Art or not Art: Do the Tools Matter?

I am sharing an interesting discussion thread that appeared on the Painter email list. The posts, some slightly edited, are shown in chronological order. They were posted May, 2000.

Mike wrote:

It's hard to explain, but I don't really feel comfortable scanning traditional drawings into the computer and then manipulating them. It seems...wrong somehow.

Tim wrote:

I get so much flak from everyone in the Fine Art department at the university I attend because much of what I do is digital or a mixture of digital and scanned/photographed traditional work. They all think it's 'push button' art and requires no talent simply because I use a computer as a tool...or one of many tools.

You would think we've progressed but it's all the same thing as the French Academy in the 19th century thumbing its nose at painters leaving brush strokes in their paintings. What's the world coming to anyhow?

It's all the end result. Is it not? Does the image work or doesn't it? Good composition? Good use of value? Color? A message perhaps?

Now we even get flack from photographers who have struggled for decades for recognition as 'real' artists. Even now as they finally get a little respect from the public because of the hard work of artists like Ansel Adams, I hear rumblings about 'cheating' with photoshop. Cropping images? Removing a flaw? Enhancing a photograph with digital tools, sheer blasphemy!

Do the tools we use really matter as to whether the work is considered 'ART' or not? ...or is it the substance of the work itself? Something to think about.

Happy Painting,

Tim

Beatrix wrote:

It was so interesting reading about Art or not Art. My whole professional life I was embroiled in the problem of Art vs Craft (because of my medium, leather) Now I am trying to do work on the computer and are getting the same flak. What is the solution?

Tom wrote:

I would tend to heed Tim's words:

Do the tools we use really matter as to whether the work is considered 'ART' or not? ...or is it the substance of the work itself?

A computer is just another tool (albeit an expensive, high-maintenance tool) which a creative artist uses to express themselves. It's just a relatively new tool, so the same old dilemmas and arguments about 'true art' arise as they have done with each advancement throughout the history of modern man and art.

Photography was a huge leap forward and took a while to be accepted as a valid artistic tool, and the same goes for computer/digital art. The capability to share ideas (good & bad) and to steal ideas (good & bad) around the planet has become virtually instantaneous, thanks to the internet. And with the internet giving instant and almost unlimited access to people's ideas around the world, the advancements can only advance exponentially.

That's what makes me nervous about the Net-Painter feature --- several artists around the globe can create a single image --- so is there legal precedent as to who owns the copyright? If one Net-Painter does 75% and another does 25% of a work of art which sells for $100,000 ... yet no written agreement was pre-arranged ... well, you get the idea.

- Tom

Kay wrote:

Hi,

I think it also has to do with the stage the work is finally considered done. I know some digital artists that rarely finish their paintings-- They just keep everything saved in Layers. ;D

I think this "push button" attitude mentioned in Tim's post, (VERY common, not just heard in Fine Art school) is the outcome of the past decade of too many DPI 'technicians' broadcasting to the public all the stages they go through before reaching a final image. One really good example: When a film Studio produces one of those 'behind the scenes' effects shows giving away all the CGI illusions in a new film before it even opens to a public theater. It just spoils the REAL artwork--the Feature Film! In that Digital Artist trade... with having so many 'technically-based' rather than artistically-trained people -there has been a major over-exposure of all the machine tools involved in this Industry. The outcome is, this has really cheapened ($) the public's appreciation of what it takes for an artist to create really great digital/film art.

On the other hand, In the Stage Magicians trade societies, or even in some of the traditional painting groups, such as the Scenic Artist Union, they are not allowed to show off their trade methods. These groups hold a 'Tradesman's Oath' --to never EVER reveal the processes about creating visual illusion. They know, that when just one member shows HOW an effect is created--it totally devalues the public attitude about their craft in whole.

When I was in college, Tim, I was told by one of my Scenic Professors, that being a Painter, and working in visual illusion and perspective, is a "Magician's Art". So this would hold true for Digital Painting also! So whenever you get out of school, (and hopefully are still using your digital tools) here are a few ways to gain greater value and respect for your chosen medium:

1. You don't have to explain to customers 'how' you created the image.
2. You don't need to list all the equipment and software used for the image.
3. Always quote price for finished artwork. Don't charge by hourly rates.

Hopefully, you get the idea. Every time I have seen a CGI 'Technician' explain every step of their process to someone (not in the trade) - like bragging about 'how much time it took to render', I have noticed this only devalues using digital tools for fine art. Makes it all become too machine-oriented. Don't do it!

Besides, most good Clients that PAY for Digital works really don't want to know all that geek babble about dpi, pixels, and what software is used. So, it is really good that you intuitively realize this already.... All of that technical focus, is NOT what good composition, the 'Art' is really all about.

Yours, Kay

Another posting, dated July 2001, on the Digital-Fineart list, also deals eloquently with this topic. The thread was 'What does digital art do?'.

I come from a family of painters and respect tradition immensely. I grew up in a house full of the smell of linseed oil and oil paints. I use a computer to manipulate images. It is a tool. No more, no less. I agonize just as much over one image in the digital darkroom as I did in the past in a conventional one. By helping me relate quicker, the computer does not make my decisions have any less artistic impact. I don't look to create speedy "complex variations" as you insinuate, I invent an image from the ground up based on an idea that tells the story I want to tell. Any good artist does this. It's storytelling... whether by computer, photo emulsion, painting on canvas or chiseling marble. I'm chiseling pixels. It's another way. No big thing. If you understood how much I've had to learn over the last 10 years to reach my current level of computer proficiency, you might not be so eager to demean my process. But you don't understand. Clearly. You need a deep comprehension of computers to make art that transcends. But it's the same for any process. Every artist tries to develop a unique style. No news there. Computers don't impede the development of style. It takes life experience and hard work to find your creative voice and speak it confidently enough for others to hear. Digital art is mature now. I've seen hundreds of examples of it... great photographers, painters and designers working at the top of their game, all using computers. Brilliant stuff. That it is not hanging in more galleries is because of these soggy old entrenched value systems. That's changing. Forums like this are a reflection of that change. The fact that there are still people questioning the viability of computer use in art is so ludicrous to me, it's laughable. Digital art is here. If the work is good and happens to have been created digitally, it is art like any other. Get over it.

There isn't much if anything that the computer can do that can't be done without one, given enought time. The main difference between digital art and the rest is speed and automation. What it does, that no other tool can do is create complex variations in the blink of an eye. The result is a glut of digital art that is decorative or entertaining but of little lasting value. To make digital art different, I think that the artist must develop a unique style, like any other top artist or musician -- a style which immediately identifies that artist. The style can include elements that can only be duplicated in other media so slowly that it won't be done. The various digital styles may then come to have a family resemblance, classified as "digital." Or it may not, since we can also create clones of some of the other media if we constrain ourselves from all the speedy manipulation tools at our disposal. Keep asking the question. Over the years both the question and the answers will change as digital art evolves, and maybe even matures.

-- Alan