Computer Graphics - Art yes or no

[blastradius]

I want to pose the question to all you outthere in cyberland "Are graphics produced in Photoshop and other programs art?"

I know that many in the quote unquote art world would say no. These are the same people who would say that a piece of rusted metal stuck onto a platform is art, with their art is everywhere kick.

Is producing graphics on a computer the equivent of tracing? Does the use of a computer really make it easier to product a quailty image?

Share your thoughts on this I have plenty more myself but I want to know what you think.

[mpnev]

Yes, it's "graphic art"... some people are true graphic "artists" - others are not... It's about the person who creates, rather than the program. And many of these people create sketches on paper prior to creating it in photoshop or any other graphics program... For example, look at the Webpro memeber "grease" - much of his work is art, hehe... If you looked at mine - I'm just a photoshop user, not an artist =)

Just my two cents worth...

[jhilgeman]

I think the concept of art is abstract enough to say that it extends to computer graphics. My general idea of art is anything that you invest time and effort into creating with the end goal of being proud of it.

It might not be TRADITIONAL art, but I'm sure that traditional artists scoffed at the piece of metal stuck to the platform, which is now commonly accepted as being art (even by people who don't like rusty metal pieces stuck to platforms). It's a generation thing, I'm sure.

In the future, I'm sure some new form of canvas will emerge and current computer artists will make fun of it. :) Oh yes, it's something I LONG to do (and also to call young kids "whipper-snappers" - something I'm too young to do now).

- Jonathan

[masterpeace]

Emphatically YES and emphatically NO! (There goes my split personality again)

What am I saying? Well IMHO while some computer generated design is definately art, some is definately not. Much of my work I consider to be on the "artistic" end of design, but I still consider it design. My partner however is a pure artist. She creates amazing works in Photoshop that are intrinsically creative and beautiful, and I have seen a great deal of other amazing works done by talented computer artists.

As jhilgeman pointed out, time changes how we look at things, and to me the computer is a new medium for artists. At one stage painting was basically used only for landscapes, portraits and thing that were "real". When the camera came into play some thought that painting would die out, but instead it opened the possibility of new things and new movements of art. Even the camera itself, while used as a tool by many, is used by a talented group to produce its own form of art.

On the flip side, this doen't mean that everything created on a computer or in Photoshop is "true art". As I mentioned before, I still consider what I do with my work to be design. I am given the brief etc and design something around it. I am being creative, and I would be so bold as to say I have an artistic flair in my work, both on paper and when it gets to the computer, but it is a different level and purpose and I would not call it "art". It is almost like the line between "art" and "craft". To me a craft is a skill, not a talent. Many can learn the skill, but the creative talent is the one who tends to produce something truly original and imaginative and it can be seen in their work, no matter what the medium...

So while I think it definately can be art, in the hands of "Joe Blogs" who has a fantastic computer and all the creative software you could dream of but who doesn't possess a creative bone in his body... no. And in the middle, the line gets all blurry.

[PBITech]

The correlation is certainly a tough one.

I feel there is a true artist in everyone, and that we are all artists by nature. The power of certain softwares such as photoshop? Hey, instant artist. No! I'm not saying that is not true art. In fact, wether you create something fancy in photoshop, or some neat little ashtray made outa clay, I believe to be true art. Now, how much I like that ashtray or photoshop creation is a whole different thing, and just my own opinion.

But is it true art? Maybe art, but *true* art? Where did this *true* art expression come from? I Don't know. But, I feel true art comes from the soul (wether I like it or not). Anyone can create something and rightfully call it art, but did they just throw it together or did it really come from inside (the soul). Well that's really hard to tell though, because someone can work day and night, putting all their heart and soul into something, then get told it's junk! Ouch! Does that mean they are not a true artist, not in my eyes.

The only thing going on here is that some people are more easily able to express themselves than others, for various reasons. One who expresses themselves easily, has better versatility in pleasing a wider audience. In addition, I believe that someone who indicates that they only have *artistic abilities*, is only limiting themselves with a label, on their own, or by others. As for *true* art, I believe a lot of that is diminishing, and it has to do with the greater expectations that society has emerged with.

As well, there are certain societies with their own definitions of true art. I believe this to be a contradiction of art. One's own, or an artist's own impression of true art, may not be his or her impression of their own, or someone else's work to be true art. I honestly do not feel there is a real definition of *true* art, and there shouldn't be. I believe the definition lies within one's self, for both some artists and some viewers.

