hdj (02/04/83)
I can certainly admire Richard Voss's "Fractal Planetrise According to Benoit Mandelbrot" as an exercise in mathematics. And, yes, I do agree that it blows Walter Wright's untitled picture away, visually. But frankly, neither of them makes me @i[feel] anything inside. Neither evokes any sort of emotion from me. And, to me, emotional content is one of the things that differentiates, for instance, designs (I am @i[not] saying that Voss's work is a design!) from art. What do you think? Herb Jellinek (:-) SDC (a Burroughs Company) R&D burdvax!hdj 215-648-7456
blk (02/07/83)
Whatsamatta, folks, isn't extraordinary good enough? We seem to be reluctant to award the finest graphics to date the (dubious) praise of this almost undefined title "art" because the viewer must understand to fully appreciate. Doesn't seem fair. -brian
pauline (02/07/83)
I hope those calling for artists to provide insight into art, aesthetics
and computer graphics aren't expecting any definitive answers. From
personal experience I know that artists can, will and do argue vehemently
among themselves.
But here's another related question. I've been told (always by scientists)
that when it comes right down to it, Art (ie. performing and visual arts)
and Science are the same.
What do you think? Same in what way, different in what way?
Not ready to express an opinion on this one yet,
Paulineelf (02/10/83)
It is interesting that there has been some consensus re art and c.g. expressed in this newsgroup. Assuming we all share the same basic intuitive ideas on what art is, the consensus is that there's lots of sparkle to computer generated/mediated work, but not enough "artistic" content. The Siggraph '82 film show was a glittering (ugh) example of this. I was so enthusiastic after Siggraph '81 (anyone seeing III's juggler or Robert Abel's Chicago and paper airplane sequences would be) that high-tech and art can co-exist, and so '82 proved quite disappointing. As I indicated in an earlier message, I am very optimistic that this situation will improve. After all, the participants in this discussion are ample evidence that some artists have approached (embraced) c.g. I'm encouraged to see that this is happening, because in many other areas of endeavour, the computer is distrusted by all but the technologists. Regarding the "two cultures", art and science, I tend to believe C.P. Snow, somewhat (The Two Cultures--available in paperback, very cheap, very good). However, while the "acts of creation" may be identical for the artist and the scientist, I think what happens afterwards, the social process of acceptance by the relevant community, is different. So is they way the products of creation are viewed. This message is getting long, so I won't elaborate. All in all, though, if you think about it, it is surprising how analogously scientific and artistic communities behave as social organisms. Maybe not so surprising; my latest observations indicate that these communities are composed of the same stuff--human beings. Eugene Fiume utzoo!utcsrgv!elf U of Toronto
blk (02/10/83)
Does anyone out there buy the 'right/left brain' theory? I'm referring to the idea that the ability and interest to handle a computer are centered in one hemisphere, and the aesthetic/visual stuff is in the other. Kind of analog on the one hand and digital one the other. I know that the artistic types *I* am friends with turn pale at the prospect of the automated teller at the bank, much less a powerful graphics machine. On the other hand, one artist friend in particular would love to do some graphics work, but can't afford it. Has anyone ever met a full-time artist who could afford access to this medium?!? -brian
elf (02/11/83)
I thought I should clarify my reference to Snow in my last message. As both scientist and novelist, he noted with great concern that the two cultures are highly insular, each viewing the other with varying degrees of disgust, distrust, and ... what else rhymes with "ust"? We could pursue details of his views if others are interested. In Science and Human Values (another cheapo paperback--worth buying) by J. Bronowski, there is a very strong argument for the idea that the acts of creation by artists and scientists are similar. I hope C.G. will be viewed by artists and scientists as one of those fields in which the two can rightfully and profitably come together. elf
pauline (02/14/83)
Here's a quote from the Aug/Sep 1982 issue of "Business Screen", a magazine
dealing with the more artsy side of c.g., about the cover of that issue:
"Our cover is an attempt to not only attract the consumer by an
intriguing piece of fine arts but to trick them into thinking that it was
generated by a computer when in fact it was generated by a combination of
traditional special effects."
spoken by Mario Kamberg,
Vice President and Creative Director for
North Hollywood based special effects co.,
Silver Cloud Productions
Later on, the article reads,
"But there has been an ironic turnaround in the use of computer
generated animation.... Today computers can generate a variety of textures
and elements but those same elements can still be executed via old fashioned
motion control and even bottom lit cel flopping."
So one possible answer as to why many quality artists may not be thrilled
about c.g. is that its not producing anything that is *really* new. We're
teaching a new dog a lot of old tricks. I'm certainly not denying that c.g.
has been a wonderful time saver in a lot of areas, but has anyone ever seen
a piece of computer generated art that couldn't be done by a patient human
being (or several) with more traditional art techniques?
An old dog is always more comfortable to be around.
But even if there are marvellous user friendly packages, its also a lot of
trouble and expense getting access to a c.g. facility.
We may be at the stage where we have to "teach" the computer all the old tricks
so that we can better understand what its capable of. Is it time to move on?
