20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Please Contribute To My Experiment.

Hi Gang...

There have been a bunch of threads discussing what to call "manipulated' photographs and digital art in general. I contend that the word "digital" has no place in describing art. The word contributes nothing to the understanding by the general public for art described as digital art. Describing art as made with digits [ not your fingers and toes ] is like calling oil painting "molecular art" because brushes are composed of molecules. Meaningless.

I would propose using a genre using the word "computer" instead of digital. That at least would describe the "tool" used and would encompass everything from a simple hue/sat adjustment to art created by computer controlled robotic arm holding a paint brush responding to an artificial intelligence program and painting directly onto a canvas. And everything in between.

Please help me in my experiment by taking time in your daily contacts with members of the general public.. your hairdresser, you dentist, your Starbuck's barista etc.. by asking them without any prompting "what is digital art?" No need for a discussion, just write down their answers and report back to this thread.

Something like " Excuse me.. I am working on a project and I would like to know what do you think Digital Art means." And again, no prompting, no discussion or answering their questions.

I am not interested in your views.. just the people that you talk to.

Seriously.. go.. ;O)

thank you

bob

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Bob.........thing is........the general public, or my own 'locals'...........mention 'art' ..(never mind a classification!)....their eyes glaze over.
Sorry!

I do know that 'digital' is an operative word, like it or not.......much to do with the early programs sold to artmakers via process executed on the computer. That's also how 'digital painting' came to be ! It's the name of the program/process.......and the outcome thereof....a 'digital' image........no use fighting it.

 

Hi, Bob,

I've run this experiment several times over the last twenty years. The informal results verify what I already believed -- the term 'computer art' implies, to the general public, that the work is created by the computer. That the artist merely pushes some magic button and ART is spontaneously created.

No thanks; that's a stereotype that I don't care to perpetuate.

On the other hand, because of the widespread popularity of 'digital' cameras, people (civilian, non-artists) are more likely to understand that the word merely references a tool. After all, they know that their digital cameras don't automatically compose and take photos for them, so there's no reason to think that a computer automatically creates digital art.

'Digital Art' is a term that's already in our popular vernacular -- and has been since long before the turn of the century. (That would be 2000 . . . not 1900!) Most civilians already have an idea of what is intended when they hear the term 'digital art', and many of us have been spreading the word that "the computer is only a tool" for decades.

No way am I willing to undo all that effort by suddenly giving the faceless 'computer' an unrealistically greater role in the creation of my work! Nope -- not gonna happen!

This will be an interesting thread; I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow (proud!) Digital Artists!

 

Kim Bird

9 Years Ago

Art Prints

It is what it is. lol. Who knows. I put them under my Digital Art gallery.

 

Greg Jackson

9 Years Ago

Aren't the vast majority of special effects in the latest movies/animations described as CG (Computer Generated)? Which is in essence digitally created in/on a computer?



Here's another thread started around 20 hours ago concerning "digital renderings":
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1855829

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI)

I just spent some time at Universal Studios and it was a bit sad to think about all the "movie magic" that is getting replace by CGI - make-up, monsters, full scale props etc. It used to be a real treat to see the behind of scenes tricks of the trade - like the scale models used in Star Wars or even a glimpse at the cell artists studios at Disney. Kind of boring looking at some computer screens me thinks.

 

John Crothers

9 Years Ago

EVERY single image on this site is digital.

 

Sheena Pike

9 Years Ago

I'm battling with myself right now to take the leap Bob.....I am a traditional artist, I use drawing medias...coloured pencil, pastels etc...With the exception of a few digital artworks and some photographs in my gallery. I now have a Wacom tablet and was considering doing some of my drawings with this new innovative tool however my fear is....... I will lose credibility, fans and customers if I take the leap and present to them some of my work created with a computer. I know what work goes into using a Wacom and I have respect for all forms of art whether it drawn, painted, created with a computer...photography, sculpture etc.......however my customers and fans may not understand and be turned off. I am fearful that it will put a bad taste in their mouth about my work and I will shoot myself In the foot......I have created a fan base and have earned their respect.....I fear lack of understanding "digital" art and drawing with a Wacom tablet will confuse them. I may take the leap here soon so I will report back and let you know if I lose fans or if I get a positive response.

