Global Living Diary of Digital Art

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



Saudi Arabia

Bryan Smith, email to r2001.com on "Webart" discusssions

 

Sebastian, all:

After re-reading my comment, and then reading your latest comment, I feel impressed to ramble a bit more on these subjects.

First of all, and in response to your first post I should have chosen words which were a little 'softer'...sorry...I have a tendency to either trivialize or respond flippantly and/or casually when I'm trying to answering to many posts in one setting...so, I thought I'd better take another stab at it.

What I was trying to delineate was that I felt that what you were possibly confusing what you were doing with what was being presented in the WebArt Manifesto, as I (rightly or wrongly) saw WebArt and what you described as Pixel Art as two different expressions of art.

However, upon reading your second response, I am now even more confused about your perceptions than ever.  Now, I admit that this may be due in part to my total lack of understanding and/or knowledge of your process, but when you use words, like, "...cutting, pasting, filtering, 3D rendering, etc...", and say, which is "...typical to Digital Art."  And yet previously you state, "...Pixel Painting is a mere media, like oil and pastel, more related to traditional painting than to Digital Art..." Dude, how is what you're describing *not* Digital Art!?!?

I belabor this point as I know there's a lot of artists on this list who use 'traditional media', and fear that such explanations/observations/perceptions if gone unchallenged may even cause further confusion.

And, am looking for help here from you or any other member of the list...

I am also glad that Aleksi was able to field my 'silly question' as again...as silly as it may have seemed, it was equally serious...as again, I have found through my countless communications with others how things so apparently clear can be so easily misunderstood.

I also enjoyed Igo's and Aleksi's comments on value, etc., as this topic is most important to me as a digital artist, as I am well aware of the fact of the lack of value which is often placed on digital art.  And, in an article in a new Bryce newsletter which is going to be out soon, I comment at length on the problems and issues associated with the valuation of digital art.  Further, this is one of the main reasons I have chosen to associate myself with R2001...in hopes of changing those perceptions normally associated with digital art...if not by any other means than it being associated with other 'traditional media'.   It is my hope that someday those that (e)valute WebArt, Pixel Painting, Digital Art, or any other form of 'art' may come to eventually understand what they *should* or *must* be evaluating is....CREATIVITY!!!!!   And, would love to see this element introduced formally into the valuation system...and think it is, but for reasons that I understand but do *not* accept, often the moment the word 'digital' is spoken, you then hear/see, "Oh, I see.", and the 'creativity/value light' dims and goes out.

What I've tried to do with my work at my site is to explore and create other venues and/or uses for it, besides using the site as simply a place to hang my stuff.  And think that in many ways I have been somewhat successful in accomplishing that--and have other ideas that I am in the process of developing.  Please note that even my participation in the physical gallery showings at Harrogate and NYC was also an attempt to develop new venues and/or uses for my work, and I received many posts from other digital artists who applauded me for making this step...not so much for myself...but for THEM!!!!  In that it demonstrated to them and others that digital art *did* have worth or value to be hung along with other forms of art.  Yes, I must acknowledge Gerald's foresightness and courage to invite me to join R2001, and I'm sure he remembered my reservations about whether my work belonged, and will always be greatful for his support in helping me make this decision.

Aside from my whinning, ranting and raving, the point that I'd like to make is that I certainly feel that what has been proposed relative to the subject of WebArt has and is going a long ways in developing and fostering the needed changes in the perceptions of those that do value this and other related digital art forms...and am appreciative of it...and at the same time also acknowledge and understand Igo's comments about how segregating WebArt from the other forms of art included in the R2001 portfolio may cause others to view it differently and/or of having less value.  The only positive recommendation that I can make is that the manifesto stay as a means/method to establish a definition for this particular type/kind of expression, and that we do *not* segregate it from the rest of the portfolio of art as presently embraced by R2001!?

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.

Cheers

Bryan

 

 

 

 

 

 

