Cheers Crispy I just watched Lifeforce, that was good as well. I went for the Youtube option for simiplicity. What happens if you download one of the other versions, does it take a long time?
Computer Art - It's All the Same init?
- Thread starter Stanley Edwards
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well, the real things are programs that run on your computer, like a game - they generate all the effects and music in real time (so you get much much better image quality as a result) - This is where the achievement lies - it's much harder than just whipping it all up in 3d studio and aftereffects.
zenie said:
What
Delving into what? I think you're being guilty of exactly the narrow mindedness I'm getting frustrated about. The very idea that computer art has to be output via screen, projection or, print.
Believe me, I'm delving into it so deeply I may drown.
Much as I enjoyed some of the links posted to here they all seem to me to be restricted by the parameters of the software. They don't really move me on an artistic level.
Computers can do so much more.
Robster970
Pay homage to Global Bob
Stanley Edwards said:
Jean Michel Jarre was doing stuff like that in the 70's
Seriously though, we're 2 generations in on using computers. There's a long way to go.
Robster970 said:Jean Michel Jarre was doing stuff like that in the 70's
Seriously though, we're 2 generations in on using computers. There's a long way to go.
We haven't come very far in 30 years and two generations though have we? Are you suggesting that the technology itself is not advanced enough yet to realise any real creativity?
My water harp idea is a blatant Jean Michel Jarre rip-off. He was stinking rich mind. The same effect can be achieved for relative pocket money these days.
Robster970
Pay homage to Global Bob
Stanley Edwards said:
The technology is not the problem. The people are, including the engineers and programmers on one side, artists on the other, and the 'art appreciating public' as the final variable in this rather odd little world we live in.
We applaud ourselves as being highly evolved but ultimately most people are sheep , leaving the dangerous pursuit of leading, being innovative and different to those that can stomach the rejection they are likely to face. As Cybertect put it so eloquently at the beginning of this thread, 99% of people copy things because that's what they do in all facets of life, not just art.
Robster970 said:
Nice reply. I'm clear about it now so, I've started a new thread to move things on a little more.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Stanley Edwards said:
That's you that is, Stan
Stanley Edwards said:
It's samey for several reasons...
The limitations of screens and print production are factors in quality of the finished article y'know something that looks good on screen wont neccessarily look good in print without a solid understanding of the processes involved.
The vast majority of users really don't know what the programs capabilities are in regards to producing something different, it's much easier to stick with what you know after a while, it's still a 'young' medium so obviously you would end up progressing and developing work as you find more uses for the program. I think also that the mindset < for want of a better word, of the user is a factor in this - many 'non-creatives' as it were are quite good at mastering the programs and getting to an adequate level of competency, but it actually requires creative input to come up with anything new/interesting.
Also there are trends factored in, many people who work digitally have studied design/graphics which is a marketing path rather than creative, people want designs that mirror fashion, they want work that is in a particular style, or even a stylised copy of something else they have seen, so a lot of it out there is not the creators idea it's for feeding the corporate machine, wheras a lot of 'fine art' out there is primarily against it and wants to make a stand/get a reaction.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Hocus Eye. said:
Funny, a chap I work with did most of the code for that demo. He came back from Finland last week with a big silver cup as his team won a first place with this demo. He was saying that in the airport a couple of Russian girls asked him what the prize was for. He told them 'throwing' as he thought they would not be impressed if he said 'Computers'.
The throwing bit was partly true as they also have a CD throwing competition at the same venu.
Structaural
in Chatsubo
Some of the motion graphics stuff is getting pretty good -especially when matched to film. It's commercial work rather than art I guess. But that's often where innovations can be made as they've got the money to spend on the kit and training, hopefully the next gen will do better as it becomes available on home systems.
Reel
Anyone remember the Quantel Paintbox series (Painting with Light) in the eighties where they got various Artists to have a go on one? I think Hockney was one of them...
Reel
Anyone remember the Quantel Paintbox series (Painting with Light) in the eighties where they got various Artists to have a go on one? I think Hockney was one of them...
The Khronos Projector is an interesting interactive computer using thingy.
The projector screen version is probably a bit more impressive than the java applet though.
The projector screen version is probably a bit more impressive than the java applet though.
sinky said:
Eh? Why?
sinky said:
That's interesting.
I find the clicking of a mouse and screen effect far more rewarding than playing with obviously pretend reality. I sometimes view online porn, but I would never buy a rubber doll.
I think this is my problem with computer art. It seems to be always about computers and the ability to mimic reality before it's ever about the artist.
Similar threads
