I was just confronted at coffee break by an elderly woman who has been a traditional artist for years. I was drawing on my iPad. She reached over and swiped her fingers across the sceen and informed the crowd that it can't be real art because it's not permanent.

I managed to get my iPad away from her before she completely ruined my drawing and thanks to Procreate's robust function, I was able to recover.

My friends around the table tried to tell her that I have some talent, but she shouted them down and insisted that what I was doing couldn't be art since it's too easy. I invited her to try it, but she declined saying she didn't know how to do it.

This person is known to be loud and obnoxious, so I won't waste time on her comments, but what does bother me is that she's one of the founding members of the closest art club which I joined last fall. I came close to canceling my membership when I first encountered the cement-headed attitude of some of the members. They are concerned that they are unable to attract new members. Duh.

Don't misunderstand me. My current level of proficiency is far from expert, it will take lots more practice before I'll be showing in New York or London :D but I don't think that means what I do is not as real as oil paint on canvas.

Isn't art created by the manipulation of color. What does it matter if the medium is paint or pixels?

If you've read this far and have an opinion about digital vs canvas art, I'd like to hear it, I just needed to get this off my chest.

Now I'm going back to my drawing board.

The reaction of the neo-luddite in your club is a typical irrational fear response.

Art is inherently ephemeral; existing both in the artist during the process of its creation, and/or in the mind of the viewer during it's perception. I know of very few who would argue that the physical object; whether it is pigment on a canvas, pixels on a screen, marble in a statue, or vibrations in the air during the performance of a pice of music are "art."

Art exists in the mind, not in objective reality.

This is why what is great art for one person is incomprehensible noise for someone else.

It certainly "can" be art, although I draw the line at people who rely too much on programs that do the work for them.

David Hockney
One of the top living artists in the world, one of the top artists of the 20th century.
Works on iPad daily (also works in paint, print, photography)
His recent show "Fresh Flowers' was presented entirely on iPad and iPhone.
He uses the Brushes app, the same $5 app anyone can download and use. His digital works are distinctly Hockney, they are not 'lesser' than any of his other works in other media.

wzr6kPoxQhI

Yes. I saw the Hockney show at the ROM. Clearly recognizable as Hockney.

Also, probably one of the most popular artists on the planet in the last few years, Andy Goldsworthy, has made his fame and fortune creating impermanent, ephemeral works from found object and nature.
You might want to introduce the (DVD) film Rivers And Tides to your art group.

One of my favourite artists is Richard Long. He goes on walks. That is his art.

A friend, who has been a longtime member of her local photography club, is constantly railing about the changes that digital photography and computers have brought into her world. She can no longer present her work with a slide projector (drawing on her vast library created over the past few decades). She's moved into the world of Aperture and Photoshop, though seasonally she forgets how to do things and frequently needs retraining.

She's also of the opinion that what is presented for competition these days isn't photographic art... it's computer manipulation, period. If it isn't done in-camera (or in the darkroom), it ain't photography.

I suspect much of her resentment is being unable to become as proficient with the technology as the younger generations... But apparently there isn't enough of a cadre of hardcore photography people within the group to maintain a "pure" competitive line...

So, Winwintoo, while Ms. Obnoxious was certainly out of line by messing with your work (extremely rude, that!), she's likely also resentful at her "art form" going the way of the Dodo - at least in her view.

Thank you all for your responses. You've hit the nail on the head. Fear is the problem.

As I said, I have a loooooong way to go before any talent I have will be ready for prime time, but I will continue doing what I'm doing. I'm pretty sure I'm no threat to any established artists out there.

I enjoyed the Hockney video. I'll dig for more of his work.

Regina is blessed to have many artists. I really like the work of Clayton Kashuba, a young artist who produces large acrylic pieces as well as many done in Photoshop. Maybe he would come and demo his method at the art club.

Take care, Margaret

If you are bringing something inside you to life, then it is indeed art regardless of the medium.

For some artists the digital age has expanded their abilities, others view it more as an intrusion.

One of the truly wonderful things about art is that it touches each of us differently.

One area that I do feel the intrusion is in the area of writing. Sadly it allows quantity to fill in for quality.

She's also of the opinion that what is presented for competition these days isn't photographic art... it's computer manipulation, period. If it isn't done in-camera (or in the darkroom), it ain't photography.

I suspect it's a little more complex--it's the supposition that the digital photography crowd cannot also operate a traditional film camera. I can understand the resentment over having the skill taken out of the equation. It's like all of the skilled draftspeople who were put out of work by AutoCad. I can understand the resentment, but what are you going to do, once the horse has left the barn?

I suspect it's a little more complex--it's the supposition that the digital photography crowd cannot also operate a traditional film camera. I can understand the resentment over having the skill taken out of the equation. It's like all of the skilled draftspeople who were put out of work by AutoCad. I can understand the resentment, but what are you going to do, once the horse has left the barn?


But why do they think it's necessary for digital photographers to be able to operate a film camera? Didn't the film photographers contribute what they knew to the evolution of digital cameras?

There seems to be an assumption that if there's a computer that it's easier. Do people not realize that computers add magnitudes of complexity to artistic tasks whether is photography or sketching.

When you pick up a pencil, you need to know how to use that pencil to capture what's in your mind. An awesome skill to be sure. But when you sit at your computer or pick up an iPad, you also need to know how to interact with the device which is a whole different skill set.

The drawing I was working on this afternoon could have been done in pen on nice paper. My living situation has no accommodation either spacially or economically for pens and nice paper. My viewing audience is "in the cloud" so digital makes sense to me.

It's not likely that I would be attempting art if it wasn't for my computer background. I look forward to sharing my finished work with my new friendemy and discovering what challenges have caused her opinions.

But why do they think it's necessary for digital photographers to be able to operate a film camera?

I don't think they expect it is necessary. They just mourn the loss of the "specialness" of their skill. Initially there were high barriers to entry, and they felt they were elite. Now everyone can play.

I've been referred to and referred to myself as a digital media artist. While I can't speak as to anyone else's taste in art I can say there are a great many people who work entirely in the digital medium and are practicing artists. Most of the works are completely ephemeral. And just as you can have a heated debate with someone around whether a "paint by numbers" is art so can you about people who make work according to their own preferences and skills in the digital realm. So asking "can digital it even be considered art?" is basically like hearing what someone does for a living and saying "is that even a job?" Mildly amusing perhaps the first 1000 one hears it, but pretty well soul crushing after that...

The reaction of the neo-luddite in your club is a typical irrational fear response.

Art is inherently ephemeral; existing both in the artist during the process of its creation, and/or in the mind of the viewer during it's perception. I know of very few who would argue that the physical object; whether it is pigment on a canvas, pixels on a screen, marble in a statue, or vibrations in the air during the performance of a pice of music are "art."

Art exists in the mind, not in objective reality.

This is why what is great art for one person is incomprehensible noise for someone else.

I agree with all the comments to this thread so far, fear is a big part of change. I feel if you can weld together 3 - i-beams, paint them, set them outside Burlington Centre of Arts building and call it art - anything that comes to mind in any form is considered art to someone.

Of course it can be art. A person who would do something like that to someone's drawing has a problem that has nothing to do with art or discussion about art. Fear is one possibility, but there are others, including bad manners.

Of course computer art is art, in the same way that computer animation is animation and digitally created music is still music. Art is a creative outlet for people, and like Bryan said, involves a relationship between the creator (not religiously of course—though you could also take it that way 😉) and the viewer. Artists see the world a little differently than most people and attempt to try and capture what they see in the hope that someone else will see it too. The medium used is incidental. I'm sure oil painters felt similarly threatened when oil pastels and acrylic paints came along. Today all three media co-exist. One thing about the iPad: clean up is a heck of a lot less messy.

One day one of my high school art students didn't know what to do so I gave him my iPhone to play around with. Here is what he created.

24436

Sure seems like art to me.

As long as we all agree that scraperboard is not art...

Of course it can be art. A person who would do something like that to someone's drawing has a problem that has nothing to do with art or discussion about art. Fear is one possibility, but there are others, including bad manners.

Good point. Also, if you took a box cutter to one of her canvasses, you could demonstrate pretty quickly that any art work is not permanent.

I started out wanting to learn how they make those photorealistic pencil drawings. I bought books, pencils, lessons, paper etc. and after spending a boatload of money, I have two portraits I'm proud of and decided that kind of art wasn't giving me what I wanted.

Nor do I want to draw scenery or still life. There are millions of artists who do that better than I ever could so I'll let them do it.

The books all say "draw what you see." I see abstract patterns, so that's what I draw. I spent some time yesterday with a couple of neighbors who have serious health problems and showed them how I draw my art. They were thrilled and when I saw one of them today, she was bubbling with excitement over this new adventure.

I'm not going to engage in an argument I can't win. Rather than try to be friends with the grown up ladies in the art club, I'm going to spend time with the lady who dyed her hair bright green to match her Saskatchewan Roughriders t-shirt. She's my kind of people.

Here's a couple of my artistic efforts. The baby picture is a pencil drawing, the other one was done on my iPad.
24437

24438

This is a subject that strikes a cord with me. I've been an artist/illustrator for decades. I've worked with natural media and digital media when the very first wacom tablet hit the market. I've painted pictures with acrylics for years selling originals and reproductions of them. My illustration side was entirely digital using the Adobe Suite and my favourite painting app, Corel Painter. Although I could see the benefits of doing my work digitally on the fine art side, I was always reluctant fearing people would discount my abilities as simply a product of a smart computer making up pictures for me. Despite that, 3 years ago I did my first all digital fine art piece and started selling canvas reproductions of it to test the waters. I found that people could not distinguish it from my natural media work and that the vast majority didn't seem to be disappointed when they learned that I created it digitally. I suspect some still think the computer played a big hand in the creation of it but sales have been fantastic just the same. I think anyone that plays with a paint app on an ipad quickly learns that skill, vision and creativity are as essential as ever in the creation of beautiful digital artwork.
I still feel there is something special about owning a painting done with natural media. Its truly a one of a kind where as my digital only reproductions don't have that special master work as their source.
I've just completed my 4th digital edition and sales of my canvas prints have been wonderful so I think there is definitely a market for art created using bleeding edge tools and technology.

Cheers
MacGuiver

I started out wanting to learn how they make those photorealistic pencil drawings. I bought books, pencils, lessons, paper etc. and after spending a boatload of money, I have two portraits I'm proud of and decided that kind of art wasn't giving me what I wanted.

Nor do I want to draw scenery or still life. There are millions of artists who do that better than I ever could so I'll let them do it.

The books all say "draw what you see." I see abstract patterns, so that's what I draw. I spent some time yesterday with a couple of neighbors who have serious health problems and showed them how I draw my art. They were thrilled and when I saw one of them today, she was bubbling with excitement over this new adventure.

I'm not going to engage in an argument I can't win. Rather than try to be friends with the grown up ladies in the art club, I'm going to spend time with the lady who dyed her hair bright green to match her Saskatchewan Roughriders t-shirt. She's my kind of people.

Here's a couple of my artistic efforts. The baby picture is a pencil drawing, the other one was done on my iPad.
24437

24438

I really like the iPad effort.

I don't think they expect it is necessary. They just mourn the loss of the "specialness" of their skill. Initially there were high barriers to entry, and they felt they were elite. Now everyone can play.

This.

I took up photography as a hobby back in the early 70s and painstakingly built up my collection of darkroom skills and tools until, by the late 90's, I was pretty damn good (if I don't say so myself). But then photoshop came along, and within a few years the technology was good enough that any idiot with a decent output device could do what I'd taken decades to learn. That was a bitter pill to swallow.

My dad feels even more strongly about electronic music; his inclination is that if it's not acoustic, it's "cheating" and it isn't worthy of respect because it's "too easy."

