Graphic Artists As Fine Artists Online

Interesting but fine art - I am not inclined to think so. However, the site is creative and make good use of computer tools available. In my opinion the subject matter lacks personality and warmth and is a manipulation that can be altered by the user.

Perhaps this work fall into the category of fine computer graphics but not the tradition of arts I think of as fine.

Thanks for your comment Joanne! I am very aware that folks have their own concept of what they would consider "fine art". I think mine is perhaps far more broad than many. When an artist or viewer confronts use of technology, there are often many disagreements based on the use of technology.

In most universities that have an Industrial Arts department and an Art department, students must select between courses in Computer Graphic arts. The orientations are very different to the subject at hand. In the university I attended, I would have to take classes in both departments in order to feel fully educated as a professional.

In general the Industrial Arts lean toward practical applications for printing and production. The Art department usually includes Computer Graphic arts because so many artists are defining new forms of art these days that could not be anticipated from past art methodology. Often new art forms incorporate a wide range of media, methods and production or publication.

I can look at many a site and computer graphic art works and see which ones have a bias in one or the other. I'll bet when Andy Warhol began to experiment it confounded many in the art world as well as the commercial artists. Marshall Mc Lhlan site quote:



Marshal Mc Luhan and the Senses is a fascinating site, part of the ginko press:

Marshall Mc Luhan and the Senses

This Ginko PRess publication has an interest work by a "design collective" called the Tomato Project:

Tomato Project

geesh the hole art thing can strikes a nerve for me

Hi Husker! Would you care to explain what you meant? I'm interested!

Someone should dig up Beedle's stuff. His work is certainly art!

Well, I see art in the development of the work on this link. Whether it is fine art, I don't know. I don't actually care, right this minute anyway. I gather that graphics and photography weren't considered fine art early on because of their reproduceability, and that much photography is now considered fine art. Then came digital photography and I suppose there are arguments about those photos. I also happen to like design and think much of it is artful. Design isn't always commercial or reproduced, it can be quite personal.

Reproduceability by computer or otherwise, that seems to be a criterion, which has implications for monetary value of a given piece.

Well, I think pieces have value besides the monetary, so that is one qualm.
but still I suppose reproduceability is considered a negative quality...that a piece is not unique.

On artfulness, that is subjective.

On whether something is purely commercial, some 'fine' art is made to pay the rent, perhaps quite cynically, but in general fine art is not made to sell something. But that criterion doesn't seem to apply here.

Certainly there are blendings at the borderline...one of my present favorite artists does a monoprint base and then adds collage and paint to the work - mixed media. I think of monoprints as fine art and unique but many people might not. There may be a multiply used base drawing.

People may notice that I post topics about Goya and Manet and put my taste in a certain box...but I think the work of certain conceptual architects is art, and think installation artists who play with light are fine artists (even an installation artist who works with goldfish and people, although I might not like the piece) and I have room to hear that some art made on a computer could be fine art.