back to the essence of creativity...

#10

i agree with alot of what your saying, however, i think you’re generalising within the consumer market. i disagree in that the artworld, including the modern one, is totally as shallow as you are depicting.

I did mention that in the artworld things are different. It was only a small part of my huge reply so it probably got shadowed out in comparison. Certainly any artist, or anyone who loves everything that pertains to art can appreciate every form of art, or at least part of it.

My point however is this(paraphrased). Art is an entertainment, a business if you will. And like all businesses, its future is determined by the consumer…not the supplier. There are those that care about traditional artforms like any other art form, but even if lets say…50 million nonartists care about the traditional type works in the modern world.(Im not saying only 50million have seen it, probably about 4-5billion people in the world have seen some form of traditional art…but only about half enjoyed the art…and only 1-2% actually cared enough about it to try and relate.) There are 7 billion people in this world…and if you consider mass televised and film media… probably between 1 - 1.5 billion people have seen something dealing with computer graphics, or digital enhancements. 95% of anyone who have seen that form of art I have no doubt have thought it was “cool” “awesome” “incredible” etc.

Now take into account that tradition art is declining ATM when you compare it to the rapidly increasing cg environment. From the renaissance up to probably the early 1900’s traditional art inspired people…sometimes those who created it were others heroes…however from the early 1900’s to now…traditional art has diminished at an overly INCREDIBLE pace. There are two reasons for it diminishing. First and foremost is that traditional arts are stilllifes, they can only provide the consumer with one inspiration(its level of creativity and work ethic). However, most cg also involves action…a story…characters…and realism. Each one of these ideas geometrically increases its value above all others. thus allowing for many more inspirational critiques from its peers(aka the consumers).

My comments dont relate directly to this forum, which itself is here for artists and artlovers. However, as I have said…the majority will determine the way the world fashions itselfs…Wars are started by a majority following one leader…religions are successful based on the majority of people who believe in them…the power of a nation is determined by the amount of other nations willing to follow…the majority holds the power…the only power a minority has is the hope of educating or inspiring the majority…but even that has its limits.

When it comes down to it…people will believe what they want to believe…and if something is to strange or unknown to them…they will shut it out with barely more then a whim. Those who have the money have power…and in terms of art…cg has the money today, thus the power. Today if you went around asking random people on the sidewalks what they thought about the renaissance compared to what they think of hollywood…9/10 times your replies regarding hollywood will shadow out their comments on the renaissance(thats if they even have any comments to begin with).

Traditional art has made no major progress in the past 100 years. However, due to the concept of cg, graphics will maintain a major foothold on the world for well over 1,000 years. Virtual reality, .hack type worlds, etc. will all branch off from cg…thus are all but subcategories of cg. Progress has no emotion. It determines who lives and who dies, who is a success and who is a failure, it is cold and heartless. Even if there is a sense of conservatism progress will maul it down. It is evolution, that is the universal fact of anything and everything, change is inevitable. (AHHHHHHHHHHH im starting to sound like Mr.Smith! :eek: )

It may be sad to see it go, but to revert would be to deny progress and no one wants that, at least those who hold all the cards dont want that. THe average person(including artists) will choose money over virtually everything else anyday(unless your talking immoral or illegal things, but even that is getting worse seemingly), because with money comes the promise of eventual happiness.

Now I will go into my dungeon lair and wave goodbye to the Divine Seagull…it seems he lacked proper representation and his religion is to be canceled. :cry:

#11

Sorry i did it again. :rolleyes:

Its not an attack or anything, not sure if it seems it(When i type that much I can never figure it out). Im merely trying to reply with an intellectual or realistic perspective rather then from the perspective of what any artist hopes or feels. :slight_smile:

#12

This has been a confident prediction since the 1840’s, when the photographic process became public. Similar predictions have been made regarding the death of theatre, with the advent of television and cinema. Or in the late 70’s, news that orchestral players were to be made redundant. Because synthesisers would be able to reproduce the sound of any musical instrument exactly. Never happened. Now there’s talk of Brad Pitt joining the dole queue, because of you know what.

