24
   

Is technology killing art?

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 10:54 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I think Las Meninas was the first painting that fits your description and it was painted about 200 years before the camera showed up.


Las Meninas is not even remotely impressionist. It is a pentultimate example of the craft as painting existed prior to impressionism.
Impressionist work is about something entirely different.
I can see how some impressionist work could be mistaken as the same style, but the intent is really much different.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 11:10 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

here's the deal, you "get" your art and me and tsar and everybody else will get ours


No need to feel insulted... Perhaps there is much that I don't get in art... The fact that much art is imitable and worthy of imitation in one sense at least is what makes it art.... But art for the masses, no matter how popular or common is the litter of landfills everywhere... So make it easy; and mass produce it, and what will be found in the long run is that technology has little to do with art, for if it give mankind meaning it will touch us always, and if it demeans us, then there will be no market for it... And it is because so many have been demeaned that there is more artist and art than market because people are demeaned so they can be robbed of their rights without protest, but even among these there are those who will assert themselves therough art of crime, for fame or infamy, caring often not which...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 11:37 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

What qualifies you to make that judgement? When was the last time you actually went to a museum or gallery or taken an art history course?

The last time I went to Chicago with my family I went to their museum, the Art Institute... I have been to Detroit's, and loved it, and should go again since it is close... I have also been, if I have not forgotten any, to the Gugganheim, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Metropolitan in NYC; but in these towns I have also been to their natural history museums where the cultural art of primitives is clearly shown...

When going to MSU, which I never finished, I waved my humanities, and the two courses of that each had books on art history... I passed each course with a 3.5... I could have bought the grades when they were cheap, but when credits were cheap I was poor... But when I was going I was an English major, and history was a secondary interest, and much of that has changed...

Everything has changed; but I still love art... It is wrong to think that any art can be taken out of the context of its time.... And it is also wrong to think art will have much more value in a later day than today... What causes anyone to value anything is the price they pay for it, and isn't it only natural that for what a person pays nothing -they value not at all???...What helps the true artists of our time to survive is mass production and consumption, as in the movies... And there, the artistic vision has to be merged, clouded, disguised; and made a joint effort, and an assembly line product...

Pornography has robbed the human body of its meaning, and we cannot escape the effect that we are simply objects going through the motions and painting on the emotions of our lives as money demands... What is sacred??? Where is Virtue??? What is fine and beautiful and great in humanity... To assert our meaning is to deny the currents of two thousand years of human history, first -that which said only God had meaning, and then, that saying only money had meaning... Art is still subject, and great art must have a great subject...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 11:45 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

Las Meninas is not even remotely impressionist. It is a pentultimate example of the craft as painting existed prior to impressionism.
Impressionist work is about something entirely different.
I can see how some impressionist work could be mistaken as the same style, but the intent is really much different.


What was the final example that came after Las Meninas?
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 11:57 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

boomerang wrote:

I think Las Meninas was the first painting that fits your description and it was painted about 200 years before the camera showed up.


Las Meninas is not even remotely impressionist. It is a pentultimate example of the craft as painting existed prior to impressionism.
Impressionist work is about something entirely different.
I can see how some impressionist work could be mistaken as the same style, but the intent is really much different.
I do not believe that is what she was saying; but something more of the interplay of light and shadow... The guy was a good artist, and I saw one of his Phillips at the Convento in San Juan... You have to love that hapsburg chin...

I Don't guess boomer gets my point either, because in no sense could Las Meninas be considered in the same vein as impressionistic... The Artist was presenting the thing and not the impression of it... It was a photograph arranged with a mirror to include himself before photography... In the Met in New York there is a picture of a sailor of a small boat readying the boat for the sea, but his boat looks like no boat, and his arm looks like no arm and the see behind him looks like no sea, and yet all together they look natural enough... Realism is inessential... Look at Van Gogh of which I have seen many... The paint is thick and often stirred to confusion and cut with a stick, but whether one is close or far the painting has a vibrancy, a vitality of a person who clearly knew the scene before him, and what he wished to express with his art... And I would not call Van Gogh impressionistic either... He was not so bourgeois... More working class, for a protestant...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:02 pm
@Fido,
...and just where does Technology implies "realism" have you ever used photoshop ?
(of course there is good and bad work with it, but that is an entirely different issue )
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:03 pm
@wayne,
I didn't say Las Meninas was impressionist. I said it fit Fido's description.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:05 pm
@boomerang,
who´s that kiddo in the photo ? it certainly causes an impression ! Wink
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:08 pm
@Cyracuz,
You may be placing too much emphasis on craftsmanship.

I had a friend in High School who was a guitar savant. He could duplicate, down to the smallest detail, the style of any guitarist performing at the time. It was amazing, and as you can imagine he was very highly regarded within the local music scene.