But the craft of an art form is not the same thing as the art itself. Firstly, just because it's electronic/digital does not mean it's easy... some things certainly are a lot easier with modern digital tools, but modern digital artists are still pushing the boundaries, and that means pushing your skills.

More importantly, art is about the effect on the mind and the senses (both of the artist and of the audience). If it simulates and engages the senses, it is, by definition, aesthetic (which is why we call a drug that dulls the senses an 'anesthetic'). If it stimulates the senses by design, it's art.

I guess if we were to go back in time to the first photographs ever taken, artists were likely debating whether this new technology constituted a legitimate art form. They'd have argued that any idiot can click a button and make a photo but only a true artist could create that same image with paint or pencil. I'm sure they'd have thought the photographers were cheating too. Its inevitable that digital painting and illustration would meet the same critics.

Artists see things that most people miss or take for granted. Whether the process is photorealism or abstraction (in various degrees) the goal of the artist is to persuade others to see the world the way the artist does, even temporarily. The method or medium used to convey this message is incidental and often just a personal preference, which is why many artists use so many different media. The iPad is just another medium that also happens to be quite versatile and easy to clean up.

Art is still and will always be about the elements necessary to create decent art work as an expression of one's vision. Elements like proportion, balance, contrast, texture are important no matter what medium you use, including electronic media, so time spent learning these basics is never wasted.

Case in point: several of my art students had tried painting white clouds on blue paper. While the color choice was fine, their technique made all the clouds look roughly the same as each other, like a herd of legless sheep floating in the sky. I told them to study the clouds more closely and see that they come in many shapes and sizes, and that in fact there was more variation in color than what they were seeing.

I had gleaned a few techniques myself from watching Bob Ross do his thing on his PBS show, and I realized that showing would be more effective than telling. So I used the same color paper as them, varied the sizes and placement of the clouds more, and inxorporated a TINY amount of black and silver paint (every dark cloud has a silver lining☁) to create some shadows and contrast, and voila, one of my better works this semester. My students' clouds improved tremendously after that.

So my point is this: art is not just the final product or the medium used to create it, but what a person learns about technique and composition and appreciation along the way.

24447

Artists see things that most people miss or take for granted. Whether the process is photorealism or abstraction (in various degrees) the goal of the artist is to persuade others to see the world the way the artist does, even temporarily.
24447

This almost verbatim echoes an essay I wrote in my undergrad using documentary film as the example. I adhere to Nichols' argument that realism is just a style like any other and therefore merely another form of abstraction (albeit often immediately imperceptible) used by the filmmaker to construct an argument about how they see the world. So when it comes down to it, the fact that it's digital is the least contentious issue.

The art is not in the medium, it is in the vision of the artist and its realization and it matters not what tools one uses to bring that vision into being.

I guess if we were to go back in time to the first photographs ever taken, artists were likely debating whether this new technology constituted a legitimate art form. They'd have argued that any idiot can click a button and make a photo but only a true artist could create that same image with paint or pencil. I'm sure they'd have thought the photographers were cheating too. Its inevitable that digital painting and illustration would meet the same critics.

Some of the Impressionists used photographic reference for their works--and tried to hide that fact from others.

Some of the Impressionists used photographic reference for their works--and tried to hide that fact from others.

I have no doubt that's true. Many artists I know used photographic slides as reference and projectors to do the undersketch on their canvas. I'm betting if Leonardo had access to the technology he'd have likely done the same.

One might as well ask the question: are people to object to art, any sort of art, real people?

It's a silly question. Do what you do and leave the nattering over what is and isn't art to the pithy pundits who would tell the masses what to like.

I have no doubt that's true. Many artists I know used photographic slides as reference and projectors to do the undersketch on their canvas. I'm betting if Leonardo had access to the technology he'd have likely done the same.

Well if Leonardo didn't Raphael, Michelangelo etc. sure did in their own way.

They would often have proteges and underlings do the "cartoons" (sketches) and under painting for murals and large works and then they would come in and finish them off and sign them.

This almost verbatim echoes an essay I wrote in my undergrad using documentary film as the example. I adhere to Nichols' argument that realism is just a style like any other and therefore merely another form of abstraction (albeit often immediately imperceptible) used by the filmmaker to construct an argument about how they see the world. So when it comes down to it, the fact that it's digital is the least contentious issue.

Bingo. We get easily led into thinking the things we see on TV, even documentaries or the TV news, are somehow more "honest" depictions of reality because we categorize them that way, whereas anyone who has ever been behind the scenes knows how much of an editorial slant is given to every story, including the order in which the stories are presented and the amount of sound bites afforded. The new is a commercially-sponsored show like any other and the networks know they walk a fine line between accurate reporting and blatant manipulation. Don't even get me started on "reality" shows…

Well if Leonardo didn't Raphael, Michelangelo etc. sure did in their own way.

They would often have proteges and underlings do the "cartoons" (sketches) and under painting for murals and large works and then they would come in and finish them off and sign them.

Just like Mike Holmes or other general contractors! But at least MH gives his crew some of the credit.

To put it in even more absurd terms, we can't even agree on what constitutes art in the first place, let alone what "real art" allegedly is.

Fjn: agreed with your comments on "realism" and "reality TV." In spades.

I've tried to draw and can't. Just plans, not art. Nor am i more than a mechanical musician. The art I love are pieces where I don't know what the artist was thinking, and where I see multiple explanations whenever I blink and look again, or think about the piece more. Same with audio art (music). I've seen terrific stuff made on computers that gave me that experience, both audio and visual, and sometimes both together.:clap:

(I painted the little critter in my avatar, but an artist made the clay shape.)

Have not read the whole discussion, but I think you can look at almost every major movement in art history as a new way of asking the question of "What is art?"

Does art have to be realistic?
Does art have to be pretty?
Does art have to have deep meaning?
Does art have to be permanent?
Does art have to be accepted by "The Establishment"?

The exploration of the question what is art? has lead to some pretty damn impressive art.

Absolutely, Sonal. And the flip side of the question can also be asked: what isn't art?

It can lead to an equally impressive array of answers.

In the end, talking about art is like watering a bicycle.

Absolutely, Sonal. And the flip side of the question can also be asked: what isn't art?

It can lead to an equally impressive array of answers.

In the end, talking about art is like watering a bicycle.

Because rust never sleeps?

Yes. At least partially. But not without a strong disavowal for equivocation.

There are a number of basic elements of art and principles of design, and this is what art is about, at least on a technical level. Not everything is art—it's not quite that open-ended—but any subject can be the focus of a piece of art work. Some photography makes for great art, for example, while others are just photos. Though the media changes, these principle stay the same. Therefore, if the computer artist employs these same principles, it's art.

It's art if people say it is.

It's art if people say it is.

An all too common misunderstanding. Noise does not become music just because I say so. Like most human endeavours, there needs to be some kind of consensus on the matter. If you look closely at the previous post, there are many elements that need to be present in some form or another for something to be regarded as art. Often, it's all in the presentation.

It's art if people say it is.

True enough in practise. And the opposite also holds true. It ain't art if people hate it, or yell loudly enough about it. This has massive traction, especially in the popular media. Usually it's accompanied by generous dollops of outrage.

I wonder if musicians feel the same way about GarageBand/Logic Pro. I cringe at the thought of automatic transmissions being available or even the only option in performance cars these days, I would've preferred a manual transmission be a barrier to entry to many of these cars but it seems that every rich 16 year old with little driving know how and their handbag sized dog can have one now.

I did some manual drafting back in high school, even though I prefer drafting in AutoCAD, I try to bring the art form of manual drafting into my drawings, if given the time. Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom with engineering firms these days.

An all too common misunderstanding. Noise does not become music just because I say so. Like most human endeavours, there needs to be some kind of consensus on the matter. If you look closely at the previous post, there are many elements that need to be present in some form or another for something to be regarded as art. Often, it's all in the presentation.

There is never any "consensus" as to what constitutes art. You can list all the "elements" of art all you want and many people will still claim a given work isn't art and it can be devoid of your list of elements of art and people will claim it is art.

