hdj (02/01/83)
I would like to start a discussion of computer graphics as visual art. There is great potential in the use of CG for creating art - why then is so much CG "art" crap? I recommend checking out the 1982 Siggraph Art Show catalog. Many of the images are impressive technically - some are not. But little of it has any aesthetic sensibility - Joel Slayton's work is an exception, as is Francis Olschafskie's. My objective here is not to condemn, but to stimulate thought and discussion. About myself: I am a computer scientist, with strong interests in computer graphics, user-interface design, logic programming, and visual art. I think a discussion on this topic is long overdue, and I think the net is a great place (the only place?) to discuss it. Let's get it on... Herb Jellinek (:-) SDC (a Burroughs Company) R&D burdvax!hdj 215-648-7456
ken (02/02/83)
Speaking of the SIGGRAPH art show catalog, I am completely zowed by
Mandelbrot's Planetrise, and would love to have a poster of it. Does
anybody know if such a thing is available?
Ken Turkowski
{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!turtlevax!kenhdj (02/02/83)
Yes, Benoit Mandelbroit's Fractal Planetrise is quite impressive. But is it Art? Trying to stir up trouble, or at least discussion, Herb Jellinek (:-) SDC (a Burroughs Company) R&D burdvax!hdj 215-648-7456
cdr (02/03/83)
Ah... everyone wants to be a critic. I suggest we leave the question "what is art?" alone. If the people producing it want to call it art, we should accept as art. At this point it is better to ask the question - what is good computer art? Fortunately, I don't have the answer to that. (If I did I wouldn't tell - people would immediately label me a damned snottish twit and quit inviting me to parties.) However, to kick things off I offer the following: The simple production of a realistic picture has no value as art. The fact that someone was clever enough to figure out all the light sources, textures, shadows, reflections, bounce light, etc. does not mean that the picture produced by him has great artistic merit. Take the Fractal Planet Rise by Voss as an example. My reaction as a computer scientist is very positive. It is impressive that fractal geometry models nature so well and that Voss has been able to construct such a clever demonstration. But as an art critic (strictly amateur) my first reaction was not so good. The subject matter has been treated extensively (years of sci-fi book covers, a beautiful photo via NASA, and endless wall posters). So what has Voss done here that I should get excited about as art? Has he brought a new understanding to the subject or does he give us something new to think or feel about it? Where is the creativity? I don't think it is very good art. If you had a poster of it what would you say when you showed it to someone? Would you talk about the fact that a computer did it (with lots of human help, of course) and all the nifty mathematics and keen computer programs and hardware involved? Would you say (with a smirk, of course) that some guy at IBM did it? Would you talk about resolution and anti-aliasing and all that? Would you have anything at all to say about it as a piece of visual art? Would you talk about it the same way you talk about a Picasso, or Monet or Pollock? If not, why not? We shouldn't abandon several thousand years of visual literacy just because someone has invented a new box of crayons. Ok - so there is my two bits worth. I would be particularly interested in hearing from some of the artists themselves. Durward Rogers decvax!mcnc!cdr
elf (02/07/83)
A number of interesting viewpoints on this subject have appeared recently.
I think most of them are simplifications at best. I'll try not to sound
pretentious in saying why. I'll be brief.
(1) Aesthetics is in the eye of the interpreter. The only *message* the
interpreter sees is what he sees, not necessarily what the artist
conceives.
(2) "Great" artists are so rarely because of one work of art, but rather
due to a series of sometimes radically differing works. We often think
of "great" artists as "reflecting their time", as somehow echoing the
tensions of the era. Sometimes they are beatified for developing new
techniques. The point: if you're into "messages", be careful to
distiguish between the art and the artist.
(3) It isn't fair to use the pragmatic considerations (e.g. thickness of
paint, types of brushstrokes, etc.) of one artistic form as arguments
against another. After all, I ain't a painter, but I wouldn't say that
watercolours are a priori inferior to oils. Computer-mediated art is
in an even stickier position because it hasn't been around long enough
to even have an established set of techniques.
(4) The "realism isn't art" philosophy is a little odd. Many would think
that photography is a genuine art form. There is much realistic art
I don't particularly care for, but that's my problem. On the other
hand, realism, like most things, is in the eye of the beholder. Besides,
there's a lot an artist can do to touch up a "realistic" scene.
Most of my favourite movies are highly realistic. I also just love
stills from the old "film noir" movies.
I could go on and on. The point I hope to have made is that "great" computer
art is possible. In fact, I would say inevitable. I think this discussion
would be extremely interesting if we start considering and criticising new
and existing techniques using computer tools such as paint programs,
animations systems, etc. I've blabbered enough. Someone else take over.
Eugene Fiume
utzoo!utcsrgv!elf
U of Torontolil@alice.UUCP (06/30/83)
Has anyone been keeping a record of the discussion of computer graphics/art/aesthetics. If so, could you please mail me a copy of the articles you have. thanks in advance, Lillian Schwartz decvax! ucbvax! alice!lil harpo!