Artists do not become Artists because of some kind of entrepreneurial acumen. They do it because they are intelligent, imaginative, curious and reflective individuals. Driven by a need to make sense of the overwhelming fact of existence.
All artists, no matter what their chosen media, are faced with the same problems.
And the yard stick is the same. How does it, (the work of Art), stack up against real experience.

Baker, I think the subject of your essay is very interesting. But for me, I just can’t see that the ‘brush and the polygon’ can be considered as competing in the same arena.
I think that CG is well on the way to developing a unique visual language of it’s own. It needs to have a space defined where only it will do. Animation and Cinema seem most likely to provide that Arena. CG has the potential to really elevate the time based Arts.

Painting has a well established place where only it will do. The marks in those paintings on cave walls made tens of thousands of years ago. Are an eloquent expression of the personalities that made them. People just like us, all that time ago. So, in spite of predictions to the contrary, I have a feeling that. Just like our earliest ancestors, the last survivors, of whatever self inflicted or natural disaster is visited upon us, will be reaching for the charcoal when they get the urge to create.

#13

Explain this hypothesis please.

#14

This has been a confident prediction since the 1840’s, when the photographic process became public. .

Photographs are much like traditional art, though its reflection of what is actually there will always be more accurate. However there is less creativity and imagination in photography, which is why photography could not have such a great impact on the artworld. Though I agree being a major photographer requires a lot of talent and technical skill in its specific field like in all other art forms.

Similar predictions have been made regarding the death of theatre, with the advent of television and cinema. Or in the late 70’s, news that orchestral players were to be made redundant. Because synthesisers would be able to reproduce the sound of any musical instrument exactly. Never happened

Theatre may not be dead…and the amount of people in the field may not be declining, but its not really “increasing” persay. THat increasing amount of actors and actresses attending colleges to learn the trade are being hired by the movie industry, thus leaving theatre in a state of equilibrium. Cinema and tv are gradually overshadowing theatre more and more everyday, which means that it will begin to decline as time goes on. However, if theatre itself fully disappears I am not sure of, because like movies it has stories, characters, etc. and a whole staff to support, whereby traditional art is supported only by the single artpiece created and creator itself.

Music is an entirely different category of art as well. IN most cases musicians are playing in front of a live audience. ONe or many, someone is in the limelight as they are playing. With the visual and fine arts you arent creating that piece while you have hundreds of onlookers. You present the final result of your work. IF someone started a “watch while he does traditional art trend” that would be a showcase, not what would be considered traditional art. The fame would be on the person creating the art and how he/she creates the art, but not the actual art itself.

As for the entrepenuer comment. I was relating that more to the reason why people create new ideas and trends rather then why people are artists or create art. New art trends and cultures are generated when someone creates an idea and utilizes that new idea. Im not saying that great artists like Da vinci, michelangelo, picasso, etc. were not creative and intelligent…not at all…in fact I believe they were incredibly intelligent and creative, but to say that they were not entrepenuers, is just plain lying to yourself, there is a word for it, denial. People never want to think of their “heroes” as people who do things for money, as if its blasphemy. What does it matter? It does not make them bad people, it makes them good people or better people because they found something they enjoyed and learned how to utilize it to make themselves happy(even it means making a crapload of money in the process).

So many advances in art and sciences have ended in the disappearance of so many more ancient and less popular arts and sciences. Its not that they were bad, merely less effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirnir
Traditional art has made no major progress in the past 100 years.

Explain this hypothesis please.

The artform itself has not evolved along wiht society. Many of its styles and uses are the same it was 100 years ago, or moreso. Certainly people have different, maybe faster or more effective brushstroke patterns, sculpting methods etc. but that isn’t really what I would consider a big leap. That seems more like a baby step.

People say artists can’t match up to the famous artists of the past. IN terms of technique and skill that is total bs. Many of these artists lived 300-400 years ago. Only a few famous artists lived 100-150 years ago. To have the arrogance to say that no single person has refined a more effective technique is once again self-denial. As I said before, the reason they are great artists is not because of their creativity and technique(which they did have) but because they started a whole new trend of art to replace older ones, a better more popular art form, that eventually led to the demise of many more ancient ones.

