Computer Graphics - Art yes or no

[hawaiianguy]

As someone who earns my living with a watercolor brush and web stuff on the side I've often asked that Question. To me it comes down to enjoyment. Does the result of my efforts bring pleasure to me the creator as well as those who might experiance the results of my efforts? After that it becomes one of those "What is the meaning of Life?" sort of Questions, No satisfying answer. Art creates. It is a creation, but it creates. It creates new Ideas, new thoughts, experiances, it stirs up something inside that wasn't there before. I have to be content with selling things that people like, but have little meaning and watching stuff that I felt was important, sit unused. Sigh!...
It comes down to is it Art? After that the medium is unimportant.

[jta]

[quote="anewday4us"]Graphics & Digital Images are EXTREMELY important for our web site.

your wedding rings are lousy peaces of art!
so where is the art?
our pics are never crisp an clean too ...

but we all here notice, that you are selling some stuff of arts&craft.

best regards
jta

[jta]

you must have nothing better to do than to discuss this matter.
internet is a medium like any other.
it's just anyonce pricate desicion and abilities.

and some art you never can neglect.
there is lay out!

sure there is good or bad layout (like the one of this site), but there is!

[irodgers]

I think this "all art is useless" notion is actually a witticism.

Art is non-utilitarian but it is useful. Art can be used, just as much as words in sentences or numbers in equations to express ideas or provoke ideas. In my own personal opinion art is a more primitive and childish (and perhaps therefore more direct) way of expressing ideas, with words next, and I suppose numbers next.
On that basis I’d like to propose that art should be allowed also to be “pretentious” in just the same way that children would learn by pretending.
What is slightly irritating about the art world to me however is that way that the whole process is manipulated by those with money to allow certain artistic endeavours to flourish financially while others are impoverished. It is these vested financial interests that prevent certain things from being considered as art rather than the medium that an artist works through.

[kiumars]

Is it an “art” or “craft”? What a nice topic to discuss!
Whether architecture is art or craft? Whether computer graphics are considered as art or not?
The answer is very simple. Very few “yes” most cases “no”.
However, the answer to such a question is obvious but not important. What is important is to how to push a discussion forward to create an area of education.

Architect Kiumars Roshanzamir
www.web2.dk

[blastradius]

I was talking to a friend of mine who was considering taking art course at the college this fall about this subject. She had an interesting definition of what art is, that made me laugh. So I thought I would share her thoughts here.

Art is when the artist can stand there and speak endlessly about what the piece means while being able to keep a straight face

lol I shared this dispite the fact that it would eneviably make what I do not art. Frankly I would never be able to keep a straight face when I know when it comes down to it. I JUST PUT IT TOGETHER THAT WAY CAUSE I LIKED THE WAYS IT LOOKS.

[masterpeace]

Art is when the artist can stand there and speak endlessly about what the piece means while being able to keep a straight face

I love it! LOL.

[PBITech]

Quote:
Art is when the artist can stand there and speak endlessly about what the piece means while being able to keep a straight face.....


It's only in my nature to break things down, but. That sentence can be viewed, artists can blab about their stuff, non stop, or can they. Some times it is necessary. Sometimes many cannot grasp the inspiration, but will eventually prosper. Art that needs an/no intro?
Well, good one.....

Anyway,

http://www.pixolator.com/zbc-bin/ult...c&f=1&t=012079

If you say that is not art, well, just kick my ass outa here, there's plenty more where that came from.. ..OR is it craft? LOL. A big HA HA to boot.
Catcha on the dark side of the pixol, Hmmmm.... Very pleasurable!

[PBITech]

ooops, I completely forgot we're in the photoshop thingy, sorry.

[mistasix]

I would say yes, in the same way that photojournalism is art, it's when it becomes what we brits call paparazzi (people who just follow celebrities around and generaly hound anyone in the public eye with a zoom-lens camera, you know the people) that it really loses it's art. The same goes for digital art, beautifull, precise creations are great to look at and are inspiring, unfortunately a misuse of this technology means bad things are created (not unlike animated 'porn' gif's most of us will have seen, if you've had a hotmail account in the past you'll know what i'm talking about!). I guess the same goes for most things, I belive that a beautifully crafted Ferrari Enzo is a work of art in it's own right, but on the other hand I've not much to say about the Nissan Micra.

Suffice to say life immitates art and vice-versa, we are living in the digital age so when in Rome...

[matauri]

So many of my 'arty' friends tell me that art 'speaks to you'. One day I was in the art museum & was looking at a black canvas with a yellow stripe down the middle of it. I kept thinking about what they said about it speaking to me, so I stood & stared & stared, but obviously it wasn't in a talking mood that day. It was a black canvas with a yellow stripe down it.

