Global Living Diary of Digital Art

news, articles, and artist's experiences from around the world



Finland

 

Re: Webart, Pixel Paintings & Digital Art

I take the point about segregation, but I do not think it is such a >serious problem - after all, we have also 'segregated' the Sketchbook - >the most traditional and universal of the artforms we are involved in... I guess I have to align here with Gerald's comments. I don't feel much problems in categorizing things. Please do keep in mind, R2001 was not born, nor is its purpose today, nor will it be to be a torch carrier of WebArt anymore than any other form of art. It is however something that excites me, and many others at the moment. However, using the term WebArt, and giving it some boost has some advantages for R2001. It certainly is a new field, a new way to create visual, or multimedia art in a complicated enviroment (I hope we can publish a little debate I had with Gerald some time ago soon, there are some more thoughts about this...), and aligning forces behind new development may have shattering consequences in its development. And, secondly, it may act as a good advertising gig for R2001. We can always try to present art, of whatever form, and try to survive based on its quality, but R2001 cannot stand as a leader of oil painting, as an example, but it can, with hard work and! determination stand as a leader of WebArt. So those three reasons are the main reasons why I support WebArt's segregation from other forms: 1) Development of this new form of art strenghtens and it gets recognition 2) It is maybe the only field where R2001 can claim to to be the world-leader. 3) WebArt is so young and developing with huge leaps, thus offering incredible possibilities for developing something great. We should never walk away from something that today looks blurry, difficult, hard to comprehend - in the leading edge it is always like that. There is nothing bad, or weak in our past, but there is no reason not to walk ahead, and still maintaining the strenghts from the past. ...and we should not look at WebArt too hastily. It is big, damn comlicated thing, and I feel strongly about its future strength and possibilities. I didn't, only a year ago. I wish not however make R2001 heavily supporting some art form over any other. And this discussion, or development, should not make any statements on the 'value' of any art form. >>Aside from this, I personally won't become too upset until R2001 decides >>that whatever you wish to call what I do needs a separate category as >>well!? However I must admit I am concerned that outside pressure from >>those 'serious art figures' Gerald mentioned, and even those amongst >>ourselves (referring to Sebastian's comments relative to Pixel Art--not >>picking on you Sebastian, just using you as an example) will require >>R2001 to define art by *THEIR* definitions in order to remain credible, >>and require further such segregations, which I interpret as nothing less >>than another form of censorship. I think we shouldn't get too 'excited' about categories. I don't believe this development is leading into any kind of censorship. Why would it lead into that? Some visitor may enjoy of some WebArt piece, some may enjoy of a pixel-painting, and if someone wants to use another name, another term, so be it. We should concentrate in the development of the content, in the actual works, make it show, make it work..... and see where it will go.

Aleksi  Aaltonen, Finland

 

 

 

Reply-To: r2001@uucp.ne.jp Errors-To: r2001-admin@uucp.ne.jp X-ML-Modified: 0.41 / smtpfeed X-ML-Accepted: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:12:50 +0900 X-Originator: aleksi.aaltonen@pp.inet.fi X-Sequence: r2001 1441 Subject: [r2001 01441]