are mac artists fine artists?

[jefhatfield]

as we enter this new decade, the line between fine art and commercial art begins to blur

do you consider a mac graphic, web, audio,or video artist a fine artist or a commercial artist?

and are commercial artists just failed fine artists like many like to say?

what do you think?

[freedom]

I don´t consider myself a fine artist, even though I sometimes produce really good designs…
I believe fine artists are those who exhibit their art in public; as in galleries etc. Graphic design qualifies for this, but it´s rather more complicated when it comes to webdesign. Some websites can be fine art, or just art as part of a concept/installation. My work is nearly 100% commercial and it will never be exhibited as "fine" art.
There are a lot of people out there with Master´s degrees in fine art, though!
The new computerized era has presented some problems of defining art.
With some "fine" artists doing video-installations, web-installations or just
taking a crap on the sidewalk (or all together), I find it hard to justify that as "fine" art. Even though most art-critics will…
I think artists will use the computer as a tool to expand the concept of art within a near future. The revolution has just started!
Just look at Internet; what a fabulous media to express yourself!

[Mr. Anderson]

I think you have two mutually exclusive things there. An artists uses tools to create his art. Fine artists use traditional media and graphic artist are more commercial oriented.

The level of ones artistic ability is not based on whether they use a computer or not. Its the quaility of the art they produce.

[eyelikeart]

I have been into art my entire life...I remember going to art camp when I was a kid...some of my earliest memories are sitting at the coffee table with watercolors...

in high school I was heavily into drawing....sketching...color pencils...

in college I found the beauty of pastels & charcoals...and I also found a love for photography...up to date photography has been the most "theraputic" way for me to open up artistically...

then I got into computers...gave up the fine arts for a few years...and am recently finding myself in it again...funny how it works out sometimes isn't it?

so up to date I'd consider myself specifically as a "mixed media" artist....since I do not rely on one medium to keep me at bay...

I think there is a fine between who is an "artist" and one who simply knows how to run software...and that is the problem I feel desktop computers has posed for those who at one time were sought after for their "creative" abilities...

this is also why I am not holding myself to one standard of "creativity"

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I think there is a fine line between who is an "artist" and one who simply knows how to run software..

Absolutely, give someone a drawing program and they think they're an artist. In order to be a computer artist, though, you need to master traditional art at some level. To be able to see as an artist and understand composition, lighting, texture, solid vs. void etc. Some of this can be learned, and some people just have a knack for it.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by dukestreet


Absolutely, give someone a drawing program and they think they're an artist. In order to be a computer artist, though, you need to master traditional art at some level. To be able to see as an artist and understand composition, lighting, texture, solid vs. void etc. Some of this can be learned, and some people just have a knack for it.

that's the problem...many people simply do not understand the concepts of design and the processes which one takes to achieve "quality" design...

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
that's the problem...many people simply do not understand the concepts of design and the processes which one takes to achieve "quality" design...

As a teacher's assitant at a graphic design college, few witness it more often than I do. I'd say maybe 15% of the students in any given class just naturally have the knack for graphic design. The other 65% are the ones who need to learn the most and improve. And then there's that final 20% that don't belong in this field at all and nothing we can do in the time allotted to us will help them get better.

So here's the million dollar question: Are designers considered artists and artists considered designers? :D

[idkew]

i consider myself an artist, after all i am working on my bachelor of FINE arts. i love to sculpt, and i even like design more. i see my sculpture as fine art, i see most of my design as commercial art. one is not necessarily better than the other, they are just different.

(not to mention i will actually get paid to design)

btw- anyone want to give a junior BFA major in design a job/internship near chicago this summer?

please!


-idkew
:D

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by Hemingray
So here's the million dollar question: Are designers considered artists and artists considered designers? :D

I suppose it all depends on one's definition of what an artist is & what designer is...

I think anyone can be an artist...art is about expression....self-expression...
anyone can do this....just like writing...but one needs to find their "way" so to speak to make it work...

Being a designer obviously harnesses an artistic background...no question at all. It does require some training to get someone to a level of knowledge that would benefit in the real world...there are things about design that people simply just do not know at first...but for many they can understand them like they always have (which would signify the 15% u mentioned).

