A Singular Creation Art Community
promoting and showcasing all types of art and photography

Computer Vs. Hand Generated Art

If you want to discuss anything art related this is the place to be.

Moderator: Moderators

Computer Vs. Hand Generated Art

Postby william » Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:00 pm

This came up in the forums.......what is more acceptable as a viable form of art....Painting and drawing with the classic materials of Oils, watercolors, charcoal, and inks... or creating images through photography and digital media on the computer.... ?

Here in the 21st centurty, we have more than added the computer as an excellent tool for creating art, (I personally envy those who have the computer skills) and photography has been around since at least the 19th, but paint dates way back.....

So which materials do you think are considered more "artistic"?


All these tools at our fingertips, I thought this might be another point to ponder.
william
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:05 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby nonarom » Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:37 am

I myself would say definitely YES to the COMPUTER ART. First reason is, as you said William, it's something "at your fingertips" - you sit and move the mouse. The second reason would be the fantastic speed of developing the software in this area - not only you can obtain the same result without striving to combine colors, have a lot of dirt around you, using much space, etc. but you can achieve much more than in real painting, there are thousands of colors and shapes which a man's hand would never obtain - the extreme example is fractal art. And everything keeps growing... It's like still using a
ush instead of a vacuum cleaner, or a candel instead of electrical bulb...
BUT, this is definitely a SUBJECTIVE point of view and the opposite arguments would be:
- I am a computer addict;
- I don't have a large house and space conditions for classical painting;
- the expenses would be larger than a good computer and some software.
But besides these materialistic considerations, for some people a candel is more romantic than a bulb...They miss the smell of the paints, the sound made by the charcoal on the paper...It's a matter of special feelings here...
I don't know, may be the traditional painters would add their comments here...
Cordially,
Nona
nonarom
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 3:30 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby william » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:19 am

Ok nonarom, I'm a color addict. I can make thousands and more different types of red, blue and yellow... I can mix a world of color with my paints, and if I leave out the subtle blendings, we can see them all...the computer would do that in a millisecond of the time it takes me..but it can be done..... :twisted: if I had a few days to mix one variety of red. :twisted:
Just playing, I agree with you, there is that certain feel of using the classical materials, from the dirt, to the mess, to the sound and smell of the materials......I'm a bit old school. Even though I'm not that old. There is a certain shine and feeling you get in a painting that I think the digital image leaves out...Unless I'm doing something wrong with what little digital printing I do, but the computer is very precise, where the human hand leaves room for those little accidents that may be missing in a digital.
I should pipe down though, I'm hoping to see more oppinions on this too....
william
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:05 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby DLKeur » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:51 pm

real world media, digital media -- doesn't matter. It's all art. What I object to, all the way around (RW and DIG) is an artist not being honest about techniques. Specifically anyone using projection, photomanipulation, tracing, cloning, or print as underpainting, and NOT advising the buyer that the artwork is the result of these techniques, instead passing them off as hand-painted, raw oil on canvas or whatever....
User avatar
DLKeur
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby Menolly » Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:35 pm

I definitely appreciate digital art - but only when, as DLKeur said, it is done as its own freestanding piece, and not a shortcut. If I had the skills, I would definitely explore it. That said, though, there is a certain, how should I put it... humanity in the more traditional art forms, with the little rough spots hidden under the matting, the
ush hairs in the strokes - the little details that tell you a live hand went into the creation. I think that element of sterility in digital art just makes certain subjects, particularly emotional ones, a little difficult to capture ourtside of traditional mediums. (Those of you with the digital touch, please feel free to correct me here - I'd love some examples if you do.)
Menolly
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 3:32 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby arlynnhr » Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:49 am

As DLKeur said independent on the media it's still art and I think the artistic side comes in when the person uses his/her creativity and imagination to create those incredible pieces of work. While it's faster than traditional art, it still needs a considerable amount of time to produce and you still have to get trained on how to use all the digital producing tools.