History will repeat itself…it always does…the birth of a new art or science leads to the demise of an older one…it might take hundreds of years but it will eventually happen. That is what evolution and progress are all about. :wise:

#15

Skirner - i agree, and disagree, with alot of what you are saying, and just want to say, thank you for all your input so far…
firstly, i think saying that the old masters, da vinci, michelangelo, were entrepeneurs. i beleive not to be right…yes, they did art for a living. but i beleive an entrepeneur (spelling?) is someone, driven to make a profit. that is the reason for starting a business, these men, it occupied their lives, and was how they put food on the table. speaking of da vincci in that light especially, the man was rather unsatisfied with art, and his art as he never reached his full potential in his eyes. but they were not driven to make a profit, which is why there is a difference there, otherwise, especially michelangelo being a sculpture, wouldnt have had such private, and socially deprived lives, they did not seek business, they were known for their talents. i also disagree that traditional art has had no progress in the last 100 years. the world would have got bored with art along time ago if this was the case.

PSR - thanks for your feedback, really good points.
im not saying that they compete, it was merely my way of phrasing exactly what you were saying about those predictions. there was alot of talk, about that 3D art would simply, wipe out traditional realistic art…but as you say, it should definitly have its own field defined, as like photography, you can still achieve that realism with a brush, especially today. but 3D art, has its own feeling to it. it really is two different things. but as far as the still image, can we honestly say that 3D is where, as skirner is pointing out, where the money is at?? the consumers?? or are we gonna see the artists such as the digital artists,photoshop and painter users, who i beleive are todays masters, be in more demand, cause the technology burned out too quickly?? like you said about theatre being out of business…doesnt broadway, still having sold out shows almost every night?? might not be as popular as the movies, but it has merely found its place in society, but i would say, still up there with hollywood??

#16

I don’t think meaningful discussions can be had unless, we have some common currency. If not, good art historical knowledge. At least, what we mean by phrases like “traditional art”. For my part, I take it to mean, the use of non digital media, " New Art Forms". Cinema perhaps, introduces the element of time. We can also realistically speculate about entirely immersive forms such as the “matrix” style direct neural interface that you mentioned.

None of the above changes the intrinsic drive in human beings to creativity. To say that creativity is driven by the desire for money is simply not accurate. People will make Art whether they are paid, or not. How many users of this forum are hobbyists, producing work of an exceptionally high standard, without the incentive of a fat paycheck? Art is used for many things, not least as a way to personal enrichment. What we use to create with, is simply a matter of preference. And I doubt, that anyone would welcome the loss of choice in the matter. Whether anything interesting or new is done done with these means is another matter. I have my opinions about the relative merits, of being mindful of popular tastes, when making art. But in the context of this thread, I shall keep those to myself.

Art has come a long way in the past hundred years, and has been intrinsically bound to the sociopolitical climate of it’s time. Here’s a few things you can look up: Impressionism, Fauvism, Constructivism, Futurism, De Stijl, The Bauhaus, Cubism, German Expressionism, Die Bruke, Dada, Surrealism, Abstract expressionism and Pop Art. See if you can find some more to add to the list.

We live in an age where Artists can utilise many different media interchangeably, to serve their creative purpose. This freedom and flexibility has been made possible by the work of Great Artists like Marcel Duchamp: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
And Joseph Beuys: http://www.walkerart.org/archive/0/9E43A9C48839AFC46164.htm
Look them up, very interesting. And take note of when they were alive.

#17

PSR nailed it. :smiley:

No medium ever has to replace another.
No Ctrl-Z? big deal! :smiley:

#18

I don’t think meaningful discussions can be had unless, we have some common currency. If not, good art historical knowledge. At least, what we mean by phrases like “traditional art”. For my part, I take it to mean, the use of non digital media, " New Art Forms". Cinema perhaps, introduces the element of time. We can also realistically speculate about entirely immersive forms such as the “matrix” style direct neural interface that you mentioned.

