More thoughts on computers as art.
We and all the photographers and artists that have mentioned so far, are a
product of a time that seems to be slowly slipping away. I would imagine
that Impressionists were criticized for using oil paint tubes instead of
grinding their own paint. I would imagine scribes criticized people who
used printing presses in the days of Gutenberg. The older generation
(myself) was not brought up with these new computer technologies and I have
a fondness for the old manipulative ways of making art. What about our
students? They are being exposed to new ways of thinking and doing and
when they become teachers, their students will be exposed to still yet
another way of working, as technology continues to advance and change the
way art can be made. This has been our history and I think history does
repeat itself, over and over again. We are no different. I find it
curious that a profession that values creativity is so intolerant of new
ideas and new approaches. I have wondered if others have not wondered the
same thing. Just a thought...
>I'd like to add another photographer to this thread:
>>Deborah Gilbert wrote:
>>> 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?
>>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.
>Jerry Uelsmann, as you may know, is well known for his b & w photos which
>are created by combining images from multiple negatives with different
>enlargers in the darkroom. For several years, Adobe tried to get Jerry to
>use Photoshop to do his work. (If you're familiar with Uelsmann's work,
>you'll see the "obvious" connections.) He refused preferring to do the
>work/image manipulation himself...the "old fashion" way. Recently, Adobe
>was able to convince Jerry to go to the west coast and work in their
>studios using Photoshop and some high-resolution printing techniques ( I
>believe there were some financial incentives offered). Adobe now displays
>Jerry's work with Photoshop on their web site. But, even though Jerry has
>a Mac with all the trimmings in his studio--he seldom uses it. It's there
>primarily for his kid's use. Jerry still prefers to crank out his images
>using the techniques he took over 25 years to perfect.
>CRAIG ROLAND. Associate Professor-Art Education.
>Department of Art, FAC 302, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida.
>32611-5801. (352) 392-9165 - Art Ed Office (352) 392-8453 - Fax
Diane C. Gregory, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Art Education
Department of Art and Design
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, Texas 78666
dg09 (university e-mail in San Marcos)
dianegregory (home e-mail in Austin)