From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 7-JUN-1993
11:51:17.67
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: good computer art
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01GZ3GM9OFX89AMEG5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 7 Jun 1993 11:51 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8669 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
7 Jun 1993 11:51 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1128; Mon, 7 Jun 1993 11:45:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 12:25:43 +0100
From: "S.A.Rae (Simon Rae)" <S.A.Rae@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: good computer art
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01GZ3GM9OFX89AMEG5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
michelle says:
"I didn't get a single good image all semester. I kept saying things
like, "I hate the fact that I can't get my fingers into it." "It
doesn't move the way I want it to" I am a painter. I have yet to
see good computer art."
I suspect the problem is one of there not being a general understanding of what
"good computer art" is ... for one thing - let's dispense with the "good" part
- I guess that a discussion of what GOOD <any> ART (replace <any> with
painting/sculpture/ceramic/music/opera/photographic to your preference) is
could keep the list alive and kicking for years to come. The discussion on what
ART is has taken a fair chunk of keyboard time as it is!
So - what do people understand by "computer art"?
I see a lot of work produced on/with/by computers (- computer art?) where the
computer is being used to imitate other medium (DRAWing packages, PAINTing
packages ...) and yes ... it often comes off badly in comparison with the REAL
medium. Has computer art found it's forte yet?
I think that some of the e-mail events that have happened approach this
computer art forte ... doing something which cannot be done by other means -
pushing out the boundaries of expression and forcing some of us to react to the
new. But we do computer art a disservice by applying
painting/sculpture/ceramic/music/opera /photographic critical methods to it.
> michelle goes on
"I think we have to be patient until the baby medium goes through quite
a few more advances in tech. For 50 years, photography consisted of
carte-de-visites and cabinet cards. Period. yawn."
Which 50 years are we talking about here ... some of the very early studio
portraits stand comparison with stuff done (and banned) these days.
Cheers
Simon
11:51:17.67
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: good computer art
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01GZ3GM9OFX89AMEG5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 7 Jun 1993 11:51 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8669 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
7 Jun 1993 11:51 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1128; Mon, 7 Jun 1993 11:45:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 12:25:43 +0100
From: "S.A.Rae (Simon Rae)" <S.A.Rae@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: good computer art
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01GZ3GM9OFX89AMEG5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
michelle says:
"I didn't get a single good image all semester. I kept saying things
like, "I hate the fact that I can't get my fingers into it." "It
doesn't move the way I want it to" I am a painter. I have yet to
see good computer art."
I suspect the problem is one of there not being a general understanding of what
"good computer art" is ... for one thing - let's dispense with the "good" part
- I guess that a discussion of what GOOD <any> ART (replace <any> with
painting/sculpture/ceramic/music/opera/photographic to your preference) is
could keep the list alive and kicking for years to come. The discussion on what
ART is has taken a fair chunk of keyboard time as it is!
So - what do people understand by "computer art"?
I see a lot of work produced on/with/by computers (- computer art?) where the
computer is being used to imitate other medium (DRAWing packages, PAINTing
packages ...) and yes ... it often comes off badly in comparison with the REAL
medium. Has computer art found it's forte yet?
I think that some of the e-mail events that have happened approach this
computer art forte ... doing something which cannot be done by other means -
pushing out the boundaries of expression and forcing some of us to react to the
new. But we do computer art a disservice by applying
painting/sculpture/ceramic/music/opera /photographic critical methods to it.
> michelle goes on
"I think we have to be patient until the baby medium goes through quite
a few more advances in tech. For 50 years, photography consisted of
carte-de-visites and cabinet cards. Period. yawn."
Which 50 years are we talking about here ... some of the very early studio
portraits stand comparison with stuff done (and banned) these days.
Cheers
Simon