"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2005   #31
Well, let's not take the quote by its tail. The quote by itself is very provocative, not strange to Picasso's style. It has two distinct parts. The first part declares the utilitarian vaccum of computers, by itself it sounds shallow right? but the second part of the quote it admits its functional advantage and usefullness by acknowledging it provide answers. What did he want to say really?

We are talking about a world class creative individual. I sense in this quote that he acknowledges the capacity of computers to provide answers, which by itself is huge. There is a flare of sarcasim manifested between the two halves of the quote. But, what is he really saying, which I find truly inspirational is that the ability to put a question forward requires creativity, reasoning and it is a higher form of intellectualism. What is the use of an answer if the question is inferior? The quote is much more complicated than what one would think.

The metaphysical query of artwork is centered around the 'question' not the 'answer'. In other words, Modernists, who inherited the Carteisian reductionism (Descartes, Newton, et al) sought the existence revolved around 'thinking'.

On the same note, the famous quote by Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, therefore I am" has this similar contradiction inherent within. The first part of the quote recognizes the "I" that thinks, which eliminated the need to conclude existence. It sounds silly, but it isn't.

The question could be straight if it is based on simple requests, but questioning needs complexity to give depth and wider possibilites for possible answers.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #32
Talking

Kinda Thinking About It He dId Have A Hot Model Around Him All The Time
But Still.....i Think He'ed Hate All The Beginers Appear From All Over (via Internet) Egar To Learn And Emulate LOL



HEY SGT. SLAUGHTER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT
__________________
-ART IS MY LIFE-
www.calvinclyke.com
sketchbook
tumblr
youtube

Last edited by THECLYKE : 05 May 2005 at 04:49 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #33
It's just easier to read when everything is lowercase.

To the subject at hand; even today computers just provide answers. It doesn't create things for us or anything along those lines. We still have to tell it what to do and it does it.

I think the deeper meaning is that the computer is not creative in nature.
__________________
------------------
TOR
 
Old 05 May 2005   #34
Talking

Originally Posted by 1000101: It's just easier to read when everything is lowercase.

I think the deeper meaning is that the computer is not creative in nature.





GREAT POINTS
__________________
-ART IS MY LIFE-
www.calvinclyke.com
sketchbook
tumblr
youtube

Last edited by THECLYKE : 05 May 2005 at 05:02 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #35
Originally Posted by ashakarc: But, what is he really saying, which I find truly inspirational is that the ability to put a question forward requires creativity, reasoning and it is a higher form of intellectualism. What is the use of an answer if the question is inferior? The quote is much more complicated than what one would think.

The metaphysical query of artwork is centered around the 'question' not the 'answer'. In other words, Modernists, who inherited the Carteisian reductionism (Descartes, Newton, et al) sought the existence revolved around 'thinking'.

On the same note, the famous quote by Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, therefore I am" has this similar contradiction inherent within. The first part of the quote recognizes the "I" that thinks, which eliminated the need to conclude existence. It sounds silly, but it isn't.

The question could be straight if it is based on simple requests, but questioning needs complexity to give depth and wider possibilites for possible answers.


This is a very thoughtful post. I think you hit the nail on the head, in recognizing the importance of seeking knowledge through query.

(Earlier in this thread I commented that "We are by nature, reflective creatures. We are driven by a creative urge to ask questions." - I think we are pretty much on the same page with this one.

Where I would tend to part company, is in considering the 'question' to be of a strictly intellectual nature - (and those intellectual developments were very important).

Expressionists artworks (I am not refering to a particular art movement here , but rather to an artistic predisposition) address the human condition, from an emotive vantage point, with some very powerful results. Goyas "The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid", Munchs "Scream", and of course Picassos "Guernica" - just to name a few.

Note: The examples I have given above are not to suggest that these artists works were purely emotive, the intellectual and emotive do often converge.


Gord
__________________
My Studies

My Anatomy Thread

My Website


Good Facial Expressions Resource:

http://www.artnatomia.net/uk/artnatomy.html
 
Old 05 May 2005   #36
Thanks Gord ,

Let me comment on the expressionist way of producing art. If, and only if this type of work is inspired by emotions, it cannot sustain itself as a sole emotion when manifested. Without the intellect, emotions are manifested in less complicated ways as in laughing, crying, smiling, frowning, etc..The 'intellect' of the artist conveys the emotion through her/his work to the receiver by means of intellect. What differentiates the artist from the non-artist is the ability to express complex emotions inquired by the need and will to do so.

Edit: Artists are intellectuals in their own means, not dummy brainless apes able to paint fantastic works based on the most "noble" emotive powers. The stereotyping of artists as emotionally advanced persons is why most people don't take them seriously. Artists superiority is in their intellectual powers to read the human condition, and write it. Computers don't do this

Last edited by ashakarc : 05 May 2005 at 06:56 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #37
please, mind the tags

Originally Posted by Lunatique: Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.


