CG is a medium in which the possibilities are boundless. Previz is pretty much the main way that FX houses limit the work from 'boundless' to do-able in a fixed time with a fixed budget.
And regarding the directors who use it - in my experience normally the more savvy directors use previz. I bet Hitchcock would have used previz if he had the chance - he planned the minutae of every shot.
.. but only if you have bothered to educate yourself first in what has gone before. I would, in fact, say that 'good art' and 'good science' are equally easy to recognize.
Here are some criteria that I would consider pertinent to the question 'is it art?', or indeed, 'is it good art?'.
1. Art is communication - it should say something pertinent, and the best way to say something that is pertinent is to advance the existing discourse.
2. Art adheres to, or breaks, existing aesthetic conventions.
3. Art should stand up to peer review.
I think that in all of these categories TypoGenerator scores pretty low. The results are tedious. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get out and go visit their local art museum, or go read one of Gombrich's books on the nature of Art.
A key point has been missed in this book and Katz's subsequent comments - there is focus upon trite links between art and science, links that do nothing to further either discipline - a prime example of this that has been beaten to death over the last few years is fractal graphics. Science has established that the visual world has a fractal nature, it is however far more complex than just that - a fact born out in the utter sterility of fractal images that are so called 'art'. There are a number examples in the book of components of modern science that have been placed in an artistic context that do no service to either field of study. I would suggest two far better texts that look at valid interactions between the two.
1. Inner Vision : An Exploration of Art and the Brain -- by Semir Zeki - an excellent text by an author who in his research examines the understanding of perception by artists in the context of modern neurophysiology
2. Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters -- by David Hockney - another excellent work that examines the use of technology by artists in a manner that is both synergistic and productive.
The book 'Information Arts' itself is an interesting read, well written and regarding the current state of the art (so to speak) is pretty much comprehensive. If we look back on it 20 years from now though I suspect it will be regarded as largely irrelevant.
v3a
Slashdot Mirror
CG is a medium in which the possibilities are boundless. Previz is pretty much the main way that FX houses limit the work from 'boundless' to do-able in a fixed time with a fixed budget. And regarding the directors who use it - in my experience normally the more savvy directors use previz. I bet Hitchcock would have used previz if he had the chance - he planned the minutae of every shot.
.. but only if you have bothered to educate yourself first in what has gone before. I would, in fact, say that 'good art' and 'good science' are equally easy to recognize.
Here are some criteria that I would consider pertinent to the question 'is it art?', or indeed, 'is it good art?'.
1. Art is communication - it should say something pertinent, and the best way to say something that is pertinent is to advance the existing discourse.
2. Art adheres to, or breaks, existing aesthetic conventions.
3. Art should stand up to peer review.
I think that in all of these categories TypoGenerator scores pretty low. The results are tedious. Anyone who thinks otherwise should get out and go visit their local art museum, or go read one of Gombrich's books on the nature of Art.
A key point has been missed in this book and Katz's subsequent comments - there is focus upon trite links between art and science, links that do nothing to further either discipline - a prime example of this that has been beaten to death over the last few years is fractal graphics. Science has established that the visual world has a fractal nature, it is however far more complex than just that - a fact born out in the utter sterility of fractal images that are so called 'art'. There are a number examples in the book of components of modern science that have been placed in an artistic context that do no service to either field of study. I would suggest two far better texts that look at valid interactions between the two. 1. Inner Vision : An Exploration of Art and the Brain -- by Semir Zeki - an excellent text by an author who in his research examines the understanding of perception by artists in the context of modern neurophysiology 2. Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters -- by David Hockney - another excellent work that examines the use of technology by artists in a manner that is both synergistic and productive. The book 'Information Arts' itself is an interesting read, well written and regarding the current state of the art (so to speak) is pretty much comprehensive. If we look back on it 20 years from now though I suspect it will be regarded as largely irrelevant. v3a