I think I'm babbling here... :rolleyes:

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
as we enter this new decade, the line between fine art and commercial art begins to blur

do you consider a mac graphic, web, audio,or video artist a fine artist or a commercial artist?

and are commercial artists just failed fine artists like many like to say?

what do you think?

Mu. I think the alleged line between the two has always been blurred to the point of vanishing. There is certainly a distinction between ars gratia artis and art which accomplishes a set of externally-imposed requirements, but few practicing artists can claim to be exclusively one or the other.

The thing is, a successful fine artist must be willing to attend to practical details as well as ephemeral notions of expressiveness. Successful fine art requires as much rigor as any practical skill. Even if you learn technique just so you can reject it, you must understand what you are rejecting and what effect you will have on your audience by rejecting it. On the other hand, if "commercial" art was an entirely soulless, mechanistic process, we wouldn't need artists at all for it.

I'm pretty sure the heavy distinction here is drawn by failing artists who want to come up with some self-deluding pretention which makes them out to be a kind of noble ascetic champion of self-expression. And if it makes them feel better about begging their parents for grocery money again, well, I suppose that's okay.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Hemingray
So here's the million dollar question: Are designers considered artists and artists considered designers? :D

Artist can do design if they want, because for a designer, art is just another tool. So in this way designers are more than just artists, but artists are more specialized, and possibly better artists than designers.

Its a fine line, hard to define exactly though.

[AlphaTech]

I have a BFA in graphic design (got out of the field since I am much better as a tech). From all the courses I took in college, I have a broader knowledge base then just artists. Design encompases many disciplines into itself, among them photography, illustration and painting. Most, if not all, designers that have gone through college in the past decade should know how to use the applications to complete their designs. If not, then they are a dying breed which take 3x as long to complete their projects.

I remember going through college, and having a class that doesn't even exist now. The professor was very old school and had us do mechanicals for everything. This was after we had already taken our computer course. It seemed stupid to me, so I went and used the computers to set type, as well as compose as much as possible, then shot stats of everything (waste of time). That was the last time I ever had to do that and was back in 89 (damn, has it been that long already??? sheeeeesh).

These days with the high resolution printers (on desks), large volume full color printers (counts in the hundreds of thousands) and being able to go direct to plate, mechanicals are a definate thing of the past. Still, I remember (sort of) how to do things old school.

I guess the bottom line is a graphic designer knows how to do many things, all of which help to make a design work. An artist, typically, has one, or two, disciplines that he/she works with (i.e. illustrating/painting or photography...). I have a friend from college (art director/lead designer at the college paper now) that is an excellent illustrator. He also produces about 80%+ of the pages in the paper every week. I forget what his degree is in, since he graduated a couple of years before I did, but he is one of the most talented people I know. It almost makes me sick the things he can create either by hand, or computer (does some wild ***** with Poser). I will see about getting some urls that have samples, just to show, later.

[3rdpath]

i don't think there is really any distiction between fine art and commercial art.

heck, i don't really know what art is...but i know what connects with me on an emotional level.

the attempts at definitions only minimalize what people create.

my mac is just a tool. i was an artist before i used it. i will be an artist when i move on to something else. sometimes i think what i've created is truly special-other times i think its crap. is it fine? is it commercial?

not even time will tell.:)

[krossfyter]

Its all subjective. I do both fine art and graphic design. My fine art is anti commecrcialization, my graphic art is not. I will do my fine art on the side while making my living with graphic art. If I wanted to make my money with fine art I would have to work at making it more acceptable....more gallery friendly....less and less underground.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I remember going through college, and having a class that doesn't even exist now. The professor was very old school and had us do mechanicals for everything. This was after we had already taken our computer course. It seemed stupid to me, so I went and used the computers to set type, as well as compose as much as possible, then shot stats of everything (waste of time). That was the last time I ever had to do that and was back in 89 (damn, has it been that long already??? sheeeeesh).

I was midway through a sememster of lettering when they came in and told us it was no longer in the curiculum..."since u can do all of this on computer now, there's no absolute need for it."

he he he...that was about 6 years ago? :p

[blackpeter]

...this question goes way beyond the computer.

see: Andy Warhol

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by tfaz1
...this question goes way beyond the computer.

see: Andy Warhol

Never cared for his stuff... I didn't consider mass repetition of the same image over and over and over and over again, by mechanical means no less, as art. Maybe the idea was creative, the first time, but when you base your entire career, or rather, the later part of it, on that you become more of a con artist. It makes me sick as to how much people would pay for his things, just because they got snowed into thinking it was art. A prime example where if enough people say a piece of crap is art, then it is considered art.

eyelikeart... your school was behind the times. The term after I took the last machanicals course (we were required to take two) they were rolled into a computer course. That was back in 1989-1990.

[3rdpath]

was warhol more of a fine con artist or commercial con artist?;)

i think he's the perfect example of the futility of this thread. ( at least in trying to draw some distinction in the level or classification of art).

Ars longa, vita brevis:)

[AlphaTech]

I vote that he was a commercial con artist... pure and simple.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I vote that he was a commercial con artist... pure and simple.

Yes, and he knew how to work it. Being a personality definitely helps if you want to make something of yourself in the art world. He was more of a 'rock star' artist actually.

[Mr. Anderson]

But here's a thought.

Imagine what Leonardo DaVinci would have done with a computer....

[Taft]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Maybe the idea was creative, the first time, but when you base your entire career, or rather, the later part of it, on that you become more of a con artist. It makes me sick as to how much people would pay for his things, just because they got snowed into thinking it was art. A prime example where if enough people say a piece of crap is art, then it is considered art.

I've gotta disagree.

For commercial art, or what I'm considering to be art you are commissioned to create for a specific task, there is a certain level of competency required and usually a specific set of requirements that need to be met to qualify as good or acceptable. Also, that art is quantifiable to a degree by feedback from both those who commissioned the work and the audience to which the product is intended. You could say that if it is mostly acceptable to those groups, then it is successful.

But there is a whole other type of art out there as well. Art that isn't commissioned or asked for. The kind of art that a person does because he/she likes doing it. The kind the artist is passionate about only because it is what he/she loves. The kind of creation that expresses exactly what the artist wanted to express and only that.

How do you judge this kind of art? By how much you can sell it for? How could you hold this kind of art to the same standards as commercial art when the artist had no intention of following those standards and made it for no-one but his or her self? Here it is completely subjective.

That you do not consider it art is completely acceptable. You do not find it pleasing to look at or skilled or worthwhile--that’s your prerogative. But one man's trash is another man's treasure as someone quotable once said.

I find a certain power in the works Worhal. Its pop-y. Its trashy. Its cultural. I enjoy them. And not that I'm saying Warhols work is unskilled, but I do enjoy many artist's work that some consider unskilled. It depends on what I see in the works. Sometimes you just connect with what an artist was trying to do...or you find meaning in the work that maybe the artist never intended...or the work just makes you, well, feel a certain way. That is the kind of stuff I value in art.

When I create art, its because I like the way things look (or sound). I personally like to employ a lot of technique in what I'm drawing, painting or playing, but that’s my style. Sometimes I get down and dirty and let my emotions or spirit take charge of the creation. Often I then go back to the work and refocus what my unthinking mind might have tried to say. Its a flowing process. Its fun. That’s why I create. You don't like what I create? You can suck on my big toe.

Then again, I'm not being paid for it. Heh.

Anyway that’s my take on the subject.

Matthew

[blackpeter]

I'm no Warhol fan. He's not really what I'm looking for in an artist, but none the less - I do give him the distinction of calling him an artist. I don't think that artistry can be defined in easy terms. Is it skill? Is it inspiration? I don't know.

But art does not exist in a vacuum. It is a form communication. A conversation exists between the artist and his medium, between the piece and the audience. A conversation is taking place even now, between you and I - who are having this discussion about what we think art is.

This is what Warhol did as an artist. His work asked a question that we're still answering - even on a MacRumors site* (I'm sure Warhol would love the seeming random-ness of the idea). If you're looking for meaning in his work by itself, you're missing the whole point.

Graphic designers should understand this. Your work may be commercial, but it dosen't mean that some part of you dosen't go into every piece of your work. And commerical design is most definately a form of communication. Every part of it tries to pull an audience in and convey something to them, just like all good art. I don't know if it's easy to seperate the artist and the artisan.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by dukestreet
But here's a thought.

Imagine what Leonardo DaVinci would have done with a computer....

hmmmmmmmm... we would probably be at the same tech level as Star Trek by now. If not more advanced. If Leonardo had access to tech of today, it bogles the mind to think what he would have come up with. He was way ahead of his time in so many areas.

[AlphaTech]

Defining art really is a personal perspective. One man's art is another man's trash (and the other way around too).

The problem I have, is that I met too many truely creative people at college that produce real art (at least what I consider art to be). I can see art in many things, and consider some things that I am sure other's don't consider to be art, art. I look at signs and see art (not the speed limit signs, but rather the ones for stores and such). Maybe because I was designing and making those at one job. Street signs are dictated by the government and that is to have maximum readability.

I also look at some industrial items and see art as well. Some vehicles are designed so well, that they too become works of art. Personally (since art is subjective) I see custom motorcycles are more art then production line cars. When you have just one of an item, it is unique, when there are hundreds of thousands of that exact same item, it is not as unique (not to say it isn't art).

What it all really boils down to, is that art is what you perceive it to be.

[Taft]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Personally (since art is subjective) I see custom motorcycles are more art then production line cars. When you have just one of an item, it is unique, when there are hundreds of thousands of that exact same item, it is not as unique (not to say it isn't art).

What it all really boils down to, is that art is what you perceive it to be.

Its the same with me and guitars. And the great thing about guitars is that if a guitar was made by a smaller company, it is probably quite unique. Even when a guitar is made by the same person (or people) with the same materials, they can vary widely in tone, feel and will suit some people's style much better than others. I have a couple of guitars that I consider works of art whose beauty and craft I can barely comprehend.

And I couldn't agree more about art being what you perceive it to be.

Matthew

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
What it all really boils down to, is that art is what you perceive it to be.

Exactly, art is subjective. I put this in another thread a while back, but its appropriate here.

Someone could walk down a beach and see a washed up piece of wood, take it home, clean it up, maybe polyurethane it and place it on the mantle - ART.

Another person could walk by a simillar piece and think, what a great bit of firewood.

But that gets away from the topic. I don't think we're really worried about what art is, but at what level is it defined. As long as someone picks it up and calls it ART, it is. But until then its just a piece of wood. Put it in context, then you make something of it.

Fine art on the other hand will always be ART. Even if you don't like it, you'll still admit its art. Take a walk through an art museum and you see what I mean.

[freedom]

I agree that it lies in the eye of the beholder.
But going back to the original thread,
I remember reading a magazine called
"mac art magazine" or something.
It was mad by a swedish bloke called
Anders F. Rönnblom, who btw is an
excellent blues-guitarist!
He created Art with a mac and photoshop
as his tools. Actually he made the entire
magazine (all typesetting and all) in
photoshop. And this was early-mid 90´s!
But is it Fine art? I don´t think so.
This is recent work:
http://www.gingkopress.com/_zine/metalh/1mh1.htm

[krossfyter]

freedom....

but if he put it in a certain fine art context then it is fine art...right? or is it unsuccesful fine art? if so it is still fine art. if not then what makes some art ...."fine" and some not. whats the objective rule here? is there or isnt there an object rule for some art being "fine"?

[iGav]

I think design is a combination of;

ART + SCIENCE

[twek]

this distinction between whether computer generated art is "fine" or not has thankfully disintegrated for the most part. it's now just accepted as yet another tool to produce content.

now what comes up is what is defined as computer art as it's own genre. what makes it a medium that allows a form of expression that cannot be achieved in any other way.

well, 3D modeling/animation is a form of sculpture that has the ability to defy all laws of physics. so if you are using it to create shapes/motion/topologies that cannot be described in the "real" world then possibly it is a form of art explicit to the digital domain.
electronic music is the other obvious one. the intricacies of electronic music often go beyond what the human body could possibly perform. whether or not the music produced in this fashion is a step forward for musical expression is still in question :)

this is a complex subject and it's really cool someone brought it up on this forum... not always just tech rumors and the like ;)

[Taft]

Originally posted by twek
this distinction between whether computer generated art is "fine" or not has thankfully disintegrated for the most part. it's now just accepted as yet another tool to produce content.


Bravo. I was hoping someone would bring this up. I look at computers to be a new medium for creation just as watercolor, oil paint or ink was at some point in history a new medium. People can do some incredible things with computers.

And look at the range. Artists working for movie studios have produced some of the most realistic images ever brought to the human outside...well...real life. And others are creating synthetic landscapes and pure visual splendor without constraining themselves to realistic form whatsoever.

It really is pretty cool what can be accomplished with these machines today.

Matthew

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Taft
It really is pretty cool what can be accomplished with these machines today.

Reprinting computer art is also become a great industry. You can get museum quality prints on special watercolor paper that look so damn good and last for decades without fading.

http://www.oldtowneditions.com/iris/main.html

[eyelikeart]

I'm catching back up on this thread this morning...and it seems that u guys have lots of valid points. Still, though, I feel the graphic design market has become flooded with lots of crap...and there's an obvious distinction between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer.

Art is a means of expression & communication. Often I find that people who cannot express themselves vocally can be more successful doing it visually. Graphic design, however, is more of a technical craft. In most cases, commercial art & graphic design isn't an expression of one's thoughts or feelings...but rather a client's spec sheet. This is why I hold my signature, "don't fall in love with your first idea." Too many times I've become attached to an idea that looked incredible...only to have a client completely tear it apart because it's "not what I was thinking." ugh... :rolleyes:

Has the answer really been found here yet? maybe we should conduct a poll to get a more direct approach to it?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I'm catching back up on this thread this morning...and it seems that u guys have lots of valid points. Still, though, I feel the graphic design market has become flooded with lots of crap...and there's an obvious distinction between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer.


hey eye, you will hit 2,000 before i can hit 1,200...ps thnx for offer for help ;-)

i bet when the french impressionists first came out, many of the critics thought they should not be allowed around paint brushes

just of a few years ago, there were techie oriented computer people and those who did not use the computer, but now there is this whole breed of non techie, non geek computer users, and some of them are artists who could care less about a cpu, processor, and hard drive, but simply want to create a work of art with the computer as their medium that given day instead of pen and ink, charcoal, or oil paints.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
artists who could care less about a cpu, processor, and hard drive, but simply want to create a work of art with the computer as their medium that given day instead of pen and ink, charcoal, or oil paints.

Have you ever used Painter, its amazing what you can do, especially with a tablet. You can do oil, water color, pen, ink, etc., select the paper type to get rough effects if you're using charcoal, blend oils and water color and a whole host of things. And the best thing about it, the undo button....:D

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Has the answer really been found here yet? maybe we should conduct a poll to get a more direct approach to it?

Go ahead and do it. It would be interesting to see what people here think. But I don't know if you'd get any definitive answers. Its all so subjective a topic.

[eyelikeart]

jef...
no prob for the offer ;) I suppose I'll hit the 2000 mark in the next couple weeks...I'll do a dance for u all...he he he...

duke...
when I first got into Macs...they were teaching us Painter...damn that was long ago.... :rolleyes:
a poll may be a good idea....jeff?

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by eyelikeart

a poll may be a good idea

Do a good job on the answer selections, though. I've seen a few that don't provide good options and it ruins the pole. Provide a 'all of the above', 'i don't care', or 'what is art anyway' type of option.

[iGav]

I use Painter..... it's pretty amazing...... I use it alot with DV as you can import the footage raw, abit like Commotion......

