Deborah Gilbert wrote: > > >> >Computers, to me, while a valuable tool, are just that, another tool. > >> >But will never replace the sensual magic that working with materials has > >> >to a human being. > >> > > >> >We are essentially married to the medium we choose as artists, and yes, > >> >there will be artists who feel connected to their computers, no doubt. > >> >But I think trying to justify our existance based on our ability to > >> >incorporate computers is desperate. > > This sounds uncomfortably like the arguments used against accepting > photography as "valid" art. There was a time in the past when the mediums > available to artists were limited to those things which we could get dirty > using. Then time past and the camera emerged - do *you* want to tell > Eisenstadt that he isn't an artist? Now more time passes and the computer > has become a viable medium of artistic self expression - it would now be > possible for Eisenstadt to take his photos and run them through Photoshop > to come up with something entirely different- something that matches even > more , the creative vision in his mind. To quote my son - how you gonna > *tell* me, that ain't art? > > Deborah
I would never tell Eisenstadt, Weston, or Adams they weren't artists,
and believe me, they have the stains on their aprons to prove that
photography is indeed a medium that you can sink your hands into. My
question, in their pursuit of the pure form of photography, and the zone
system, do YOU think they would have embraced computers. I don't
believe they would have, but that is only my opinion.