video editing, machinama, CG modelling, illustrating, CAD, motion graphics, and photography) is a good way to see feedback from the other reality.

The will to virtuality is a strong motivation. The computer is an affective means to exist as a pair of hands, a brain and some eyes (ears too, if you make music), and not much else. This desire to exist outside ourselves is nothing new. Art has always been analogous to spirituality, and the computer is our generation's altar. If there is a God, now, it is convenient to believe that it is a big mainframe, because so much of what we care about is increasingly related to the reality derived from interacting with a computer, and less and less about the fu ck ed up world around us, a world we can scarcely affect.

fabianv
06-19-2005, 06:37 PM
Good point, and I think its related to how much of our real life takes place in front of one now. Our entertainment, our work, communications, and for many, sexuality, all takes place in front of a computer. So, it would stand to reason that if you are interested in mucking with that reality, in order to get a handle on it, to understand it, that doing computer-related art (video editing, machinama, CG modelling, illustrating, CAD, motion graphics, and photography) is a good way to see feedback from the other reality.

The will to virtuality is a strong motivation. The computer is an affective means to exist as a pair of hands, a brain and some eyes (ears too, if you make music), and not much else. This desire to exist outside ourselves is nothing new. Art has always been analogous to spirituality, and the computer is our generation's altar. If there is a God, now, it is convenient to believe that it is a big mainframe, because so much of what we care about is increasingly related to the reality derived from interacting with a computer, and less and less about the fu ck ed up world around us, a world we can scarcely affect.



It is the only true international freedom we will ever have.. and that freedom exists outside our bodies.. in binary code.. and you know what.. I am happy.

polywrangler
06-19-2005, 07:26 PM
I think what people are missing here is the subject matter of art that appeals to the rich people who buy fine art. Most cg I see toted around here is patently misogynistic and does not appeal to the higher ground of fine art. There are plenty of exceptions to this to be sure, but I would be willing to claim that most wealthy people don't want a framed glossy print of "naked chick with lazer gun fighting half snake half man monster", perhaps it's a generation gap, perhaps the subject matter isn't impressive enough to their peers, perhaps the artist needs to have died for the work to be attributed value.

Furthermore, while using a computer with its unlimited undos and flat style has eliminated most traditional art in the field of graphic design, it fails in the realm of fine art still images because all digital art tends to look the same as there are a finite number of techniques available to create it at the moment. A lot of a fine artist's style is a result of the happy accidents that occur due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of traditional media. Lastly, traditional fine art has the succulent quality of its colors interacting with natural light, something you don't get from a screen or even a printer.

On the other hand, there is the fine art market of installation art and interactive art where there are plenty of computers being used and is readily accepted as fine art so this whole thread could be moot when considered from that angle.

fabianv
06-19-2005, 08:59 PM
I think short films can be accepted into the fine art world.. thats what im actually going for. As for Digital Stills.. aslong as the digital society stops making cliched imagery (which isnt everyone but the most) we will always be looked down upon those rich bastards... but you know what? Dont care about them.. be yourself and be happy. :thumbsup:

amphibiac
06-19-2005, 09:19 PM
This is a good example of "traditional" art (serious, exacting photography) with CG, namely photoshop. The artist, Jeff Wall, does take actual photos but combines them with painstaking attention to detail renderings in Photoshop, sufficiently blurring the lines between real and virtual. It is true, his subject matter is absurd enough to suggest foul play, but it is also extremely well executed, so as to transcend the normal criticisms that come out of worth1000.com style photoshop works.
Check out this link:

http://web.syr.edu/~mmcaldar/Images%20for%20web%202/2.sudden.jpg (http://web.syr.edu/%7Emmcaldar/Images%20for%20web%202/2.sudden.jpg)

KayosIII
06-20-2005, 02:10 AM
The value in the traditional art world is very much in line with the rarity of the piece. Methods of Art that are easily reproduced HAVE ALWAYS collected a much smaller price than non reproducible works. The whole point of having a painting that costs 50,000 is that you have a work that no one else has and a lot of people want - therefor you must be rich and powerful. It is a status symbol. An artform which is so inherently reproducible is unlikely to ever fill this need.

Furthermore a large amount of value in the traditional art world is based on the 'persona' of the artist. Working in any commercial or reproducible art form can hurt this persona and make difficult for you to be taken seriously as a traditional artist.

