pauline (02/04/83)
Although I am a comp. sci. major, I also consider myself an artist.
I have a background in both Western and Chinese art. In Chinese art
history, esp. in the Southern school, realism was not considered very
important. It was much more important for the painting to look like an
outpouring of spontaneous inspiration, thus it was also important for the
brushstrokes to show. With the brushstrokes you can see how the artist
applied the brush; whether he had control over the brush, hesitated in a
stroke (a fault), or worked the painting over and over (another fault).
The information contained in a single brushstroke of ink on ricepaper
is, for the moment, completely missing in computer graphics. I've heard
of some paintbrush programs, but haven't seen anything that compares.
What I see in computer graphics is a history of Western art condensed.
Up to, but not including the Impressionists, Western artists had been
overwhelmingly concerned with making things look real. Much of the
research in comp. graphics is also concerned with making things look real.
However, like the Impressionists et al, some people are beginning to feel
that you don't need (or perhaps even want) photo-type realism in computer
art.
Good draftsmanship is a necessary tool for an artist, but it should
never be the final criteria as to whether someone is a good artist or
whether something is good art. The ability to effectively communicate
should be. Art, after all, is a form of visual communication. If no one
has the foggiest idea of what you're trying to say in a painting, you've
failed. The ability to effectively communicate means you must also have
a good sense of composition and design and the measure of an artist is how
well and creatively he can use this sense.
So my points are:
1. Presently, graphics systems lack the immediacy of medium to the
degree that many, though not all, artists want
2. There is one camp that revels in realism and another which feels
that realism is nice perhaps, but not necessary. Computer graphics
can go either way; in this sense, it is just a tool of the user
3. That which separates artists from others is in the end, the amount
of ability to communicate in a visual medium
What is the message behind "Fractal Planetrise"? Is it a piece of technical
virtuosity with little other meaning or is it a celebration of man's ability
to understand the complexities of the world about him? (There's a fine line
between merely showing off and being surprised by what one can do.)
If you can answer that, you've answered the question of whether it is art or
not.
There never was a great artist without a message.
The message could be religious, political, social; it could arise from seeing
the disasters of war (Goya), seeing social injustice (Daumier), a feeling of
awe of nature (Bierstadt), personal mental anguish (Van Gogh), a feeling of
love for what is common (Wyeth), and half a million other things.
But if you have nothing to say, how can you communicate?
I could go on forever but I think I'll stop now,
Paulinewm (02/06/83)
If nobody has the foggiest idea of what I am trying to say in a work of art, then I have triumphed. I am trying to communicate confusion. Art for art's sake Money for god's sake! Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill