Dear all, i have raised this question before, but it didnt seem to elicit much response. I guess we are too devoted to our past and present to pause and consider the future of art(with good reasons i must admit, the future, at least the immediate one - looks dark!). I am mostly into painting, and will restrict myself to that medium of expression.

I think this age-old fight between abstract and realism, representaional versus non-representational, theory versus execution has become a bit cliched. I do not find these words necessarily antonymic. Reality is nothing but perception, as we all know. The most austere colorfield must use real pigments. What came out of Mondriaan's brush, and what Bougereau painted were essentially intellectual assimilation of sensory perceptions. A 'realist' artist is not a preset security cam in a shopping mall. His mind tells him what to see(or not), and what makes him different from the photographer is his ability to express that filtered and assimilated perception with real paint on the canvas. The photographer uses a different set of skill. Some of us, who aspire to be artists, and who depend on a strict set of internally derived criteria to measure their progress to(or degress from) that title, will not be easily affected by external criticism. Pen pushers must do their job. They must work within the tyranny of 'isms' as scribing is essentially analytical, and must have a definite semantic infrastructure on which to arrange their critical bricks. But artists can be fuzzy, boundaries cease to exist in a wanton quest for creative expression, and perhaps its time to get ahead of this tyrannical regime of painting-within-set-boudaries. Infact, with bytes and information superways ruling the conceivable future, musnt we take up, along with the brush, the new tools of creating experience?

Technology exists, as of today to design perceptions. Forget cockpit simulations, those are too crude. what about perceiving the warmth of an 'Arles' sun, or a whiff from Monet's garden? Or walking through a Pollock splatter, where one can stop and touch a droplet of paint suspended in mid-air? Or actually be in that room with Dega's bathing nude! But these are only recreations from master works of the past, what about our own creations for the future? The possibilities are endless, and the learning curve to grasp such technology will only get easier with time. But should we at least begin to discuss the virtual future? May I humbly ask for your opinions?

Below is a simplistic virtual image I created in a 3d program. How about designing the 'feel' of those ants running over bare skin?

Roy, while your proposal is exciting, it is not new. Non-flat imagery has always been around in the medium of sculpture, and the concept artists have been doing this type of thing for years. Your particular examples are very intriguing...to feel the warmth of the sun, to smell the smells...beautiful ideas, please embrace them and pursue them, i would love to experience them.

Dear McVay, many thanks. One response, at least! I know that non-flat imagery has been around for as long as the Indus valley people were sculpting figurines(or even before that!), but my stress(as you so rightly mentioned in the latter part of your post)was on trying to extend our experience of 'art' to the other senses. I believe an esoteric fringe of the scientific community has already done that(moving things over the internet, fragrance at a selective mouse click, etc), what we need is to incorporate an artistic vision into that adventure. Eh?

What’s Art?
What’s an Artist?
Real vs Abstract
Skill vs Ideas

The forum has had considerable debate over these questions. On several occasion I posted discussion on; what’s new?, what’s next?, where’s art headed? How is art being effected by technology, with little or no response. Christian posted his new an interesting matricism ideas and most of the forum responded to his economic views of art with little or no discussion of how machines like this might influence or change art’s future, or how robotic machines might be used. What other new technologies have artist heard of.

Maybe the readers fear change. If this is so, it is a shame because art at its best has always embraced the new. The forum exist because technology collapsed the global village.

Roy,

Hopefully your post will not fall on dead ears.

Ref. The “Evolution of Media” posted below.

Roy, it´s so difficult to predict anything. I´m in my early forties and heavily into painting. When I first tried twiddling with digital imaging my first thought was, that here was almost endless possibilities to be explored. My initial enthusiasm soon faded, though. Frankly, I haven´t encountered a digitally created work of art, that has made any great impression on me. Maybe some kids out there making computer games of a kind will provide us with big surprises; it would be great. What I mean is, that I think the really powerful stuff will come from sources we now don´t associate with the art-scene. Much as the shift that occured in music during the last century: As the european music tradition lost it´s vitality, a totally new thing spread out form the blacks in the american south and look what that led to! Jazz, blues, rock´n roll; it all came out of the plantations.

I can´t help thinking that there´s one problem with digital imaging and " inspiration ". There´s no physical dimension to the actual process of creating. Somehow, I think that actually doing stuff with and via your body is a very important component in absorbing and creating a language of your own. For now, I can´t state it clearer than that, hopes it makes some sort of sense...

As to the sensory experiences you write about: I get these from paintings, books and music already. If I shut up and allow myself to receive what, as an example, one of Van Gogh´s landcapes have to offer, I can actually feel the heat of the provencal sun he worked under, smell the dust and the lavender and, moreover, feel what he felt at the time he worked on that particular canvas. Psychologists of course can offer all sorts of explanations for such experiences and I can only reply, that I feel this stuff, period.

So, Roy and Frank, I haven´t a clue as to what the future will bring in terms of what we call " art " other than that a lot of digital / sensory interface and interplay will surface.

SY,
Kim

Dear Kim, about digital creations being uninspiring. I have heard that refrain often enough and am baffled. Is it because of difficulties involved in mastering such technology(plus cost of software)or because of perceived limitations of expression? The latter cannot be true, since you say it has endless possibilities.

I believe art is essentially about communication - with self or community or both. Why should i paint stick figures of beast or men on cave walls? Why would i go to the extent of mixing bone ash, red and yellow earth and animal fat(which i have extracted from animals killed with rudimentary stone tools), work up a thick gooey paste and painstakingly stain the walls of my cave? Why did we need to show off? were we actually showing off? Or recording? Or expressing - desire, fear, respect? Or simply disseminating information visually? Or establishing our ego, our individuality? Why did the ancient Egyptians curve such exquisite perspectives on pyramid walls? What social maturity allowed Indian sculptors to explore such advanced eroticism at Khajuraho? Why did Van Eyck experiment with ground pigment and vegetable oil? why the heck did Speilberg make Jurassic Park?! Are we akin to dancing peacocks? Or penguins presenting polished pebbles to lady loves? Do we make art from a deep seated reproductive urge that necessitates drawing attention to ourselves? Or giving shape to one's subconscious thoughts? etc etc etc.... My point is, as far as i could understand, the central fact about art has been man's urge to express. The mediums were less important. he found some, he developed others. What is a Matisse? A colorful illusion on a single plain. What is a Mona Lisa? An illusion of a billion contiguous plains receding from the viewer - all those painted on a single plain. This we all know. Why should a computer image be any different? Your are reading this off a flat surface, yet we recognize a depth in the image(Ants) above. So are we too blame the medium, or us - the artists, for failing(till date) to create a second, but DIGITAL guernica?

I believe the blame, if justified must lie with the artists. We are yet to take up the technology of the day and explore it to a greater potential. Like we did with oil. Like we are doing with acrylics. Just another medium.

I think the image of digital 3D technology is still largely restricted to violent games or sci-fi. Shrek is a very welcome break. But then it was largely exaggerated, cartoonish. What about the subtler effects of a Whistlerian "Nocturne?" A real cow head full of maggots is infinitely less demanding(as regards creative ability) than designing an intimately decorated, and fully rendered virtual chat room(unlike the ones available today on the internet). We have the technology to do it, but infrastructural contraints(read paltry, modem-censured kilobytes!) keep us from turning it into reality. As also lack of greater partcipation from the artistic community. The techies did the math(like chemists at winsor grind paint), we need to breathe life into their formula! This was just an example, but hey! I surely would love to discuss these threadbare in the company of your, or Frank's, or McVay's virtual person(where you assume whatever identity you need to assume), where the window brings in sunlight from a virtual Swiss scenery and a Botticelli Venus look-alike(another virtual self) is busy rustling the latest newsletter! Extending senses, really ......

And this is not a dream, i feel. You may argue, who needs a virtual sun? But we do need Monet's light, dont we? Esp where Mme Monet, seen from a low ground is backlit by a brilliant blue sky. The real elements are already available in nature, but we still need Homer to paint restless coconut fronds in afternoon thunderstorms. Just my thoughts.....