I agree I consider Traditional art meaning the use of nondigital media. Anything that involves the computer isn’t something i consider traditional. You also mention later integration of traditonal art into cinema, however, if the soul purpose of the art was to just show on TV, I would not consider that traditional art, merely interiordesign, decoration, or a subdivision of the building architecture.

None of the above changes the intrinsic drive in human beings to creativity. To say that creativity is driven by the desire for money is simply not accurate. People will make Art whether they are paid, or not.

I didnt say Creativity is driven by the desire for money. However, I believe that many who made breakthroughs in teh traditional art forms, discovered they were creative, and would later use that to benefit themselves in the real world. I’m sorry, but I don’t think anyone is that good that they will choose a job that denies good benefits or cash. I believe a truly good person is one who admits his own faults rather then cover them up claiming they don’t have any faults. I’ll not go into too much detail beyond that so i might avoid another giant essay. :smiley:

Here is proof that creativity is oftentimes driven desire for money(WITHIN this own forum nonetheless). Many of the artists even admit that they accept the job because overall, they make more money in that job then they could anywhere else. Im not saying its the most dominant factor, or that a person doesn’t love creating…if they dont love art or creating they shouldn’t be in the business anyway, but to deny the fact of money/benefits is hogwash. This direct link is related to a CG topic, however if people chose a well-paid lifestyle in one form of art it will happen in all forms of art.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=261962

How many users of this forum are hobbyists, producing work of an exceptionally high standard, without the incentive of a fat paycheck?

IF its a hobby, its not your main business practice, hence its not really a major determining factor in the life of the art.

What we use to create with, is simply a matter of preference.

What we use alone isn’t something I would consider determines the art. If someone’s medium is charcoal, that does not make it traditional art IMO. It still has to have some relation to the art forms of traditional art. I love to create using pencils, different inks, regardless of what its in, brush or pen, but I Would never consider what I create to be considered traditional art. At best I might consider some of them realist landscapes, anatomically correct studies of human anatomy. I believe each of the branches in traditional art has to deal with the medium, a little imagination, the stroke, sculpting, etc. type, and the boundaries set by the original creators of that art form.

Things like conceptual or novel illustration, concept art, 2d handdrawn and painted animations, flipbooks, etc. I would never consider a form of traditional art. I believe they branched off from traditional art, but are an entirely different artform themselves. I don’t know many people who consider those things traditional art either, and I know of no consumer who does.

Art has come a long way in the past hundred years, and has been intrinsically bound to the sociopolitical climate of it’s time. Here’s a few things you can look up: Impressionism, Fauvism, Constructivism, Futurism, De Stijl, The Bauhaus, Cubism, German Expressionism, Die Bruke, Dada, Surrealism, Abstract expressionism and Pop Art. See if you can find some more to add to the list.

Ukiyo-e…I believe that is a traditional artform. THere is also another in the region of India, but I forget the name of it and am too tired atm to go searching for the name. :slight_smile:

PSR nailed it. :smiley:

No medium ever has to replace another.

Thats true…they don’t HAVE to…but they do.

Language itself is an artform…and many languages have disappeared without understanding or reemergence. For example the language of Aramaic. No one knows the actual language anymore, but fragments of it are all lying around. There have been many other forgotten languages im sure of. Dorian language(i think that was how it was spelled) I believe was also forgotten…and they were the first beings to ever create a form of currency in the world. Living in the few centuries after prehistoria in the Northeastern corner of the mesopotamian world.

Many different forms of heiroglyphics, architecture, and symbol/lithography styles have been forgotten as well. Certainly some lithography styles are still around, but some previous ones had names and branches entirely of their own, which disappeared forever. They didn’t have to, but progress was made and they just did.

In terms of sciences, various forms of metallurgy, and smithing have been forgotten since ancient times. Once again they didnt have to, but new more effecient enhancements were made, better weapons or tools were built, and this all led to their inevitable demise.

