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