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]

fine art/commercial art

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]

re: artists

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]

Re: re: artists

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]

Re: Re: re: artists

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]

Re: Re: Re: re: artists

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?

 

[idkew]

i agree....

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

 

[eyelikeart]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re: artists

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

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...

 

[Gelfin]

Re: are mac artists fine artists?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re: artists

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

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 sh*t with Poser). I will see about getting some urls that have samples, just to show, later.

 

[3rdpath]

art is what it is.....

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?

 

[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]

warhol

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.