I present three options:

1) Use Hybrid techniques that mean that the work is not inherently reproducible.
2) Print your work to canvas and keep your mouth shut about the techniques used, only ever make one copy.
3) Find a way to shift peoples value system. So they see your reproductive work as valueable as a traditional artist. I suggest doing things that are controversial and get plenty of exposure to the world. You need to make your works famous. Art connected with a well known event will be worth more.

tevih
06-20-2005, 02:39 AM
The value in the traditional art world is very much in line with the rarity of the piece. Methods of Art that are easily reproduced HAVE ALWAYS collected a much smaller price than non reproducible works. The whole point of having a painting that costs 50,000 is that you have a work that no one else has and a lot of people want - therefor you must be rich and powerful. It is a status symbol. An artform which is so inherently reproducible is unlikely to ever fill this need.

Furthermore a large amount of value in the traditional art world is based on the 'persona' of the artist. Working in any commercial or reproducible art form can hurt this persona and make difficult for you to be taken seriously as a traditional artist.

I present three options:

1) Use Hybrid techniques that mean that the work is not inherently reproducible.
2) Print your work to canvas and keep your mouth shut about the techniques used, only ever make one copy.
3) Find a way to shift peoples value system. So they see your reproductive work as valueable as a traditional artist. I suggest doing things that are controversial and get plenty of exposure to the world. You need to make your works famous. Art connected with a well known event will be worth more.

I agree with you - does anyone know of anyone who's tried this? It sounds good to me, but I'd love to actually see it happen.

btw, fabianv - I was only joking about my comment before :)

cha0t1c1
06-20-2005, 03:14 AM
Why would you want that if you can draw on the paper directly? If you worry abut the reproductions, why not try lithography? A Wacom is a great tool, but the best way to get the traditional look is to do things the traditional way. Seems an awful lot like some people want a computer between them and their work, no matter what.

that is not the reason, have you tried painting with oil while you're in the wheelchair and your hands are paralysed, I have...

If you want a unique print just delete the file(or the folder) when you're done, then burn the HDD, if you're an artist who spends hundreds on colour pallete it shouldn't be a big deal to buy a 5 gig HDD to work on each painting, then burn the HDD after the print. I don't seem to find the argument on this thread plausible, ART IS ART.

Kargokultti
06-20-2005, 10:28 AM
that is not the reason, have you tried painting with oil while you're in the wheelchair and your hands are paralysed, I have...
I wasn't saying you should never use a computer, I was saying that if you want a charcoal drawing, might not using actual charcoal and paper be the simplest way?

fabianv
06-20-2005, 12:08 PM
I wasn't saying you should never use a computer, I was saying that if you want a charcoal drawing, might not using actual charcoal and paper be the simplest way?


I have some experience in using charcoal and its a great medium.. but I think the point he is trying to make is that he cant. Charcoal you have to be able to get down and dirty with it.. and hold it in different ways... so if youre handicapped then no its not easier.

If you arent... then yes it is easier.

But hey, I think this discussion has gone far over the limit already hehe... next! :)

Kargokultti
06-20-2005, 01:00 PM
Ye gods! Is there no end to this nitpicking.

While I am well aware that there are such unfortunates who have not the full use of whatever limbs they choose to use for drawing, can it not be said that the majority is well able to pick up a bloody charcoal and a piece of paper?

If I say people are idiots, I'm refering to the majority, not the minority who aren't.

fabianv
06-20-2005, 02:59 PM
haha :) Yeah this is getting a bit carried away lol ... Im guessing general discussion needs new policies about ''knit picking'''.. or should I say ''Topic Raping''

cha0t1c1
06-20-2005, 03:44 PM
haha :) Yeah this is getting a bit carried away lol ... Im guessing general discussion needs new policies about ''knit picking'''.. or should I say ''Topic Raping''

hear hear....I resign from this argument....:D

eks
06-21-2005, 03:27 PM
The contemporary art theory considers art as anything that someone calls art.

i would re-write your phrase this way: "the contemporary art system considers art as anything that a curator calls art".

they are the ones who choose what goes in a gallery or not. if itīs not in a gallery, it cannot be sold as "fine art".

but thatīs just my dim and humble opinion. :)



eks

Magnemar
06-21-2005, 04:28 PM
I firmly believe that art created with CG can be recognised and respected within the wider art world. Part of the problem stems from a belief that CG art somehow exists as a seperate genre from existing art - it doesn't. CG is merely another medium for an artists use - allowing him or her to express themselves using all it's nuances.

