|
Computer Art: The Newest Studio Media Each day I hear someone phrase something like this, "So what's this digital revolution stuff all about anyway?" Another version is, "So just what does the new world of information technology (IT) offer traditional studio artists?" Still another, "And how does digital work differ from those tried and true traditional (analog) media?" These, and many other questions of similar species, are kinds of inquiries I deal with every day in my role as professor in the digital studios of the Art Department at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. In this brief piece I want to share some of my responses to the some recent inquiries from colleagues and students calling for input regarding "digital/computer art" ... certainly a set of thorny issues for many involved in the arts community - and elsewhere. Bur first, let me set the stage. My first days as an art student were at the Dayton Art Institute museum school in 1969. Spending time on a travel scholarship in New York in 1970 allowed visits to galleries showing the graphic art works of sculptor Davis Smith, painter Willem DeKooning, and printmaker Leonard Baskin. We even went to the "Factory" of Andy Warhol (he was not there). There was no digital work in sight anywhere. But since that time I have witnessed the radical transition of "graphics" from a medium dominated by charcoal, the pencil and the technical pen to one empowered by the Wacom (digitizing) tablet and defined by the remarkable clarity of the Iris printer. Such changes have been profound and are irrevocable. The rapid pace of this rapid, and very thorough, revolution has prompted many sentient persons to consider the nature of what "is" versus what "was" prior to the introduction of digital possibilities. A prime question, for example, might be what exactly is "digital art" and by what criteria is it to be judged? Well, a digital work is, by definition, composed on or translated by or through a binary computer. A digital work is, collectively, a carefully defined set of "0s" and "1s" which have been cleverly, and effectively, used to encode data into files that can contain, for example, text, audio, visual, or multimedia information. A 35mm slide, once scanned through, for example, a Nikon Coolscan can be "digitized" according to the inclinations of the equipment operator and then immediately printed on a "photo-realistic" inkjet printer at a level of quality to rival most any mall camera store. But is it a photograph? Good question. With the possibilities offered by the computers (Apple, PC, Unix), peripherals (scanners, printers, digital cameras) and software (Adobe Photoshop, Corel/ MetaCreations Painter, Adobe Illustrator, Bryce, Newtek Lightwave, etc.), those competent with these myriad new and evolving technologies can make or alter images in ways never before available. Once visual information is converted into binary code (those 0s & 1s) it is possible to produce images that are the equal of those produced those the intercession of any other media. Digital is another way to communicate visually. Given this definition, any work, altered by a digital imaging device is by its very nature a digital work. In recent years both Time and National Geographic magazines have placed digitally altered photographs on their covers -- but not without controversy however. Digital images are ubiquitous, showing us new ways of visualizing everything from bathroom cleaner to the characters of the WWF. But what makes a digital image art? That often lofty designation depends much upon which definition one uses for art. In my experience, when done well, digital images are nearly impossible to identify as digital images. By this I mean that nearly any imaginable media can be replicated virtually using one of more forms of digital imaging and printmaking. Given this set of possibilities it seems more than plausible that digital works be considered as simply another way of working available for artists at this time. The question of whether or not works produced in digital, or any other form, should be considered as art might best reside in our judgment of the works themselves rather than media used to produce them. And what of the standards to be set for digital works by the American Society of Botanical Artists, or the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, or the American Institute of Archaeology, or the other and various scientific agencies and organizations? Let me share this: As a scientific illustrator in the field of archaeology since the1980's I have seen the field quickly evolve from hand drawn PMT''s (photo mechanical transfers) and rough halftone images to the use of flatbed scanners in the field and digital cameras linked to laptops powered by solar cells which can record the processes of excavations each day in the field. Moreover, professional publications in this discipline have become as concerned about "dpi" as they were about the (former) "camera ready" quality of artwork developed for journal articles and presentations. The adaptation of digital imaging technology to this area of scientific illustration has moved at breathtaking speed. My working assumption, and experience, is that this is so in other domains of the visual arts as well. Simply stated: good work will prevail regardless of the media use to accomplish it. As Sister IgnatiQuality asserts itself. Moreover, in my estimation, the core question is not at all "What do we do about digital?" Perhaps it could be phrased something more like, "How can digital be incorporated into what we already do?" As printing and publications standards are already in use (and evolving) in the graphic design industry, the question becomes "How does digital work benefit both the producers of the art (in question) and the consumers of said work?" Make no mistake, digital is here and it IS revolutionary, unprecedented and marvelously powerful. Even so, digital technology, taken as a whole, is nothing more, or less, than the tool we make of it. In summary, as well-respected guru of digital imaging recently told
me, " ... let's just relax, work hard, and see what digital can
do for us ... not fuel debates whether or not it seems to be something
we should choose to accept as a valid way of working." Certainly
all artwork is interpretive. And perhaps working in any media should
not be hindered simply because some might not accept works done in
by a means with no historical precedent. My suggestion: embrace the
possibilities. His email address is: labadie@nat.uncp.edu
or jaluncp@aol.com |