<SARCASM MODE>
Human beings are useless--they just sit in a couch and stare to a screen.

Life is useless--itīs just a bunch of physical and chemical reactions in organic cells.
</SARCASM MODE>

and i canīt resist

<SARCASM MODE++>
Art is useless--itīs just an expression of a being aimed at feeding his/her own ego.
</SARCASM MODE++>



eks

PS: please, DO MIND THE TAGS
 
Old 05 May 2005   #38
I think that, more important than being able to analise data and "think", the computer isnt able to "feel". In other words, it has 'no soul'. As some people here stated: traditional people express their feelings laughing, crying, etc. The artist will be 'literate' enough to express these emotions in another way: using tools to create his art. And the computer, on the other hand, still doesnt have any feelings. It isnt even close to be able to think by itself yet. Imagine, then, having a soul or feelings to be expressed. Therefore, the computers are still just another useful (or useless ) tool.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #39
Originally Posted by gordonm: Photoshop, Painter, Maya etc are useless tools, unless weilded by intelligent, creative, artistic individuals.
The paint brush is a basic static, unchanging tool (no?). These PC programs are changing and updating. They aren't static. Developers are continuously automating certain tasks in them so you don't spend too much time trying to figure out how to create such and such effect. They "make" us filters and macros. I wish they make a paintbrush with a button so when I press it, it lays out and paints a Mona Lisa for me on paper.

I guess that's why these programs become useless. It gets too easy to make something/art. The artist has a role/responsibility to resist them - creativity is something that evolves, it happens over time. Machines eleminate that, they can be interpretated as being shortcuts to artmaking. We lose that appreciation of time, it "amputates" us (McLuhan ).

(But imagine this ... let's just picture if in the history of art, machines/computers came first. If all art where made with them (Parthenon, Pyramids, David, Mona, etc). And then later on, pen and paint arrived, traditional art. How would people perceive artmaking this way?)

Ok I'm just babbling now. I guess I'm not sure if I disagree or agree with you on this comment. Maybe a little of both. I think it depends on what the creative artist can do versus what Photoshop can't (that it requires updates). Sorry if I'm not making that much sense here.

Interesting topic tho.

Last edited by Sil 369 : 05 May 2005 at 08:06 AM.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #40
There are more than 6 million people on this planet. Every one of them has a different opinion of what is usefull, what has a meaning. May it be objects, thoughts, ideas.

No one can claim that his way of thinking and giving importance to things is the right one, thoug some people do. But we are in fact only constructing a network of use and opinions.

The only one who could realy say that an object has some kind of inherent importance would be someone/something like god (no matter wich religion). And as far as I know, he didnīt talk about that subject yet.
__________________
Try hard fail hard,
no matter
Try again, fail again,
fail better

--Samuel Becket

-- www.cgknowledge.com --
 
Old 05 May 2005   #41
Originally Posted by Laeng: There are more than 6 million people on this planet.


Wow, we have an alien among us! Welcome to planet earth! Your planet must be about the size of our moon. On planet earth, we have over 6 billion people--that must seem like a lot to someone that came from such a tiny planet. (Just playing with you.)
 
Old 05 May 2005   #42
pcaso's dead... does it really matter?

Yes, because it influences people today, me thinks that if picasso was here, in this time period (like if he lived to this time period) he would approve of the paint programs but disapprove of most of the filters and things, becase it is just a computer math problem and really your doing, but me thinks he wouldn't mind taking a walcom tablet, opening photoshop and drawing, as long as he doesn't see the filters.
 
Old 05 May 2005   #43
Originally Posted by zudo: pcaso's dead... does it really matter?


His work and legacy aren't..

Gord
__________________
My Studies

My Anatomy Thread

My Website


Good Facial Expressions Resource:

http://www.artnatomia.net/uk/artnatomy.html
 
Old 05 May 2005   #44
Originally Posted by Lunatique: Paint brushes are useless--they can only hold small amount of paint.

Ovens are useless--they can only generate heat.

Pianos are useless--they can only generate various tones of a single timbre.

If Picasso lived today, he'd have to eat his own words.


u forgot one:

Money is useless - it can't buy you love
 
Old 05 May 2005   #45
Originally Posted by ashakarc: Hey jm, I hope you are joking, you are talking about a man who kept painting until the last day of his life, and he was 90+.


Jeez was he that slow?

Justa kiddin!

G.I.G.O. Was a favorite credo in the early 80's,... it stood for 'Garbage In Garbage Out' which is still true today.
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Thread Closed share thread



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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright Đ2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.