Are Computer Graphics A Fine Art?

wduffee writes: "As a young artist and a computer geek, I am interested in converging the two fields of study. I had an art show in Little Rock, Arkansas last year of computer-generated art, but it was very poorly received. The art critics there claimed that computer-generated art was not a 'fine art' but more of a graphic design, regardless of the quality of the work. I have received the same response from art professors here in Mississippi, and from other schools (such as students from Glasgow School of Art in Scotland)." So what makes something art exactly? Does having a computer between artist and object somehow detract from the results?

"These responses come from (in my opinion) ignorance about computer graphic programs as a valid art medium, and a lack of vision as to the possibilities of computer graphics as an art form. Movies such as Shrek and Final Fantasy are bringing the medium more and more into the public eye, but not necessarily into the art world.

My question is: am I alone in believing that computer-generated work is valid field of fine arts? If not, has anyone else had similar experiences of attempting to push computer-graphics as an art form and then met with resistance? What are the slashdot community's thoughts on computer graphics as an art form in general? Is it a medium which will be forever banned from acceptance as an art form, or are there ways to push the medium into the field of art?"

Comments

Amazing

[CaptainCarrot]

Elephant feces are a valid medium for fine art, but computer graphics aren't? Hmph!

I think you're just running into resistance against a new medium. New media, and the new art forms that inevitably accompany it, always encounter resistance from the art establishment.

Salvador Dali once said something like, "Whatever you do, begin by painting like the old masters. After that, no one will ever question what you do." An astute observation (and an approach that worked for him; he began his career as an Impressionist) but like any brilliant insight it's obvious in retrospect. If computer graphics are not yet a medium for fine art, it's mostly because there are no established artists who say it is. It's easy for critics to dismiss any new movement composed soley of newcomers to the art world; it's more difficult to do so when it's participated in by artists who are more well-known and respected. I think you will need to gain acceptance for yourself first, by working in more traditional media. Once you're already known for your fine art, it will be presumed that anything you create is also fine art. That will be the time to introduce computer graphics into your corpus of work.

Re:"Art" is one-of-a-kind

[rgmoore]

What a load of crap! Art is about expressing ideas, not about how unique or collectible the product is. A photograph can be fine art even though an almost unlimited number of copies can be made from the negative, and the production of reproductions of famous artworks does nothing to devalue the original.

One only has to look at fields other than the visual arts to see how ridiculous this view is. A novel or poem is an artwork, and nobody claims that it's any less significant just because it's printed or put on the web instead of hand-copied. A musical performance is a work of art whether or not it's being recorded for the masses to hear.

Re:It's not about the tools...

[rgmoore]

...even modern digital images show too much of the medium.

And this is why art critics always complain about texture and brush lines and whatnot when they look at what should otherwise be considered a beautiful painting? That's bullshit, and you know it.

Hear! Hear! This is a very good point. You can make an even stronger one, though, by looking at grain in photography. It's an artifact of the process used to make the image, but people are now absolutely attached to it. Why? Because they know how to use it to artistic effect. They can use the grain in the picture to enchance what it is that they want the photograph to say.

I expect that people in the not too distant future will say the same thing about various digital artifacts. They'll figure out all sorts of uses for pixelation and compression artifacts and even deliberately introduce them into works that didn't have them in the first place just for their artistic effect. Pretty soon everyone will be so used to them that they won't even consider the fact that at one time they were considered to be undesirable and to detract from the artwork.

Yes, it is fine art.

[Picass0]

Those who can, create. Those who can't become art critics.

Fuck 'em. You're part of an important new art form that will be seen one day as legitimate as painting, sculpting, photography, or any other accepted form of art.

Picasso wasn't understood during his early career. Van Gogh was ingored until well after his death. Michealangelo's rendering of the human form, known as contrapasto, was considered "twisted and agonized." Leonardo De Vinci, who taught us how to paint with light, was considered a nut. Mozzart's music was too complicated for the ear. Blah blah blah...

Does history remember the names of art critics? NO. So why give a shit so long as what you do means something to you? Are you saying something when you create? That's where you should draw your convictions from. Not some asshole with a snobby opinion.

Don't seek self-validation from other people. You'll be waiting a long time.

It's not about the tools...

[TrumpetPower!]

...it's about the artist. The computer is just a different kind of brush.

New tools have always been met with controversy. The organ caused as much of an uproar as the Moog synthesizer; both are now celebrated. Photography wasn't considered an art until after people realized that it truly is an artistic medium.

Real Artists(tm) will understand that what you do with/on the computer needs to be evaluated based on its artistic merits, without prejudice based upon the tools you used to create it.

b&