Abstracts

[seeking]

i dont thnk its necessarily 'conservative', i just think its... ive never been able to connect 'emotionally' on any level with some 'multi media' art. its just souless IMO. it can be cool looking, but the only stuff ive ever found interesting at all were the things that relied on gimmicy technology to wow you. they'd be cool to look at for about 2 minutes, then you realize there's just nothing there.

[paintpaint]

maybe not conservative but close minded to say that something needs to be 'real' to have any relevancy.

you could even argue that internet and media based art are the only relevant artforms based on the number of people who use those means to gather information and experience the world.

[paintpaint]

i'm a little more traditional myself

here are some recent paintings

[paintpaint]

[paintpaint]

[Poesia [ ] T]

I like the Work.

 

My meaning of real was based on a context of actuality. Meaning it exists in space other than ones and zeros. I have nothing against digital images, but feel that if ones goal is to paint digital images on the computer and keep them constrained to that medium is pretty unambitious.

 

We can argue and argue the meaning of all things based upon art, like duchamps urinal and the idea of thought as Art. Or the definition of process as a sole purpose of intent. To me these arguments are worthless in a forum like this unless we are actually critquing real work in a real environment, or just writing a book.

 

 

 

We keeps things light in here, not to create too much philosophical debate.

[seeking]

dope, but the patterns are mad distracting.

id rather it be textrued color, than the patters. it makes it difficult for me to even look at the paintings, cause my eyes bounce around inside the circles.

 

 

and i dont believe it's 'closeminded' at all. i think that the computer, and the internet, is a HORRIBLE way of experiencing things. its so detached and unaffected. its a good way to connect on a basic level, get ideas and information, but to think that its at all possible to 'experience' life via the internet is a gross perversion of the word 'experience'. there is no picture, no matter the size, that can convey the feeling of standing on top of a mountain, and abslutely no picture on a 15" screen can even come close. things need to be tactile. they need to be tangible. its just how the senses work. any relatively intelligent person can look at a photo of something and imagine what it would be like to be there, but imagining is never ever the same as being. it cant be.

 

if you have some examples of the interactive fantastic world, by all means, please post them. maybe im misunderstanding your vision. i just cant imagine it as being anything i could find any kinship with.

[paintpaint]

It just seemed to me like there there was some sort of general aversion to the digital work posted in this thread so I thought I would introduce a more positive perspective.

I'm not trying to argue 'the meaning of all things based upon art', I just don't think that any one medium is innately better than another so it seems ridiculous to immediately judge something based on that.

 

and I agree that computers and television are a horrible way to experience life...

whatever

here are some cool games

http://www.balldroppings.com/

http://www.binaryzoo.com/games/mono/index.htm

[Joker]

To a certain extent I agree with Seeking. However, I think that there are interactive sites or what have you that engage you as a viewer into the realm of the site itself. Take Futura's website. In an abstract way it guided you through his "world" and you never saw the same path no matter how many times you visited the site. I don't think I ever saw the same page load in all the times I've been to it. It wasn't life changing, it didn't move me like a Hadid drawing but ti did leave an impression. And the concept was / is certainly abstract.

 

Going to look at studio space next week. Don't think I can afford it but if I could I wouldn't be an artist, would I?

[hogarth]

there is no picture, no matter the size, that can convey the feeling of standing on top of a mountain, and abslutely no picture on a 15" screen can even come close. things need to be tactile. they need to be tangible. its just how the senses work. any relatively intelligent person can look at a photo of something and imagine what it would be like to be there, but imagining is never ever the same as being. it cant be.

 

 

So, wouldn't this argument also apply to film/video/photography?

[serum]

its the difference between latex heads exploding and cg heads exploding.

[Poesia [ ] T]

 

Going to look at studio space next week. Don't think I can afford it but if I could I wouldn't be an artist, would I?