Personally, I prefer creating art the traditional way and part of the fun is getting dirty, the smell of the paint, the mixing of the colors, etc.. :lol: ... as Menolly said it gives it that human touch and since it's not perfect it's just like your handwriting or your fingerprints.
arlynnhr
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby weirdpuckett » Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:28 am

just think if the animated "toy story" was done in traditional style....I think that that movie really gave the electronic artform a big boost ,at least for me..and then "Shrek"...Wow!!!!for me to say that it's NOT art would just be my pride talking..for me to say it's "better" than trditional, hands -on- canvas art would be folly as well.
I mean,"Fantasia" really made me feel similar to both those movies...It's just that the creators hands might have been less weary making the cgi stuff...It's bsically just another tool to
ing forth imagery..nothing more..
User avatar
weirdpuckett
 
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:27 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby william » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:43 pm

So then what is it in people, that they would prefer one over the other... If art is art, then besides the market, why shouldn't a gallery owner be more open to selling work made from multiple media.... And although I truly love the works of dreamworks entertainment and the various video games on the market, there seems to be a line where you see the use of traditional media and digital media.

Maybe this forum should be more geared toward discussing how different media are used and appreciated in this society......?
william
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:05 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:05 am

I guess I'll chime in now and discuss a couple key points, but let me begin by saying that digital work is valid, if well done, but doesn't really hold the value of an original, hand wrought piece. Reason being that any number of COPIES of the work can be produced simply by a keystroke and these reproductions certainly don't have the value of hand pulled limited edition prints {lithograph--intaglio-monotype etc.}.

I have never found a Giclee, or any other print that expresses the "aura", or tactile visual presence of an original paining, or an original etching for that matter. They just don't convey that intangible quality perceived when viewing the real thing.

I commend those than can do good work on the computer. I for one cannot, as yet, and probably won't devote the time and energy. As long as the author is honest about process, I see no problem with computer generated images... I'll cite Ted's work as an example.

Be well...
uce
Many roads; One path. baream 08
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby upfromsumdirt » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:39 am

digital art is all i do now!

i came into this forum specifically to find this thread (knew it had to be here!)
however, i hafta admit that i'm surprised by the atmosphere - you guys
are way more liberal than other forums ive seen in the past.
kudos to all of you!

as a matter of preference: i dont like all hand-drawn art or all digital art.
i love technique, use of color, balance, style, etc - if those things show
then that artist has a fan in me regardless of their medium.

but for digital artists, it takes time and experimentation. usually, the one-finger
point-n-click that transforms a photo into a graphic image is not art! but many
new artists attempt to pass it off as such, just not knowing any better...
and as a rule, i dont like such programs that automatically convert images
that way. photo manipulation is an artform also, but it isnt always the same
as creating digital art from one's own abilities.
sadly, most digital artists are too busy trying to create photo realism -
seamlessly merging machines to people. thats a technical skill to me
(my background is in graphic design where those skills are the most needed)
but transferring graphic technique to visual art is not always an easy task.

its all 'art'... but its okay to label it any way we see fit: real art... fake art...
good art... bad art... we're all entitled to our opinions.

its up to the individual artist to convert non-believers to his or her cause.
no one should get a free pass just because "it's all art".

please feel free to check out AND critique my work... i use myspace
as my portfolio - myspace.com/upfromsumdirt

....

to address the giclee comment: i agree!
most artists who create giclees are recreating them from actual pieces
they did by hand - the giclee process isnt always kind to those end results,
however i have seen many exceptions!

an artist who deals with giclees needs to limit his use of it:
i create ONE giclee, which serves as the original... if i create a limited
edition of that piece then its all on fine art paper. i could never in good
conscious create a series of giclees to sell to market and then expect
my audience to treat such works as unique.

once a giclee sells, then the original high quality jpg is deleted
and that piece is 'retired'.
this is about the only avenue a digital artist can take if he or she is
attempting to have his work compete with more traditional art.
upfromsumdirt
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:07 pm

Postby arlynnhr » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:51 am

I just want to add a small comment. Personally, I prefer digital art that helps the artist's mind run wild. I like fantasy art (like those in high quality graphics video games) where it can take to me to unknown places and meet any sort of creatures. I also like the type of digital art that concentrates on intricate patterns and an explosive use of color.
arlynnhr
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby revad » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:53 pm

If there is a problem with the feel of digital art it is in the translation from the second-life cyber-world of its creation into the first-life real-world incarnation as a print or some other physical form.

