Has anyone considered that digital art might become the predominant form of art in the future? I can imagine meatspace art becoming extremely rare. A lot of the meatspace mediums are prohibitively expensive and, once created, take up a lot of space. On the other hand, if one has a computer and an art program the only further expense is electricity. Also, unlike canvases and sculptures, files don't take up much space and are easily transportable.
Both of these have been and continue to be important issues in my life (as soon as I finish this post I have to cut up one of my sculptures for shipping) which is why I'm doing as much art digitally as possible. Can't wait for electronic paper and/or a full featured tablet pc.
I don't care what advantages the computer gives me. It's all about getting the vision out of my head and out into the real world where other people can experience it. If it takes less brush strokes, that's a GOOD THING. It means I can move on to the next piece and produce more pieces in my lifetime. That's progress. Mixing color is irrelevent. Who wants to waste their creative time mixing paint when they could be applying paint to the canvas?
It doesn't help me to know that you used color fff55fa either, or that you used color fee4faa beside it. It is still necessary to understand color theory to create a good painting. Someone who does not know how to paint can not go picking colors out of the Mona Lisa and paint an identical Mona Lisa.
But I will agree on one thing, the wacom is not the same as a brush and canvas. It is a pitifully poor substite and much more difficult to get good results out of.
Mix the colors, brush the canvas, all the same. Texture too if you use Painter (I use Photoshop cause it's what I know. Dying to migrate to GIMP but it doesn't have the right tools).
If I sculpt something and make a mistake I don't "go with it". I stick more clay or sculpey on it and try again. Marble does not a sculptor make. Nor a "fine artist". If I'm drawing and don't like a line, I erase it and make one I do like. Why is everyone here so obsessed with "Undo?" Folks, there are real world equivalents. Let's move on.
Is this a problem? I thought we weren't fans of the "Economy of Scarcity" here?
Personally I am OVERJOYED that I can create art without an "original." If an artist becomes famous, the work is snatched up and squirreled away by the well-to-do as yet another status symbol. Something meant to be seen, to convey a message/emotion, can then only be seen at the pleasure of an irrelevant third party.
CG art is inherently egalitarian, and that is a beautiful thing.
Also, the work is much less likely to be destroyed. IIRC, H.R. Geiger ended up buying back a number of his pieces out of concern that the owners wouldn't preserve them and they would be lost forever.
You have obviously never lost an entire piece of art to a Photoshop/Windows crash or 5.0's tendency to not always completely save a file. When several hours/days worth of work vanishes before my eyes, never to be seen again, I consider it to be well and truly fucked up. Maybe this isn't the exact sense you meant but I would like to point out that all is not happy puppies and sunshine in the CG art world. The CG medium does in fact have limitations greater than or equal to what you'll find in a physical medium. For example, don't you think sculpting would be a 100X more difficult if marble was powered by Windows Technology?
BTW, sorry about that link, gonna have to look into the allowed html situation. Also pull out the space between the "e" and "w" in "DailyNews."
I can't do anything right.
To quote the article:
"In the June 19 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, report that the portion of the brain associated with mathematics was 15 percent wider than average in Einstein."
While there is no guarantee that a new Einstein, for example, would be able to match the original's accomplishments there is also no reason why an Einstein clone could not surpass the original if an interest in mathematics and physics were not purposely encouraged. Most brilliant minds must work against discouragement, derision and ridicule but an Einstein clone would find fewer obstacles between himself and getting on with the work. Investors would feel safe putting the money down because the "product" is a proven quantity and they can expect a good return.
Thus clones of the greats will have a much easier time getting scholarships/grants than us untried originals.
Of course the DNA of brilliant people will now become a national resource and a new security agency along the lines of NSA/CIA/FBI will have to be created.
So please don't mod this up.
