PDA

View Full Version : art>digital>art?



cresshead
10-18-2009, 06:57 AM
art>digital>art? :hey:

jus throwing this out there...so how many of you have made a large print of your 3d work and hung it up as a peice of art?
either at home/work or in a art gallery?
and if so what's been the feedback from traditional artists, galleries and the general public?

i'm thinking of doing a few large format prints from some lightwave, vue and max scenes as well as a few zbrush sculpts.

shrox
10-18-2009, 08:35 AM
art>digital>art? :hey:

jus throwing this out there...so how many of you have made a large print of your 3d work and hung it up as a peice of art?
either at home/work or in a art gallery?
and if so what's been the feedback from traditional artists, galleries and the general public?

i'm thinking of doing a few large format prints from some lightwave, vue and max scenes as well as a few zbrush sculpts.

Everyone likes mine, except galleries! Most just don't seem to get that it can be "real art", even today they still think of anything digital as just a photo that has been photoshopped. Of course they do display crappy collages that often have pics ripped out of a magazine!

Of course when you blow it up to print, all the mistakes suddenly jump out and you can't believe you missed those, I had one printed three times before I caught everything. Usually some artifact that can be photoshopped.

One coffeeshop did display my space works and my one "political" piece, they got a great response. Compared to the kindergarten looking scrawls many try to pass off as art, the public accepted it as art. Stupid snooty galleries!

gerry_g
10-18-2009, 10:05 AM
well just maybe those 'kindergarten looking scrawls' are Arts way of differentiating it's self in the modern world from the onslaught of the photographic image now compounded by 3D and Photoshop trickery. Something the French Impressionists realized way back, their style of painting was a deliberate attempt to capture what the camera couldn't, in order to compete with it and thus avoid being marginalized by it's invention.
But yes there is a serious issue here in that most people see 3D as something the computer does and the operator is merely the person who presses the buttons, bit then again why would you seek this antiquated validation of you work only being art if you can hang it on the wall and have it perceived as such

Glendalough
10-18-2009, 10:26 AM
well just maybe those 'kindergarten looking scrawls' are Arts way of differentiating it's self in the modern world from the onslaught of the photographic image now compounded by 3D and Photoshop trickery. Something the French Impressionists realized way back, their style of painting was a deliberate attempt to capture what the camera couldn't, in order to compete with it and thus avoid being marginalized by it's invention...

Afraid I would agree with this. Many people in 3D seem to assume that the camera's vision is reality (as opposed the lens in our eyes), this is particularly irritating with the engineers who design rendering engines (makes the job simpler for them).

Also selling printouts becomes very problematical as the design or illustration is the art and the print is just a medium.

shrox
10-18-2009, 12:48 PM
well just maybe those 'kindergarten looking scrawls' are Arts way of differentiating it's self in the modern world from the onslaught of the photographic image now compounded by 3D and Photoshop trickery. Something the French Impressionists realized way back, their style of painting was a deliberate attempt to capture what the camera couldn't, in order to compete with it and thus avoid being marginalized by it's invention.
But yes there is a serious issue here in that most people see 3D as something the computer does and the operator is merely the person who presses the buttons, bit then again why would you seek this antiquated validation of you work only being art if you can hang it on the wall and have it perceived as such

I am a true artist, long before available computers came along. Crappy scrawls of a cat, (only know it's a cat because the placard said so...) is not a very talent oriented display.

Here is a piece of "wallpaper" art made by me. I did it a few years ago after a discussion about art. I did it in less than 10 minutes.
http://www.shrox.com/Listen001.jpg
Other than the colors, I don't think it's particularly special, but some people gushed over it. They certainly saw more in it than was there. Whatever, no one wanted to buy it!

crashnburn
10-18-2009, 02:18 PM
I think there's a switch between illustrator and artist. When I create the model of a house for a visualisation then I consider that to be more illustration, even closer to technical drawing. But the actual positioning of the camera, lighting the scene. That's where the art comes into that situation.

When the model is created from scratch, from my own imagination, then the art starts right their.

People tend to pooh pooh what ever they don't understand and I think there's a certain snob culture in the art galleries. I have a friend that's a wildlife painter who would agree with that.

They just take a while to catch up lol :-D

Great image Shrox. Looks like art to me.

Ernest
10-18-2009, 06:00 PM
Everyone likes mine, except galleries! Most just don't seem to get that it can be "real art", even today they still think of anything digital as just a photo that has been photoshopped.And they are quite right! Maybe not artistically speaking but definitely from a business perspective.

If they promote a digital work as the greatest piece of art in the decade, what would prevent the creator from hitting "Print" 10 more times to avoid their sometimes-exorbitant shares. Unlike traditional art pieces, the art in digital art is not in the prints.

With traditional art, they know that they have an irreproducible original in their possession and that is an invaluable economic guarantee for them.

Why would they promote the development of an artform that does not provide the same economic guarantee?

cresshead
10-18-2009, 06:21 PM
art=money=value=1 origional version only=not mass producable=only for those who can afford it= 'for the rich'=not for the poor.

correct?
okay...so what about>>

andy warhol prints?

an unmade bed?
a pile of bricks?
a few used car tyres aranged in a shape?
a canvas painted white?
a cow chainsawed in half and droppped into 2 tanks of chemicals to keep it from degrading?
a crack painted on the floor...
an action painting made by monkeys....

most if not all could be reproduced and they mainly use mass produced item to make them...

art>>?
http://www.dreamstime.com/pile-of-money-thumb27156.jpg


Hmm not so sure now?

is art really just defined by how much you can buy/sell if for?
whatever happened to a really nice picture or sculpture?..
if it's FREE does that mean it's not art?
if you can have your own personal copy without breaking the bank does that mean it's not art?

cresshead
10-18-2009, 06:40 PM
just havin a read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

shrox
10-18-2009, 07:03 PM
okay...so what about>>

andy warhol prints?

an unmade bed?
a pile of bricks?
a few used car tyres aranged in a shape?
a canvas painted white?
a cow chainsawed in half and droppped into 2 tanks of chemicals to keep it from degrading?
a crack painted on the floor...
an action painting made by monkeys....



Sounds like the makings of a Monty Python sketch.

crashnburn
10-19-2009, 09:35 AM
I don't see how something has to have a money value to be considered art. I have never seen anything thats states that the more valuable a piece of art the better it is. Art is subjective and only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Just as there are people who buy art because they like it, there are also those who just buy it to earn a profit. So just because a Gallery can't be guaranteed a good investment doesn't mean it's not art.

cresshead
10-19-2009, 02:55 PM
Sounds like the makings of a Monty Python sketch.

that list is basically the TATE modern gallery in london....sounds more like a brik er brack jumble sale and a bit of road kill more than 'ART' to me.:D