The same is true of first-life real-world art when it is translated into the second-life cyber-world reality of the www.

Simply put something is lost in translation.

At least that is how it is now in late 2008.

In the near future through the introduction of new interfaces and translation machines (3d printing for example) the distinction will become ever more blurred.

For now, the most important factor is that the idea, the concept, is well served by the chosen medium.
revad
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:29 pm

Postby revad » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:07 pm

Oh and as for value then this must not be confused with worth.

My goal as an artist has little to do with monetary value and everything to do with creating something worthy of consideration. Something that stimulates the mind of the audience. Something that makes just one other person think differently about the world.

There is of course nothing wrong with making a few Pounds (or Dollars or Euros or whatever), I just don't think it is a prime goal for an artist.

In many respects an artist should want to connect with as many people as possible, so limiting availability artificially is a business strategy and nothing to do with art.
revad
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:29 pm

Postby upfromsumdirt » Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:12 am

i agree!
an artist should definitely love the act/process of creation...
but my hypocrisy about worth/value is on a sliding scale
relevant to the amount of last month's heating bill!

i have an exhibit starting next week where pricing will be
vastly different than one i had a year ago with many of the same works.
the financial reconciliation is rough in the mind and on the heart...

...

AND YES to the way art looses some of its ability to communicate as
it transfers between mediums. ideally, my work is better suited for
the digital screen - but spending a thousand dollars on such 'framing'
is a luxury emerging digital artists can least afford.

however, i have been happy with some of the final results from
the giclee process. composition and color are extremely important
when considering such a printing option.
upfromsumdirt
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:07 pm

Computer Generated Art

Postby pehiatt » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:01 am

The computer is just a tool and nothing more and like any of the other traditional tools used to create images it is the creative mine driving it that gives it power.

We live in a world that is swamped in visual imagery. Images are everywhere and most of them are mediocre at best. Very few people are able to use the tools at their disposal really well. That’s why we admire the great artist of the past, treasure their creations and follow in their traditions.

What is good art bad art or even what is considered art at all is a highly subjective opinion usually based on self interest or lack of real understanding of unlimited human creativity. Any inference that a photograph is not art is lost in the light of an image created by Anzel Adams or Robert Mapplethorpe, to mention only two. They along with others were masters of selective manipulation and technique.

Computers allow many to easily create imagery without the mess and hard work of pushing color and line around on a surface with hand instruments. Drawing, painting, sculpting and mousing are mental processes. Good artist make things look easy, good artist strive for simplicity and purity. While what they create is left to stand on its own, it is the creative mind behind the work that gives it value.

Limiting editions, creating only originals and such is only an artificial way to enhance the value of the object. The idea, if of value, surmounts such trivial attempts. Picasso,s “Guernica” has just as much power printed in a textbook, sold as a mass produced print or illuminated in a web
owser. The original is almost over powering but why wold anyone seek it out if they did not recognize the power in reproduced prints and books.

The goal is to transform a thought into an image or object that connects with the viewer. If an image displays technical skill or slavish effort; so much the better but that is not always true. If so then why do we treasure a child’s drawing pasted up on a refrigerator door.

Not long ago I took some engineering drawings done years ago to a printer for reproductions. The cameraman had been around for a long time. He copied thousands of drawings every month. Yet when he unrolled the original hand inked vellum he made the following comment. “You just don’t see work like this any more.”

What he saw was skilled hand that kept it’s human uniqueness. Subtle shifts in line warms the drawing. Computer generated engineering drawings lack that human touch and it can be sensed. The same is true with computer generated graphics. It takes real human with a creative mind to make a computer rise above the mediocre.

The equivalent of a silver point drawing by Albert Durer on a piece of gessoed paper can not be done on a computer. At least not yet and I doubt if it ever will.

The tool whether pen,
ush, machine or just a finger dipped in ashes or raw paint is only a means and not and end…
User avatar
pehiatt
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Frederick Maryland
Gallery: View Gallery


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    Views
    Author

Return to Art Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest