Post your reactions, comments, feelings, etc. as a comment on this blog. If you do not have a blogspot account, you can make a comment as "anonymous". Remember to add your student ID in the text of your post.
These posts are due by 10pm - Tuesday - 9-2-08.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I thought the article was interesting. I now know more about the art of digital photography.
-10820196
What interested me most about this chapter was the various perspectives on a perfect, finished piece of art. Art has clearly changed, both physically and socially, through time and with the introduction and acceptance of new technology. The book stated the importance of painting as the true art; later photography became an accepted medium. With the computer and the raster grid, digital imagery became cutting edge, eclipsing the photograph. On page 7, the author emphasizes where "photography and digital imagery diverge;" digital imagery may be easily manipulated, whereas a photograph has simple, finite lines. Here is where this newer technology confronts an older technology: digital imagery has now become accepted as art.
- 10799170
It kind of hurts me to see that digital photography was looked down upon by the art community when it first came around. After reading this chapter though, I can see the reasons behind the initial hostility. From painting to photographs to digital photography, each format is vastly different from one another. Today, it's amazing what one can do with digital images. It all depends on an individual's definition of art, but I figure if you like it, then you like it. If you don't like it, then you don't. I better quit before I start to ramble.
-10787608
It was a little confusing at first when trying to differentiate between analog and digital, especially in the context of a photograph. Before reading the chapter, I've forgotten the differences between a photograph and a digital image, other than how they are taken and stored.
After gaining some understanding, I can see how digital images may be unreliable. Their detail is limited to pixels and they are too easily manipulated.
This chapter seems to have a negative spin to digital imaging for this reason. I got the impression that people who worked with digital photography aren't considered real artists but wannabes. I quote, "...the introduction of hand work and manipulation is merely the expression of an impotent desire to paint."
I can see where someone might bash people who modify images as a means of art, because they may look at it as manipulation instead of creation but I still don't think it's any less art than people who literally spit paint on paper.
-10710866
I enjoyed this first chapter and the way it described artists and the digital technologies they use to make art. I liked how the author showed us how technology has influenced art through time. It was a good introduction to this topic.
*11011637*
Hi everyone. Personally I found the article interesting. It is interesting to read about the history of digital art and how it has evolved from a simple scanner that could only see a few points on a page to scanners and digital cameras today that can view upwards of three hundred points.
-10836528
i guess in any art form there are purists. Each generation grows up with more and more technology making past taboo technological marriages seem ok. I liked thinking about zooming in on art work to see the gradation.
The reading had some jargon that I didn't understand. I kinda wanted to yell at the screen and say, "tell me what you mean!"
maybe I was just sleepy when I read it. better luck next reading I guess!
-10983666
As a fellow commenter said, there seemed to be a negative vibe towards working with digital images, and to some extent, I agree with that feeling.
In my opinion, a work of art encompasses everything done in the production of the art itself. When working with a digital image, using a program such as Photoshop, you can reliably and quickly put together a piece suitable for mass production. The tools that the software provides do most of the work for you. These tools are things that cannot exists through traditional means in a non-digital space which is refreshing, but at the same time, limiting.
Working with a photograph or a painting, or any non-digital medium, requires more from the artist. If not more skill, than more time, and that time, regardless of whether or not the artist produces something as visually pleasing as a digital work, is not something that can be completely ignored. It adds to the work of art as a whole.
There's also the aspect of creation. What exactly does a digital artist create? How much of the work does the artist actually do as opposed to the mathematical formulas carried on in the background by the computer? To me, digital art is more a system of knowing how to manipulate within the boundaries of the software you choose to use.
A traditional artist is not bound in this manner. Their tools are whatever they can grasp. Their canvas, whatever they can see.
-10782406
I enjoyed learning about the progression from painting to digital photography and how each society learned to accept these new art forms apprehensively. This article made me want to experiment with photographic film to try and manipulate it similarly to digital photography. I take tools like Photoshop and Paint for granted-I have a better understand about why it is important to use a higher level of pixels for image manipulation. The complexity behind the development of digital film was emphasized by the simplistic picture constructed with a scanner, giving it an artistic edge. The most interesting part to me was the way pixels are unable to curve because they are broken down into squares, which reminds me of artists such as Chuck Close who break down their paintings into squares.