Edit: I'd like to add that I fear this because my fans were drawn to my work the way it is, if I choose to change things up and use the Wacom they may prefer the traditional style better. But I will never know until I try.....but then on the other hand they are happy with what I'm doing so why change it? This is the battle I'm having with myself. I posted one work in progress digital practice on my fan page ....got very little response and feedback but maybe if I complete it and market it it might get me more feedback....so I will get back to you and try to contribute to this experiment.

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Apparently I forgot to add that what I am proposing is not Computer Art, but something like "Computer Assisted Art", "Computer Aided Art". That term would just inform that that a computer was used in the creation of the image. It would actually relay some information about the process, whereas digital has no real meaning and does not contribute to the understanding of the process.

@Sheena. If you have a fan base I will that the risk and "Assume" ;O) that you communicate with that fan base in some way.. newsletter, blog etc. Start a discussion with them after you have mastered the Wacom and have some polished examples to share with them and just ask what they think. The only thing you will lose is the ability sell originals. But the control that you will gain using the Wacom is significant.

@Wendy - Yes as I mentioned I forgot to mention "Computer Assisted Art", not simply Computer Art. I totally agree that Computer Art is not a term to ever be used EXCEPT where the art IS totally Created by a computer. Not what I wanted to propose. I just feel that adding the Assisted word will better explain the process, where "digital" contributes nothing to the understanding of the process.

@Kim... just browsed your images and I love what you are doing, but see... the term "digital" has no place in describing your work. What you are presenting I would simply describe as Fine Art Prints, but I don't think that is an option here.

@John - true, but every word typed on this thread is digital, but we don't call it digital text. And we see and error in our post and go back to edit it we don't have to called digitally manipulated text.

 

I see it the other way, Bob.

Consumers have become comfortable with the term 'digital' -- primarily because they're so used to the concept of digital cameras.

I'll never deliberately add the word 'computer' to the title of my type(s) of art. I often mention computers in descriptions or discussions, but never, ever, as a title, category, etc.

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Wendy.. that's fine. I get it. ;O)

This is just a discussion for those that appear to have a "need" to put things in little boxes. I personally see no need for anything other that Fine Art Print as a category. That is what everyone here on FAA is selling. No one is selling paintings [on FAA], I guess the photographers are selling photographs. The art for sale here should speak for itself. As for finding what you are looking for.. if images are properly tagged they will be found.

But consumers are also very comfortable with computers as well. (probably more so that with digital cameras). Most use one everyday.

edit..

It just seems to me that the word Digital attached to art is meaningless.

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Here is an example. My wife loves elephants so I searched for elephants. Then I checked paintings and browsed a bit. Then I checked digital art and found this one...

Art Prints

I think it is a great "painting" but would not have found it searching for a "Painting".

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

I'm with Wendy, and even with that, I don't feel it's always necessary to add all the details if a picture was just touched up. I just uploaded a picture taken by my father in 1963 on a slide, and because the technology wasn't that great, I added a covering of paint daubs. In the descriptions, I gave the original source and then just stated that a painterly effect was added.

Perhaps this doesn't fit your OP, Bob -if not I apologize.

Rebecca

propeller sunrise by bellesouth art

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

@Rebecca... any input is always welcome.

I am in total agreement with the way you have approached describing this image.

The problem I have is with artists insisting that they have to add the "digital" nomenclature to their images. Even your "painterly effect" comment I don't see as necessary. This would be fine [ just as any image on this site ] being described as a fine art print.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

hmmm, I guess my concern with adding the "painterly effect" is that I don't want the customer to be surprised when they receive something that presents a somewhat different image than they may have expected. It would not be a crisp photograph, but instead a softer one because of the effect. I would not want to have something returned because they felt misled. Or do you think that would not happen?

thanks,
Rebecca

 

Greg Jackson

9 Years Ago

"...I guess my concern with adding the "painterly effect" is that I don't want the customer to be surprised when they receive something that presents a somewhat different image than they may have expected. It would not be a crisp photograph, but instead a softer one because of the effect..."


Rebecca,

I feel the same way, and add the words "painterly effect" also in image descriptions that I have done the effect to.

 

Buyers may not want in-depth, technical details, but many of them are interested in 'the process'. I'm surprised to hear that many artists don't think buyers have that level of curiosity! Whether real world shows or online, I can't count the number of times I've been asked for information on the process.

Responding "It's a fine art print" just isn't enough when the question is, "Wow; this isn't a painting -- how'd you get this effect?" Or, even more simply, "Is this digital art?" or "So, the computer did this?"

All are questions I've fielded countless times, both online and in person.

It's important to have an easily explainable response that gives just enough details to make sense. Jargon has no place in this type of exchange; civilians don't speak the language and are likely to think they're being bamboozled. Made up, descriptive words offer the same pitfalls.

When I explain, for example, "I started with an original photograph, brought it into the computer, then used software to add a more traditional, painterly effect to the image . . . " buyers feel I've disclosed something, and can share in my excitement and achievement.

If my explanation is, "It's a fine art print.", that same buyer is more likely to think I'm hiding something -- that I'm refusing to share my mysterious, possibly illicit, process.

Opening a dialogue using generally-understood terms is a must when trying to reassure a client or viewer.

There's nothing wrong with appropriate labels. Labels are a common way for humans to categorize things. I doubt most of us would buy a steak without knowing which cut of meat we're getting.

Art is meat . . . for the soul. ;-)

 

Mary Bedy

9 Years Ago

Every time this subject comes up, I say I always put "Digitally enhanced photo" in my description if I added a filter of some kind, like a watercolor filter in Photoshop. I don't do it with photographs where I just tweaked the color or contrast a little, or in photos where I covered up an ugly traffic cone or something and didn't actually filter the image, but I agree with the statements above that I don't want someone to think they're getting a straight photo because they don't use the full resolution preview and then they are surprised when they get it.

And Bob, true to your original request, when I get home from work today, I'm going to ask my husband the question. He probably won't even know how to respond.....it should be interesting. I'll try to remember to ask my co-workers tomorrow - they are all gone for the day.

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

I think you should all ask this: " If I gave you a free print of my work....would you prefer the enhanced photo or the manipulated one?"

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

I have no argument with discussing with anyone who asks about the process, but I would rather they ask.

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

And just to be clear... I know that if I say go left, half of you will say I am crazy.. going right is quicker!. ;O) And I have no problem with that.

@Meilissa... Me.. I would want the manipulated one, but that is just me ;O)

But if this is the one that you were offering I think many customers would be confused. That does not look like either.

Photography Prints

Bob

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

That is probably the most "manipulated" photo I have, need to add to the tags....ain't she pretty though, lol!

That needs a digital art tag too, which I had it under photography and digital art, but could never find it in search under photography....and I went through every damn page of photography searching for "colorful cat", you would not believe what was there....I did this several times, this is a hard image to miss. I reported Multiple mistagged images to Abbie. Many are still there last time I looked, which annoys me so I'm trying not to look anymore.
It was showing up under digital art. But Abbie told me that only "one" of the selections you choose when you load is going to show up. Which can't be true, because recently I was searching for things and would see other images showing up under both photography and digital art for the same listing.

Okay, photo image first, then general corrections, then several other things happened in smart photo editor and topaz...or vice versa...including a mirror image, then reduced to a very graphic black and white, then a color overlay, then smoothed out in topaz...i think....I don't write the steps down and there is no trail to follow since I bounce things around!

I find this one a bit confusing on tagging too....

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Remember that the search [ I believe ] runs off of tags, and descriptions as well as the genre / category. So some images may be tagged digital art and be in the photography category.

And yes that is a pretty kitty ;O)

But it is no longer a photograph. I will contend that there is not one original pixel from the source photo left. And if I was searching for a painting of a cat, this image would not be found. "I" know that it is not a painting, but if you put it on a scale it would certainly lean more towards the painting side than the photograph side. We just shouldn't have to micro label things. And is no more digital than the original photograph is digital. I also no longer can justify the mixed media label either. That is just stretching the term way too far. In fact there is really no media involved.

And as a side note... more tags.. big eyes, hypnotic, furry, face, animal, feline, whiskers... etc.

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

thanks for the tag heads up Bob. Let me see if I have this right...you think the genre/category should be painting and not digital art? I think this is the only image I've ever put mixed media on for photo/digital element after seeing and hearing what others were tagging..It's looks like I tried to include everything but the kitchen sink on my medium listing but on the upload only photographs is checked. This needs some retagging and rewording...

From the choices available, I would still say photgraphs, then digital art.....or mixed media and digital art. I just can't see saying painting when I didn't even use a pen/tablet for it. Just filters adjustments and a layer or two...

The five choices a customer clicks on for medium if they choose too.
Photographs
Paintings
Drawings
Digital Art
Mixed Media

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Well.. again you want it to be found by someone looking for something that resembles your image. If someone were really looking for a photograph of a cat.. yours would show up but it is not what they were looking for. But on the other hand when they see it they may like it and click on it and end up purchasing it.

But I think it resembles a painting way more that it resembles a photograph, so you can argue that it is neither. So how do you categorize it and tag it so as to make sure that the person that would like your image would find it. Is that not all that matters here? I will agree that my take on this is more about marketing. But I have to keep repeating that what the customer is going to receive will be a Fine Art Print.... not a painting, not a pencil sketch, not a pastel drawing, not an oil painting, not a crayon drawing... no matter what the "original" art work is.. the customer understands that they will receive a Fine Art Print.

We are all here to sell Fine Art Prints, that should be all that matters. And of course making the customer happy or course. I have never suggested "fooling" or "misleading" the customer. By all means use your image description to explain how this image came about. Not necessarily the details that you mentioned above, but make it clear that the "painting" started out as a photograph that was processed to appear "non photographic".

Painting as a category is a tough one I will admit. And you and others will say "but I can tell it was a photograph". Well look at those pencil drawings that look like snapshots. Some will say 'But I can still tell it is NOT a photograph" but only because they know it is not.

Remember the customer that may buy your kitty will likely not be searching for a "digital art colorful cat." Or a "mixed media colorful cat", or a "photograph of a colorful cat". Possibly a "drawing of a colorful cat", and probably a "painting of a colorful cat"

And as far as I know there is no one on the FAA staff that are going to challenge your categories. And if you include an explanation in the image description there is no "misleading" the customer.

 

Sheena Pike

9 Years Ago

Yes Bob your right, I will try and keep an open dialogue about it and involve them in the process to see what kind of response I will get. Maybe by involving them and sharing the process of the creation (May even do a video of me drawing with the Wacom) May help. I'll never know until I try. bottom line I believe "digital" art or art "done with a computer" has a bad rep because of lack of understanding....so I intend to help my followers understand if I do in fact start drawing with the Wacom regularly.

Sorry I know this thread was meant for the experiment and not discussing digital art. I may even take a poll on facebook and ask which if my art they prefer...done with traditional media or with my tablet.....I'll report back here when I gather some more "data" .

 

John Haldane

9 Years Ago

I call mine "Photographic Art" or "photo art." I start with a photo and create art from it. How I create the art - on the computer or otherwise - is unimportant and distracts the potential buy. Keep it simple! Emphasize art. If you do it on a MAC, PC, tablet, iPhone, or whatever, who cares?? It is art, isn't it? :)

John
http://www.haldanephotoart.com/

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Go Bob!

 

FirstName LastName

9 Years Ago

I've struggled with what to call my 3D computer graphics. Among the terms I use:

o 3D Computer Graphics
o 3D Virtual Reality
o Digital Art
o Abstract Art

Recently I read an article that lists a new term (new to me): New Media Art
I kind of like that one.

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

@Mark, I think Carmen Hathaway gave a great link to a break down some time ago that listed New Media Art. I don't do any 3D though, Carmen does lots of that.

