Are you a photographer? Are you an illustrator? Are you a
painter? Are you or did you follow one of these professions
before starting to use the computer?
I have met many people over the internet through my articles
and tutorials. Many are "old timers" like me who
started to work before computers were easily available. I
have observed that most "old timers" bring their
former artistic profession or hobby into his art work. I have
noticed that artists who work mainly in the 2 dimension realm,
use either Painter or Photoshop as their primary
program. A number have added Deep Paint as a bridge
since it can be used as a Photoshop plugin.
I was reading an article in a 3D magazine the other day that
discussed the present state of 3D art. This article got me
thinking that too many people use the computer to create technical
masterpieces that say nothing. Yes, I know this statement
will annoy people, but all one has to do is thumb through
a graphic magazine and count the number of clocks ticking
in someone's brain. No, I do not appreciate some of the art
in the Guggenheim or Museum of Modern Art in New York City
where I grew up. A "white on white" canvas still
says to me white.
If one looks at Ansel Adams, one will see an artist who created
beautiful and balanced photographs that are wonderful to look
at. They don't need titles. If one looks at William Eugene
Smith's work they will also see photographs that don't need
titles for his photojournalistic pictures tell their own stories.
While I believe that Ansel Adam's pictures are technically
perfect, the technique does not over shadow the beauty of
I met someone at a meeting a few months ago who was demonstrating
airbrushing; he asked if any body in the audience was an artist.
When I said I was he asked me what medium. When I said the
computer, he replied "I only use it for illustrations."
SNEER, SNEER, SNEER. I sort of understand his perspective
because too many magazines show only "techno-art"
Art generated on a computer is as individual as is the artist.
Or at least should be. However, I see the same types of pictures
reproduced time and again. Technically these pictures are
usually good. In my way of thinking, the computer should be
the same type of tool as a brush or a sculpturing chisel.
The artist is who determines the work, not the computer. If
one says one sculpts with a chisel, one does not expect any
certain type of work. It could be abstract, or realistic.
It could be a representation of an animate or inanimate object.
But when someone mentions that they are a 2D or 3D artist
who works on the computer, definite stereotypes come to mind.
Getting back to my first question. What background did you
bring to the computer? Soon this question might not have meaning
because children are developing computer skills without the
need, knowledge, or desire to experience other artistic media.
Schools in some parts of the country do not have art classes.
When they do, too many are of the "paint-by-number type."
Computer generated art, be it 2D or 3D, is still in its infancy.
I think the directions it will take are basically up to all
©Paula Sanders 2002
from my Renderosity column February 18, 2002