Computer Graphics - Art yes or no

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[RichardWalker]

Art is something made by a human who had full control over the tools and medium. Computer is a rudimentary imitation of art. There are innumerable interferences between the human and the art when the computer is involved. The art becomes informed by the computer, and the computer is a
dead soul of infinity. It has no memory, no arc, no life force. So, the answer is no. Computer graphics may be visual communications or imitations of art, but they cannot compete with anything hand-made.