by Pete on April 24, 1997 at 19:20:32:
In Reply to: Re: art & technology: an issue of audience? posted by alex galloway on April 24, 1997 at 03:03:00:
> Benjamin Weill wrote:
> the use of technology once again raises the issue of the importance of
> mastery in the practice of
> the arts. Indeed, art as often been evaluated in terms of the artist's
> "hand skills", her r his ability
"new media" does require hand skills IMHO:
The ability to draw/control a mouse,
Pressure sensitive graphics tablets,
3D input devices - VR gloves, "The Monkey", Microscribe Arm,
The keyboard --
Eye/hand coordination/memorization/configuration of hotkeys and
And of couse you can capture existing media -- w/ 2D/3D scanners, sound
> to paint or scuplt well, etc. the intricacies of technology often call for
> a collaboration between the
> artist as "concept" developer and the technician as the person who is in
> charge of implementing
> those concepts.
The artist must learn the technology. You need to know how to mix color
so that you can paint... If painting is what you want to do -- learn
to mix the colors!
> There has been extensive discussions as to what an artists
> needs to know about
> technology to experiement with it. It seems interesting to note, however,
> that the use of video (at
> least in its early stage) did not seem to raise such issue: artists
> appropraited the technology and
> freely experimented with it.
It's easier to make "bad" video art than it is to make "bad" digital art
there a lot more buttons to press ;)
> even I found myself wishing for a nice, clean design-y interface after
> seeing Ken's challenging work.) But then again, the technology can't be
> too flawless. It becomes a target when it's too clever and clean.
> Critics respond as if technology "tricks" render the artist into a David
> Copperfield kind of performer.
What is trompe l'oeil?
If I knew how David Copperfield did his magic tricks, I would no longer
be interested in his artwork.
> Alex Galloway weighed in:
> : I think new media art gets stuck with regard to this aesthetic. It seems
> : that when technology is involved, people still want to see simple,
> : coherent, pretty things.
> I've thought about that too... how can digital art make use of a degraded
My only hope is that digital art is not degraded
due to ignorance of the medium (ie: drawing w/ Windows Paintbrush ;)
> many types of tech-based artistic production have capitalized upon their
> own technological
> shortcomings to produce degraded forms. the super8 camera, the xerox
> machine, the tape
Digital art degraded forms :
Mach banding, anti-aliasing or "jaggies", artefacts or "crawling" --
(animations, .JPGs), moire interference patterns, jittering, low
color depth, "intentionally" lowered resolution, low polygon counts,
Ascii art, Ansi art, RIP art, "loader" art, module music, file
Photoshop filters ;)
I just discovered something yesterday -- I was rendering a human body
I was using red and green spotlights ... the final render had
checkerboard patterns of yellow/violet/green/red -- very wierd.
[ follow ups ] [ Barbara London WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]