PDA

View Full Version : 'digital art'


Ring
06-20-2005, 11:45 PM
hi everyone!

hope this is the right place to talk about digital art theoretically.
i'd like to hear your opinions, i think there is lot to talk about...

so first of all. is there something we can call digital art? does it really exists? i mean is that an individual way of art, or is it (computer) just another tool for artists, like the different brushes? or do you think it has a chance to live? it is so different from any other technique will it be one day as common or as accepted as other arts?

next thing. we know, CG at least in the begining was made to serve the objectives of film industry (special effects). can we call that art too? or is it artistic work of 'artisans'? and now, that artists can create substantive artworks, should we stay on the road of perfect realism.

i mean just have a look at the cgtalk threads (agree, mostly the 3d part). we are posting images, showing models that are made with the intention of realism, naturalism photo-realism. it's all ok and they're really amazing pieces, but should intependent digital art (so the non-industrial) stay on this road? this all looks like we're in the age of academism. but that was long ago. since that newer art schools set up new goals for art. so let me ask the probably inpolite question. is that art at all? i know nowadays nearly everything is art what we call art ;) but seriously. and mean no offense.

so shouldn't we move on with the present era? at least try to get rid of naturalism? i know there are great chances in digital art. pc is a relatively new tool, only nowadays can all artist reach these programs, tools, and from this distance we can create pieces of artwork as we like (i mean using that style whatever we want from naturalism to expressionism surrealism aso.).
but shouldn't we try to find our very own language? do you think it would be possible? if so how do you think we should start? how could we probably find a common way for 2d 3d and motion?

have a nice day;)

me

Nerd_Pack
06-21-2005, 01:21 AM
This is obviously a tough thing to deal with, and I've been doing it for a few months or year or so now. After thinking about art and digital art and movies and commercial art and all of that, I've decided I just can't bring myself to do it. I'm starting to program, to research interactivity and explore movement and changing shapes. I've found that you can use the computer for more than just art, to express real movement and to express change that you just can't manage with any other medium. I've gotten sick of 'digital art' and all that it entails, at least for my own practices.

I love looking at digital art, the realism and stuff is still freakin' amazing and fun to look at, but I'd rather pursue something that's a little more... I don't know. Unique. For example, I'm working on a landscape painting now, full on canvas and paints, but I'm going to create animated wildlife to project onto it... if that makes any sense... no more realism for me.

mangual
06-21-2005, 06:56 AM
This is obviously a tough thing to deal with, and I've been doing it for a few months or year or so now. After thinking about art and digital art and movies and commercial art and all of that, I've decided I just can't bring myself to do it. I'm starting to program, to research interactivity and explore movement and changing shapes. I've found that you can use the computer for more than just art, to express real movement and to express change that you just can't manage with any other medium. I've gotten sick of 'digital art' and all that it entails, at least for my own practices.

I love looking at digital art, the realism and stuff is still freakin' amazing and fun to look at, but I'd rather pursue something that's a little more... I don't know. Unique. For example, I'm working on a landscape painting now, full on canvas and paints, but I'm going to create animated wildlife to project onto it... if that makes any sense... no more realism for me.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I feel almost exactly the same way. I find it more fulfilling to create something on a traditional canvas and it feels like I've actually created something in the "real world" whereas when I've completed digital paintings it feels like a cloud... like a dream that's not really there. So I've decided to just focus on making 3D models instead of digital fine art. I'll leave the fine art for my brushes and pencils and bristol boards and canvases.

There is a saturation of digital artwork on the Internet and it can feel overwhelming if you like to browse online galleries... Makes you feel like there's so much out there, what difference does yours make? I guess it's a personal thing. Some people make art for themselves and don't care what others think , but others make it to be appreciate and for the "wow" factor. I think there's nothing wrong with being motivated to WOW people.

It is increasingly difficult to WOW anyone with digital art. Just look at how quickly people put down amazing CG work like what was seen in Star Wars or Madagascar...

But yet you see a 10 year old draw something with crayons and they get tons of praise... Or even when an adult does it! You get what I'm saying?

An adult can create a sketchy charcoal drawing that took 10 minutes to make and get a lot more WOW than if he made a superior digital painting that took 2 weeks. Not in every case, of course, but hopefully you get what I'm saying - it happens!

Where digital/cg excels is in animation and in it's role with movies/entertainment/games.

eks
06-21-2005, 01:52 PM
so first of all. is there something we can call digital art? does it really exists? i mean is that an individual way of art, or is it (computer) just another tool for artists, like the different brushes? or do you think it has a chance to live? it is so different from any other technique will it be one day as common or as accepted as other arts?
i had a couple of arguments with friends about this same question of yours, and iīve always argued that if there is something you can call "digital art" then there should be something called "real art", or "atom art", or whatever. if you can get everything that can be done with a computer and put in one bag, there should be an opposite, a complement. otherwise itīs like thereīs a Yin without a Yang, like a black without white, like thereīs no balance (in the force? :D).

