Speaking as an artist that has painted in both traditional mediums and computer based graphics, I don't think that you have a hope of seeing the current stigma changing during the course of your career.
The words 'fine art' are typically used in referring to valuable pieces of work, usually an artwork that is one of a kind, that contains some special qualities over and above other forms of artwork. Above all, a fine art should express the emotion and style of the artist, and should be unique to that particular artist.
Computer assisted artworks lack these qualities. On top of the fact that they can be easily duplicated (which lowers their value considerably), they are also confined by their lack of texture and limitations in resolution. They are cold creations, etched onto screens or printed onto paper. They simply are not deserving of the term 'fine art'.
Tell me, would you prefer to own the original Mona Lisa, or a digitised print?
Computer generated art is still art, but the boundaries between what constitutes art and 'fine art' should be respected. It is unfortunate that you were snubbed, but such criticism should be expected. In future this may change, but you should accept the limitations of computer assisted artworks as they stand at this point in time.
I always knew that Athena was going to get a hostile reaction from some sectors of the Linux community, but many of the comments I've been reading are just a little extreme (well, a lot). Whatever the reasons for such hostility, I have a few points to make:
Yes, the project is commercial - but so are many Linux ventures (Loki, Red Hat - need I go on). The full version for Linux will be freely available for download, so I don't see the project's commercialisation as being a major factor here. I'm sure that there will be people that will want to see otherwise, but commercialism != evil corporate domination.
Regarding use of the word "Operating System" - the Linux release available for download is in fact promoted as a Run-Time Environment. The download page is pretty clear on this, to quote the link: "Athena Run-Time Environment (i386 Preview)". This naming convention only applies to the Linux release. Other platforms are a different matter entirely - the exact reasoning behind all this will become clear as time moves on.
As for open source, the policy on this is pretty clear and you should see somewhere between 25 - 50% of the project's source code available to the public. I've noticed a few people quoting certain areas of the website and twisting it as if to make out that we have some sort of evil attitude towards open source. While we don't use the GPL for our product, this does not mean that we hate the idea of publicly available source code. Using the GPL would have caused major problems for the project that would have meant handing over many of our rights over to the Free Software Foundation. It simply wasn't an option, but that doesn't make it a bad project.
Regarding distribution, this is a pretty simple policy that prevents third parties from distributing the software on CDs or from web-sites without our permission. That's all - a pretty basic expression of copyright. Although judging from some of the posted remarks, it could also be interpreted as an evil plot designed to destroy the Linux community from the inside, eating it away like a cancerous cell to ensure that Microsoft can still reign supreme - because after all, Rocklyte Systems is just another corporation out to get you all while you're tucked away in your beds. Sheesh.
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it might have been taken out of context. Nowhere does it say that "we" == Red Hat, or that they didn't say "We did start the open-source revolution as far as big business is concerned," or anything else.
Seems a little presumptuous to base an entire article on seven words. How about some context?
It's not just the open source comment - there are plenty of other gems in this article, such as:
"The Linux distribution game is over. Red Hat has won that game. Red Hat is the market leader in virtually every respect"
Bruce Perens' and Eric Raymond's comments also give credit to CNET's take on this article. The open source movement pre-dates Linux anyway - GNU and the GPL existed well before Torvalds even entered the scene.
I wonder if Tiemann has had trouble getting his head through doors lately?
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as an artist that has painted in both traditional mediums and computer based graphics, I don't think that you have a hope of seeing the current stigma changing during the course of your career.
The words 'fine art' are typically used in referring to valuable pieces of work, usually an artwork that is one of a kind, that contains some special qualities over and above other forms of artwork. Above all, a fine art should express the emotion and style of the artist, and should be unique to that particular artist.
Computer assisted artworks lack these qualities. On top of the fact that they can be easily duplicated (which lowers their value considerably), they are also confined by their lack of texture and limitations in resolution. They are cold creations, etched onto screens or printed onto paper. They simply are not deserving of the term 'fine art'.
Tell me, would you prefer to own the original Mona Lisa, or a digitised print?
Computer generated art is still art, but the boundaries between what constitutes art and 'fine art' should be respected. It is unfortunate that you were snubbed, but such criticism should be expected. In future this may change, but you should accept the limitations of computer assisted artworks as they stand at this point in time.
I always knew that Athena was going to get a hostile reaction from some sectors of the Linux community, but many of the comments I've been reading are just a little extreme (well, a lot). Whatever the reasons for such hostility, I have a few points to make:
P. Manias
Rocklyte Systems
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it might have been taken out of context. Nowhere does it say that "we" == Red Hat, or that they didn't say "We did start the open-source revolution as far as big business is concerned," or anything else.
Seems a little presumptuous to base an entire article on seven words. How about some context?
It's not just the open source comment - there are plenty of other gems in this article, such as:
Bruce Perens' and Eric Raymond's comments also give credit to CNET's take on this article. The open source movement pre-dates Linux anyway - GNU and the GPL existed well before Torvalds even entered the scene.
I wonder if Tiemann has had trouble getting his head through doors lately?
P. Manias
Rocklyte Systems