[mischief]

I want Adobe Atmosphere goddammit. It's been a year.:mad: :p

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by mischief
I want Adobe Atmosphere goddammit. It's been a year.:mad: :p

Yeah! What's up with Adobe on this? Why is VRML having such a problem on the mac? Its a neat little app with huge potential - sort of like the 3DOS. Once it all comes together it will be great, but meanwhile we're out of luck.:mad:

[teabgs]

Art is art only to those that view it as art. I personally have a few production cels from various animated films/catoons. All signed. They are art. Its for commercial use, but the beauty is there and I see them as art.

Also, I was wondering if anyone knows an good sites that post FREE textures that I can use for texture mapping for my final 3D animation that's due in 2 weeks!!! I have so much to do and the textures are hard...Its an egyptian tomb. I'm almost done modeling/animating. I've started to texture and light, but it takes a while...and I need almost a week to render since I cant just start it and let it go until it finishes...other people need to render as well.

Gracias

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by teabgs

Also, I was wondering if anyone knows an good sites that post FREE textures that I can use for texture mapping for my final 3D animation that's due in 2 weeks!!!

Ah, the textures are the tough one sometimes, eh? I use a couple now and again, you can take a look at

http://www.3dsite.com in the links section.

But someone posted a new site with a whole bunch of resources. I haven't had a chance to check it all out, but it looked really good.

http://www.clubmedia.com/

One thing you might want to do is 'adjust' some of the images a little, give them a custom feel, it always looks better. Also if you have access to a digital camera that works even better. Good luck.

[Kilchzimmer]

After a year of being in "lurk mode" I thought I'd slip in a some comments on this one.

I have a BA degree in Fine Art & photography and have been an illustrator for 17+ yrs. In recent years, I seem to be spending more time behind my Mac then the drawing board (webdesign, DTP, etc..).

First, to define a few terms....
I never use the word "artist" to describe myself or my title. I believe "artist" is a title someone else needs to give you. An "artist" is simply someone who has, over the years of perfecting and refining, elevated his particular skill to that of an art. So, a farmer can be an artist if they excell at what they do and strive to a higher level of excellence in their field.
I guess you could then say that the farmer is out-standing in his field (had to get that in there... hehe)

creativity .... is simply "decision making". Anyone who must decide between choice A or B is using creativity in his job. Creativity is not something limited to those involved in the "arts". Perhaps a toll booth operator may be the one exception to the rule. :-) <BG>
-------------------
Here's a quote from an article that I found interesting and touches on some of the questions here about designers vrs. fine artists vrs. etc......:
It's crucial to remember that design is not art. It's not about personal expression running amok. Design is about solutions to real problems. Unlike fine artist who follow their own whims, designers do not solve their own problems, but rather the problems of the job at hand. They should be concerned with getting results like selling products, filling auditoriums, identifying companies and presenting information understandably. Design must grow out of an awareness of the assighnment's problems and goals.
-------------------
fine art....computer art...etc.
I still use my pens, brushes, etc. and I make use of several computer programs. I have no doubt in my mind that the computer will never completely replace "traditional" tools for illustration.
One reason...
People pay for imperfection. What would someone pay more for - a handmade plate or a "perfect" one made by a machine, a handsewn rug or a machine sewn one?
The reason for this is that humans are imperfect and having this element of imperfection in one's artwork breathes "life" into in and gives a personal human element to it. I'm not talking about "mistakes" or doing shoddy work but rather human imprefection shining through and having people relate to it. I've tried the best "natural media" software on the market and a computer can NOT create this natural human element - impressive as the 3D brush strokes may look with the preasure sensitive Wacom tablet. Don't get me wrong....I think these programs are GREAT and I am itching to try the new Mac OSX Photoshop 7 with the addition of unlimited pressure sensitive natural brushes!! :eek:

Whenever I produce artwork in the computer, I always make a point to have at least one stage of the process done by hand. For example, if I wanted to drop in colour for a b/w line drawing, I would do the drawing by hand and scan it in, then manipulate it in the computer and add the colour in photoshop. Or, for a colour pencil effect in a photo, instead of using a Photoshop art filter, I would hand draw some colourpencil effects over the photo (on tracing paper) and then scan it in and superimpose it over/under the photo (setting the photograph layer at around 60%). I even made some homemade papers (at home in the blender using feathers, flowers, etc.!) and scanned them in for backgrounds to a brochure. Went quick and was fun. ...and I found out that a computer doesn't always do every graphic job faster than by hand. It all depends...