There are many, many arts, both traditional and non. Art has many forms. I certainly do not believe that the digital arts are not art, no way. Not just graphics, but programming as well, design, customer relations, cooking, writing, woodwork, they are definitely all arts. Computer or no computer.

One who is creative in sketch and paint, may not be creative in stone, and visa versa.

The power of software applications is they enable some who normally are not that creative to become so. By saying not that creative, I mean either not having the patients, confidence, or time to become so. One who does not express themselves easily, will have great difficulty in picking up a pencil or brush, and get discouraged easily. I think traditional arts are more difficult *for some*. But when you think about it, most traditional ways of doing things are! I think the power of graphics software is an excellent tool for certain individuals to tap into their creativeness. In fact after several successful creations, I believe the individual would be more open minded, confident, and patient in tackling more traditional arts, and more.

So who in their right mind could call any creative procedure NOT ART!!? Ha! any one that feels that way, and their the ones I would call not *true artists*, mainly because of their thinking. Ha! because I can do that, it's my opinion.

So the difference between traditional arts and, hmmm, graphic arts is a simple as the power of the graphics application, as opposed to the freedom of the brush! As for the medium? I feel there is absolutely no difference when it comes to defining art, or true art, canvas or computer. Hmmm, a Star Trek hologram, not to far off, but yes, that would be art too!

the last thing I'll add, is that it is a shame, some arts you can reach out and physically touch them, or you can feel them. I hate the thought of the traditional arts being replaced by the digital era. Not to directly blame the computers, but if you think about it, many forms of traditional arts have already suffered....

Art to me means:
To capture the imagination and inspire....

Jim

[jhilgeman]

I agree to some degree. Art is definitely flexible - I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. One (wo)man's junk is another (wo)man's art. That's why it can progress through generations, as I mentioned before.

I don't think traditional forms of art will suffer, though, no matter how futuristic we go. There will always be people out to preserve the old style of art. And if new forms of art flourish and make more traditional forms more rare, it will simply increase the value of the traditional forms.

- Jonathan

[jhilgeman]

Re-reading all these makes me feel like we're trying to show off philosophical intelligence or something. Now I feel a little ego-embarrased. Time for me to move on to other topics. :)

- Jonathan

[blastradius]

I have to say that I am with a lot of you on the whole yes it can be art but it could also be just a graphic.

I break my own work up into art and design. Design is when I am creating an image intended for a client whether it is ever used does not effect my view of the image. Art is when I am just playing in my free time (is there really such a thing????).

The aspect of drawing something by hand and scanning it in to the computer definitly has it's place, but is it really required???? I have the artistic skills to create such drawings but can't say that I ever have used this technique.

Is an image more likly to be art if the whole image was quote unquote drawn in Photoshop. And is it not art if the whole image is a colage of altered images. I myself find both to be art, but must say I am more impressed with those who can do it without altering photos.

Should graphic artist be putting on "shows" and selling prints of their work?

[lafe]

The computer is just a tool like a pencil or paintbrush. It's the skill, creativity and expression that makes art what it is, the tools are irrelevant.

[krend]

I really enjoyed reading everyone's responses. I felt like I was back in college.
I especially enjoyed your response, Jim - even printed it out - very eloquent.

[Mili]

Graphics Arts are creative visual renditions of what an artist ideates in his/her mind and wants to communicate to the beholder.

Cavemen used the tools at their disposal -- is it still not art? PhotoShop and other programs are merely tools. The artist is the one who expresses his/her ideas using whatever tools are at hand.

Tracing, copying, cloning are methods of getting the picture just the way the artist wants it to be. Even the Art Masters of olden times used to draft out a sketch using other peoples works, before actually deciding upon the finished unique product. It was called a Study.

- Mili -

[suoakes]

Just because an image is created on a computer, does not govern whether or not it is art. The computer is just a tool, like paints, charcoal or canvas. When I create illustrations I sometimes work with a rough sketch I've made and scanned in, but that is only the starting idea. The art on my illustration site,

http://www.suoakesart.com

is done in Adobe Illustrator and is created from my own sketches and ideas. But most of this is "fleshed out" on screen. There are some advantages of working with digital files, (portabliltiy, scalibility of vector images, and doing something over so many times I would have worn a hole in the paper with traditional media!) yet, nothing beats the tactile feeling of pencil to paper or paint to canvas. I see these two worlds as different facets of the whole of the creative process.

[Moondancer]

Originally Posted by lafe

The computer is just a tool like a pencil or paintbrush. It's the skill, creativity and expression that makes art what it is, the tools are irrelevant.

I agree with this premise. A painter uses paints, brushes, palette, pallette knife, oils, paint thinnner, canvas, and a host of other tools to create with. I know because I have most of these tools at home. A sculptor likewise uses a number of tools use to create something from a collection of stones, clay, metal or whatever medium the artist is using.

A graphics application is nothing more than a collection of tools used to create a visual message, the same as any other medium. The results of your creations can also be considered as art or ridiculed depending on who is critiquing it.. also regardless of the creative medium. It's your creation, whether thought of as good or bad.

The main problem with people's ideas about whether computer art is art is a lack of understanding of the process of using a graphics application.. The uneducated would say that the computer is doing it but somebody who frequently uses that medium, knows the computer does only what the individual tells it to do.

It the same thing when you use other artists' tools like brushes and paints... for instance, I can create a gradient shade on a canvas using two colors and a brush to gradually blend them together to create the shades that make up a gradient using those same colors on a computer. But the brush is guided by a human hand and does only what it's told to do by strokes and pressure.

With a graphics pad, using a stylus, artists can draw and paint their ideas straight to the computer screen rather than a sketchpad or canvas.. but still the creation comes about only by the hand and mind guiding the tools to bring the creation to life.

Nough said, :-)

[NORWOOD]

PhotoShop, Illustrator, CorelDraw, InDesign, Flash and most other software used in our industry are tools. Just like a brush and canvas, they do not do the work for us they are just tools. Like a brush, the tool does not make art. I can paint a wall light blue, it could be art if I was making a statement, but if I just like my walls the color blue, then it is craft.

To those that would say that it is different, that the computer creates the art, I respond with these questions, "Is it only art if I use no tools? Should finger painting with hand-squished berries be the only true art?" Obviously not true, the brush, welding torch, even the camera are all tools to help us convey our vision, feelings or emotion to others. How well we convey that is what makes the difference between "art" and "craft"

Once, a friend and I were listening to an electronic version of Debussy's music. My friend said to me, "Debussy would be turning in his grave to hear his music played like this." I replied that I believe that Debussy would have used every tool at his disposal to create music that expressed the emotions he created in his own mind. I think he would have jumped at the opportunity to use new tools to share his vision.

Tools. Nothing more or less. David Byrne (formerly of the Talking Heads) created "art" using PowerPoint. He said that it was like creating a short film because he could combine elements created from many sources. David said, "Surely some techie or computer artist was already using this dumb program as artistic medium." The "dumb program" does not create art, it is the human behind the curtain that makes it create art.

So, if your capable and have a thought, emotion and/or message to give to the rest of the world, or just want to create, go out there and create art, use any tool you need. Everyone who finds meaning in your work, whether they know it or not, will have experienced "art".

[clambam]

First of all here are my credentials: Four years of undergraduate art culminating in a BFA, two years of graduate for an MFA in painting, additional studies at the Art Students' League and the National Academy, 20 years of painting since then, occasional shows (I have one coming up in February), occasional sales. You can check out my work at www.emasary.com/art.htm.

I don't make my living as a painter, much as I'd like to. Instead I do computer graphics and architectural renderings for a living. So I think I know both sides of the issue.

Now, as to why computer art isn't art, I'd like to start out by explaining why photography isn't an art either. Photography is a craft. What's the difference between an art and a craft? Very simple. Craft is useful, art isn't. Art, by definition, is useless. Photography is a craft because its primary function is documentation. A photograph can be very beautiful, but it's still just a beautiful piece of craft. Same thing goes for ceramics. A dish or cup may be extraordinarily beautiful, but they are still functional and therefore, at heart, a craft. Line the cup with fur (like Rauschenberg did) so it can't be put to its intended use and you suddenly have art. Bad art maybe, but art nonetheless.

Cinema on the other hand is an art.

So how does this apply to computer art? Well, the origins of computer art lie in its utility. Photoshop was invented to make things easier for graphic designers to create ads, not to create art. The user's intentions may be artistic but ultimately we're talking about a craft here, not an artform.

