Today, a few minutes after I had taken the photo below, I ran into a fella from the local photo club (who is a great guy). I told him about how I am making art, drawings on the computer, on a special screen you can draw on (Wacom Cintiq). Jeff, who was out photographing with a thirty-five year old camera (Minolta SRT 101), told me that this was "cheating". :) And he wasn't kidding. For some reason he regards the feel of the paper to be essential to art. Well, like Scott McCloud points out, if you remove the text or picture from the paper, all you have left is dead trees.
I pointed out to him that when photography was invented, landscape photographers thought that *it* was "cheating"!
7 comments:
... if you remove the text or picture from the paper, all you have left is dead trees.
Actually, I've occasionally come across such magnificient looking hand made paper that I couldn't even think of making any marks on it. To me the paper itself was a great piece of art. :-)
Jeff, who was out photographing with a thirty-five year old camera (Minolta SRT 101), told me that this was "cheating". :)
I don't think you can really cheat in art. But you can certainly fool yourself into thinking that you are creating something significant when mimicking traditional techniques using the computer. Given this, I find the computer even more demanding as a medium for art than, say, a Minolta. :-)
I like Eolake's works, and don't see any sign of falling into the above mentioned trap in them. I look forward to seeing many more.
If anyone is interested, I have published three pieces of digital art here.
Well that's an old question isn't it? And still we have some trouble with it sometimes.
Born in the digital generation (I'm 20), I used to think that it's just the way things are, and digital art could not be seen as a substitute to the physical art, but as a complement. But then:
I don't know if you see much 'animes' (japanese animation), but they're usually made frame by frame, each draw at a time. Now, in a particular anime, there's a 3D camera turn scene, made frame by frame! It's kind of a famous scene between us anime fans.
Now the problem: About two months ago, my friend who's studying 3D animation, found out a way to render the 3D animation to look exatly like anime. Isn't that cheating?
I understand the feeling, sure.
But we have to ask: admiring the way something is done because it is difficult, is that really terribly pertinent to the value of art?
Art is about communication, not about accomplishment. There is nothing wrong with effectiveness as long as you have something interesting to say. The Eiffel Tower is a great piece of art but so is John Cage's 4′33″.
is what "cheating" can be art?
if it is only difficult to do, this is only handcraft performance and this is not art.
Art requires the meeting between the creator and the consumers on emotion or concept.
but for someones, digital art is too virtual and seems like printed reproduction of painting versus the original work.
In the same way some pictures are sublimated on baryte paper print
I understand if people appreciate the haptic experience that comes with a photograph. After all, paper-making and -coating is an art in and by itself.
(I surely hope they don't cheat by using industrially made, or even coated, paper, or even, god forbid, RC "paper" which is not paper at all!)
But seriously, where does "cheating" start - is using multigrade paper cheating? Burning and dodging? Cropping? Filters? Using a meter? Autofocus? A tripod? Flash, reflectors or lights? Movements? Arranging scenes?
Whatever the answer is, it's just their personal taste and doesn't have to mean anything to anyone else.
The dictionary definition of "cheating" refers to deception so as long as you don't try to sell what you do for something else the term just doesn't apply.
So true
Cheers
Malcolm
The Minch
Post a Comment