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

@Bob, thanks for the nudge on tags, I did have a couple of those but they are in the hidden area you can't see on tags. I also added in the tags to include painting cat, digital painting cat, and some others along those lines, but I just cannot make myself list painting as the media, just can't do it! Maybe adding it to the tags will be enough to spread it around search better :o)

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

So far it is only showing up in the photograph category.. maybe it needs to generate overnight..

 

Melissa Bittinger

9 Years Ago

I just did it, I'd give it a couple a days, then I'll check and see if it's shows under the new tagging.

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

I find it interesting that the OP clearly states, “No need for a discussion, just write down their answers and report back to this thread.” Not to mention, “I am not interested in your views.. just the people that you talk to.”

And yet the promise made by, Sheena Pike notwithstanding ( I applaud you Sheena for this and look forward to reading the feedback!) it seems the only contributions made so far have been views posted by the members.

For myself I have no problems with members here sharing their views! As a matter of fact I very much welcome them as long as they are on topic.

Actually I was one of those that started one of those discussions Bob refers to in the OP. “...a bunch of threads discussing what to call "manipulated' photographs and digital art in general.”

Actually my thread goes a bit further than just asking “what to call "manipulated' photographs and digital art in general.”

I also addresses the other end of the spectrum which has for nearly a century been known as “Straight Photography”.

Here is a link to the thread:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1845653

And yes, since starting the thread I have asked several people (in the “general public” several questions regarding the rather esoteric terminology involving all aspects of photography.

At any rate, I will certainly follow this thread, and I look forward to the results posted by those that participate in Bob's experiment.





 

Sydne Archambault

9 Years Ago

@Sheena, you really do not have to give up one for the other. Do both! I do think you will find creating from a program will open more doors to your creative genius. Android Jones one of the most creative digital artists and one of my favorites has no problem with his medium and his followers. They will follow you no matter what!
http://www.androidjones.com

 

Sydne Archambault

9 Years Ago

I meant to add, I really like J L Meadows term, "pixel dust".

 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Hey Walter... I really don't mind this thread taking side trips ;O) You just never know sometimes where a question will lead.

This thing about "digital" has been bothering me lately for whatever reason and yours and other threads just have me thinking more about it lately. It is also in no way directed at photography. I am concerned with the word "digital" being used in anything concerning art.

Maybe some clarification to what is going on in by brain.... Digital only signified something concerning digits. [numbers, not your fingers and toes]. As far as Art created with a computer it ONLY signifies how your file is stored. It has nothing to do with the creative methods used. Digital is just a level above bytes, and bits. the 1's and 0's of the binary representation of computer data. The term digital contribute nothing to the understanding or even the methodology of Art created with the Aid of Computers.

I can liked it [and I think I have already in this thread] it referring to traditional oil painting as Molecular Art since the tools used are all created using molecules. Atoms being the bits and bytes which constitute the concept of molecules.... none of which again contribute anything to the understanding of oil painting. It just happens to be what the tools that are used to create the Art are made of.

Same thing with Digital... it ONLY describes the underlying structure of the data of the image, again the same way molecular describes the underlying structure of the paint brush.

Now to just say "Computer Art" is not a sufficient overall description of "digital art". To me it only describes Art created BY the computer, using computer code [programming] supplied by the artist. This programming could allow the computer to create art in many ways. From simple graphic representations of mathematical functions to controlling mechanical arms holding paint brushes applied directly to the canvas.

To represent what Artists, from photographers to those using software as their virtual paint pallet and canvas I feel that something more informative would be Computer Assisted Art. It leave open a wide field of applications to be covered. Everything from the photographer using HDR to the above mentioned robotic arm. The "Assisted" part can be minimal or substantive. But it tells the customer / viewer that the "Artist" has used a computer in someway to either create their art, or to modify a source image / scan in some way "using" a computer.

This is not a subtle difference. At least not to me. Digital is a relatively antique term.

When your ask someone for the time do you ask them if that was analog time or digital time?
When your butcher sells you a pound of steak, do you ask him if that is an analog pound or a digital pound?
When you get a letter from your friend to you need to know if the words on the page were created digitally or with an analog method? And if he had misspelled a word in his letter and went back an changed it do you need to know that it was a digitally modified text?

