|
|
Post by ignorAmouse on Feb 17, 2002 18:11:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sterud on Feb 19, 2002 9:09:27 GMT -5
Great question. I was actually thinking about this last night as I was going to sleep. I've recently found some incredible sites online with amazingly refreshing digital artwork for its own sake (as opposed to web design, etc.). I finally realized what was so interesting about it, at least for me, by placing it into context with the other fine arts: For the first time in art's history we have an artform that is flat but temporal at the same time, if not interactive. Literature, music and dance all take place in time. Painting, scultpture, photography and architecture (some of which I'd consider "fine art") are all static and, although at times narrative, do not take place in time. So now we have a new medium, one that takes some training and skill - as well as talent, it seems. (I don't know the first thing about how to create these digital works.) And like all the other media, these programs and techniques can be used to create either purely functional and practical work, or work of high ingenuity and skill. I find much of it extremely moving. I can foresee a future where we'll have programmable monitors hung on our walls with their own unique programming and imagery, much like a painting. The idea makes me shudder at the possibilities. Here are a couple sites I've found fascinating and vital: www.flyingpuppet.comwww.once-upon-a-forest.comSo, to answer the question: Yes, I think net art is art, only so far as it is done for art's sake, whereas most web design is what we would probably call "craft," or "applied art" at best. S. P.S. I haven't read the articles you posted, but I think most people, from laypersons to academics have accepted photography as art for some time now. I think that what's still not quite 100% accepted is the use of photography when it's incorporated or used as a tool for other media like painting. Okay, on to the links.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sterud on Feb 19, 2002 15:55:18 GMT -5
"For the first time in art's history we have an artform that is flat but temporal at the same time..."
Felt a little embarrassed by this one after I signed off last night. I guess I haven't heard of "moving pictures." Hehe. Film? Whoops. So that throws a new slant on the medium of net art, I suppose.
Anyway, there's something vital to the art being made on the internet. At the same time I feel that a step needs to be made to displace it from the home computer - stick it in a monitor on a wall or in a sculpture of some form. Seems the next logical step from the TV and video still used by contemporary artists.
Which then begs the questions: Would the same program be more artistic on a wall then on the home computer? Why? Sounds like the same question posed in a another thread about how museums and galleries give automatic value to art.
S.
|
|
dots
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by dots on Oct 30, 2002 1:31:56 GMT -5
The net so far is only able to show compressed files.If and when
the web can show more detail,more impact and size without pixel
distortion it will be effective.Look at the best pictures of artwork,then see it live and the experience is very different.The net is a good teaser digital art looks the best on computers,since it is created on them.In 2 or 3 years things will improve after the
companies push low price and bells+whistles,they will start pushing quality.Till then it sure is cool to see so much stuff from
a chair.
|
|
