|
PART I - Creation or Automation? |
|
I love computers, I really do. The Macintosh has become an invaluable tool for me as an artist. I can paint in ways that are virtually impossible in any other medium. I can emulate certain qualities of a particular medium, while removing other qualities. I can paint with the character of watercolor over heavy impasto. I can choose to blend my strokes like wet oil, or choose not to, with a quick adjustment. I can save work on layers, and choose to remove them later. I can scan a rough sketch, and paint over this drawing in numerous techniques, and produce a piece of art that could not be accomplished by any traditional media.
But, there are times I almost hate the computer. No, I’m not talking about hard drive crashes or corrupted files, although such occurrences could justify outbreaks of rage. I am talking about the term “computer art.” There is something about the use of the term “computer art,” or worse yet, “computer generated art,” that troubles me. This is in part due to several misconceptions about computer art. There is a thinking that the computer plays a far greater part in the actual creation of art than it really does. There are several reasons for this, but two in particular seem to perpetuate this thinking. |
| 1.) People have seen computers create art on television! Well, actually, they think they have seen computers create art on television. And, I have too. I have seen the clips on programs like Entertainment Tonight, where they visit a special effects studio, and the artists demonstrate how an effect was done. One in particular I remember well: a piece on Jurassic Park. The computer operator/artist sits down at the computer, makes a few keystrokes, and proceeds to show footage of a jeep running down a road, with nothing behind it. After a few more keystrokes, there is now a wireframe dinosaur chasing the jeep. Just a few more keystrokes, and the dinosaur is now fully rendered. In less than three minutes we witnessed an artist click a few keys, and create a fully rendered dinosaur. It seems miraculous. Now, I suspect many of you are either laughing or shouting “who is this idiot?” Take a deep breath, it’s okay. No, he did not create and animate a dinosaur in a few minutes. What we were watching was an operator simply opening previously created files. The work we were seeing is the result of many artists working many months to create the few seconds of animated art shown on television. But, many people do mistake such a demonstration of computer graphics for the act of creation. I have had clients want to know why I cannot do their simple job instantly, after all, they have seen people create dinosaurs, spaceships, and Jar Jar Binks in just a few seconds! 2.) Sometimes computers do create art! I am speaking primarily of art generated on desktop systems. There are a number of fractal generation programs, notably the Fractal Generator in Kai’s Power Tools v.1-3, that can generate an infinite number of abstract, beautiful fractal patterns deserving of framing and displaying. “But is it art?” as the cliché goes? Is it art, to simply click through a number of options, and then click on “okay?” My own answer is “it can be.” The hard part is laying down a firm line where one could say “all this over here, is not art, but all this over here is art.” Considerations might include what motivates the artist, and how the choices are made along the way. Does the artist simply keep clicking away randomly, until he or she sees something they like? Even then, is that more or less valid than an artist who carefully studies each option carefully, weighing the consequences of each decision? Whoa, I am getting way too philosophical here! Let’s leave that discussion for the academicians. Though it is a common practice for artists to scroll through the presets, in Fractal Designer, KPTs Texture Explorer, Bryce, and other programs, click “OK” and then say “look what I created,” this does not always get the results I would want. Please do not get me wrong; I love these filters and applications. I am just suggesting that their artistic use may require more than merely approving presets. Subtlety can help greatly in the successful use of these filters as well. A further extrapolation of this thinking, is the applying of filters to images. These images, often are not created by the artist, or even used with permission. There is a lot of work where a photo is scanned in (or loaded off a stock photo CD) and a filter is applied, and magically, we have Art. Again, this is not a dig on filters, or those who use them, but a frustration over the confusion between a creative act, and simply hitting the “make art” button. Most filters indeed have their place, but, like anything creative, should be used with discretion and taste. Scooping buckets of thyme into a cooking pot does not make one a chef. Some art directors actually encourage these practices, I am sorry to say. I have been approached by a few who have handed me a picture torn out of a magazine, and I have been asked to scan this picture into Photoshop, and apply the “watercolor” filter. That is a lovely effect, but where is the creativity? Did they obtain permission to use the original photograph? I’m no lawyer, but I fear I may share some liability of copyright infringement, should I accept such work. If one works in collaboration with the photographer, or obtains permission to use the original photo, that is fine. Issues of creativity are still to be addressed, but at least we are respecting the work of the photographer, which is essential. |
  
A couple of examples of computer generated art. Pretty indeed. |
|
To return to my original concerns, I wish to simply point out that an artist is a creative individual, and should respect the art and craft that a creative title demands. I love the tools, filters and all, that working on a computer affords. When one uses these tools creatively, and many do, then I have little to complain about. Therefore, I also ask of the viewing public, and editors, publishers, art directors, to respect that it is the artist that makes the art, and the computer is but a tool. When was the last time you saw a painter called a “hog bristle artist?” Sure, you have heard them called oil painters, or watercolorists, but I believe you get my point. In Part II, I intend to discuss some specifics, and detail what I believe are ways to use these tools creatively, not in a step-by-step approach, but ways of relating to these digital tools. |
|
|
|
|