So.. hope that makes my question a bit clearer. It is not about art classifications or categories. I have not issues with how you want to "pigeon hole" your images or what school of art you want them know as.. I get all that, I don't necessarily subscribe to the need, but I get it. My RANT ;O) ONLY about using the term DIGITAL to "describe" or "categorize" ART.

Carry on.. rant over ;O)

bob

 

Chuck Staley

9 Years Ago

Three-fourths of my life has been in the entertainment business and, just to let you know, we have gone through many of the same discussions.

The first two films I worked on, one as cameraman and the second as director, were shot on video tape using TV cameras that were set to shoot at 24 frames per second instead of 30, so that there would be this black time on the screen and viewers would have the feeling that they were watching a real movie.

We DID NOT announce to the movie-goers that it was shot on tape. It was our little secret.

Today we DO NOT tell you whether the movie or TV show you are watching was shot on film or digitally. It is our little secret.

When I started doing impressionist photography 9 years ago, galleries requested me to participate in shows. But my art had to be printed on paper and framed, because canvas gallery wraps, to them, cheapened the work. I didn't agree, but did as requested. At other times I told galleries that I didn't "do" photography, so they had me paint over the prints with clear acrylic paint and we called them Mixed Media. Other photographers in the shows thought they were paintings.

So, on my website, I call them many different things to see what works. After all, what we are selling here are prints on different substrates.

But "computer" and "manipulated" are two words I would never use.



 

Hermes Fine Art

9 Years Ago

I call it Enhanced Photography or Digitally Altered photography, depending on the extent of the manipulation.

And as long as people are honest about what they're doing, I don't care what they call it. This is a huge sore spot for me.

 

Sheena Pike

9 Years Ago

Thank you Walter and Sydne
I have yet had a chance but when I do get an official experiment and some solid input to this thread I will report back here. Bob happened to start this thread when I was planning and considering on presenting the idea of doing "digital"....Wacom art to my followers to see their reaction, so it happened to be wonderful timing. I'll do my best to contribute....be back later!

Sydne one of my idols does both digital and traditional coloured pencil art, Thanks for sharing!

 

Walter Holland

9 Years Ago

Sorry it took so long to get back. I am probably going to have to go with another IP in that TWC can't seem to provide me with the service I pay for... :-(

“It is also in no way directed at photography. I am concerned with the word "digital" being used in anything concerning art.”

Sorry, Bob I am really confused now. Does not you work---or at least most of it begin with photography?

As to your ramblings concerning atoms, and digits, molecular structure, and such, making your statement “clearer”?

Well, in a word: No. Your self proclaimed rant has shown me nothing but a willingness to play semantics. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And please tell me: When does classification become, "pigeon hole(ing)”?

By the way, I don't think your “rant” has accomplished anything.

I will continue to follow this thread for I am interested in finding out what results will come of this experiment.

Oh, and should I remind you that in the OP you stated words to the effect that "discussion" was not necessary?


 

Bob Galka

9 Years Ago

Good morning Walter.

Yes all my work currently starts with a photograph. Not sure why that should confuse anyone. This post is not meant to be a discussion about specific media, only about images that have a computer as part of their lineage. Again that could be a photograph or a sculpture made "real" via a 3D printer.

As to the comparing natural media to digital media via molecules and digits... sorry but that is kind of the point. Neither of those term make any sense in the categorizing of art.

Pigeonholing (yea I thought it had an e in it as well, but no ;O) is not meant to be anything other that a term defined as putting things into defined compartments. Nothing derogatory was meant by it. It is another term for category / classification

And as far as my "rant" accomplishing anything... they rarely do ;O) but that never stop me.

As well as my deviating from my OP.. that also is not unprecedented ;O) But in saying that a discussion was not necessary I really have not issue with them here. And so far that seems to be the only posts so far ;O)

I am sorry if anything in my comments has offended you in anyway.. if in fact they have... not really sure ;O)

Thanks for taking the time to comment..

 

This discussion is closed.