Not only that, but a great deal of Photoshop work is intended to duplicate "artistic" effects. A photo that's been put through a charcoal filter is not the same as a charcoal drawing. Speaking as an oil painter I can tell you that an oil painting has 3-dimensional aspects that simply can't be conveyed by applying a filter. There is a presence to an oil painting that can't be captured even by a high resolution photograph.

Which brings us to the next issue. Art objects, by definition, are unique. Computer graphics, by definition, are infinitely reproducible. There's a big market for giclee prints now, high resolution copies of paintings which are framed and sold as if they were paintings. I think that's a load of crap. It makes the fatal mistake of suggesting that the image is what's important in a painting. In fact, it is the authenticity of the painting as a unique object that gives it its value.

So can there be such a thing as computer art? Eventually there will be. It will be an absolutely novel art form executable only by computer, producing a one-of-a-kind product which, aside from its beauty, will be totally lacking in utility. Give the medium some time folks. It's only been around for 30 years or so. Lithography was an exclusively commercial medium for about 60 years before someone latched onto to its unique qualities and started to create real art with it.

[GSO]

Art is defined by the The American Heritage® Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition
as "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds,
colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner
that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the
production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." If you look at a computer graphic and feel that this is something special and is beautuful to behold, then it must be art.

[clambam]

If you click on the link to my web page in the previous post, you will get an error message. Simply delete the period at the end of the URL to access the page.

Here it is again:

www.emasary.com/art.htm

Marc

[jhilgeman]

Originally Posted by clambam

What's the difference between an art and a craft? Very simple. Craft is useful, art isn't. Art, by definition, is useless.

I would disagree, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "useless." I THINK you're thinking in terms of functional utility (i.e. a cup holds water, a hammer whacks thumbs, etc...) But at the same time, you classified photography as a craft because its "utility" is documentation.

I believe art is just as much "documentation" as a photograph, if not more so. Art reflects just about everything from history periods where they couldn't "draw" 3-D shapes to the thoughts in twisted minds of surrealists like Salvador Dali.

Art is extremely useful in many ways, from allowing people to understand different cultures better to allowing a laid-off worker to vent his frustrations with a paintbrush rather than an assault weapon.

If art was useless, people wouldn't make it or buy it.

- Jonathan

[jhilgeman]

Youch, anewday4us. That was almost a shameless plug for your ring business. :)

- Jonathan

[George]

Are computer Graphics an art. Yes providing creative talents are uses there is no difference from any other creative process.

In my former profession as a professional photographer the same question was often asked. My reply was that no matter what camera was used from a Hasselblad to a Kodak Pocket Camera (which I was actualy hired to photograph with by a client) the creativity came from the users creative tallents not the camera. Likewise the computer and the programs are tools and it is how they are used what makes it an art form and seperates it from the mundane.

In saying this you can usualy tell if the computer graphic was created by someone who has studied design, graphic art or pure art by the quality of their work, colors used, layout etc. The problem today is that people have been led to believe that anyone can creat using a graphic computer program. This is not so as the basic design and art rules still apply to computer creativity. This sales pitch by the software companies on the ease of creating computer graphics has led to a downgrading of the graphic art that you see today. This is especialy true of Web Design where the majority of sites are poorly designed.

As you can see I consider Fine Art, Graphic Design, Photography, Computer Annimation and Wed Design to all be art forms as do most art schools/collages.

[Moondancer]

*foresees this thread becoming a hot topic*

[Moondancer]

correction.. it already is.

[gregates]

jhilgeman,

We apologize if you think our post was given under that pretense.

We aren't here to sell.

Webmaster and SEO experts don't have time for a personal life anyway.... LOL.

It was not meant to plug, just show graphics and images.

Accept our apology if you think we were plugging! That was not our intention, promise!

Greg

"(whether they purchase from us or somebody else): "

[clambam]

Jonathan, you make some good points and perhaps I should have said "conventionally useful" instead of useful. I stand by my statement though. The purpose of art is not documentation. I can do a painting of a mountain and you can stand next to me and take a photograph of it. The photograph documents the appearance of the mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. The painting documents the experience of looking at a mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. On the face of it, the photograph is much more successful in conveying the appearance of the mountain. In actuality, the painting conveys its essence, not just its appearance. A painting doesn't tell you what a mountain looks like, it tells you what it's like to look at a mountain.

If the purpose of painting were solely to document visual reality, it quite rightly would have ceased to exist with the advent of photography.

I think the post above yours proves my other points. The writer points out how useful photography and computer graphics are in conveying information about their product. The purpose of art is not to convey information, it is to convey the artist's direction apprehension of reality, whether interior or exterior.

Art is "conventionally useless." From another viewpoint however, it is the most useful, the most valuable thing in the world.

Marc

[jhilgeman]

No worries - I just thought it was amusing. I would only be upset if you gave no thought to the current thread and it was a pre-fabricated spam message. Apology not needed, thus not accepted. :)

- Jonathan

[blastradius]

Clambam
I agree with and disagree at the same time. Yes a photo of a mountain is documentation of what the mountain looks like. But if the photo was taken at a creative angle a filter or two applied to it and some additional effects added during developement and I would consider it art. This would allow the photographer to give it interpretation.

[nowpulse]

Yes. Computer graphics can be art. Like any medium there will be a lot of crap and a few good examples of art. The graphics I do for websites would be considered commercial design, but I have seen stunning examples of graphic art that were thought-provoking and very moving.

I love to visit the Whitney Museum in NYC. They have many exhibits by artists who have embraced technology and incorporate it into their artwork. Visit it if you get a chance.

[jhilgeman]

Originally Posted by clambam

The purpose of art is not documentation. I can do a painting of a mountain and you can stand next to me and take a photograph of it. The photograph documents the appearance of the mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. The painting documents the experience of looking at a mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. On the face of it, the photograph is much more successful in conveying the appearance of the mountain. In actuality, the painting conveys its essence, not just its appearance.

Ehhh... I'm waffling. I agree with you somewhat, but I still think it depends on the art. Different pieces of art have different purposes - some may be documentation - some may to convey essences and emotions.

Photography can be used in the same way. A family vacation photograph taken with a one-time Kodak camera captures a detailed view of that point in history. However, a photographer can "paint" his own photo with a variety of methods from capturing specific lighting and angles to the intentional adding of objects to the scenery in the photo. So maybe the same family could be standing in front of their car, smiling, but the photographer now has a specialized camera, kneeling off to one side to capture a certain feeling of emotion. Put simply, there's more than one way to take the same picture, which makes it into an art form as well. It's all about the intentions of the person behind the camera.

But I guess we're both opinionated and we both make good points. :)

EDITED:
I just realized blastradius just posted the same thing in less words while I was busy writing. :)

- Jonathan

[blastradius]

Clambam
I agree with and disagree at the same time. Yes a photo of a mountain is documentation of what the mountain looks like. But if the photo was taken at a creative angle a filter or two applied to it and some additional effects added during developement and I would consider it art. This would allow the photographer to give it interpretation.

Originally Posted by clambam

Jonathan, you make some good points and perhaps I should have said "conventionally useful" instead of useful. I stand by my statement though. The purpose of art is not documentation. I can do a painting of a mountain and you can stand next to me and take a photograph of it. The photograph documents the appearance of the mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. The painting documents the experience of looking at a mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. On the face of it, the photograph is much more successful in conveying the appearance of the mountain. In actuality, the painting conveys its essence, not just its appearance. A painting doesn't tell you what a mountain looks like, it tells you what it's like to look at a mountain.

...

Art is "conventionally useless." From another viewpoint however, it is the most useful, the most valuable thing in the world.

Marc

So- what's your take on architecture within this framework? Cathedrals, for example, have a conventional purpose- keep the heads of the priests and parishoners dry, but why did the builders go to such expense building these lavish structures. Are they art or craft?

And where am I taking that? I'd liken it to CSS styled web pages- some people use that structure to create pages so stylistic they might be considered art to others in the design community. Are they beautiful- perhaps not. Do they occasionally inspire awe? Perhaps.

[blastradius]

sorry about the double post, hit the back button

[clambam]

Architecture is a craft -- the king of crafts.

It really pisses off my architect friends/clients when I tell them that.

[logowaves]

I create my logo using computer and watercolor with my sable brush. Agree with recent post: they are TOOLS. I have a friend who is : anti- computer generated art and said "it is cheating" when we use computer.

I don't care if anybody call it ART OR NOT.. as long as I can make MONEY and the buyer agree my work is worth paying :-) As long as my work is acceptable and appreciated. As long as my work is original and I put my effort into it. What ever they say what ever they want to call it... It really doesn't matter.

If you can create a fastastic superb master piece but you cannot sell.. that is matter!

[jvisser]

Originally Posted by clambam

Architecture is a craft -- the king of crafts.

It really pisses off my architect friends/clients when I tell them that.

