can CG break into the Art World?

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
  06 June 2005
No, for me, it's a self-esteem issue - I'd rather be considered an artist than a nerd!
__________________
http://www.headlinercreative.com
 
  06 June 2005
A nerd? Then youre so dependant on societies view of you that it actually makes the situation retarted.
 
  06 June 2005
Art is what you make it

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]

Last edited by ruukki : 06 June 2005 at 08:40 PM. Reason: forgot some
 
  06 June 2005
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.
__________________
deus es
 
  06 June 2005
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.
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Kargokultti: 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.
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by amphibiac: 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.
 
  06 June 2005
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.
 
  06 June 2005
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.
 
  06 June 2005
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
 
  06 June 2005
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.

Last edited by KayosIII : 06 June 2005 at 01:20 AM. Reason: spell check
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by KayosIII: 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
__________________
http://www.headlinercreative.com
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Kargokultti: 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.
__________________
Quote: Originally Posted by urg
Didn't I tell you? I'm rowing over to save money. Wish me luck!


Latest Work
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by cha0t1c1: 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?
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Kargokultti: 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!
 
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 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01 PM.


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