Technology And Art

[coalesce]

My favorite artist is Maxfield Parrish. I love his palette, his movement (although I wished he used two point perspective more) and above all, his technique He had a way of painting landscapes that, to me, were stylized to being almost hyper-realistic. I've always loved painting landscapes, but regardless of the medium (designer's gouache, oils and finally digital) could never ever begin to approach his results. I came up with my own style, which i liked, but it was almost never as wholly satisfying to me as Parrish's results. I would try to cover up my deficiencies by painting a lot of nighttime scenes, but it always bugged me that I could never quite achieve Parrish's level.

Then, I bought this new software called Vue11 from Cornucopia3D. It's a whole lot less expensive than Maya and I find the results are most impressive, so much so that when I integrate my elements into a Vue11 background, I can see a chasm between my own work and the backgrounds created using the new software. That leads me to the question: when does the artwork stop being mine and more a result of the new software?

I feel the software is simply another tool for me to use, nothing more. It doesn't make me an artist. Instead, it enhances my work. It is not a substitute for talent or decision-making. I decide what terrain the should be, the light source, the perspective. All the software does is give me more rope to hang myself with by providing an almost overwhelming range of options. And to me, it's a good thing, not only because it's a time-saver that allows me to create faster and therefore create more, but it also allows me to conjure scenes and palettes that I may have not ordinarily thought of or used.

The same could be said for recording. My cousin Phil runs a recording studio in upstate New York. He uses a program called Melodyne which enables him to fix every note down to a portion of a syllable to make a singer sound "dead-on balls accurate," which is apparently an industry term. He sums it up by saying "It makes the unlistenable tolerable." He then wonders, at this point, when I have to do this much scrubbing, who is really the artist? The schmuck singing who couldn't sing their way out of a paper bag, or the producer who has to frantically make the unlistenable tolerable? We both end up agreeing, though, that the artist is the person behind the mic or the monitor and the technology is just another tool.

There are some, however, who feel that using a computer makes the work more impersonal, like there is a wall between the creator and the created. I disagree. I think that whatever tool you use to create your art is valid. I remember having a drawing teacher in college who tried to tell the students not to use an eraser because daVinci never used an eraser. Well, I thought, erasers as we know them were probably not around in his time, and unless she knew over 500 years old and him personally, she couldn't definitively say if he would use one or not if given a choice. For all we know, he may have embraced digital art and abandoned the mediums of his day if given a choice.

Some links to help better explain my thoughts, and please add yours:

Maxfield Parrish:

http://parrish.artpassions.net/#art

Cornucopia 3D:

http://www.cornucopia3d.com/?sid=f8bff3cd528a52e035037a3b5716039f&synch_f=1&_sid_=

My landscapes before using Vue11:

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/The-Cloud-2011-338027182

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/A-Walk-On-The-Beach-323754117

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/Family-Time-324215008

My landscapes after using Vue11:

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/A-Place-To-Reflect-title-72-383070197

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/Romeo-amp-Juliet-2013-title-72-378546955

And of course, when I finish a painting and I look back on it and I'm not quite happy with it:

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

Michael

 

[tuxcat]

He is amazing. The fact that he was able to do that without the use of a high-end graphics PC is incredible. Parrish seems to border on reality and the equivalent of "uncanny valley" for landscapes!

Personally, when I (rarely) do art, I use my computer to assist. I do mainly landscapes, cityscapes and the like and hang them on the wall. I work from a photograph, which means that I can get it just right. It's better than sitting outside for a few hours with an easel in the pouring rain because a sneak-attack from a rain shower has literally peed on your bonfire!

I still have to re-create colour, shape, texture and all the rest but the computer and it's software (GIMP) to help me do that - and not be at the mercy of things that wish to interfere in the execution of my piece - be it the weather, a swarm of bees, intrusive farm animals or simply time constraints.

I can capture the scene, take it home and then work from it in the comfort of my office/studio/bedroom/lair. I can also add effects to it as well, which I can then recreate in the painting or pencil. Light not quite right? That's easy to fix.

So yes computers are an aid and no they don't place a barrier between the work and the crafter. And that's another point - even photography is an art.

You have to get lighting right, the right angle, perfect straightness (or not as the case may be), fiddle around with the subject as artistic license is hard with a photograph unless you want to fiddle around with software for ages. Then you have to print it with the right inks, on the right paper, using the right colour model (CYMK or RGB?) at the right size.