 

If you do, that would inspire me to actually make my studio at my house. I already have 2 mpty rooms and a 3 car garage. I just need to make the time to make one an actual studio space. i have pretty high ceilings also but would have to strip the carpet out and get grimey. Im not the cleanest painter, and i like setting my paint on fire at times to make it dry faster. Very impatient. Maybe the garage would be a better idea.

[Bojangles]

I had a studio space at one time, it was great. Now I'm down to painting at a folding card table in the hours that the woman and kids aren't here. Could be worse I guess.

 

[Bojangles]

[seeking]

hogarth,

 

i was a bit misleading with my 'a photo can never convey a mountain top' or whatever i said...

i wasnt trying to say that nothing can ever convey the emotion of something else, just that there are certain things that can not be replicated in a truly effective way. taking a picture of the grand canyon is not seeing the grand canyon, just as fucking with the liquify function on photoshop is not making art.

 

'art' is (yes i said it) the attempt to convey an emotion, and/or an attempt to recreate nature in a controlled setting. you can do that with film, you can do that with photographs, you can do that wiht painting, and you can do it with digital stuff, however i maintain that it is very difficult to accomplish and extremely limited i think. futuras site worked because it was a maze of images, thoughts and ideas. it was using the limitless expanse of the internet for it's strongest suit. however, find me 5 examples of something as equally interesting, that do not rely on that one factor. i agree that his site is brilliant, but ive yet to come across something else that equalled it.

then again, i only look at 12oz.

 

IMO the sites posted are interesting (for atleast 30 seconds anyway) and i dont devalue their existence as a whole, but as far as 'art' is concerned, they're just hollow to me. art that is facilitated by technology will always be controlled by it. things like that are meaningless and flash in the pan. you draw some lines, some shit happens, you erase it, its done. there is no effort, no commitment, no risk, no reward. i suppose the people coding it are doing something, and theres an art in that, but its the art of science more than the art of....'art'.

 

all of these things are my opinion, and im not saying them to be 'right', im saying them to spark discussion. i want to understand how digital stuff like this can convey emotion, i just dont right now.

[GLIK$]

bojangles and poesia, i would fucking love a canvas from the two of you. no homo

[hogarth]

I'd love to continue discussion, but I agree with you too much to further it without repeating what's already been said.

[SionONE]

what up. please dont die

 

that abstract you had was hott

[Poesia [ ] T]

Found on Google Digital Photo

 

 

This is more of my idea of somthing that I might actually look at as a digital image that i can see as having some weight.

 

 

 

The hardest part about abstract art for me it can be digital or film or photo or painting on a canvas, i can use any of the above. It is the discipline to create something so simple at times with great complexity, in order to build weight and relevance.

[paintpaint]

mobile..

[paintpaint]

[MitchThe$nitch]

 

dope

[El Mamerro]

 

and i dont believe it's 'closeminded' at all. i think that the computer, and the internet, is a HORRIBLE way of experiencing things. its so detached and unaffected. its a good way to connect on a basic level, get ideas and information, but to think that its at all possible to 'experience' life via the internet is a gross perversion of the word 'experience'. there is no picture, no matter the size, that can convey the feeling of standing on top of a mountain, and abslutely no picture on a 15" screen can even come close. things need to be tactile. they need to be tangible. its just how the senses work. any relatively intelligent person can look at a photo of something and imagine what it would be like to be there, but imagining is never ever the same as being. it cant be.

 

 

The fact that computers are still in a (mostly) primitive stage are a HUGE obstacle in the way of digital art. You can't map reality onto a flat screen you interact with by using a mouse and clicking on things. But the way things are shaping up, this isn't gonna be like that forever.

 

Computers and digital technology in general are slowly ratcheting up the level of experience, and it's a tendency that's gonna accelerate significantly in these coming years, probably to the point where it'll be pretty much impossible to differentiate a virtual experience with a real one. Since it is an evolving process, it doesn't make sense to dismiss current digital art completely, and to cut it off entirely because of its failure to live up to the traditional art experience is premature at best.