I'd guessed that would be the answer. And had to laugh along with you on the reactions of the architects, but I'd be forced to disagree. There are too many buildings that I could stare at for hours. 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?

[gthamk]

I've got all the latest and greatest graphics software, but I still can't produce anything that looks good. Same goes for photography, I've got a great camera, but I can't produce photos that people want to buy. And believe me, I'm trying. You have to be an artist to create pictures with or without a computer.

[blastradius]

Originally Posted by clambam

Now, as to why computer art isn't art, I'd like to start out by explaining why photography isn't an art either. Photography is a craft. What's the difference between an art and a craft? Very simple. Craft is useful, art isn't. Art, by definition, is useless. Photography is a craft because its primary function is documentation. A photograph can be very beautiful, but it's still just a beautiful piece of craft. Same thing goes for ceramics. A dish or cup may be extraordinarily beautiful, but they are still functional and therefore, at heart, a craft. Line the cup with fur (like Rauschenberg did) so it can't be put to its intended use and you suddenly have art. Bad art maybe, but art nonetheless.

Clambag I really appreaciate your view that computer graphics are not art. I can't say I completely understood your definition of art. I believe those of us, myself included who create images using the computer and believe what we create is art. We may be a little close minded as to why our images may considered by some not to be art.
Just as those who are "art educated" can be close minded as to how computer generated images could be art.
As far as what someone said earier about web sites being art, I am close minded on this and would have to disagree. But I do think that website are the perfect midium for promoting art.

Yes sometimes digital art IS ~Art~.

Example: Go to http://Flashkit.com/loops and listen to some of the music loops. Some of them are just loops and a few, particularly those by Ella Freitas Hunt, are ~Music~.[/b]

[PBITech]

clambam,

I cannot say I agree totally with your views, however it is an honor to have a *true artist* among us. Welcome to WebPro.....

Jim

[clambam]

Thanks Jim. You may kiss my ring.

Marc

[PBITech]

LOL.....

[saintjohn]

Computer graphics is just that, computer graphics.
The defining line here is the worth. I do both traditional and computer graphics. I personally believe that we are comparing apples to oranges here. While graphics are considered artwork, it is only worth what you can get for it. Will computer graphics be worth more when the creator dies? I seriously doubt it. There will probably come a day when artwork will be valued as to whether it is generated by a computer, if it was, the value would be much less. Kind of like comparing the value of gold vs gold plated.
That's my 2 cents worth,

Denise St. John
http://www.graphicpersuasion.com

[jhilgeman]

[thwack!][thwack!] Can't beat beating dead horses.

Denise, you might be considering just immediate value. But consider this - a company employee designs a beautiful piece of art that adorns the front of their web site. His design time is worth $500, but the company gains a lot more sales because of the artwork and he gains raises as the company grows. So eventually it was worth much more than $500 to him. :)

Now consider this: a train leaves Belgrade at 4 PM traveling at 50mph and another train leaves Moscow at 5 PM traveling at 60mph. When they crash, is it art to the people driving by who slow down to observe the wreck?

- Jonathan

[Yadmot]

All Art has 2 major components, Form and Subject Matter/Content.

Digital, or Computer Art has both, and therefore by definition it is Art. (Art-ificially produced. There I go using that darn dash!)

Ususally the controversy over whether something is or not Art revolves around what the viewer actually likes or dislikes, and not the true definition of what Art actully is.

Everyone who submits original content on their sites for view on WebProWorld, are Artists. Some are skilled, and a few are talented.

Here are some questions for you. How do we measure the skill of an Artist? How do we know an Artist is Talented? What is Form in Art? Why should we concern ourselves with subject matter when evaluating Art? Is there such a thing as good or bad Art? Are sports Art?

Also, I disagree with the post that said Art is useless. This guy hasn't really thought about what he's saying. If Art is useless, then he wastes time if he does any Art! Some of the uses of Art. It pleases, attracts, interest, involves,... the list goes on. Also I've sold one heck of allot of Art, and made pretty good money on Art. If Art can bring in cash, and it does, is it useless?

=^0.o^=

[Ejaz]

Talkin about art and the compuworld, I gotta friend who was a remarkable artist by birth (pen and paper), and has now mastered the functionality of 3d studio Max and photoshop to create the most baffling animations and illustrations I've ever come across. He occassionally teams up with flash designers as well to make stuff like this

[Moondancer]

Let me see if I can get this straight... By the definition of what constitutes art in this thread.. if I say, open up photoshop, select a brush, some colors and created let's say a landscape using nothing but brushes and colors, no filters, no special effects... even if it was a good landscape it wouldn't be considered art because I used a computer program and monitor for my tools instead of brushes, paint, and canvas? What if I created a nude? Using nothing but the brushes available in photoshop and colors from the swatches? I've done this both on the computer and on canvas and it takes a lot of control and creativity regardless of the medium.

I've read the argument about copying into infinity.. However I fail to see the difference between copying a picture from one computer to another and copying the works of VanGogh, Dali, or anyone else which has been done excessively as well.

Also, there are lots of works of art where I fail to see how they could be considered such by the definitions of art being put forth here.. for instance, when an 'artist' takes a few cans of paint and throws the contents at a canvas.. what happens happens and that's art.. why? Because that was the artist's intention? Did he know just how the paint was going to land and stick to the canvas? About the only thoughts and feelings such 'works of art' engender in me is boredom.. obviously the artist was too bored or too lazy to come up with something better.. but he can pretend it was a statement by defining a meaning to the colors used? Somehow I don't buy it. Maybe that's just me.. but oh well.

I don't call myself an artist.. I didn't take years and years of art classes.. I didn't even take an art class in high school.. but I paint with oils, watercolors, and any other medium I choose to use...I've used mixed mediums to get a particular effect that I couldn't achieve with just one medium.. I've even done some light sculpting... (must be an idiot savant or something or just plain idiot for jumping into this post, lol).....whether anybody else would call it art or not is up to their interpretation of the paintings, sculptures and other pieces I have created.... but having work both on the computer and off.. i believe that art is art regardless of the medium if it follows the definition of art found in the dictionary which was posted earlier in this thread.

That doesn't mean that every piece of graphic you see on the net is art, but, then again, I wouldn't classify every canvas with paint on it art either, not every sculpture.. apparently someone does or it wouldn't have been done.

Lastly, art is not useless whether it's considered good or not.. it's never useless.. not everything should be measured by monetary value but by the pleasure and satisfaction the person doing the creating received from his or her creation. VanGogh would have loved to have had a few of those millions of dollars that his paintings fetch today.. but that's not why he created it because he had no idea that it would ever be worth that much. He did it because he needed to express something that he felt deeply.

[Reece]

I think any EFFORT that involves the elements of design and color could be construed as art.
Who would have thought soup cans * Warhol reference* would be considered art. What about covering bridges in pink material * Cristo reference*
I do not think it is the medium, it is the "effort".
Does it have balance? Rhythm? Color? Proportion? Is it the content or the context that makes it "ART"?

I am under no illusions about many of the GRAPHICS on my own websites. They are just screen caps for demonstrative purposes, and while covered by copyright, are not art.
My LOGO, buttons, doodles, etc, I do consider to be computer art. Some are a mesh of photographic and computer elements
.

[design@divergentweb.com]

Amazing discussion!

1. If you think its art, it is. Art is subjective and I think there are few actual facts as to what is and what is not art. Some of those facts would be types of art. Examples: painting, buildings (architecture), photographs, my daughter's vase from art class in 3d grade, computer art, and websites.

2. Art is not defined by utility or lack thereof. Making definitions based on utility basically says that art becomes something else when used for a purpose such as hiding a blemish on the wall.

3. Art is not defined by whether or nor it has value, nor whether its value changes, or can ever be established.

4. Art is not defined by whether or not it can be framed. Pictures and paintings are 2 examples of art that can be framed. Much art will never be able to be framed, such as that rusted metal on a platform.

5. Man is not the only artist. Landscapes captured onto a canvas by an artist are simply copies of some existing thing. Did man create the landscape which was painted and is accepted as art? No. The wind can form artful patterns of dust/dirt atop water that can be in turn reflect light from the sun.

6. Art can be dynamic (dance, song) and does not have to have a permanent form.

7. People are art.

Oh, yes, computer graphics can be art. Whether or not I even like them or recognize them as art does not matter. If I see a flower and do not recognize it as a flower (dim light, vision is blurry) it is still a flower regardless of my interpretation.

[masterpeace]

A lot has happened here since I last visited!

It seems that the majority of visitors concur that computer art can indeed be art but is not necessarily so, but some clearly disagree...

