pag (02/13/83)
Art, by the nature of the beast, is in the eyes of the beholder. Now with that statement out of the way, here is one person's admittedly colored perceptions: computer graphics is not art. Why? A digression. In the early 70's, a very good friend of mine developed a passionate liking for the works of M.C. Escher. He would often take me along to galleries and special exhibits in an evangelical attempt to get me also hooked on his artistic addiction. The more of these exhibits I saw, the colder they left me. I became convinced, quite simply, that Escher's pen and inks, however visually impressive, were something other than art. Computer graphics strike me in exactly the same way: a technological extension of Escher-ism. The "art" that I gravitate toward tends to have a more human, emotional element. I remember a recent trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and how deeply moved I was by some of Renoir and Rembrant's paintings. Perhaps it is only the natural reaction of one who spends all his time dealing with technology, a desire to reaffirm the human side of life, that strongly influences my artistic tastes. --peter gross seismo!hao!pag ucbvax!hplabs!hao!pag
wm (02/13/83)
Well, it seems we all agree. Everyone seems to be saying "art is what I like". Also, most people seem to have hated the siggraph 82 art show. I thought it was the first siggraph art show that had anything of artistic content. So there. If you are interested in this discussion, go find some back copies of the magazine "PAGE", the journal of the Computer Arts Society (which you can even join if you wish). They had a great deal of discussion about whether "computer art" is "art", and what makes it so, and just what purpose the computer serves in an artist's brush box. Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill