Art vs technology

[Shadow Wolf]

The photo is just a medium, like a recording is to music.

It's no more "just a medium" than paper is "just a medium" for hand drawn pictures.

 

[VioletVortex]

It's no more "just a medium" than paper is "just a medium" for hand drawn pictures.

But the paper itself is not an art piece.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This picture, for example, is nothing more than a squirrel on some street downtown. I followed it around for a few minutes taking probably what was dozens of pictures of it. Nothing in it would conventionally be considered art, but it comes together in such a way.
[GALLERY=media, 7895]Downtown Squirrel. by Shadow Wolf posted Mar 5, 2017 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
And here are a couple more, and it's really nothing more than angles with the both, and a bit of digital manipulation with the second.
[GALLERY=media, 7884]Tank in the Park by Shadow Wolf posted Feb 18, 2017 at 1:37 AM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 7876]Blue Line by Shadow Wolf posted Feb 10, 2017 at 2:13 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the paper itself is not an art piece.

If a piece of paper is not a part of the art, then the lines we call art are not art either but just lines of graphite, charcoal, and pigment on paper. It is, however, a part of the art, a smaller piece of the whole, and something the artist should give consideration. Some will not take graphite well, some are better for charcoal than others, and some are pretty much impossible to use colored pencil on. Smooth and rough surfaces, glossy or matte, the choice of paper can actually be a pretty big and important decision, just as important as selecting what to draw with, color schemes, lighting, and all other things the artist must consider to create art.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

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?

Who would want to hang that on their wall?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Who would want to hang that on their wall?

Not me, but there's something for everyone out there.

 

[VioletVortex]

As for the oil painting, it is quite amazing how realistic the water droplets look, but I find picture in which the atmosphere is unidentifiable disturbing for some reason...

With that said, I like dark, evil paintings that directly project themselves as such.

 

[dgirl1986]

I don't think that technology degrades art. Art has always had evolving technology, styles, techniques, and mediums which helps the artist express themselves. What you find to be beautiful is not necessarily beautiful to everyone else. Art is not limited to 1 medium, 1 era, 1 style, etc. That's what makes it so awesome.