Abstract art in digital age

[Dawid Michalczyk]

Hi,

I was wondering about something that only people using art programs can
answer. It's about abstract art, or more precisely how do you perceive
digital abstract art knowing that in many cases it's relatively easy to
make. This is especially true when it comes to abstract expressionism.

Do you as an experienced user of your favorite graphics tools look at
abstract art in terms of how difficult/easy it was to do or in terms of
the actual artistic expression? Does it matter if the picture is
generated or an abstract painting?

For example, if you see an abstract picture, and YOU know that it was
dead simple to make, yet the image looks great, what is your reaction?
Thanks.

[SewVeryCreative]

Post by Dawid Michalczyk
Hi,
I was wondering about something that only people using art programs can
answer. It's about abstract art, or more precisely how do you perceive
digital abstract art knowing that in many cases it's relatively easy to
make. This is especially true when it comes to abstract expressionism.
Do you as an experienced user of your favorite graphics tools look at
abstract art in terms of how difficult/easy it was to do or in terms of
the actual artistic expression? Does it matter if the picture is generated
or an abstract painting?

Nope. Because even if it's computer generated, it had to have *some* talent
behind it. Garbage-in-Garbage-out. If you get penalized for the garbage,
shouldn't you get congrats on the good stuff?!

I mean, it took someone with talent to give the illy app the input, tweak
the this-n-that, and have the eye to know when it's done and when it's not.
*That's* talent, IMO.

Post by Dawid Michalczyk
For example, if you see an abstract picture, and YOU know that it was dead
simple to make, yet the image looks great, what is your reaction? Thanks.

I usually think "Good for you! Yay!!" But then, I can understand and
appreciate that especially when it *looks* easy and simple, it's really not.
:)

When it comes down to the very essence of art, it's not just the tool that
defines the quality of the piece -- it's the person behind the tool. All the
fancy-schmancy software in the world ain't going to make up for no talent.
So if it looks good, there was talent behind it -- who cares what tool they
used (unless you want to recreate the style or technique or are just
curious!). :)

Post by Dawid Michalczyk
--
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by SewVeryCreative
Nope. Because even if it's computer generated, it had to have *some* talent
behind it. Garbage-in-Garbage-out. If you get penalized for the garbage,
shouldn't you get congrats on the good stuff?!
I mean, it took someone with talent to give the illy app the input, tweak
the this-n-that, and have the eye to know when it's done and when it's not.
*That's* talent, IMO.
I usually think "Good for you! Yay!!" But then, I can understand and
appreciate that especially when it *looks* easy and simple, it's really not.
:)
When it comes down to the very essence of art, it's not just the tool that
defines the quality of the piece -- it's the person behind the tool. All the
fancy-schmancy software in the world ain't going to make up for no talent.
So if it looks good, there was talent behind it -- who cares what tool they
used (unless you want to recreate the style or technique or are just
curious!). :)

Post by Dawid Michalczyk
--
_DMART_  Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

You may be discounting just how easy it has become to generate very
nice looking bitmaps. For example, here is a procedural texture I
developed.

http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4539.html

Once the texture is loaded, all the user has to do is click a button
called 'Variation' and a new plasma ball is generated. Each new
texture will have different colors, plasma distribution and lighting/
reflection characteristics.

Bitmap textures like this are sold at places like Renderosity.com and
Second Life. Or used to seed particle systems. Typically, they are not
sold by the person that developed the procedure, or the software, but
rather the person that purchased the software and clicked the
variation button.

Admittedly, this is taking the OP's question to the extreme but it is
essentially holds. How much credit does one deserve for being the last
person in the chain to hit save?

[SewVeryCreative]

Post by SewVeryCreative
Nope. Because even if it's computer generated, it had to have *some* talent
behind it. Garbage-in-Garbage-out. If you get penalized for the garbage,
shouldn't you get congrats on the good stuff?!
I mean, it took someone with talent to give the illy app the input, tweak
the this-n-that, and have the eye to know when it's done and when it's not.
*That's* talent, IMO.
I usually think "Good for you! Yay!!" But then, I can understand and
appreciate that especially when it *looks* easy and simple, it's really not.
:)
When it comes down to the very essence of art, it's not just the tool that
defines the quality of the piece -- it's the person behind the tool. All the
fancy-schmancy software in the world ain't going to make up for no talent.
So if it looks good, there was talent behind it -- who cares what tool they
used (unless you want to recreate the style or technique or are just
curious!). :)

--
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

You may be discounting just how easy it has become to generate very
nice looking bitmaps. For example, here is a procedural texture I
developed.

http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4539.html

Once the texture is loaded, all the user has to do is click a button
called 'Variation' and a new plasma ball is generated. Each new
texture will have different colors, plasma distribution and lighting/
reflection characteristics.

Bitmap textures like this are sold at places like Renderosity.com and
Second Life. Or used to seed particle systems. Typically, they are not
sold by the person that developed the procedure, or the software, but
rather the person that purchased the software and clicked the
variation button.

