Well — here is a cool new drawing application. I admire the creation of the code. These were done in about 20 seconds. Artsy. I heard some prominent photographers speaking once on the topic of digital photography. While they could appreciate the steps being taken in new directions concerning their medium — they were also discouraged by the proliferation of bad photography simply because the process had become much easier and quicker. Slowly but surely the need to actually think about composition, value, hue, repetition, development of skill and technique, etc. — the soul of an artwork, prior to snapping the shutter– was disappearing. The resulting creative process was this: take a thousand photos — one of them must be good. Everybody can do it. I am by no means implying that the dedicated artist, one that thinks and sees and works with patience is on the verge of extinction just because of technological advancement in the arts. I am simply advocating critical thought when it comes to handing out acclaim. Am I the inventive artist of the images above? Or did i just scratch out some lines and let the code do the rest. There are so many more thoughts that go along with this topic — too many to write out here. I can even see some areas wherein i wish to argue with myself. Regardless — discuss.
Application in question: Harmony
All of these things are just tools. Sure, you spending 20 seconds making those sketches doesn’t deserve any real acclaim, but what if you used that application and did some crazy mural that took 300 hours? Same with any other tool. You don’t deserve credit for making radical swirls or 3d text in Photoshop, but if I use the Photoshop tool to make something unique it’s different. And even in this age of digital photography, you can tell a big different between a great photographer and myself.
It does also bring up something I always say. The developers making these incredible tools do not get nearly enough credit. Hopefully they are at least getting fancy paychecks.
Comment by Chase — March 10, 2010 12:15 pm
In regards to a crazy mural that took 300 hours — and was inventive and thoughtful and so forth — i would agree that it would be deserving of acclaim. This is why i didn’t mention a 300 hour mural in my post. I simply stated that we need to maintain a critical eye when it comes to new methods of art making. I imagine all of us who are interested in the creative thought process would be discouraged to see the adoration of works which are what they are only due to the help of the tool. And yes, great photographers can be differentiated from the mediocre, even today. But the fact cannot be denied that an individual’s technique to photography, because of the ease of things now, may become what i said before: take 1000 — get a single quality shot. No need to think, just point and shoot. Its this action that i am critiquing.
I am a bit old-fashioned — i admit it — if there were to be a comparison of murals placed side by side — of equal size and caliber — one being done digitally and printed out – and the other being hand painted — i think you know which one i would appreciate greater. Because it is the physical manifestation of the artist — there in front of me — with their sweat and cigg butts and all. And if one is to accuse me of over-valuing the object itself — i have no shame in saying i am guilty. For that is the thing itself — if it were to be destroyed it would be gone forever. If the same were to happen to the print — well, just make another one. And if the digital file were to be destroyed — then it would be gone forever as well. But i can’t quite get over the idea of it never fully existing in the first place. Digital screens all smell the same — feel pretty much the same — can be turned off. Everything seems so disposable. Temporary. Plastic.
If one were to sculpt David digitally, with the ability to undo all the mistakes along the way — and have it rendered in three dimensions by machines — hell, make 100 of them — would we be in awe?
Comment by Rudy — March 10, 2010 1:08 pm
PS — love the discussion. And as a side note — i do not wish to come across as devaluing anything done by my digitally gifted friends. I’m just stirring it up.
Comment by Rudy — March 10, 2010 1:53 pm
Well I don’t know of any accomplished photographers that just take 1000 photos and hope that at least 1 is good. I’ll argue that even after 1,000 shots, someone with no idea about what they’re doing won’t even get 1 decent shot. This is fine for people that aren’t serious about photography, they aren’t necessarily trying to get a “good” photograph, they just want a shot of their kids in front of Old Faithful or whatever the case may be. For them it’s about preserving a memory, not making art.
Comment by Simon — March 10, 2010 5:35 pm
Again — I’m not saying that there are accomplished photographers that employ the take-1000-get-a-good-one technique — its not a professional approach – and is one that probably wouldn’t lead to professional results. I have witnessed however, the attempt to take the “professional photograph,” and in lieu of thinking about what individual wishes to accomplish with the piece and how to make it happen (more difficult)- it instead becomes a futile practice of the 1000 shot thingy (made possible because of digital photography.) I apologize for not communicating my point very well. Or quite possibly I’m just flat out wrong (happens to me a lot.) I will try and come up with a better explanation. Bottom line — I’m not hating on all things digital, photography or otherwise – i think them all to be wonderful. I’m simply wishing us all to remember the wise words of Uncle Ben: “With great power comes great responsibility.” As i push up my glasses with my index finger. It also might do me some good to hang out with some poor painters in an alley way somewhere – and talk about how we love the smell and feel of paint, and then eat some trash.
Comment by Rudy — March 10, 2010 6:39 pm