-10852780
I thought the article was very interesting and it makes me think about the relationship between art and technology. From paintings to photography, it is surprising to see how others think its art and others dont. The definition of art can be broad and should be but we have to take into consideration the taste of the artist and its observers. Just because someone doesnt like it doesnt mean it isnt art. The artist could have wanted to create a negative emotion. Anyways, the article was cool.
10790386
I would say that I disagree with an earlier comment on how digital art is limiting. As a black and white photographer and digital photographer I have spent quite a while in the darkroom and on Photoshop. Though I find the darkroom to be a more rewarding experience, the ability to easily manipulate an image on photoshop makes it a great tool for people who have experience in using it.
The problem though is many do not know the full extent of photoshop so it can be a limiting way to work on images. Just because it had been done through a computer I still find that the digital form of art and photography just as legitimate as other analog forms of art.
-10858366
Photography has come a long way over the years. In high school I took a photography class where I used an old camera that required me to manually put in film, adjust the shutter speed, etc. I developed the film myself, and the only thing I could alter was the darkness of the photo. I like the fact that this article relates photography to art, because I believe it is, especially after taking this class in high school. You have to be creative with it (angles, lighting, etc.), and it takes talent. I feel like this article reflects negatively on digital photography though; it basically states that altering photographs is not a form of art. I have to disagree with that. Programs like Photoshop allows people to think outside the box with the photos they have taken and be even more creative. Art is all about using your imagination, and I think digital photography allows people to use even more of their imagination to create something even better than just a simple photograph.
-10821166
The article was interesting but left me asking a lot of questions. I am not sure if it is just me or not but alot of the information about digital bits and other technical word usage really confused me. The history of it the scanner and how digital media has progressed is what caught my eye and if it was explained more clearly it would have been more effective. I think now when I do scan anything or even work on a digital print I will think about what all has been put into this technology by the real artists in the past. Without them we would not be having this discussion.
-10879197
What I understood from this chapter is that people used to look down upon digital art. As if it where an easy way to create art. This could have been because people tend to have a hard time changing. Back when digital art forms where introduced it was different than the norm of drawing or painting. Later on in the chapter I like how it talks about how digital art can create a kind of art that would be hard to make without a computer. As it says in the book "a digital image may be part scanned photograph, part computer-synthesized shaded perspective, and part electronic "painting"—all smoothly melded into an apparently coherent whole." I found this to be very interesting. But all in all i liked the chapter. It does well in explaining the history and advancement of digital art.
10818015
I thought it was interesting to learn about the history of photography, and to learn how far the technology has come. Like others, I found it hard sometimes to distinguish between analog and digital.
10787767
It was interesting to learn about how technology has enhanced the capability of artists throughout the years. I feel that know matter what types of tools or techniques an artist has used in order to create their work it is all about their creativity and raw talent. To me, digital art is confusing and hard to do but drawing is fun and easy .... which is why I'm in this class! I feel blessed to have been born with creativity and some raw talent with art so learning digital art is something that will be fun and exciting.
-10662275
Understanding the difference between analog and digital photography was a little confusing but I enjoyed reading about people's inital reactions of digital photography as an art. The chapter conveyed that people looked down upon this at first, only to open up to it later. This seems to be a common theme within the realm of art history as many artists have been criticized for stepping outside the box and trying new things. People have not been ready to accept certain types of art throughout history but some of these techniques have made artists famous. Basically the fact that people may have been opposed to digital photography is no surprise and in the future these may be some of the most famous peices and well known peices of art.
i thought this chapter was very interesting, i like how it showed the evolution of art from painting to photo, to digital photo, though some of the chapter was a little dry, another part that was intrigueing was how the digital photograph has slowly made its way into the art world
10914255
Post a Comment