From: Kelly979@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 11 1999 - 15:36:17 MDT
>The problem here is likely how you define art, and that is of course messy.
i don't think the problem is that it is art- i think what people argue is
the value of the art made by such tools as computor and other technologically
advanced tools, as seemingly lesser value than other forms of visual
traditional art.
a computor has a list of given choices that any other medium has- such as
paint or plaster. - and what gives the art value is more than just skill of
rendering the material into a recognizable form. i would argue that the use
of any such tool- is a ready made. it only becomes art once all the choices
(applicable/available to the context) are made with intention- being the
aesthetic choices. this would include the art object's relationship to the
viewer/body- whether that be to be alienating or not-.
a piece of art would also have to hold up in the art community today with
certain standards of art history which are mostly subjective- and have to do
with
arbitrary categorization (into terms such as "minimalism" and "modern" that
do not mean anything to the actual artist. . . or the group of artists placed
under the heading) to be considered valued art by museums and galleries.
if you are looking for a higher standard- which i hope you are- the only
thing that can be done is to perpetually educate your self on the history of
forms and images and their cultural implications and intentions.
and to crush the standard held that art's value is in the skill administered
of the
given material (ready made). art is more than about mastering the use of
paint. it is also about mastering the way that viewers will interpret you
iconographical use, material use, and context use.
>> The hundreds of choices a person makes at each step leads to a very
>> expressive image of that persons' cumulative choices. Give two people the
>> same seed images and their end results will be completely different.
>> It also takes some skill to evolve really good images. Some people just
>> can't seem to get the hang of it. Since these images are generated by
>> individual expression and intention, and requires an element of skill, AND
>> are often damned pretty, why would it not be art?
>Exactly. I would say art (as opposed to "just" beauty) comes from the
>application of a selective process (not necessarily by humans, but at
>least by some kind of thinking system). Of course, evolutionary art is
>in many ways the purest for of art in that respect since it relies on
>minimal control and only works by selection :-)
>
>One complaint against much electronic art I have heard is that it
>doesn't relate to the human. I don't see that as a problem since I
>think there can be great art relating to non/trans/posthuman stuff. It
>is just that humans can more easily relate to human stuff (but that is
>just bias, of course).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:08 MST