a friend of mine work at the art collection from my university, and she says thereīs all kinds of types of work, etching/engraving, painting, photography, sculpture, and... "digital art". and everything done with a computer goes into "digital art", be it a 3d picture, movie, digital painting or whatever.


i mean just have a look at the cgtalk threads (agree, mostly the 3d part). we are posting images, showing models that are made with the intention of realism, naturalism photo-realism. it's all ok and they're really amazing pieces, but should intependent digital art (so the non-industrial) stay on this road? this all looks like we're in the age of academism. but that was long ago. since that newer art schools set up new goals for art. so let me ask the probably inpolite question. is that art at all? i know nowadays nearly everything is art what we call art ;) but seriously. and mean no offense.
thatīs a really touchy subject...

but i kind of agree with you. whatīs the point of creating a photorealistic subway scene? why not just take a picture of it?

now, if you add a monster, an alien, or 12 little cartoony bunnies jumping in the subway scene, something that cannot exist in our reality, thus cannot be photographed, but it does look photorealistic, then you have something that can only be created with CG.

if i may, iīd like to point three simple examples.

Love, at last (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=247591), from Sean Chou. itīs a simple VFX demo reel from a photorealistic street scene, but itīs simple story with the flowers made me like it a lot.

Annie and Boo (http://www.annieandboo.com/), from Johannes Weidland. itīs a great short with a photorealistic train station, but one of the characters is not human.

Theros (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=240957), from Georgios Cherouvim. a "non-narrative character based short film".

i donīt have still examples, but there surely are. these three animations above are good examples of "art" you can only do with CG and nothing else.


but shouldn't we try to find our very own language? do you think it would be possible?
i think it is possible, but only time will tell. and maybe itīs a bit too early, we have way much more technology coming in our way...



eks

Nerd_Pack
06-22-2005, 12:14 AM
Photorealism has it's place, don't get me wrong, and the CG art out there now is certainly artistic and 'good,' but for me it just doesn't feel like enough, I'm glad some people can feel the same way. I started out modelling and working in that vein, but I felt like it just didn't have the substance to it that I really needed. I've really researched this stuff quite a bit and I've found that to me anyway, what really makes the computer unique is the interactivity that it can afford, really bringing art to those people that don't normally appreciate it and showing people art in a way that they don't feel... supressed? that's not the right word, but I think you know what I mean.

I've always though traditional artists are a bit stuffy and high-browed, elitist if you will in some senses, and I really want to use the computer to bring "Art" to regular people, people that don't like art, or don't fit in with that stuffiness, that really just want to experience something special without feeling "artsy."

Hence the quote, I suppose...

KayosIII
06-22-2005, 03:27 AM
Digital art exists in the same fashion that there is paintbrush art, pencil art, oils, watercolours, pastels etc. It describes the process being used rather than the content created.

next thing. we know, CG at least in the begining was made to serve the objectives of film industry (special effects). can we call that art too?


by this definition it is

art1 Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.


from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art

I guess you mean Art with a capital A. Art with a capital A is an institution and films do not belong to that institution generally speaking.

I know there is a lot of talk about the art having been there done that when it comes to photo-realism. This does not take into account two things 1) we can now make photorealism move. 2) We can make it interactive. There is a market for these things and a lot of people interested interested in them. Digital technology has been the enabling factor.

As for taking the High Art road with Digital Media... By all means go for it. There are definately a world out there waiting to be explored and your sure to find like minded souls. It may not be everybodies interest is all.

lokki
06-22-2005, 04:08 AM
for what it's worth, art really boils down to expression. Expression of the self, of an idea, a communication in some form. Blah blah blah cave paintings blah blah Galileo spacecraft blah blah graffitti.

With so many people having access to digital tools, it's natural to see a low signal-to-noise ratio. But the talent still shines through, and the good part is that we have more opportunity to find talent and spread it around than ever before. That talent will manifest in surprising ways.

What we see in the photorealism world is the ability of the artist to pay attention to detail, also at a level we've not before encountered. This is one aphorism of art, what splits it off from science. Given enough time, a computer can perfectly model a human face. For the human, it entails interpretation, deciding what's important and what's not, and allowing imperfections that the viewer will interpret as 'human'. Perfect renders are amazing. Imprefect renders may be better.

As to whether digital artists should persue a particular path, well... that's absurd, IMHO. Why limit a resource or tool based on ideology? It's a means of expression, and if one person's expression demands that they begin modeling quarks to end up with a perfect copy of the Pyramids, then more power to them. And if another person decides that the true path for them is to throw tempra paints on their CPU, take a picture of that, and then use it in a filter frenzy, why the hell not?

Trying to start a movement usually dead-ends. Seeing momentum and taking the reins is what history records. Don't bother trying to get people to follow one thing or another - do what you believe in and you will be rewarded. You may even become famous.

Did that make any sense?

mangual
06-22-2005, 12:45 PM
Yea, most pioneers didn't set out to BE pioneers. They just did their thing, were passionate about it... and it just happened

CGTalk Moderation
06-22-2005, 12:45 PM
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.