 

Like you, I don't feel a damn thing when I look at digital graphic art. I look at it with a designer's eye in general and find it impossible to really connect with it in a deeper artistic level. But it shows me that people are picking up these tools and experimenting with them, and even though the end result is almost always uninspiring as finished art, it's exciting to me that people are still pushing through and trying.

 

I don't think I necessarily agree with Poesia's claim that for digital (graphic) art to have some weight it needs to be printed and laid out in a real world, tangible format. That, to me, defeats the point of it even being digital in the first place. I feel digital art is strongest when it accepts and acknowledges the medium in which it exists. Just the fact that on a canvas you're watching light get reflected off pigments, whereas in digital you're seeing colored light emanating from within the medium tells me there should be a fundamental difference in the way graphic art is approached, but since so many people are still concerned with emulating traditional art conventions with their digital tools, it's no surprise to me that they all pretty much fall flat. It's really shortsighted and unambitious to take on a medium as broad and as full of possibilities as digital and just do static images with it. But again, like I said, I'm glad people are out there trying it out and discovering.

 

Last year at Burning Man (sorry to bring Burning Man up again, I'm sure it must be getting annoying) there was a digital piece incorporated into the structure of the Man itself that really made me sit up and take notice. Inside the structure where the Man stands on, there was a number of booths with a variety of interactive experiences that ended in the user making a decision on how he/she felt at the moment: either hopeful, or fearful. The results were tallied up each day and at night the Man would either rise up triumphantly with his arms in the air (hopeful), or slumped down with his arms to the side (fearful), with varying degrees between each end.

 

In essence, it was basically a mood ring for the entire community. It didn't generate in me the kind of feeling a powerful painting or sculpture delivers, but it nevertheless felt strong as hell to me, and it made a lot of sense to me as digital art. This piece managed to cull individual opinions to generate an overall community feeling, and then broadcasted it back for people to reflect upon. You could watch as the community's mood fluctuated as the week went by, how it dropped as the days went by and people got tired, what the effect of the day's weather was on people, how hope rose up again at the end of the week when the burn was approaching. That piece to me was more effective than 90% of canvasses I've ever seen. And it said something that a canvas, sculpture, or photograph will never be able to say. It was digital through and through.

 

The strength of digital isn't that it gives us a cool airbrush tool and perfect gradients to help us create graphic art, but that it takes information, manipulates it, and puts it back out in a new form. It's a very simple mechanic (with complicated internal workings) that allows us to do things we have never been able to do before. Let's not dismiss it so early because there's so much shitty Photoshop art out there, it's just getting started.

[seeking]

im not dismissing the possibility of it one day being relevent, but you cant very well put a piece of coal in a ring and say 'well, one day it might be a diamond'.

 

the burning man thing sounds interesting, but it also sounds more like traditional art, facilitated by computers, than 'digital art'. its taking an idea, using technology to achieve it, and spitting it back out in physical form. the entire thing could have been done by hand, it woud have just taken longer and required a team of people.

 

maybe im just limiting myself in what i chose to view as 'dgital art'. simply using a computer in the process does not making something digital to me.

 

im too high on tussin to articulate things, but im glad you got involved in this mams.

[El Mamerro]

When you're not entirely sure what a diamond looks like, or how coal works, but you DO know that coals turn into diamonds, you're gonna spend a long time putting coals on rings until they look right. It's a matter of learning through trial and error. I have seen really amazing proposals for digital art involving technology that won't be around until 30 years from now. Doesn't mean we should put down our digital tools and wait until then.

 

About the BM piece, I was gonna add an extra paragraph discussing how the whole thing could have been done painstakingly by hand, but I thought the post was long enough as it was.