 

[tuxcat]

ETA: Family Time by the OP is excellent - the lighting and composition are just right.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm a relative fossil in terms of what I make... Standard paints and materials and sculptural media...
I rather enjoy the "happy accidents" that always occur and if what I started out to do turns out somewhat different than what I had in mind...It's often successful anyway.

Now (and mind, I haven't done any serious painting in some years) I did frequently work from photographs...Rather painfully taken with an old Pentax manual 35mm film camera....So no computer programming for me.
Take the pic, stick it up by the easel or watercolor board, and start slinging paint. If it works it works.

But...I do use photoshop to retouch and alter digital photos....Not for artistic reasons, just for correction or retouching. Actually, I've looked at a whole bunch of "manipulated" photo images and pretty much I don't care for them.

Kind of funny, someone just put up a series of Parrish images one one of the "adult" blogs I subscribe to. Nice stuff. Not my taste, but very well-handled material and light.

 

[steve s]

My landscapes after using Vue11:

http://coalesceny.deviantart.com/art/A-Place-To-Reflect-title-72-383070197

Michael

The moon appears to be within the atmosphere because it is blocking out the haze. The best way to resolve this is to render the moon separately against a black background and then composite it into the scene in PS or Gimp using the Screen overlay method. In the pic below the moons and space station were done this way.

Steve S

 

[coalesce]

Tuxcat: thanks for the kind words!

Steve S: thanks for the tip. I will keep that in mind for a future piece.

Michael

 

[s4zando]

I have always wondered what Beethoven could do with a strato-caster and drum machine. Or Bach with a synthesizer, layered with some ProTools. Sometimes I imagine Mozart emailing himself samples of Lil Kim and jay-z, chuckling to himself before click-dragging it all to the recycle bin. Years later it is retrieved for a kriss-kross reunion tour, and it is most righteous.

 

[coalesce]

I have always wondered what Beethoven could do with a strato-caster and drum machine. Or Bach with a synthesizer, layered with some ProTools. Sometimes I imagine Mozart emailing himself samples of Lil Kim and jay-z, chuckling to himself before click-dragging it all to the recycle bin. Years later it is retrieved for a kriss-kross reunion tour, and it is most righteous.

And that's why one should never say, "Oh, Mozart would NEVER do dub-step..." or "John Lennon would NEVER do rap..." or anything else in that vein. We're all inherently creative people, and it's up to us to decide what (and if) we'll apply our creative efforts toward.

And I'm afraid that kris-kross reunion tour would only be a half as long.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/chris-kelly-cause-of-death_n_3531546.html

Michael

 

[calebprime]

And that's why one should never say, "Oh, Mozart would NEVER do dub-step..." or "John Lennon would NEVER do rap..." or anything else in that vein. We're all inherently creative people, and it's up to us to decide what (and if) we'll apply our creative efforts toward.

And I'm afraid that kris-kross reunion tour would only be a half as long.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/chris-kelly-cause-of-death_n_3531546.html

Michael

Heh. One should never say the first, because that's sort of taking the Lord's name in vain. The first is not like the second. Mozart was probably the greatest composer who ever lived, with a musical IQ of 7000, and Lennon was merely a guy who wrote some pretty darn good songs.

I'm all for using technology. Mozart would have used it.

The problem with imagining what Mozart would have done is that it's not clear if we're imagining someone with Mozart's aptitudes who grew up in today's culture, or whether we're imagining Mozart as concretely himself -- who avoided modulations that are too extreme because he felt that "music must always be music" -- or words to that effect -- so would have recoiled in horror from dub-step, because -- relative to his actual music -- it's primitive, cacophonous, barbaric.


Two quotes from Mozart that illustrate the difficulty with imagining what he would have done:

Mozart: “Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.”

He would have written some raps, also:

Mozart: ...But now I must rest a bit
From Rhyming. Yet this I must add,
That on Monday I'll have the honor, egad,
To embrace you and kiss your hands so fair.
But first in my pants I'll ****, I swear.

 

[coalesce]

I like the quotes from Mozart, especially the rapping bit. And my intention of adding John Lennon in my post was not to compare the two, regardless of your opinion of Lennon's talent. My intent was to draw comparisons between two different musical genres separated by time, even if one could probably imagine John hearing some rap in its formative stages on the radio by 1980.

Michael