Personally I would be surprised if there were not already many 1-2 yr old Einsteins toddling around a nameless govn. installation.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone considered that digital art might become the predominant form of art in the future? I can imagine meatspace art becoming extremely rare. A lot of the meatspace mediums are prohibitively expensive and, once created, take up a lot of space. On the other hand, if one has a computer and an art program the only further expense is electricity. Also, unlike canvases and sculptures, files don't take up much space and are easily transportable.
Both of these have been and continue to be important issues in my life (as soon as I finish this post I have to cut up one of my sculptures for shipping) which is why I'm doing as much art digitally as possible. Can't wait for electronic paper and/or a full featured tablet pc.
I don't care what advantages the computer gives me. It's all about getting the vision out of my head and out into the real world where other people can experience it. If it takes less brush strokes, that's a GOOD THING. It means I can move on to the next piece and produce more pieces in my lifetime. That's progress. Mixing color is irrelevent. Who wants to waste their creative time mixing paint when they could be applying paint to the canvas?
It doesn't help me to know that you used color fff55fa either, or that you used color fee4faa beside it. It is still necessary to understand color theory to create a good painting. Someone who does not know how to paint can not go picking colors out of the Mona Lisa and paint an identical Mona Lisa.
But I will agree on one thing, the wacom is not the same as a brush and canvas. It is a pitifully poor substite and much more difficult to get good results out of.
Mix the colors, brush the canvas, all the same. Texture too if you use Painter (I use Photoshop cause it's what I know. Dying to migrate to GIMP but it doesn't have the right tools).
If I sculpt something and make a mistake I don't "go with it". I stick more clay or sculpey on it and try again. Marble does not a sculptor make. Nor a "fine artist". If I'm drawing and don't like a line, I erase it and make one I do like. Why is everyone here so obsessed with "Undo?" Folks, there are real world equivalents. Let's move on.
Is this a problem? I thought we weren't fans of the "Economy of Scarcity" here?
Personally I am OVERJOYED that I can create art without an "original." If an artist becomes famous, the work is snatched up and squirreled away by the well-to-do as yet another status symbol. Something meant to be seen, to convey a message/emotion, can then only be seen at the pleasure of an irrelevant third party.
CG art is inherently egalitarian, and that is a beautiful thing.
Also, the work is much less likely to be destroyed. IIRC, H.R. Geiger ended up buying back a number of his pieces out of concern that the owners wouldn't preserve them and they would be lost forever.
You have obviously never lost an entire piece of art to a Photoshop/Windows crash or 5.0's tendency to not always completely save a file. When several hours/days worth of work vanishes before my eyes, never to be seen again, I consider it to be well and truly fucked up. Maybe this isn't the exact sense you meant but I would like to point out that all is not happy puppies and sunshine in the CG art world. The CG medium does in fact have limitations greater than or equal to what you'll find in a physical medium. For example, don't you think sculpting would be a 100X more difficult if marble was powered by Windows Technology?
Don't be so sure. Einstein's mind really was different. A quick google search found this article:
e ws/einstein990617.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyN
BTW, sorry about that link, gonna have to look into the allowed html situation. Also pull out the space between the "e" and "w" in "DailyNews." I can't do anything right.
To quote the article:
"In the June 19 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, report that the portion of the brain associated with mathematics was 15 percent wider than average in Einstein."
While there is no guarantee that a new Einstein, for example, would be able to match the original's accomplishments there is also no reason why an Einstein clone could not surpass the original if an interest in mathematics and physics were not purposely encouraged. Most brilliant minds must work against discouragement, derision and ridicule but an Einstein clone would find fewer obstacles between himself and getting on with the work. Investors would feel safe putting the money down because the "product" is a proven quantity and they can expect a good return.
Thus clones of the greats will have a much easier time getting scholarships/grants than us untried originals.
Of course the DNA of brilliant people will now become a national resource and a new security agency along the lines of NSA/CIA/FBI will have to be created.
So please don't mod this up.
Personally I would be surprised if there were not already many 1-2 yr old Einsteins toddling around a nameless govn. installation.