Just before reading this thread I was looking at Blastradius's design for the 9/11 graphic. That spoke to me.

So I would have to say that 'perception' decides if it is art or not.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by matauri

So many of my 'arty' friends tell me that art 'speaks to you'. One day I was in the art museum & was looking at a black canvas with a yellow stripe down the middle of it. I kept thinking about what they said about it speaking to me, so I stood & stared & stared, but obviously it wasn't in a talking mood that day. It was a black canvas with a yellow stripe down it.

Just before reading this thread I was looking at Blastradius's design for the 9/11 graphic. That spoke to me.

So I would have to say that 'perception' decides if it is art or not.

I totally agree. Perhaps adding the word "emotion": does it may me think or feel something?

We have a similar infamous painting in the National Art Gallery in Ottawa which is huge canvas with one vertical red stripe flanked by two different coloured stripes, purchased by a public servant with some enormous sum of public money, and from all accounts (I admit I haven't rushed to see it) resembles something an automotive paint shop might have put together for a couple of hundred dollars. Here in Canada, we apparently pay people to tell us what art is, so we don't get confused about the definition. That may be a wise move on the part of our politicians: if we start thinking unassisted, we might continue on to think about <gasp> anything... where would it end? Probably by voting in a new government, if we could be convinced that "the new boss wouldn't be the same as the old boss", to paraphrase The Who.

[jmcbride]

Originally Posted by minstrel

if we start thinking unassisted, we might continue on to think about <gasp> anything

I think that there is definitely a fine line. After the Vietnam war, there was much controversy over what would be a good monument design. Veteran's groups advocated art of heroic proportions - bronzed helenistic portrayals of soldiers in action. Instead, a black wall with names was chosen. I don't think that the Veterans' request would have as effective.

Does the public know what art is appropriate for selection and preservation? If there is no controversy or discourse around a piece (think controversial, like Robert Mapplethorpe), is it worth our time?

If the selection of art were democratic, would we not be stuck with Britney Spears like renditions of everything?

[daxx]

I would say YES and NO.

Graphic art is not the same as painting or sculpture (art)... and not always is there a message to convey in art. Graphic art on the other hand, is always trying to convey a message. That's why it's also referred to as "communication arts".

At the same time, there is crap out there, alot of it... in both the art and graphic art worlds. Ramming a shovel into a block of cement and calling it art, for me is not art... at the same time, a loud, badly rendered border created in a simple html file is also not art... a transparent spacer gif is not art.... ANYTHING on a porn site is not art. The same people who used to send you horribly designed junk mail that you tossed into the trash without reading it are now creating crappy websites with horrible type and artwork.

Just because someone used Photoshop doesn't mean the user can't create crap.

Having said all that, there are some really beautiful websites out there.

FYI: I live in both of these worlds... I paint, sculpt and design for the web. Just thot you might like to know.

[duffy]

I cant stand my friends mocking conceptual art - “Ooo look I accidentally ripped this piece of paper…maybe I can put it in an art gallery and get $1,000,000 for it”… I believe that art is art when it portrays the obvious expression of the artists emotions and viewpoint through the art work, and affects audiences in a mixture of ways- no matter what medium- whether photography, oil on canvas, computer graphics, fashion designs, or a Max Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’- perhaps the beginning of conceptual art. If the artist can reach the audiences through direct beauty, or even strangled beauty, then the process that the artist took to produce their work is irrelevant. I do not think that *true art* is about the amount of effort you put in, as someone mentioned earlier. When I want to create a certain affect or mood on photoshop that I have done once before I can do it in a minute or two- where it may have taken me an hour to approach the first time. If the work is effective and people buy it then time and effort have nothing to do with it.

[krend]

Originally Posted by jvisser

Heck- a weathered barn can catch my eye. Perhaps I just need to realize I don't qualify as an art critic!
Is there another facet to this conversation that relates to a division in the 'eye of the beholders' based on their perception of art? I think there would be a large rift between the educated art community (you) and those of us who don't have that background and base our definiton of art, but solely react with gut instinct to what draws our eye. Perhaps that is the definition that is changing, rather than the definition of art?

I agree. I am fascinated with windows and doors. Is photographing a beat-up old door, cropped ridiculously close, art? How about a broken window, with crackled paint on the frame, with my reflection in the glass?

Maybe my obsession is rooted in my overwhelming need to be on the inside of the circle. I think I am always looking in, not a part of...

Okay, so now I've strayed from the argument at hand and delved into my crazy psyche.....

[hercules]

Yes, I believe it can be considered art in the same way that music written and produced on a computer s still music. Changing technology always forces us to modify our ideas. Just consider how the internet has changed the face ofcommunication, business, information etc.

Kind Regards.