I would push for more crossovers between CG and 'traditional' art - paintings over prints, scanned and rotated, stretched onto 3D models, lit, rendered, printed onto canvas, scanned again then projected on video screens. We need to break the 'purity' of an image - allowing it to move on from mere pixels.

I also think that CG needs to aspire to higher goals in its content in order to be taken seriously - CG artists need to express deeper truths than the shallow images we create today. Looking over CGTalk you can find some people doing this, but it needs to go further and further - expressing the truths of life through the images we create.

Most contemporary art these days works on the premise that the artist presents their work in exhibition, and that by doing this effectively states that " I am an artist and this is art". We need to do likewise...

mangual
06-21-2005, 05:22 PM
Photography has been around for over a hundred years now and eventhough it is a popular and diverse artform... it has not quite managed to become equally accepted value as "fine art" as oil paintings, sculptures, etc. as far as the gallery world is concerned.

The high prices and collectability for photographs are not as high as other fine arts either.

I see the current state of CG art to be similar. A great deal of the "industry" is very commercial and subject to mass reproduction and I think in some ways that diminishes it's acceptance as fine art.

Surely there are exceptions, but overall... that is my take.

Nerd_Pack
06-22-2005, 01:18 AM
I would push for more crossovers between CG and 'traditional' art - paintings over prints, scanned and rotated, stretched onto 3D models, lit, rendered, printed onto canvas, scanned again then projected on video screens. We need to break the 'purity' of an image - allowing it to move on from mere pixels.

I could not have said it better my friend... every piece of art I do now is trying to break that barrier, project digital art to paintings, cut holes in paintings and insert flash animations or digital work, paint directly onto a motherboard, that kind of thing. The computer is not going to be recognized for making digital paintings because that's what brushes are for... at least that's what "Artists" would say. The computer is there to create art: it's a new way to create art so it deserves a new kind of art.

eks
06-22-2005, 02:36 AM
jrainwat and magnemar: you guys now this?

http://www.mine-control.com/

they were some people that worked in the game industry and left to do "fine art" with interactive installations. i think itīs one interesting example of bluring the line between image, pixel, atom, brush stroke, canvas, etc, you were mentioning.

and after all, in a way itīs "cg breaking into the art world" ;)



eks

Nerd_Pack
06-22-2005, 01:56 PM
I love this stuff!! Haha, thanks for showing this, it's good to get people exposure to things that aren't what they're used to. I really wish that more people would at least read about this stuff and go to see it, I think it's absolutely amazing.

Thanks for posting it for me/us!!

Arlekin
06-26-2005, 03:02 AM
Cg is art, or at least will be when photography first came it was also not concidered "real" art.....but cg is similar to photography because u model something or draw with PS. and then u render it (renering is similar process to taking a photograph) applying various render parameters.... (as u see them in your mind).....so it all comes from your mind (ideas visions...no matter wich tools u use....)..... just noticed previous post wich came to same conclusion...


i would not do it if i would not think its art....(dont hang me)

KBOC
06-26-2005, 03:39 AM
I had an interesting discussion with my great uncle who must be around 90. He has a pretty solid collection of expensive art from oils to crystal sculptures, and he frequently buys and sells, sometimes at auction.

Few "real" artists fetch those kinds of dollars. Why would you want to endure the pretentious bohemeans and oh so knowledgeable know nothings in the art world?

Just take a look at Dadaism. It tells the whole story.

KBOC
06-26-2005, 03:40 AM
Cg is art

CG Is art, everything else aspires to be art. IMHO. The gods in CG are far more accomplished artists than most traditional "artists".

PerfectBlue
06-26-2005, 03:43 AM
For 3D art.. you could have a scene carved/cut by a few companies (i forget the names, but one posted here a year or two back) and then work with the models, paint them, smooth them and so on. That can be sold as an original and unique piece... but the 3d file itself cant.


Kinda sucks if you want in on the "art" scene.. luckily i dont care much for it. :)

KBOC
06-26-2005, 03:47 AM
I'm fairly sure the definitions will be different in the future. At least I sincerely hope so... today you could define high art by the prices, by the places it's sold, by its customers. This is obviously ridiculous - you should define art only by the work itself and the context it was created in. Nothing else. The digital paradigm can help with that... perhaps it even makes the change inevitable, by removing the cult of the 'original'.

Okay, you engineer a figure, build and rig it.

You're a student of motion in posing your figure, and a photography student in capturing it from the best angle.

You're a student of fine painting, as you colour youf figure with the best colour and texture you can possibly achieve.