My Mac (and painting software) is only a tool, no different than a pencil or brush. It is another tool in my bag and no one tool is the best choice for every job. There were some good points in this thread on how some students buy a fancy computer program and think that those cool effects will do the trick. The same happens with fine or graphic artists who think that the use of colour can cover a multitude of weaknesses (weak composition, drawing skills, etc.). Notice how the latest design trends tend to run parallel with the new Photoshop tools and eventually things start to look "sameish".

Another reason, I will never give up my traditional tools is that the computer doesn't appeal to my sense of smell and touch. What would I do without my wet watercolour paper smelling like a dog coming in out of the rain.:p, the smell of oil of lavendar spike, or the buttery feel of my Blockx oil paints. Also, there is less frustration with my traditional tools over my computer software/hardware ... "Ahhh, I just spent $25 on that new kolinsky sable brush and they just came out with an upgrade - kolinsky sable "version 1.5 for OSX"!" It's a comfort knowing that my investment will not become outdated for at least another 150 yrs.. <g>

Well, there's my 2 cents ... actually looking at how much I ended up typing it may be more like $1.89.

Now let me get my hands on that new Photoshop 7.0!!

[3rdpath]

art is just a word.

there is no fine art.

there is no commercial art.

the word itself implies a qualitative judgement that cannot be proven.

so any painting is art.

all music is art.

all driftwood is art.

all dog-poop is art.

anything and everything is art.

so what good is the word?:)

[teabgs]

sadly I dot have a digital camera. Also, I will alter any texture I can find...I just need them to use to alter. I got a few books from the library and scanned pictures in but most textures arent good for this or are the same as in every other book.

thanks for the links though...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
jef...
no prob for the offer ;) I suppose I'll hit the 2000 mark in the next couple weeks...I'll do a dance for u all...he he he...

duke...
when I first got into Macs...they were teaching us Painter...damn that was long ago.... :rolleyes:
a poll may be a good idea....jeff?

painter, believe it or not, i have never even seen what the program looks like...photoshop, illustrator, pagemaker...yes, but painter? no.

and i know painter should be in everyone's collection so i have heard, but i would also like bryce since a friend of mine turned me onto it...i would like to try and use my right brain more since i have been left brained (analytical) for so long now , so it might be fun

i might take that famous techie to artist evolution i have seen so many computer people do, so i am not going to plan it...art will just happen to me, hopefully

as for art having no definition or anything being art, history will tell you art and artists once considered something else will always go into the proper art world and be accepted eventually

[jefhatfield]

btw...who is the one who was an artist but is a techie now?

now that is fascinating to me

[AlphaTech]

A link to what my college bud does via a computer....

http://ghostofmacbeth.digitalartsites.com/

Navigate through it, you might be surprised at what one person has come up with. He has created everything there, except for the ad banners and the buttons. Not too shabby. :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
btw...who is the one who was an artist but is a techie now?

now that is fascinating to me

I posted this on another thread, but its worth reposting

This stuff is unbelievable, truly magnificent. When he gets it finished I'm thinking Oscar. But what makes even more special is that he did all the music himself.

http://www.lotsofrobots.com

Check out the animation, download the large one if you can, its totally worth it. LOR the Movie

The other stuff is cool too. And his studio is amazing.

[3rdpath]

well i've been in a rather dour mood lately so i was all ready to blast WHATEVER came up on the lotsofrobots link BUT.......

what a truly amazing creation. i stopped it after about 10 seconds so i could reload a larger version. wonderful, beautiful visuals and superb music and sound design. man oh man. made my week.

thanks :)

[Beej]

Well, if you asked my ex about computer atr, she'd tell you there is no such thing. Apparently using computers is too easy for anything made with them to ba art. (She was a painter/sketcher/photographer. She also had no idea how to make art on a computer ;))