Art or not?

[LoneDeranger]

OK, this started off as a discussion in the art forum and I though I should take it out here to get more opinions:

Does technology help us become more creative or "art as a whole is becoming too technical when it should be more physical"? (quote from chu)

Well honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of comments like that. Ok maybe everybody can be an artist/musician/photographer/filmmaker/etc these days, but isn't that good? It doesnt matter if they used a computer to help them. Not everybody has the money or time to be a "real" artist. In fact I find a lot of work from these indie artists is much better than the stuff from commericial ones.

Just my 2c

 

[The Terminator]

I think the technology is good, some people are good artists and have talent although some dont have time maybe to devote to practicing and such that other might. If a computer or other technology lets you show your artistic side a little easier then why not? Just because its easier, doesnt make it any worse.

 

[chu]

Yes, today it is easier for an individual to project their creativeness, not saying that is a bad thing.
I just say that the artist isn't born from his/her work but wrather the creation.

It is the evolution that has been adapted from are developments in technology, that is expected. So digital has become the new medium.

But this "easy" process can go too far. It is hard to respect really good art when you are being flooded with crap. I imagine the people that actually take the time and develop great work lose a little something when someone who took half the time and half the effort recieves the recognition of being an "artist".

So I am saying that yes it is too easy. It was the blood, sweat, and tears that made an artist; only those willing to take the time survived and earned the recognition. But today everybody is an "artist" thanks to technology.

 

[nw909]

So I am saying that yes it is too easy. It was the blood, sweat, and tears that made an artist; only those willing to take the time survived and earned the recognition. But today everybody is an "artist" thanks to technology.

What says that I'm not an artist if I make a picture out of feces and post a picture on the internet?

Sorry for the crude example but you don't have to be extremely professional and sell paintings for 30,000$ each in major auctions to be considered an artist.

I think anyone can be an artist without technology too.

 

[thehunter1320]

should have made a poll :hmph:
and yes, the evolving tech helps our creativity flourish

 

[CyberSh33p]

well I think the word art is very subjective in meaning, and should be taken as such.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

(whoo, I said something philosophical )

 

[phantomdesign]

This is all from my perspective, and I’m sure it is different for others.

Value of art
Art is subjective, and that is what makes are valuable. The likes, dislikes, personal tastes, etc are what make art what it is. In my opinion, the appeal or enjoyability of art is what makes art valuable.

Appeal
I think a lot of trained artists and professional artists have lost the element of appeal. They tend to get very heavily focused on rules of technique and theories of art. I’m not discounting technique or generally theories of art, but this tends to cause problems for a lot of artists.

More specifically, I’ve noticed a lot of indoctrination that occurs in a lot of art training. I don’t mind the teaching of technique, and general pointers, but the problem comes when the teaching strays into defining what is “good art” and what is “bad art.” For example, many music education classes tend to focus on classical music such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven as good art, but quickly label a lot of newer music as bad art.

I’m not a big fan of music myself, but I can recognize when a person does a good job. There are a number of pieces of modern music that I consider ingenious. They do an excellent job at something, like portraying a deep emotional love or initiating excitement. This isn’t the best example of what I’m trying to say (I tried to pick something a lot of you would know), but consider the rock song “Wild Thing” (I think that’s what it is called). Doesn’t that song do an excellent job initiating excitement, portraying a mood? I suppose it would even make an excellent argument for “head banging.”

Art for Artists?
The problem that arises is art is no longer about making enjoyable stuff, but rather impressing other artists. I call it my “Art for Artists” theory. Does this happen much? Definitely. In fact, I would venture to say the vast majority of “professional artist” fall into this trap.

Think outside the Box? Which box?
The funniest thing in my opinion is the “think outside the box” mentality. In theory, it’s great, but in reality it does a lot of harm. It’s just a philosophical sounding way to say “make something original damn it.”

What seems to happen is the artists tries so hard to “think outside the box” that what they do is “think outside of Box A” and “think inside of Box B.” So you have box A artists and box B artists.

What are box B artists? They’re artists who make the most random, strange weird looking crap, which ironically all looks the same. They all think their work is original, but the only reason they can think that is because the artists before them which did the exact same thing went nowhere, meaning their art didn’t survive. If no one has seen the art before, then as far as you are concerned, you made something original.

A perfect example of what cars are suppose to look like 15-20 years from now (according to artists) would be at this link. http://www.opticore.com/godigital/ Ironically, if you look at stuff 20 years ago, you see the exact same crap in picture of what the year 2000 was supposed to look like. In another 20 years you’ll see this exact same crap, and everyone will think it is so original. Replicating art that doesn’t survive may seem original, but your work is destined to be forgotten also.

My Experience
I often get flamed by other professional designers because I like to design exotic sports cars, bodykits, and monster SUV’s. Some of them even seem to believe that my 3D software automatically makes the cool design form me. While it may appear simple for on the surface level, and evokes the “I could do that” mentality, my design work is far from random. In fact, I would argue a lot of their work is quite random and unplanned, except within the realms of their artistic training. I could care less whether or not my designs look “super innovative,” but I focus on making them look cool. There’s a lot more going on than I show on the surface, but that’s the fun in making it looks easy.

Real Artists and Kids
I could argue that the “real artists” have lost what art is about, so the reason every kid is making art is because the real artists aren’t doing their job of making good looking/cool art. I don’t consider myself just any kid, and I often find that the crappy art flooding everything makes it really hard to find the good art. Most of the ‘kids’ out there do make crappy art, and ironically the artists aren’t much better.

What do I think is true modern art?
I think true modern art is a bit different from what is considered main stream art. Here’s a few examples of what I consider to be modern art:
Matrix (1st one, 2 & 3 are not art but are crap)
Half Life 2 (at least what I’ve seen so far)
www.GryphonAuto.com (I think it is important for an artist to enjoy their own work. If you don’t enjoy it, who will?)
Ferrari / Lamborghini / Saleen (Got to love them cars)
F-22, JSF, F-23, F-117, B-2 (who says technology can’t be sexy)

 

[Sulkdodds]

Good points. Seems exactly my thinking.
I like drawing.