Seems to me, if you want to attract more and/or better artists to the field,
you have to make it worth their while. Emphasize something that the computer
can do and that nothing else can.
changing my sign-off to,
pyt
Just an aside:
Computer graphics is the computer science field I enjoy most, but for me,
nothing beats being able to grab my watercolors and pencils and go outside
on a warm and sunny day.elf (02/18/83)
In cornell.3990, pyt latched onto some very good points, the most important of which, I think, is the role of the creative environment. There are many sophisticated (in all senses of the word) paint programs around that provide facilities that *cannot* be easily duplicated by traditional techniques. I'm thinking of the very fancy things one can do with texture mapping, tinting, and complex brush patterns. However, I don't know of many such systems that operate in environments conducive to creativity. Are paint programs doomed to stay in semi-lit, noisy rooms? (I would like to hear of exceptions via mail.) I was going to start a diatribe on inadequate input devices, but I think that at least there's hope on that front (e.g. pressure and direction sensitive styli). Does anyone out there run a paint program using an input device more exotic than a standard tablet, mouse, or joystick? Computer music seems to face the same problems. I'll tell you, almost nothing beats sitting outside on a warm summer day with a geeetar in hand. Of course, a pleasant environment and an artistically conducive one aren't necessarily the same beast--but if I can't be artistic, I'd like to be comfortable at least! Eugene Fiume U of Tarana utzoo!utcsrgv!elf
ralph (02/20/83)
I have been reading with interest the discussion about art and c.g. that has been going on. I think many good points have been made, and that there is still a great deal of disagreement. I see the latter as a good thing, since it shows that people's ideas of art and how to make it are growing and changing. Re. SIGGRAPH 82: I thought much of the still art was very interesting, but was very disappointed with the video [tapes]. Some of these I found to be visually and sonicly offensive. It seemed (to me) that the artists where just throwing sounds and images onto the tape. A friend characterised this as "masturbating into the medium". I think either my views of art, or these peoples ways of doing things have to change a lot before I will think much of this work, as it seems to me that these people really are masturbating into the medium. Moving to more general things, I agree with elf in Tarana (Toronto?) that there are many things that paint programms can do that are not possible with other media. Perhaps the problem is that the interfaces to these systems frequently impede the creative process or the artist can not afford the bill. I think that the time is not yet ripe for art and c.g. to really achieve symbiosis. The problem is that computer systems are still primarily designed for technical people, not artists, and fast systems are still to expensive. An area where I see some productive working being done, is artists assisting scientists to present information and ideas better. Admittedly, this is not art for art's sake (as this discussion has centred on) but, I am currently involved in a project that involves extensive interaction between two graphics artists and five or six computer scientists. The goal is to improve the visual presentation of program text, but I have learned a great deal about the tools that graphic artist use. It is not hard to see that TEX and [device independent] troff, as text formatters, are hideously inadaquate for the types of things the artists want to do (and the things I now want to do). Perhaps, as a result of interdisciplinary research like this, we (computer scientists) will begin to produce better tools for the production of visual (or sonic) art, and will benfit from the knowledge that the artists can share with us. With luck, either these tools, or out knowledge, will result in better art. To end on a personnal note, my medium of expression is colour photography - primarily of landscapes and cityscapes. I try to keep it well removed from my work in computer science as I find them to be incompatible. However, I do try to use my [limited] understanding of form and composition to help improve the visual presentation of my work, and to assist me in interfacing with the artists in the project. I see this as a case where knowledge from my artistic life is put to practical use. I think this is a key point, evidence, that art really has a place in c.g. at large. not an... Officer and a Gentleman, just a... pseudo-artist and a reformed hack ralph hill ...!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ralph
pauline (02/28/83)
Well, it seems as if the discussion on art and c.g. is fizzling out.
So, let's see if I can kick something up again.
First, I think I'd better define what I mean by traditional art techniques.
This includes not only oils, watercolors, and pencil, but also lithography,
air-brushes, silkscreen, intaglio, photography, et al.
Given this description, I still can't think of any c.g. that can't be
produced by these techniques or a combination thereof. Granted, it might
not be easy, but it still could be done. I went back and looked over my
SIGGRAPH '82 Art Show catalogue again, I tried to remember everything I saw
at SIGGRAPH '82, NCGA '81 and everything I've seen here at Cornell's CADIF
facility (CADIF is a c.g. facility headed by Don Greenberg). If anyone has
a source for something they still feel can't be duplicated by traditional
techniques, please let me know.
Now here's a thought on reaching the art community. When lithography
was invented in the 1800's, its developers also faced the same problem of
getting artists to accept a new medium. For those who don't know, litho-
graphy is a printing technique in the same family as silkscreening, etching,
and blockprinting. The process of lithography is split into two basic
functions: drawing an image on the stone plate and printing it. Printing
a litho is a little technical, relative to the drawing.
What happened back then was, printers had shops with all the equipment that
was needed for lithos and these printers would *invite* major artists to come
in and experiment with the new medium. The artist would come in, draw on the
stone plate, and the printer would then print up the image. There was a lot
of interaction between printer and artist, the artist had to communicate to
the printer what sort of image he was after, and the printer advised the
artist on the limitations (or lack of limitations) of the medium.
So what we had was a technical staff working intimately with artists
in a mutually advantageous situation. The artist got experience, the
printer got prints to sell. Seems to me that somewhere, the same sort
of exchange could be set up for computer graphics.
What say you?
pytken (03/01/83)
Pauline xxx made the statement that all computer graphic art could be
done using conventional media. Well, I maintain that art composed with
conventional media can be done with computer graphics, and challenge
her to prove that her statement is right and mine is wrong.
Simulation of artwork composed in a different medium is not the
foremost desire of computer graphic art, although it has proved useful
in bringing artists up to speed on computer graphic equipment. I was
one of the engineers on the Ampex Video Art (AVA) project, which was a
2-dimensional graphic composition system designed especially for the
artist: no switches, keyboards or knobs, because all interaction was
through the use of the electronic stylus and menus. We invited all
sorts of artists to use the equipment; others begged us to use it.
They customized it by creating special brushes, favorite palettes, and
useful sub-images. Their comments were extremely useful in enhancing
the basic paint system. Some of the effects generated were similar to
those of pen and watercolor, acrylic, and oil, in addition to
surrealistic images "characteristic of computer graphics". One
techno-artist even went so far as to simulate the low resolution
graphics of the TRS-80 by blocking, or "pixellating".
Scan-in capability was important to enter sketches that had been drawn
in a more familiar environment. Magnify was important for details.
Simple ways to create the color map suitable for anti-aliasing
(although they didn't understand the theory, they liked the non-jagged
lines), including random color map generation and reorganization, made
choosing the palette less tedious. Grid overlays gave a reference for
orientation and scale, whereas arbitrary overlays made it easier to do
frame-to-frame animation. Powerful titling capability was
indispensable for the television news graphic artists, including
multiple fonts, sizes, colors. Of course, massive storage capability
for intermediate drawings was a must.
Some things which were not implemented, but were suggested as important
factors in choosing to buy the equipment were: Support for animation
including automatic generation of a series of size changes and
translations. Full color to allow mixing of colors in a way that
color-mapped systems cannot.
Ken Turkowski
{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!turtlevax!kenalain (03/03/83)
Oh, I can't resist anymore. To those who say that nothing produced in c.g. could not have been produced by "traditional" means, it is as true, and as meaningful, than saying than you can walk to anywhere a fast train can take you. Maybe oyu are not in a hurry, but it is not the issue. Besides, they conveniently neglect animated pictures. Show me a team of animators that can do three-D animation right. But again, again, this is not the real issue. Closer to the real issues are those who confuse art (ART) and pleasure. So you like to sit and play guitar, or do watercolo(u)r on a sunny day. Great. I too can enjoy the simple pleasure of trimming my toenails on a sunny day. But do I call it art? Noooooo! Art is not easy and enjoyable and should not be (I accept arguments about the latter clause, not the former). Do you think chiseling marble or stone, getting silicosis in the process, do you think engraving copper plates, and getting blind or sick from aqua regia fiumes (sorry fumes), do you think practicing calligraphy for fifty years and turning the neighbouring pond black from spent ink, do you think spending months upside down painting a damn ceiling, do you think that is enjoyable, do you think that is user friendly, do you think that is art. Well of course it is enjoyable in some (quasi) perverted sense. But certainly not as a sunny day in the shade. (How come you can spend a sunny day in the shade, but not a shady day in the sun?). And for you still puzzling, the answers to the big question (is this art) is yes. People describing musical instruments as the archetypal user friendly interface to very complex tasks make me laugh. What's user friendly about a violin? Any computer system that hard not only to master, but just to make work halfway properly, would have been junked a long time ago (unless it were an IBM product). But then again, what is the real issue? Damned if I know. ~e !
clu (03/10/83)
This may be outside the field of discussion of computer GRAPHICS and art, but my own feeling is that the major potential of computers in art lies in the computer's ability to interact with the outside world. This, after all, is one of the computer's unique qualities as an artistic medium. An example I have heard of is a "sculpture" (I forget by whom) that consisted of a metal bird that traveled around a track on the ceiling of a large room. The bird could sense the presence of people below it and would swoop down at them and then continue on. This use of the computer allows the work of art to interact with its environment and brings it to "life". Perhaps creating new ways of "living" will become an art form in its own right. One other comment: one can often admire examples of superb craftsmanship without needing to call them Art (though even this can be debated). This is even more likely when one understands the difficulties involved. For me, many of the impressive examples of current computer "art" fall more properly in this category. ---Paul Johnson (prjohnson@mit-xx)
julian (04/27/83)
The Computer Graphics Research Group at the Ohio State University has been for over a decade combining the talents of artists with computer people. We find it a very rewarding arrangement, because the technical people can explore their research, while the artists can explore the new medium. In fact, you must have seen a number of CGRG pictures in the Art Show (both the wall mounted part and the online part) at SIGGRAPH 82. We intend to continue this arrangement indefitely; everybody benefits from it and everyone likes it. Julian Gomez ucbvax!cbosg!osu-cgrg!julian ~|fmt