| My issue forever is where do you draw the line? Automated computer generated art is as beautiful as the greatest paintings. Do we end up calling the team of programmers whom coded the program——Artists, or is it just the user of the powerful program? Artist in the traditional sense? I remember working out at Muir Woods years in the 90’s. A new guy was telling me what he wanted to do with his life. He told me he wanted to become a computer Artist. I remember both of us debating at what point is the tool more powerful than the person. He was dead set on computer art is just art. Their was no line to cross. I’m still unsure. I don’t want to get into a debate either. (If the guy I had the conversation with happens to read this, I hope you are doing well. I hope you are in this industry, and happy. I always felt you were going to make it big.) |
As someone who paints daily and has made a lifetime study of painting, including visiting museums locally and worldwide, as well as trying to stay abreast of the "state of the art" of the use of computers in art (as well as writing software as a day job for decades), I am puzzled by this statement.
The greatest paintings, "in the flesh," simply have a punch and an impact that, to my eyes, has not been rivaled by the "state of the art" in digital renderings of any kind, or indeed in any works where a mechanical process is anything but a small factor in the completed work.
I would be fascinated to see what you consider to be examples of "automated computer-generated art" that rivals the works of Rembrandt, Titian, Velazquez, or anyone in the top tier of art history. Those artists are world-famous (not just now, but for centuries) for a reason, but you often have to get in the same room with the works to see why.