You're a lighting specialist, as you cast light and shadow onto your figure.

So, engineer, painter, choreographer, photographer...

This is the very epitomy of "Fine Art." Nothing else comes close.

cha0t1c1
06-26-2005, 04:05 AM
Okay, you engineer a figure, build and rig it.

You're a student of motion in posing your figure, and a photography student in capturing it from the best angle.

You're a student of fine painting, as you colour youf figure with the best colour and texture you can possibly achieve.

You're a lighting specialist, as you cast light and shadow onto your figure.

So, engineer, painter, choreographer, photographer...

This is the very epitomy of "Fine Art." Nothing else comes close.

one of the best expressed opinions stated...I concur without a single counter thought.

Adriano-Zanetti
06-26-2005, 10:38 AM
I had an interesting discussion with my great uncle who must be around 90. He has a pretty solid collection of expensive art from oils to crystal sculptures, and he frequently buys and sells, sometimes at auction.

I showed him Expose 2 and D'artiste and wanted to know his opinion. He thought "it was nice". I asked him if he thought it would be considered art and he said absolutely not.




No real new issue here, that discussion over CG Art... "Art or not" is pretty much the same many already had over "Cinema"... which finally was aknowledged to be "the 7th art". Make CG Art the 8th, it is just a combination and evolution of already-existing ways and technologies through which the artistic mind express itself.



His reason was you couldn't sell CG stuff for the same prices you can sell "normal art." Nobody would buy it, because there is no such thing as an original digital. You can print as many copies as you want. There is no texture of the paint. It wasn't created by hand, it was created by computer.



What was the paper and Stone to the artists decades ago are Flat screens and light projected displays nowadays, virtual or real relief of matter onto a masterpiece is not a factor of dissociation between authentic art and CG Art, it is up to us to create the digital tools (printers or displays) that will recreate those reliefs onto the media used to display the Digital Art masterpiece. Only the thinking, WORK, and final result will have value to my eyes, I have a very poor interrest in the tools that have been used to create a masterpiece.


if our advanced technology nowadays makes Digital Art very easy to diffuse and replicate, at no point in my eyes it takes any credits away from the artists over the efforts and talents required to create those masterpieces. If Da Vinci would have had a way to make a couple of extra copies of Mona Lisa back then, I'm pretty sure he would have done it and still we would consider this painting as a major masterpiece of Art history. So the term "Original" makes no sense to me as it is turning a technical limitation, here the unability to reproduce a masterpiece, into the very exclusive "quality" of a specific masterpiece. That is on this non-sense that Art Dealers base their profit on, most pf the time, when re-saling masterpieces, not so often over the quality of an artwork but more over their "rarity". If you ask me, this truelly killed Art in general at some point, I will not tell you what I think of an "orginal Warhol" for instance... just typing it poped a pimple on my butt cheek, it's a joke, especially so late in the age of contemporary art. Anyway, just to say that it is not because you make it more exclusive, that it is any better. I just bought a limited edition of Expose III, do you think I bought it cause we'll be only a 1000 to own one, or because there is more to see in it (16 extra pages) and a better presentation ? ...


Do you guys think CG can crack into the Art Market, fetching thousands? Or are we confined to produce all our works on commission or for regular commercial uses only?


And as to wonder if Digital Art will crack onto the market, fetching thousands... well, it's terrible to come to this talking about art once again. Art was never meant to make profit, it is just the expression of very different and very creative minds, who very often never even made a living out of their only passion and only way to express themselves. But nowadays, maybe because of the speed of communication which allows the artwork of an artist to be spread around the world in a matter of hours, I'd say Yes, a digital artist can make a good living out of his Art, but only for a very few of the hundreds of thousands of artists there are out there, and very often indirectly. Only assumption here, but take for instance Pascal Blanche, the best digital artwork I seen around so far, I can bet he makes a good living out of his proffession in which he excels because of his artistic talents, I don't think he's saling so many posters or whatever reproductions of his artworks, But I'm sure of one thing, it is the influence his artwork has over many different other medias of communication, video games, movies, comics, where his art is employed as a reference. Just as Artists, digital artists are not here to make profit, but to bring new ideas, new standards of quality, there are here to inspire us all with their very unique sights, which in the end, for the best of us all, can be lucrative if they are lucky enoough to get direct credits over the inspiration they bring around them.
to be continued... I guess ;)

pe@ce

Adriano

CGTalk Moderation
06-26-2005, 10:38 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.