Welcome to TalkGraphics.com
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Westbank, BC Canada
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    I too feel that life is quite imperfect, dirty, and most of all... random!

    If computer art is to truely resemble reality in any way, it too must contain these, often very subtle, elements.

    Unfortunately though, these are characteristics that a lot of CGAs overlook. Though i'm happy to report that they are some of the easiest things to do with programs such as Photoshop, Painter, etc... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    PS: that reminds me Erik... if you really want to try creating old style/traditional works of art on the computer, you might want to consider using a more formittable program designed for that than Photoshop - such as Painter.

    Oops! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] Was that a blashpemous statement on my part! hehee
    IP

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,970

    Default

    I agree with you guys about the technique.

    I think there are two reasons that CG comes up short,one being that I cant see how a CG brush can accurately mimic the multitude of brush hairs in say a sable brush,and two being we have the software which allows us to clean up the dirt and over saturate our colors etc and maybe sub consciously we are trying to spring clean what we dont like in reality itself.

    I agree life can be inperfect,but I dont know if I agree with the dirty for myself,because you never know when something is going to drop in your lap that makes you re examine how you feel about a great many things,and from that point on what was dirty becomes a really special gift.I find for myself that I dont really realise just how much I appreciate something until I am threatened with losing it.But then again thats just my opinion.

    Stu. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
    IP

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    the twilight zone
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Perhaps it is more like every action, be it human or not, leaving a kind of burr. Our brains tend to simplify things, leave things out to be able to concentrate on the useful and the necessary. Perhaps we are still this fragile frightened creature that was surrounded with lots of other animals that were better adapted to the circumstances...
    Nowadays we still simplify, hence the power of chaos theory, in scientifical research AND in our fractal producing apps, that tries to go further than the "let us presume that pi equals 3,14" to give an example. Nature never presumes, and can not be cut into little pieces without losing the essence.

    What I want is not imitate the painting techniques as an aim, but as a step towards something I can't envisage yet. With the right technique (painting in transparant layers) one can come to intensities of colour that no monitor or slide can reproduce. But it is not humanly possible to paint let's say fractals that open like flowers and that keep their complexity in every detail, no matter how you zoom in.
    So the two might come together somewhere. The attention, the awareness and observation of traditional art and the randomly richess, the perfect rhythm and repeating patterns, and the undercooled perfection (a world like an overcleaned hospital without dust, scratches, skin, disease etc) of computers.

    If you have something to speak, then say it. If you have a vision, then make an image, if you hear a melody, then make music.

    Why should a computer programme imitate a painting? The emboss effect is as flat as the surface of your monitor, and there will never be dust on its ridges. Photography doesn't need to imitate painting, but can never replace it either. It has a creative value of its own. So does computer art. I think we are the precursors of something new. Sorry if I hurt the fans of it, but I've never seen a really good, alive looking poser man or woman. This is no critique on Poser's capabilities, but these have never ever been discovered yet. The same with Photoshop and its likes (this too is a blasphemy here): without any doubt it has been further explored than any other computer app, and if I ever can afford it, I'll probably buy it, but most of the artists and professionals that work with it stay safely in the cities on the coastside, making collages, a technique that was extremely difficult in the darkrooms of old-fashioned photography. But there is more than a coastline: there is a rainforest bigger than the amazone, a desert hotter than the sahara and some galaxies to be discovered.

    Sorry for this intensity: it's just that I feel the volcano-like vast creative potential that is as attractive as Rider Haggard's She.

    It is inevitable that we will find a way. That is our only certitude. So let's go for it!
    IP

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Westbank, BC Canada
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Hehehe... aaa.... just WOW! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    Guys, this topic is just BEGGING to be ponder further while sipping a latte, in a quaint little cafe on the French Riviera. hahahaa

    PS: i love "deep" conversations. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
    IP

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    171

    Default

    "Photorealistic Techniques with PhotoShop and Illustrator" by Bert Monroy.

    Take a look at this Monroy image (completely digital): http://www.be-in.com/9/areas/netcast...oy1PicnPac.jpg

    There are severla more here: http://www.be-in.com/9/areas/netcast...r/gallery.html

    You can buy the book at Amazon.com and various other site.

    Marcus Geduld
    { email me } { visit me }
    Marcus Geduld
    { email me } { visit me }
    IP

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Norway & Sweden & USA
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    I'm a traditional painter, too, and also find computer graphics as "attractive as Rider Haggard's She" (I loved that novel and your reference to it!)

    I well know Bert Monroy's work, though I haven't seen his book yet. He's good - but I quite agree with Mark that probably all computer paintings I have seen so far fall short of what has been accomplished by painters working in the field of traditional, physical painting. But who knows what the future might hold for one of us pixelpushers? ;-)

    For what it's worth: I've been invited to fly down to Bermuda in April, to give two lectures on digital painting and art to a small group of rich, art loving commodity traders! Strange, but true. After I have given the talks, I might make the lectures available on the web in some form.


    K

    [This message was edited by Klaus Nordby on January 31, 2001 at 03:28 PM.]
    K
    www.klausnordby.com/xara (big how-to article)
    www.xaraxone.com/FeaturedArt/kn/ (I was the first-ever featured artist in the Xone)
    www.graphics.com (occasional columnist, "The I of The Perceiver")


    IP

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,970

    Default

    I love this thread.

    It begs the question is it possible to create near reality with a pixel?,I mean thats what it comes down to right.

    Maybe when you paint in a physical manner ,but not digitally some of the essence of the artist or the artists experiences themselves are applied to the canvas as well,but in some form that we dont really understand yet or comprehend,what do you think?

    I would love to see that lecture material if you decide to put it on the web.

    Stu
    [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
    IP

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Westbank, BC Canada
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Thanks for the link to that site Klaus, i've been wanting that for a while [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    I agree that his work is very good. The "street corner" image though has 2 small "glitches" i'd probably do different [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    1) The air is much too crisp and clean - needs some "atmoshpere".
    2) the roads are a tad "over done" - less skidding on the corner and grunge on the highway section.

    Other than those small snafus, i like the image a lot. Serious detail in there - not surprising though when using BOTH PS & AI. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Oh and i too would enjoy reading your lectures if you should decide to post them on the Web in some form. Thanks!

    PS: Stu the 'personal experience' reference you made i believe to be the 'human randomnous' factor - or otherwise thought of as "accidental style". hehee
    IP

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    the twilight zone
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote KIWI:"It begs the question is it possible to create near reality with a pixel?"

    And say that a pixel has no dimensions...that it is only a mathematical abstraction. A real virtual reality...Ages ago someone said that you see reality as you are. So what makes that us then?

    theatrical background voice:"And while it was misty outside and the cold wind howled, his thoughts drifted to the French Riviera."Good idea. Only problem is that I'm awake while you westcoast Canadians and Australians are sleeping and VV.

    By the way: do try out the Opera browser. It's free and, as far as I've tested it out, much better than the two other dogs, fighting for that legendary bone... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
    IP

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    122

    Default

    To me, Photoshop is really a production tool for my job/business. I need to get newsletters, brochures etc done and photoshop with my layout aps let me do this. But I do sometimes work with painter/photoshop to create more artsy things.

    >>Why should a computer programme imitate a painting? The emboss effect is as flat as the surface of your monitor, and there will never be dust on its ridges. Photography doesn’t need to imitate painting, but can never replace it either. It has a creative value of its own. So does computer art.<<

    I agree completely. And, as Erik is strugling to see how the computer relates to his artwork...so am I. I havent discovered the techniques as of yet that I would call anything I do on the computer, art. But I may be coming close.

    But following the discussion about art on the computer and whether or not it is really art...I have been thinking about the following questions and answers (or at least my answers to them)

    Q: what is art?
    Well this is a tough question to answer. And there probably is no hard and fast rules to govern this.
    I personally want to see an impression or thought that the artist is trying to portray. Something that the artist is pasionate about. I dont really care if it is accurate and true to life. Sure I can be impressed by an artists skill in trying to represent ‘true to life’ images. But beyond that, that type of artwork does not want to make me get out my checkbook. I want to see creativity. I want to see intellegance. I want to see passion.

    Q: can you call what is done on a computer art?
    Defineately, yes.
    Artists decide what media they choose to work with. And no matter whether it be oil paint on a canvas, welded and forged metal or the pixels on a computer screen. This is the artists choice.
    The problem with computer graphics is that we often see the media and not the art. We tend to scrutinize it and break it apart. We see it on the monitor and it somehow, it seems less personal. I do believe that this changes once it is printed on a suitable substrate though. It becomes more tangible and hence becomes more valuable. And this is no different than seeing a picture of a painting in a book...when you see it in the gallery...it becomes more tangible.
    Successful computer art, accepts its medium for what it is. The piece is not about technique or filters, it is about the artists impression and how this impression translates to the viewer.

    Q: is playing with filters and effects, art. No. But they are some of the techniques that can be used in creating art. I understand people that play around in Photohop or in Painter, saying isnt this cool. Yes, it may be a neat effect, but it is not art. For it to be art, it must be able to stand on its own.

    Q: is it something I would buy
    This is probably what it is all about folks.
    What the purchase price of the piece or whether you have the money to actually purchase the item is not really realavant to my point here; but whether or not the artwork speaks to the person. Whether or not the image means enough to the viewer that they are willing to trade something that they have (in this case money) for what the artist has done. Sure you can buy something that cost a 100 dollars and put it on your wall because it matches your furniture. But ‘real’ art in my mind has to touch the viewer in some way. It becomes personal. (but of course, what appeals to one person will not appeal to another)

    Q: Would I buy something that was done on the computer?
    You bet I would. But again, I would want what ever it was, to be printed on something so that I could hang it on my wall (etc.). And I would want to put it on the wall for several reasons. I dont really like looking at things on the computer. The light is somewhat glaring. ANd besides, I would friends and family to be able to enjoy it too. I dont want to have to turn on my computer screen to see it. Maybe this is why we tend to think of computer art as less tangible...if we turn off our monitor...it is gone. But if it is printed, this no longer becomes a factor.

    Beth
    IP

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •