Art vs technology

[VioletVortex]

The other day, I was reading about Paganism and coming across some 19th century black and white paintings from the resurgence of Paganism in art that occured around that time. What amazed me was how accurate, detailed, atmospheric, and beautiful these paintings were. Rarely, if ever do you see anything like that in modern times.

I pondered this for a while, and I realized that this is because of technological advancement. Technology is killing art. We can just take picture, why even bother drawing? This skill is being lost. The same goes for music. Why bother playing real instruments when you can just synthesize a bunch of **** on a computer?

What do you think the role of technology in relation to art is?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think the idea that traditional medium doesn't have technological graduation is silly. Saying that computers are the end of art is no different than saying that commercially processed pigments and synthetic paintbrush hairs (as opposed to scavenged pigments and organic hair) are the end of art.
But, as a digital artist, I might be a bit biased in the discussion.

This is a 100% digital sculpture. With the same sort of lighting, spacial, color, balance, anatomy, contrast et all skills that artists using traditional medium would use.
Here is the same high poly model without any color or texturing information: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=543904

 

[VioletVortex]

I think the idea that traditional medium doesn't have technological graduation is silly. Saying that computers are the end of art is no different than saying that commercially processed pigments and synthetic paintbrush hairs (as opposed to scavenged pigments and organic hair) are the end of art.
But, as a digital artist, I might be a bit biased in the discussion.

This is a 100% digital sculpture. With the same sort of lighting, spacial, color, balance, anatomy, contrast et all skills that artists using traditional medium would use.
Here is the same high poly model without any color or texturing information: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=543904

That painting is quite good, but I feel that "analog art" has more spirit to it, a rustic nature that can't be replicated by computers.

I am an analog musician who uses digital recording software, and honestly, I think it sounds like **** when compared to tape recording.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The other day, I was reading about Paganism and coming across some 19th century black and white paintings from the resurgence of Paganism in art that occured around that time. What amazed me was how accurate, detailed, atmospheric, and beautiful these paintings were. Rarely, if ever do you see anything like that in modern times.

I pondered this for a while, and I realized that this is because of technological advancement. Technology is killing art. We can just take picture, why even bother drawing? This skill is being lost. The same goes for music. Why bother playing real instruments when you can just synthesize a bunch of **** on a computer?

What do you think the role of technology in relation to art is?

could you provide links or the names of the artists?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That painting is quite good, but I feel that "analog art" has more spirit to it, a rustic nature that can't be replicated by computers.

I am an analog musician who uses digital recording software, and honestly, I think it sounds like **** when compared to tape recording.

Most people like what they're familiar with. A generation ahead of you would probably say tape recordings sound like crap compared to records. And I've even held demos of digital art which uses brush techniques that people cannot distinguish from actual canvas paintings. So I feel like it's just another tool, and the quality comes from how you use it. And stylistic value mileage may vary. And I would never presume to say that just because someone uses a computer means that what they create with it is easier, or doesn't utilize a ton of skill.

Consider this painting:

That isn't a digital painting. It's an oil painting. Did your mind change about how 'rustic' and 'spirited' it felt after I told you what medium it is?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm a photographer, and have recently been thinking about the difference between using photoshop and using the array filters, papers and emulsions, films, chemistry, dodging and burning tools, enlarger settings, etc., that I learned the craft on lo these many millennia ago.

I'm pretty certain that art still survives the advance of technology, because I get the effect I SEE, or very close to it, often with very few modifications of the digital originals. More often than I did with film and paper and whatnot and long hours in the darkroom.

 

[Mindmaster]

The other day, I was reading about Paganism and coming across some 19th century black and white paintings from the resurgence of Paganism in art that occured around that time. What amazed me was how accurate, detailed, atmospheric, and beautiful these paintings were. Rarely, if ever do you see anything like that in modern times.

I pondered this for a while, and I realized that this is because of technological advancement. Technology is killing art. We can just take picture, why even bother drawing? This skill is being lost. The same goes for music. Why bother playing real instruments when you can just synthesize a bunch of **** on a computer?

What do you think the role of technology in relation to art is?

Art is killing art, as there is no accounting for tastes. Real artists (not the one making sculptures out of their doodoo) aren't able to get anyone to buy their work or see it. Since there is no quality control, the art has slide to worthless crap.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see no reason for their to be an "art vs technology." They both blend together very lovely. If you think people aren't drawing by hand or playing real instruments, you aren't checking around much. If you think technology is killing art, you're just being finicky. Many aspects of art have been improved by technology (such as photography, which has perhaps benefited to the greatest extent), and it has also given birth to entirely new genres and types of art.
But, then again, comics and rap aren't real art either, or so many have said. Nor is rock 'n roll and heavy metal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Art is killing art, as there is no accounting for tastes. Real artists (not the one making sculptures out of their doodoo) aren't able to get anyone to buy their work or see it. Since there is no quality control, the art has slide to worthless crap.

People have been saying that as well for at least a couple hundred years.

 

[VioletVortex]

I think photography is an art.

There are great pieces of modern digital art. Different toolset, different styles.

Comparing modern art to older art will almost always make the older look better. The older stood the test of time but we don't know what modern day art will be remembered for decades to come yet.

Absolutely, photography is an art form. I've tried doing some photographs in the forest myself, and I'm quite impressed with the way some came out. Also, there is an art to filming movies. The camera angles and opt for black and white in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece Psyco are ****ing brilliant. With that said, it shouldn't replace the creative artistry of drawing.

What if you want to depict deities? You can't do that with a camera, so the obvious method would be via drawing or sculpture. This would be impossible with these skills lost.

Look at my avatar, for example. It is "Der Nornen" by the German painter Johannes Gehrts. There's no way you could do something like that with a camera, and even digital art would not have the same atmosphere to it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Art is killing art, as there is no accounting for tastes. Real artists (not the one making sculptures out of their doodoo) aren't able to get anyone to buy their work or see it. Since there is no quality control, the art has slide to worthless crap.

You do know that most of our famous classical artists died poor because what they made wasn't popular at the time, and what was popular is now considered trashy propagandic culture pieces, right?
Also Shock Factor: Controversial art throughout history

 

[VioletVortex]

I see no reason for their to be an "art vs technology." They both blend together very lovely. If you think people aren't drawing by hand or playing real instruments, you aren't checking around much. If you think technology is killing art, you're just being finicky. Many aspects of art have been improved by technology (such as photography, which has perhaps benefited to the greatest extent), and it has also given birth to entirely new genres and types of art.
But, then again, comics and rap aren't real art either, or so many have said. Nor is rock 'n roll and heavy metal.

There is obviously a requisite amount of technology for a given art form. For example, it's a given that you need a pencil and paper to draw. That doesn't mean that we should "cheat" by using more technology than necessary. That only deprives the art of its spirit.

With that last statement about heavy metal, I can't really tell if you are sarcastically quoting others or stating your opinion, so I will assume the latter.

 

[VioletVortex]

Art is killing art, as there is no accounting for tastes. Real artists (not the one making sculptures out of their doodoo) aren't able to get anyone to buy their work or see it. Since there is no quality control, the art has slide to worthless crap.

Yeah, I'd say it's a stretch to consider something like Lady Gaga vomiting paint art. The question here lies at where you draw the line.

Personally, I'd consider something like GG Allin's performance to be art. Just think it's reflective of the carnal nature in man. Maybe it's necessarily high skill art, but it is still art. Making a sculpture out of **** (unless it's an actual beautiful statue or something) doesn't really reflect anything, other than what the artist had for dinner last night.

I still think that, while some art should push social boundaries, if an art piece has to rely purely on its transgressive nature to gain recognition, it probably isn't very good art. Some of that stuff is pretty cool though, like Andre Serrono's body fluid pieces. Those actually have some aesthetic value.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That doesn't mean that we should "cheat" by using more technology than necessary. That only deprives the art of its spirit.

There isn't really any cheating in art though. And how do decide what "more than necessary?" After all, we've been drawing long before we had concepts of studio lighting, and I don't think you'll find a visual artist alive today who will claim the advantages in studio lighting technology are too much.
That only thing that can deprive art of its spirit is to insist it must have limits and restrictions. Yes, even I roll my eyes at some of the things people consider art, but I cannot say that is for any objective reason. It's not like art has any universal definition anyways.

With that last statement about heavy metal, I can't really tell if you are sarcastically quoting others or stating your opinion, so I will assume the latter.

Sarcastically quoting history.

 

[SomeRandom]

What if you want to depict deities? You can't do that with a camera, so the obvious method would be via drawing or sculpture. This would be impossible with these skills lost.

Well, actually. All you have to do is get a model you think represents your deity and viola.

 

[bobhikes]

Most people like what they're familiar with. A generation ahead of you would probably say tape recordings sound like crap compared to records. And I've even held demos of digital art which uses brush techniques that people cannot distinguish from actual canvas paintings. So I feel like it's just another tool, and the quality comes from how you use it. And stylistic value mileage may vary. And I would never presume to say that just because someone uses a computer means that what they create with it is easier, or doesn't utilize a ton of skill.

Consider this painting:

That isn't a digital painting. It's an oil painting. Did your mind change about how 'rustic' and 'spirited' it felt after I told you what medium it is?

To be honest anything you show on this web site is going to be converted to digital. I have the same problem with music. I listen to the record player but through a blue tooth headset when others are around. What's the point?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, actually. All you have to do is get a model you think represents your deity and viola.

doesn't even need to be a "model." Natural scenes and subjects can depict the divine, after all

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for photography, you can usually easily spot the difference between someone who just takes pictures and someone who is making art. Regards to things such as lighting and positioning of subject/models is a pretty good indication to spot the difference. Angles used is another biggie. And of course the numerous camera settings to get a good picture under different lighting situations, shutter speeds, exposure levels, and ISO. As well as knowing how to achieve certain effects, such as creating depth of field rather than presenting a picture that is entirely in focus.
And, of course with a digital studio you can do things with pictures that you most likely wouldn't have been able to before. HDR pictures, lighting and color manipulation, screens and filters, and not to mention sharpening and feathering.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

As for photography, you can usually easily spot the difference between someone who just takes pictures and someone who is making art. Regards to things such as lighting and positioning of subject/models is a pretty good indication to spot the difference. Angles used is another biggie. And of course the numerous camera settings to get a good picture under different lighting situations, shutter speeds, exposure levels, and ISO. As well as knowing how to achieve certain effects, such as creating depth of field rather than presenting a picture that is entirely in focus.
And, of course with a digital studio you can do things with pictures that you most likely wouldn't have been able to before. HDR pictures, lighting and color manipulation, screens and filters, and not to mention sharpening and feathering.

Yeah, all that stuff!

 

[VioletVortex]

Why not?

I guess you could take a picture of a statue or a man in a costume, but in that case, the statue or the costume is the real art piece. The photo is just a medium, like a recording is to music.