Artistry in the Digital Age
Well, im sick, so this may be even less coherent than normal.
So, as I was staring at the ghetto screensaver of the 3D-Pipes, and noticing that even though it was an ancient screensaver, it was still able to create something in fifteen seconds than mere people could do in hours. But then, this is what computers are for, right? In this case, however, it was creating something that could have been considered "artistic" in a way. I have seen something similar in museums, pipes that went in and out of the picture, with foreground and background, but done in pastels and paints. Who knows how long the artist had taken to create such a picture, but this computer, and not even a really good computer by todays standards, could create it in seconds. This is just one such program. There are programs that can take pictures of you and nearly instantly turn it into a pastel painting. If Leonardo Divinci had had a computer, he could have done the Mona Lisa by just taking a picture and scanning it into a computer, add background and shading, and voila!
This brings up a few questions, like what is art in the context of the computer? And how does art change the definition of the computer in that context?
Well, if we look at the differences between the person creating art, and the computer that can create the exact same thing, but in shorter time, it can be said to come down to intention. The painter used this medium and these colors to portray this image to put forth this idea. Couldn't this also be said of the programmer that created the program? The programmer used this code to put forth this series of events that could create this piece of art in digital form, heck, they could even program it to print it out for you. In this case, it could be said that the computer is just another medium that is used to portray peoples ideas, even in artistic form.
This leads to an interesting idea though, do we consider the result of the programming the art? or the programming itself the art? Even as I ask the question it comes to mind that just like the artist has brush stroke and technique, the programmer has thier own type of style, either in what line to use, or even the type of keystroke they exhibit.
Other ideas come to mind, such as does computer graphics cheapen art? After all, while a painter takes hours to create more than one painting in the same genre, a computer could do it in minutes. The programmer would have taken time to create the program, but once created, the computer could spit out multiple images, all significantly different to pre-set degrees. That being said, does time and effort to make each piece make art more valuable in some way? If an artist were to take years to make a piece of art, would it be more valuable than if he were to create it in hours? Could proctrastination and ineptitude make art more impressive? My intuition says no, of course, but if that is the case, then how would computers cheapen art as a medium? Perhaps it is not in effort, but in uniqueness. A computer could re-create the same image time after time, while an artist could create a piece of art, and there would never be one identical to it. Of course, this definetely defines actual financial value for art. Art done by artists that were less prolific are more valuabe than those by more prolific artists, depending on how much of their artistry survived. Does this go for social or interpretive value of art as well? Can the interpretive value of art be determined by earthquakes, revolutions, and fires? Could the same go for computer generated art? Or perhaps even for the programs that created the art? Say a wonderful piece of art was created with a computer, and then the program destroyed along with the artist in a plane crash? Is that piece of art valuable because it could now not be duplicated, at least not easily?
Another question that comes to mind is whether art as done by a computer is closer to "perfection" than a piece of art created by a person? It could be said "Aha! That is what defines true art, the artist cannot create a "perfect" piece of art." Is that it? Is imperfection the true definition of what "art" is? Whose idea of Perfection are we talking here? If the artist found it perfect, then does that make it so? If a programmer digitized the picture and then "corrected" it, making the lines more symmetrical, or relined the faces to be more in accordance with what is considered the "ideal face," does that make the digitized version closer to perfect? Suppose it comes down to what the artist considers the point of the picture. Once it is altered, it can be considered a different piece, and according to what the artist says, closer to perfection or not. But then, in art, everyone is a critic, and everyone thinks they know what perfection is.
In any case, Van Gogh and picasso will still be worth more than a p3d-pipe screensaver, and will probably always be that way. Short conclusion, huh?
So, as I was staring at the ghetto screensaver of the 3D-Pipes, and noticing that even though it was an ancient screensaver, it was still able to create something in fifteen seconds than mere people could do in hours. But then, this is what computers are for, right? In this case, however, it was creating something that could have been considered "artistic" in a way. I have seen something similar in museums, pipes that went in and out of the picture, with foreground and background, but done in pastels and paints. Who knows how long the artist had taken to create such a picture, but this computer, and not even a really good computer by todays standards, could create it in seconds. This is just one such program. There are programs that can take pictures of you and nearly instantly turn it into a pastel painting. If Leonardo Divinci had had a computer, he could have done the Mona Lisa by just taking a picture and scanning it into a computer, add background and shading, and voila!
This brings up a few questions, like what is art in the context of the computer? And how does art change the definition of the computer in that context?
Well, if we look at the differences between the person creating art, and the computer that can create the exact same thing, but in shorter time, it can be said to come down to intention. The painter used this medium and these colors to portray this image to put forth this idea. Couldn't this also be said of the programmer that created the program? The programmer used this code to put forth this series of events that could create this piece of art in digital form, heck, they could even program it to print it out for you. In this case, it could be said that the computer is just another medium that is used to portray peoples ideas, even in artistic form.
This leads to an interesting idea though, do we consider the result of the programming the art? or the programming itself the art? Even as I ask the question it comes to mind that just like the artist has brush stroke and technique, the programmer has thier own type of style, either in what line to use, or even the type of keystroke they exhibit.
Other ideas come to mind, such as does computer graphics cheapen art? After all, while a painter takes hours to create more than one painting in the same genre, a computer could do it in minutes. The programmer would have taken time to create the program, but once created, the computer could spit out multiple images, all significantly different to pre-set degrees. That being said, does time and effort to make each piece make art more valuable in some way? If an artist were to take years to make a piece of art, would it be more valuable than if he were to create it in hours? Could proctrastination and ineptitude make art more impressive? My intuition says no, of course, but if that is the case, then how would computers cheapen art as a medium? Perhaps it is not in effort, but in uniqueness. A computer could re-create the same image time after time, while an artist could create a piece of art, and there would never be one identical to it. Of course, this definetely defines actual financial value for art. Art done by artists that were less prolific are more valuabe than those by more prolific artists, depending on how much of their artistry survived. Does this go for social or interpretive value of art as well? Can the interpretive value of art be determined by earthquakes, revolutions, and fires? Could the same go for computer generated art? Or perhaps even for the programs that created the art? Say a wonderful piece of art was created with a computer, and then the program destroyed along with the artist in a plane crash? Is that piece of art valuable because it could now not be duplicated, at least not easily?
Another question that comes to mind is whether art as done by a computer is closer to "perfection" than a piece of art created by a person? It could be said "Aha! That is what defines true art, the artist cannot create a "perfect" piece of art." Is that it? Is imperfection the true definition of what "art" is? Whose idea of Perfection are we talking here? If the artist found it perfect, then does that make it so? If a programmer digitized the picture and then "corrected" it, making the lines more symmetrical, or relined the faces to be more in accordance with what is considered the "ideal face," does that make the digitized version closer to perfect? Suppose it comes down to what the artist considers the point of the picture. Once it is altered, it can be considered a different piece, and according to what the artist says, closer to perfection or not. But then, in art, everyone is a critic, and everyone thinks they know what perfection is.
In any case, Van Gogh and picasso will still be worth more than a p3d-pipe screensaver, and will probably always be that way. Short conclusion, huh?