Abstract art in digital age

On Jan 14, 7:58 am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:

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_gal lery_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" wrote in message

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.

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!). 🙂

—
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_galler y_1.html

On Jan 14, 10:52 am, "SewVeryCreative"
wrote:

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_galler y_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?

wrote in message
On Jan 14, 10:52 am, "SewVeryCreative"
wrote:

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_galler y_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!" 🙂

On Jan 14, 2:06 pm, "SewVeryCreative"
wrote:

wrote in message

On Jan 14, 10:52 am, "SewVeryCreative"
wrote:

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_galler y_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!" 🙂

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.

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/534/df9/534df9f3- db1a-4bca-9342-282c2dbcab9d.large-profile.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgfhmK2mnFU&feature=relat ed

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

wrote:

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.

—
_DMART_ Abstract art
http://www.art.eonworks.com/gallery/abstract/abstract_galler y_1.html

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

On Jan 16, 6:21 pm, Tom Nelson
wrote:

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.ht m

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

On Jan 16, 6:21 pm, Tom Nelson
wrote:

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.

SewVeryCreative wrote:

wrote in message
On Jan 14, 10:52 am, "SewVeryCreative"
wrote:

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_galler y_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!" 🙂

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