Admittedly, this is taking the OP's question to the extreme but it is
essentially holds. How much credit does one deserve for being the last
person in the chain to hit save?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Sorry, OE's just not letting me quote automatically -- and I'm too damned
lazy to fix it)

I do admit, that a lot of artwork out there is on the rehashed and ... shall
we say, borrowed? side?

But, in the end, it takes a damned good eye to put all those elements,
original to the "final" artist or not, together in a functional, attractive
fashion.

If it were just monkey-work, then those crappy internet ads back in the day
would be right (and they ain't):
"Boot up your computer, grab a cuppa coffee and when you come back, the
job's done! Graphic design made simple!"

Phbbbt. The tools have changed, but talent is eternal. Once a computer can
identify elements that work together in an attractive, cohesive fashion, can
tweak filters and whatnot automatically (knowing exactly what the artist is
looking to convey), and can deal with cranky clients on short deadlines, I
still say the art, no matter how "automated by yesteryear's standards, is
still art -- and the artist deserves the kudos.

*whispers to Mac*
No, sweetie ... we all know that it's YOUR work, not mine!

Sometimes, you gotta sweet talk the "tools!" :)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by SewVeryCreative
Nope. Because even if it's computer generated, it had to have *some* talent
behind it. Garbage-in-Garbage-out. If you get penalized for the garbage,
shouldn't you get congrats on the good stuff?!
I mean, it took someone with talent to give the illy app the input, tweak
the this-n-that, and have the eye to know when it's done and when it's not.
*That's* talent, IMO.
I usually think "Good for you! Yay!!" But then, I can understand and
appreciate that especially when it *looks* easy and simple, it's really not.
:)
When it comes down to the very essence of art, it's not just the tool that
defines the quality of the piece -- it's the person behind the tool. All the
fancy-schmancy software in the world ain't going to make up for no talent.
So if it looks good, there was talent behind it -- who cares what tool they
used (unless you want to recreate the style or technique or are just
curious!). :)

--
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

You may be discounting just how easy it has become to generate very
nice looking bitmaps. For example, here is a procedural texture I
developed.
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4539.html
Once the texture is loaded, all the user has to do is click a button
called 'Variation' and a new plasma ball is generated. Each new
texture will have different colors, plasma distribution and lighting/
reflection characteristics.
Bitmap textures like this are sold at places like Renderosity.com and
Second Life. Or used to seed particle systems. Typically, they are not
sold by the person that developed the procedure, or the software, but
rather the person that purchased the software and clicked the
variation button.
Admittedly, this is taking the OP's question to the extreme but it is
essentially holds. How much credit does one deserve for being the last
person in the chain to hit save?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sorry, OE's just not letting me quote automatically -- and I'm too damned
lazy to fix it)
I do admit, that a lot of artwork out there is on the rehashed and ... shall
we say, borrowed? side?
But, in the end, it takes a damned good eye to put all those elements,
original to the "final" artist or not, together in a functional, attractive
fashion.
If it were just monkey-work, then those crappy internet ads back in the day
"Boot up your computer, grab a cuppa coffee and when you come back, the
job's done! Graphic design made simple!"
Phbbbt. The tools have changed, but talent is eternal. Once a computer can
identify elements that work together in an attractive, cohesive fashion, can
tweak filters and whatnot automatically (knowing exactly what the artist is
looking to convey), and can deal with cranky clients on short deadlines, I
still say the art, no matter how "automated by yesteryear's standards, is
still art -- and the artist deserves the kudos.
*whispers to Mac*
No, sweetie ... we all know that it's YOUR work, not mine!
Sometimes, you gotta sweet talk the "tools!" :)

I agree with you. But I also think that it is rare for people to pull
it off successfully. To me, there is a difference between something
that is art and something pretty. I also think that something can be
creative and original without rising to the level of being artistic.
The difference being that one stirs the emotions while the other
simply pleases the eye.
Here is an example of each that I found on the web. They each use the
latest computer technology but, imho, only one is art.

Loading Image...

I do not know who authored either one but I liked them both very much.

[Tom Nelson]

I struggle with this too with my Apophysis work
<http://www.tnphoto.com/frac.html>. I usually "add value" by
layering/combining fractals or adding other elements in Photoshop.

The issue also comes up in connection with auto-painting in Corel
Painter. There, it's important to go over the painting and add my own
brush strokes.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Tom Nelson
I struggle with this too with my Apophysis work
<http://www.tnphoto.com/frac.html>. I usually "add value" by
layering/combining fractals or adding other elements in Photoshop.
The issue also comes up in connection with auto-painting in Corel
Painter. There, it's important to go over the painting and add my own
brush strokes.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

Hi Tom,
If you do a google images of my favorite 'real life' abstract artist,
Lee Bontecou, you will see that her works took a huge investment of
imagination and time. To me, they are filled with magic. The magic
stems not just from the amount of her life that was put into the
project but also the impenetrability of the back-story that leave the
doors open for speculation and wonder. With fractals, as pretty as
they are, I know the back-story. I remember in the early eighties when
Scientific American, or was it Omni, did the article on the Mandelbrot
set. I was filled with wonder. But since then my excitement for
mathematically generated art has waned.

On the digital side, it takes artists like Dave McKean or Michael
Harmon to really make me stare and think.

http://www.pixelkat.com/Copy%20of%20Digital%20Artwork%201.htm

http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Tom Nelson
I struggle with this too with my Apophysis work
<http://www.tnphoto.com/frac.html>. I usually "add value" by
layering/combining fractals or adding other elements in Photoshop.
The issue also comes up in connection with auto-painting in Corel
Painter. There, it's important to go over the painting and add my own
brush strokes.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

I forgot to mention that I think both you and Dawid are making some
beautiful images.

[Bo]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by SewVeryCreative
Nope. Because even if it's computer generated, it had to have *some* talent
behind it. Garbage-in-Garbage-out. If you get penalized for the garbage,
shouldn't you get congrats on the good stuff?!
I mean, it took someone with talent to give the illy app the input, tweak
the this-n-that, and have the eye to know when it's done and when it's not.
*That's* talent, IMO.
I usually think "Good for you! Yay!!" But then, I can understand and
appreciate that especially when it *looks* easy and simple, it's really not.
:)
When it comes down to the very essence of art, it's not just the tool that
defines the quality of the piece -- it's the person behind the tool. All the
fancy-schmancy software in the world ain't going to make up for no talent.
So if it looks good, there was talent behind it -- who cares what tool they
used (unless you want to recreate the style or technique or are just
curious!). :)

--
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

You may be discounting just how easy it has become to generate very
nice looking bitmaps. For example, here is a procedural texture I
developed.
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4539.html
Once the texture is loaded, all the user has to do is click a button
called 'Variation' and a new plasma ball is generated. Each new
texture will have different colors, plasma distribution and lighting/
reflection characteristics.
Bitmap textures like this are sold at places like Renderosity.com and
Second Life. Or used to seed particle systems. Typically, they are not
sold by the person that developed the procedure, or the software, but
rather the person that purchased the software and clicked the
variation button.
Admittedly, this is taking the OP's question to the extreme but it is
essentially holds. How much credit does one deserve for being the last
person in the chain to hit save?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sorry, OE's just not letting me quote automatically -- and I'm too damned
lazy to fix it)
I do admit, that a lot of artwork out there is on the rehashed and ... shall
we say, borrowed? side?
But, in the end, it takes a damned good eye to put all those elements,
original to the "final" artist or not, together in a functional, attractive
fashion.
If it were just monkey-work, then those crappy internet ads back in the day
"Boot up your computer, grab a cuppa coffee and when you come back, the
job's done! Graphic design made simple!"
Phbbbt. The tools have changed, but talent is eternal. Once a computer can
identify elements that work together in an attractive, cohesive fashion, can
tweak filters and whatnot automatically (knowing exactly what the artist is
looking to convey), and can deal with cranky clients on short deadlines, I
still say the art, no matter how "automated by yesteryear's standards, is
still art -- and the artist deserves the kudos.
*whispers to Mac*
No, sweetie ... we all know that it's YOUR work, not mine!
Sometimes, you gotta sweet talk the "tools!" :)

I disagree, what is referred to as talent will eventually be formulated
and synthesized, and already has to some degree. Talent is not a magical
quality, but a notion that depends entirely on perception. And can
usually be reduced to very specific elements. Elements which can then be
reproduced - and even perfected.

Artists constantly need to redefine themselves or they will be destroyed
by the modern world, this is not new. All art will eventually look the
same, this has been predetermined by experts. Here is the equation,
study it!

^
(.)"(.)
O*O

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Dawid Michalczyk
Hi,
I was wondering about something that only people using art programs can
answer. It's about abstract art, or more precisely how do you perceive
digital abstract art knowing that in many cases it's relatively easy to
make. This is especially true when it comes to abstract expressionism.
Do you as an experienced user of your favorite graphics tools look at
abstract art in terms of how difficult/easy it was to do or in terms of
the actual artistic expression? Does it matter if the picture is
generated or an abstract painting?
For example, if you see an abstract picture, and YOU know that it was
dead simple to make, yet the image looks great, what is your reaction?
Thanks.
--
_DMART_  Abstract arthttp://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_gallery_1.html

The value evaporates when the magic is gone.
But I would like to know what you think. What is your measure of what
makes a work of yours, work?

[Dawid Michalczyk]

Post by r***@gmail.com
The value evaporates when the magic is gone.
But I would like to know what you think. What is your measure of what
makes a work of yours, work?

I agree that some of the magic is gone, yet I can still appreciate the
beauty of it regardless of how the picture was made. As for my abstract
pictures I work on them until they look complete to me. The colors,
forms, composition, and the feel all have to flow in synergy to make it
work.