The Evolution of Media:

Natural dyes * Fresco * oil paint * acrylic * pixels

At some point in the digitizing process the human eye/mind,s ability to distinguish the difference between analog and digital information will become neutral.

The range of color variation seems to have increased as the evolution of media progresses from natural dyes . . . to pixels.

If we digitize traditional media (water color, chalk, pencil, etc.) with the new technologies available to render these low texture and color variations accurately, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish the difference. Logic says at some point we again reach the technological point of informational neutrality.

All that’s left is surface texture and that seems to be under pressure. I was at my city’s art museum gift shop and saw a Van Gogh painting that was duplicated digitally in both surface texture and color, it was amazing.

1.THE QUESTION TO THE FORUM:
Is the computer and its technical extensions (high tech printers, etc.) just the next step in the evolution of media, or do you think that the new technology will lead to mediocrity, leaving the artist in the shoes of the type setter?

Marshal McCluen: When craft is replaced by technology it becomes an art form.

Example A: Before writing rhyming was used to remember long passages. As writing developed, rhyming became poetry - an art form.

Example B: When the technology of photography replaced the craft of painting, painting became an art form, and it evolved to it many contemporary forms.

2. QUESTION TO THE FORUM:
Is technology making the craft of photography obsolete and causing it to evolve into the new art form? Isn’t the new media pixels?

"When craft is replaced by technology it becomes an art form."

I think that this statement would imply the question "can art be replaced by technology?"

Painting morphed from craft to art form for centuries before the camera, with the Renaissance. Photography is also currently an art form, and has been taken to odd and extraordinary places in terms of distortion etc. Maybe I am misunderstanding your use of the term "art form"??

Not replaced changed by technogoly.

C McVay

“that said, abstract art began in part because of the invention of the camera. the primary function of painting, to reproduce life-like images for posterity,” ( The craft of rendering life -like images reached it’s height in the Renaissance as taught in the guilds.) “ had been usurped by the camera.” (Technology)

Painting was always a craft handed down from tradesmen to tradesmen until technology replaced it’s highest standard” life- like images”. It then turn inward to seek an even higher standard in the meaning in its purpose. Thus it evolves from craft to art form.

An art form is an activity done solely to further a culture’s artist purpose.

Thanks C McVay for your participation.
It seem the forum is more interested shallow ego driven discussion.

When I turned to technology, I wanted it to help me but not replace anything I do mentally when painting. With my technology, I start with a canvas on the monitor and start defining every dot of pigment I want where, how much, what shape of dab or brush stroke. I build a machine the can mimic my muscles and create a brush stroke on the canvas. There is nothing related to printer or copy technology involved, hence it's patent. Technology will help me create paintings myself with my handprint that would take another several apprentices months or years to create. The robotics move faster than my hands and I can program dots faster than doing them by hand, but I still do it all including mixing up the oil paint for every color used by hand. Technology is the future. What would you say if 1000 years from now, you placed a helmet on your head and before your eyes you see your vision created on the canvas. You wouldn't see the micro nano robots crawling all over the canvas laying down individual molecules of pigment down till your vision is complete. What would you say to that idea?

Christian, for me the whole point would be lost. I really, really like to paint; the physical part of the act. Also, the mental part of painting is, to me, interwoven with the act of painting. The finished result is the compromise between the initial inspiration and the possibilities, my skill and materials offer. In short, I simply enjoy that ping-pong between the idea and the reality, that the evolution of a painting is.

I agree, and I paint people every day with my brushes. I've been a portrait painter for 30 years but I enjoy both art forms. The give me different worlds to play in.

"It seem the forum is more interested shallow ego driven discussion. "

Of course not Frank...some of us just have to be in the studio more than we can be on here. You asked a two part question, I'll gear my answer toward the first part, since I am not a photographer:

Will new technologies surplant or make medocre old methods of art creation?..it will make it easier for more individuals to participate, this will cause (and already has) masses of diletantes to suddenly deam themselves "artist" But I still believe actual skill and intrinsic knowledge of ones craft will give the edge to those who are worthy. Think of it this way, so you have the ability to create mounds upon mounds of Picaso's or Rembrant's or ...Thomas Kinkade's, if you lack vision and a unique sense of interpretation, you will continue to churn out trite ideas of the master painting. I think a lot has to be said for individual vision. When individual vision is great, no matter the medium, the end result will be something worth gazing at for more than 30 seconds.

As far as the superior reproduction capabilities offerd by today's inkjet technologies, I can say with experience that people still apreciate the idea that they can have the original painting, even if a perfect copy replete with impasto strokes is available. The idea that the artist actually "touched" it is part of what lends originals their value.