This should give you more an idea of where I’m trying to come from. That idea about common currency certainly will be more constructive on people’s theories PSR. As long as we keep that in mind. :slight_smile:

#19

AHHHHHHH I did it again…I really need to stop making essays…I bet anyone knew who comes through this thread won’t bother reading my replies anymore. :cry:

#20

Sure, but remember that language itself is not the medium, it is the art - the mouth, voice box, lungs, tongue and sound waves are the medium, and they remain pretty much the same. A different dialect is simply another genre of the art language. :smiley:

#21

but with the language issue, isnt it about communication, despite what language you use. 70% of communication, has no verbal association anyway. so technically, we should be able to communicate without speaking at all. majority of communicatin, is in the visual aspect…like art, its a form of communication, a picture paints a thousand words!
one medium shouldnt replace another, and it loks like we’re certain, that 3D and digital painting, should not be classed as the same thing, sure its obvious that they are far from being the same process, but they are classified as the same, when in context of a still image.
in this day and age, it is obvious, we do need to make a living, and if that can be a good living, then why not?? its not like we are making products that contribut to the starving thousands, or add to obesity, or any other problem the world is facing. and this forum isnt to discuss the moral issues of what we paint.
but so far, we;ve discussed, that the two mediums, cant be compared, and one cannot replace the other…but my question, is will 3D stick to its place, and becme less of a popular art form, for the still image, not that it will die out! but merely find its place, cause to create a 3D still image, and that be its soul purpose, can be quite a dawnting task, and i find often, i lose the creative spark in the process, as the technical becomes more of a focus. i can produce a digital painting, with a similar sort’ve rendering, and in some cases, the painting, can have more character, more to it, they really are two different things, yes, like a photo vs a 3D rendering, or painting. but in the still image context, digital painting, and 3D, are on the same platform at the moment in time. but shoud they be??

#22

I suppose you could look at language that way…but I was refering more to the written word form rather then the dialect part of it. You would thus have to consider dialect, and written form of the language two different artforms, both located under a much larger branch which I guess would probably be the study of “language arts.” Much the same traditional art, conceptual illustrations and art, parts of digital media and cg, etc. all can come under the branch of Fine arts in Many schools. :thumbsup:

I think this whole discussion is starting to get a whole lot more complex because of the way people can view things as having different boundaries. :eek:

Well, at best it could make quite an interesting topic for a widespread forum debate.

#23

bah baker you beat me to the visual explanation of language…The bunny king will Smite thee!!!:twisted:

In terms of a still shot; Digital painting vs 3d stills it could go either way really. 3d has lots of different subbranches it can spin off too, vfx, modeling, animation, stills, etc. As a result people may eventually decide digital painting wiht programs like photoshop and painter are more effective then 3d stills due to time constraints, efficiency, etc. However, 3d itself would not die off as a result of losing ground in the still area, it just means people are using digital programs to focus on the still aspect, while the much more complex and highend practices are used with 3d cg. :scream:

#24

hey everyone,
im really pleased with how this forum is going.
i wanted to ask, i know i mentioned that this was for a research topic in the beginning, just want to make sure that none of you mind using some of the views shared here within my research?? i will use your “code” names as psuedonyms if that would be ok??

would you all say, that in light of whats been said, that 3D ideally, deserves its own ball park?? im aware that its entirly its own medium. but like photography, isnt used as an illustrative mediium, should 3D really fall into its own strengths as far as a medium goes??

#25

Baker17 asked me to contribute in another thread, so here goes.

do you think that we will be seeing less and less 3D illustrations and
replace with digital and traditional painting,

No.

or will wel learn to look outside the boundries 3D has, as far as the
still image?

No need, 3d will keep extending its boundaires.

the art work i grew up with eg, the sword and the stone, Asterix and obelix, amazing as they were. but do kids go and get them in the video store?? they go for all the CG movies, pixar, and dreamworks,

I grew up with those too, and in all honesty I must say that Pixar’s work is better in EVERY way than the movies you mention (and not because of the 3d).

will that have an effect on there expectation on art?? people’s expectations grow, on what is beleivable. and is that happening in CG art.
are we reaching a peak, will it get better, or are we at a plateau, where both mediums are excelling??