To: r2001-admin@uucp.ne.jp X-ML-Modified: 0.41 / smtpfeed X-ML-Accepted: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:00:31 +0900 X-Originator: bryan@thinkpiece.com X-Sequence: r2001 1438 Subject: [r2001 01438] Re: Webart, Pixel Paintings & Digital Art X-UIDL: f2286acab17b5ef65af6513289d12851 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 14332 --------------411B82289FF9CD743838B9BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sebastian, all: After re-reading my comment, and then reading your latest comment, I feel impressed to ramble a bit more on these subjects. First of all, and in response to your first post I should have chosen words which were a little 'softer'...sorry...I have a tendency to either trivialize or respond flippantly and/or casually when I'm trying to answering to many posts in one setting...so, I thought I'd better take another stab at it. What I was trying to delineate was that I felt that what you were possibly confusing what you were doing with what was being presented in the WebArt Manifesto, as I (rightly or wrongly) saw WebArt and what you described as Pixel Art as two different expressions of art. However, upon reading your second response, I am now even more confused about your perceptions than ever. Now, I admit that this may be due in part to my total lack of understanding and/or knowledge of your process, but when you use words, like, "...cutting, pasting, filtering, 3D rendering, etc...", and say, which is "...typical to Digital Art." And yet previously you state, "...Pixel Painting is a mere media, like oil and pastel, more related to traditional painting than to Digital Art..." Dude, how is what you're describing *not* Digital Art!?!? I belabor this point as I know there's a lot of artists on this list who use 'traditional media', and fear that such explanations/observations/perceptions if gone unchallenged may even cause further confusion. And, am looking for help here from you or any other member of the list... I am also glad that Aleksi was able to field my 'silly question' as again...as silly as it may have seemed, it was equally serious...as again, I have found through my countless communications with others how things so apparently clear can be so easily misunderstood. I also enjoyed Igo's and Aleksi's comments on value, etc., as this topic is most important to me as a digital artist, as I am well aware of the fact of the lack of value which is often placed on digital art. And, in an article in a new Bryce newsletter which is going to be out soon, I comment at length on the problems and issues associated with the valuation of digital art. Further, this is one of the main reasons I have chosen to associate myself with R2001...in hopes of changing those perceptions normally associated with digital art...if not by any other means than it being associated with other 'traditional media'. It is my hope that someday those that (e)valute WebArt, Pixel Painting, Digital Art, or any other form of 'art' may come to eventually understand what they *should* or *must* be evaluating is....CREATIVITY!!!!! And, would love to see this element introduced formally into the valuation system...and think it is, but for reasons that I understand but do *not* accept, often the moment the word 'digital' is spoken, you then hear/see, "Oh, I see.", and the 'creativity/value light' dims and goes out. What I've tried to do with my work at my site is to explore and create other venues and/or uses for it, besides using the site as simply a place to hang my stuff. And think that in many ways I have been somewhat successful in accomplishing that--and have other ideas that I am in the process of developing. Please note that even my participation in the physical gallery showings at Harrogate and NYC was also an attempt to develop new venues and/or uses for my work, and I received many posts from other digital artists who applauded me for making this step...not so much for myself...but for THEM!!!! In that it demonstrated to them and others that digital art *did* have worth or value to be hung along with other forms of art. Yes, I must acknowledge Gerald's foresightness and courage to invite me to join R2001, and I'm sure he remembered my reservations about whether my work belonged, and will always be greatful for his support in helping me make this decision. Aside from my whinning, ranting and raving, the point that I'd like to make is that I certainly feel that what has been proposed relative to the subject of WebArt has and is going a long ways in developing and fostering the needed changes in the perceptions of those that do value this and other related digital art forms...and am appreciative of it...and at the same time also acknowledge and understand Igo's comments about how segregating WebArt from the other forms of art included in the R2001 portfolio may cause others to view it differently and/or of having less value. The only positive recommendation that I can make is that the manifesto stay as a means/method to establish a definition for this particular type/kind of expression, and that we do *not* segregate it from the rest of the portfolio of art as presently embraced by R2001!? 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. Well, that's my two cents!? Next?! Cheers Bryan@Thinkpieces http://www.thinkpiece.com bryan@thinkpiece.com Sebastian Marquez wrote: > > > In the near past artists and art critics used to mix and change > art styles back and forth, like Van Gohg or Gaugin beeing > Expressionists, > impressionists, fauvists...all children of 1900 art experiments. > What I mean is that confusion and labeling is normal and healthy, > as long as art life gets more blood into its veins, names will settle > in > due time. > As long as I understand, Pixel Paintings is a mere media, like oil > or pastel, more related to traditional painting than to Digital Art > ...but certainly using a lot of cutting, pasting, filtering, 3D > rendering > etc, typical to Digital Art. > I certainly do not care about which category my Pixel Paintings will > fit in tomorow, as long as I get famous and rich after my death!! :-) > http://www.users.wineasy.se/snmz/chano2.html > Sebastian Marquez > Bryan A. Smith skrev: > >> Sebastian: >> >> ...have no problems as long as long as WebArt does *not* equal Pixel >> Paintings and/or Digital Art...as they need to be two distinct and >> separate entities... >> >> Cheers >> >> Bryan@Thinkpieces >> http://www.thinkpiece.com >>