The problem was he had no style of his own and could only mimic the styles of other guitarists. He also never wrote any of his own music.

I don't know if anyone in the world was a better guitar technican, and I would have loved to have had his talent, but I never considered him an artist.

I don't know why it would be necessary to photoshop an image of a painting to make it look just like the painting, so I'm assuming that the "artist" you referenced made some changes to the original. (E.g. seamlessly replacing Mona Lisa's face with that of a gorilla's)

Of course the nature of the changes would determine the artistic quality of the image, but that quality need not be zero simply because the "artist" didn't spend as much time and skill on his version as did the original artist.

I can imagine that an altered image might actually be more artistic than an original, but I think that would be very rare and require the original to have little artistic value to begin with, so I suspect I would agree with you that the both works probably don't deserve the same "status as art."

The price charged for either piece represents their commercial, not artistic value.

As far as music goes, there probably is something to the notion that laboring to learn how to expertly play actual instruments may enhance one's artistic talent. In terms of the art of composing music, however, I don't think it is at all necessary, or ensures a piece of music with greater artistic value than one composed using a computer.

I think art is what you make and not how you make it.

There is every reason to value craftsmanship for its own sake and usually, at its highest levels it produces art, but as my HS friend showed, not necessarily.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
sorry to interrupt but photoshop does not imply using someone else´s photos...its just another layer...someone who is talented to work with it, not just pushing buttons with it, might probably just as well be a nice photographer...its all about having an empathy with images and their contextual ability to "transport" meaning !

And just why is a photo of a painting less important then a painting ?
...or a re-work from an original less valuable ? false conservative assumption that is...
...how often "second handed " works beat the originals ? quite often I would recon !
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't think we are in much disagreement.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I guess not ! Wink
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 12:48 pm
I think art is the idea, the kernal, some people can think it up and others copy. I've sung for years, but it wasn't till my thirties I had my own voice or style.
I take pictures and I paint. Do I consider myself and artist, sadly no, but I am artistic, painfully so. Wink
Regardless of the medium, it does take time to learn to use the materials. For example, Paul Mcartney can't read a note of music, but he has written works for orchestras, does that mean he's any less talented or the works he's created any less impressive because he used a computer program?
Finn, I would consider your friend an artist. Interpretation of music and playing it well is a skill that so few people can do.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 01:07 pm
@Ceili,
He didn't interpret it, he mimicked it.

He didn't play all sorts of non-Hendrix songs in a Jimi Hendrix style, or play Hendrix songs in the style of Jimmy Page...he played Jimi Hendrix songs exactly they way they were recorded.

He was incredibly skilled, but not the least bit creative.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 01:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Some people are of the mindset that music is set in stone. I believe it's more fluid, so he was a technician, talented for sure. Have you seen him play more recently, he may have jumped into the more creative sphere later on, once he trusted himself or allowed himself to let go.
Just as an aside, in classical music, musicians often do not stray from what's written on the page, technical perfection is what's desired.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 01:22 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
...did he ever tried ? I mean to be creative ?
probably he was to young and in need of a push forward !
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 01:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
No - no interest.

Maybe he does now. I haven't seen or heard from him in at least 25 years.

He was incredibly gifted, but when I knew him he wasn't an artist.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 03:47 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Anyway, technology is just one more tool, or many more tools
Everything Ive seen so far from photoshop has been pretty lame and based upon a core photo. Sampling and adding additional elements makes it a high tech collage . Ive seen some fairly good Paintshop creations that took photos totally out of axial space and played with them and rejuxtaposed everything into a new base of reference. This is ok but as was said, the delicacy of an Impressionist piece (or Calif Impressionist or Connecticut Impressionism) can (up and including today) only be accomplished by craftsmanship and creativity meld together.

Creativity without any craftsmanship is easily seen through .

I use photos for placing and composing my own work. I also use xerox, and digital projectors. I will often produce a work that I want to be shown only as a giclee because the feel that I can only get with a giclee is what Im seeking. Look at Warhols silk screens. IN most cases he had nothing to do with the end product .He let that in hands of a colleague screener and he got what he wanted.

Yep, just another tool.
I remember Hockneys book about the "Camera Obscura" and was that "real;ly" art? Yes it was. It was atool to short cut the drawing and composition process so that the subject could be placed in any number of poses. Whats the diff?

I am an accomplished draftsman but I have used photo and projector gimmicks for years now. Once I draw a cylinder I dont need to practice onl cylinders , I can achieve "cylinerness" with several projections. In fact, Ive made my own horizonatl cylindar perspective doohicky in which I trace my subjects (when they are cylinders.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:15 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The kid in the photo is my son. It was taken on the day he lost his first two teeth so he was showing off.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:27 pm
@boomerang,
He looks like a smart very lively kiddo...and the photo cosy and natural...job well done in getting the moment! Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/11/2019 at 06:07:37