Obviously there will be no big plateau for 3d for a very long time, seeing as it’s only in its infancy… 2d, however, has peaked.
Still, as someone said, this is not the point. The point is how good is the story, the idea, and how good are the artists that are carrying out the idea. All other considerations are secondary.

when a modeller, reaches that level of realism, for human creation for example, dont you think there is very little left to interpret as far as the artists style?? where as in a painting, everyone has a unique approach to how they lay their strokes down…i can spot a work by daryl mandryk a mile away, but with 3D there is an expectation as to what is beleivable.

Today, yes. This is one clear sign that the medium is only in its infancy. Another sign is Moore’s Law.

3d and 2d will tend to merge over time: more and more 3d will be used in 2d workflows, and vice versa.
Also, as 3d becomes more interactive to produce, the process will become more like the traditional painting and sculpting process(es). The possibilities for changing the look of the 3d with a post-process will also increase over time, thus enabling the artists to become more and more individually expressive. This all means that 3d will “catch up” to 2d - anything you can think of to do in 2d, you’ll one day be able to do (perhaps better) in 3d.

And about doing art for money - I could make much more money - MUCH more - if I had become an accountant, like my brother in law. But I would have gone crazy after a few years of it. There are many other jobs and careers that would pay me more than this too. 2d illustration for instance, or painting portraits for the rich. The simple truth is I’m not doing this for the money.
Having said that - if someone tries to stiff me out of what I think I deserve for my work, there will be… trouble. After all I have a family to feed, and an old age to prepare for.

#26

I too grew up whit those. Sword in the stone was my favorite when I was little. It even made me whant to work whit animations.
Kids go for the new and popular movies. Movies like Mulan 2 or, the Junglebook 2 doesn’t hit.

#27

thank you for your input steven,
really good points there.
this is also true. i think that with the level of graphics today, the stories, eg. pixar, are being told far more effectivly today, due to the beleivable graphics.
do you suppose, that something like the comic industry, will tend towards a more realistic, CG approach?? im aware they use digital medium, but perhaps, more 3D comic style?? reproducing characters wouldnt be a problem then.
i am failry neutral in these points, im just wearing the black hat in this discussion, to raise points of interest.

#28

My 2p worth is that if traditional art has experienced a downturn in popularity recently (last 50 years or so) it is probably because many high - profile pieces simply don’t appeal to the public. If you take the Turner Prize exhibits in any year, 90% of average people will say that 90% of the pieces aren’t art at all. The success of current artists like Jack Vettriano would seem to suggest that it’s the over-abstraction and intellectual elitism of ‘traditional’ art which turns people off, not the fact that it isn’t computer-generated. I mean, the majority of people will look at a Jackson Pollock or whatever, and their first thought is ‘my toddler can do that…’

Sorry if this has been irrelevant.

#29

My 2p worth is that if traditional art has experienced a downturn in popularity recently (last 50 years or so) it is probably because many high - profile pieces simply don’t appeal to the public. If you take the Turner Prize exhibits in any year, 90% of average people will say that 90% of the pieces aren’t art at all. The success of current artists like Jack Vettriano would seem to suggest that it’s the over-abstraction and intellectual elitism of ‘traditional’ art which turns people off, not the fact that it isn’t computer-generated. I mean, the majority of people will look at a Jackson Pollock or whatever, and their first thought is ‘my toddler can do that…’

That sort of goes back to the idea about people choosing what they see has “hip” or “cool” or “awesome” rather then something they don’t understand because most people on average when they see art are only interested in the whole visual aspect…they don’t want to work their brain when viewing the art.

Sorry if this has been irrelevant.

No one’s ideas are irrelevant. :slight_smile:

do you suppose, that something like the comic industry, will tend towards a more realistic, CG approach?? im aware they use digital medium, but perhaps, more 3D comic style?? reproducing characters wouldnt be a problem then.

That would be interesting to see. Use of 3d for comics might actually change the direction of comics overall. Of course until a number of people try that sort of thing, I don’t think there will be an answer to that question.