 

Digital technology is what enabled the results given the resources available. It was a piece where the particular characteristics of the digital format (how it manipulates information) were perfectly aligned with the concept, making digital the "right" medium for the piece. A caveman might have tried (and maybe even succedeed) in painting a rainbow with charcoal, but it doesn't mean that was the right way to do it. Ideas are ideas independent of medium, and in the end, it's the idea that matters most. What I am saying is that just because an idea is narrowminded enough to strive to merely produce a static digital image, doesn't mean the medium is inherently limited.

[seeking]

i dont disagree with that, i just wouldnt classify something like that, or anything similar as 'digital art'. it might utilize computers and digital technology to facilitate it, but it's used to create a physical manifestation. that's much different than the rave flyer graphics that sparked this debate.

 

i recently came across a lamp on the internet. it had a panel on it that you'd touch, and it would begin pulsing its light in time with your heart rate. obviously technology was controling the effect, but i wouldnt call that 'digital art'. maybe its just the way i look at it though.

[Bojangles]

"In a recent article, PhysOrg.com reports that a team of computer scientists at Brown University has developed 'Drawing on Air', a haptic-aided interface to help artists to create 3D illustrations while wearing a virtual reality mask. 'The technique introduces two new strategies, using one hand or two hands, to give artists the tools they need for drawing different types of curves, and for viewing and editing their work.' The researchers hope that these techniques will improve the precision with which scientists can interact with their 3D data using a computer. This also would help artists to illustrate complicated artistic, scientific, and medical subjects."

[El Mamerro]

The thing about digital is that it's kind of hard to pin down as a specific medium, since digital work could cover everything from graphics to sound to interaction, etc. I tend to classify digital work as that which uses a computer to perform the bulk or core of the process; I'm not particularly looking at the end result as a means to classify art as digital. Printing out a digital image and displaying that as the end result doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the piece being digital or not, even though the final piece could be considered more of a "physical manifestation" than an image displayed on a screen.

 

I guess multimedia would be the best way to describe stuff like this (and that lamp you mentioned), but I've never been a fan of that term.

[seeking]

when i think of 'multi media' i think of monitors playing tape loops and stupid sound effects and shit. basically, real self indulgent bullshit.

 

for sake of my arguments here, im considering 'digital art' to be something that is created, maintained and displayed on a computer or other similar monitoring device. maybe that's a pretty narrow view, but its also semantical (is that even a word?) and allows me to judge a whole lot more stuff without fear of tainting it with the preconceived notion of it being 'digital'.

 

i feel like im saying the same things over and over. i apologize if that is the case. i like this thread. and tussin. whoop whoop.

[Poesia [ ] T]

I think our argument within this thread might be compromised at least for my view, and maybe seeking’s as digital images like seeking said that are displayed upon a screen.

 

What sparked the conversation were the images in this thread, and those like them in general. Having said that and classifying them as within that context, I still stand behind my former arguments.

 

I am not naive to think that the computer and new forms of the computer will not shape the way we see the world, including art. Installations today and for the last 2 decades have already seen this. To me this is a natural evolution and paradigm shift that will occur in our lifetime. But does that mean that a digital image made in Photoshop could have the same relationship with the viewer as an actual painting. Not yet, but if the artist could take his image further, be it print, video still, projector there are countless ways to have a digital image interact with a person. He should, not take the easy way out and just create for the progression of the digital image and leave it at that. This is a waste in terms of progress.

 

We have seen someone create an image; lets see what they can do with it and how they can transform it into our reality. When I was younger I used to enjoy the work of Dave Mckean illustrator for most of the Sandman covers, he is a perfect example of someone who used the digital image and traditional means of painting and sculpture to create a actual object that interacts with the viewer. His work is not considered non-objectionable abstract but abstract in the same means as futura’s website. It created a different perspective to view a similar medium.

 

That’s all I’m asking for create a new perspective in which to view your digital image. The screen is a easy way out. Step up your game and create out of the box ideas, to further your cause.