While reading the previous posts a question came to mind about the assertion that to fit the definition of *art* something had to be unique and not able to be reproduced. I thought of music - while I am sure that some "players" may simply be *craftsmen* in their chosen instrument, the composition of a classical piece (and not only classical) would definately qualify in my mind as art. It expresses a mood, a thought a feeling... It can be reproduced through many players, as well as recording. While the interpretation is different each time it is played (interpretaions of another artist), the work is still art. Poetry, prose and great literature can be looked at in the same light.

I think clambam's definition of art is incorrect. I appreciate it is his opinion but I also studied art at uni and one of the first questions we studied was "Where is line is drawn on what is art". The answer was that art is subjective (I say that a lot!) and that what may be considered art by one may not be by another.

For me art comes from the soul. It sounds corny sure, but I really believe that what makes something art is not the meduim, and perhaps not even the skill, but the *creative soul* of the artist. It is the expression of an idea, thought, feeling, mood, scent, sound etc of one individual that captures something special to them. What they use to capture this is irrelevant.

Painting and drawing were originally used for historical documentation, not "art". Creative people explored them and found new possibilities and ways of expression, and they became an art form. Computers are no different. They are mainly used as a tool for documentation and function but some creative souls find new ways of working with them to produce unique artworks. I say unique because no other artist with exactly the same tools at hand could create the same work. While it can be reproduced electronically, so can a painting these days (and if you want to go to the extreme they can even recreate the 3D texture of paintings these days useing some very high tech methods).

Reproduction is another "craft" but that doesn't mean that the original work being reproduced isn't art.

In case I haven't made it clear in this post I don't think all compurter art is *art*, but I have seen work that I would definately say is. Some is "craft" - a skilled, studied design or layout, but not really what I (key word there) consider art. I use my computer mainly for design. I still paint and draw for artistic expression... that is my preffered tool, but I don't say that the programs I use for work can't be used by someone else for art. Just as some one mentioned before about the blue wall... A house painter may use a paint brush in his craft to paint a wall, the artist may use the same bruch to create a masterpiece...

The difference is the creator and his intent...

[PBITech]

Craft is useful, art isn't. Art, by definition, is useless.

Confusing. Wondering about all our expensive hand painted fine china, not art?, is it a craft? Because it *can* be used as it's intended purpose? I'm confused, because I'm not allowed to use it, thinking if I do, it will lose it's value. On the other hand, if I smashed it all, it would then be considered as art? Or is it just bad art to begin with?

Also, if you were to create a painting on a plate it would not be art? Painting on a canvas, it would be art? If this is true, I think alot of true artists are being given the ___steer. I'm not sure I agree with the logic, or thinking...

Art is not useless. Art in it's real place is intended to motivate or inspire.

For the record I do not see all reproduction as a craft or skill... Reproduction has many faces. If not for reproduction, there would not be artists, as some call themselves anyway. But only one artist. Ouch...

Only because many sophisticated and more precise tools have evolved, I really don't agree that they are not, cannot, or not to be defined as tools of art. I personaly think it is wrong for anyone to attempt to define art, or to clearly separate it from other forms of creativity, and enjoyment. But again, that's just my opinion.

Art to me is enabling another to feel the same emotions as you do, tools or not. Sherades, blah blah blah...

Jim

[design@divergentweb.com]

Another brain cell just fired:

I also think that what is used to create art is beside the point. Painters typically use simple brushes, but could use specialty brushes or other devices of their own making place paint on the canvas to get a certain look and or feel that may not be easily accomplished with one brush. Similarly just because the rendering tools in computer graphics programs have been pre-developed does not make them any less an artistic tool than special paint brushes - several/many of these effects are based on art. They just allow a higher degree of reproducibility. I'm sure no one would argue that a painter practicing his trade would be suddenly not an artist simply becuase he is practicing in an effort to allow a higher degree of reproducibility of his skills each time he successively paints. True the manner in which the reproducibility is effected is different in both cases, yet the aim is identical - reproduce artistic effect with a higher degree of accuracy in order to increase quality.

I also believe that intent is not the point. What may be a "way to relieve stress" for my grandmother (she painted for years) is still art to me. She painted landscapes from pictures, or sometimes while visiting a place and she also painted imagined places as well as historic landmarks. Also, landscapes evolve without man's artistic aid over the years - so this again shows lack of artistic intent. Yet is the orchard that used to be a plain field any less beautiful as the sun rises over the trees radiating color and shadow? I say no.