I wrote my graduating thesis for my BFA on an historical analysis of the nature of "taste" and in the end there is no accounting for it. Art is that which people accept as art and it is a heuristic notion that mutates and evolves over time.

True enough in practise. And the opposite also holds true. It ain't art if people hate it, or yell loudly enough about it. This has massive traction, especially in the popular media. Usually it's accompanied by generous dollops of outrage.

Precisely.

I wonder if musicians feel the same way about GarageBand/Logic Pro. I cringe at the thought of automatic transmissions being available or even the only option in performance cars these days, I would've preferred a manual transmission be a barrier to entry to many of these cars but it seems that every rich 16 year old with little driving know how and their handbag sized dog can have one now.

I did some manual drafting back in high school, even though I prefer drafting in AutoCAD, I try to bring the art form of manual drafting into my drawings, if given the time. Unfortunately, it's a race to the bottom with engineering firms these days.

Though there are many musicians who despair for the state of contemporary music and the rise of self-made artists who rock a workstation, the times are changing. Brian Eno has given interesting lectures on how music has changed in the last two hundred years and he's putting a positive spin on developments. I choose not to get too excited about people who still think you have to master an instrument or learn a wealth of technical chops before you can 'do' music. Whatever works for you... but to me, the music still has to have that elusive quality - soul - or I'm left cold.

As for draughting, I was just having an interesting conversation with the set designer I'm currently working with. She is one of the few left who actually draws up sets using a board. The demand for those who do it all via computer is very high. Being well versed in Sketchup or Autocad trumps your own painstaking handiwork, no matter how beautifully rendered it may be. Speed and ease of modification are the hallmarks. Something is gained, something is lost. That said, there remains a demand for those who can do skillful renderings for concept sketches in pre-builds - something combining classic draughting principles with the art of creating volume and texture though the magic of tonal finessing. It's just that those gigs are relatively rare and it's still a very competitive scene - you had better be good at it if you want to get paid.

And finally: as with all creative endeavours, the more you understand the underlying technical aspects, the better you will be able to master your task. No sense in putting down chops - chops are what get you to within an inch of the finish line.

Does anyone consider art to be naturally occurring at times?

I have long considered shooting a photographical account of the deserted farm buildings of the Canadian prairies. It has been on my mind for many years now and I guess I had best get at it. There is a stark and haunting beauty to many of these old homesteads that were left standing as farmers to this day cannot bring themselves to put a dozer to their or a former owner's history.

Mother Nature herself has created the angles and the twists and the decay and the colours into what I consider 'her own form of art'. If i do go out and compile a photo essay of her work, is my work art, or is it merely a reflection of Mother Nature's artistry? Art is so subjective, but I feel this project should be done before another year slips by me. I know of hundreds of these building that will eventually become dust and be lost forever.

Do you believe photography can be art? I certainly do. But photographic art also requires a photographer, much like a painting requires a painter. It takes a human (or sometimes an elephant) to recognized the artistic potential in a setting or an activity and then choose the tools to most effectively capture the moment. This is the undeniably human (or elephantine) part of the artistic process, wherein the artist becomes inspired in the first place. He/she then chooses the media and the tools to make that vision real.

So while anything could become the subject of art, it takes the artist to convey that vision to the rest of the world. God or Gaia or Life Force or Natural Selection created the incredible view, but it takes a person to recognize it. A bird might take your amazing view and simply think "good place for nest."

Does anyone consider art to be naturally occurring at times?

I have long considered shooting a photographical account of the deserted farm buildings of the Canadian prairies. It has been on my mind for many years now and I guess I had best get at it. There is a stark and haunting beauty to many of these old homesteads that were left standing as farmers to this day cannot bring themselves to put a dozer to their or a former owner's history.

Mother Nature herself has created the angles and the twists and the decay and the colours into what I consider 'her own form of art'. If i do go out and compile a photo essay of her work, is my work art, or is it merely a reflection of Mother Nature's artistry? Art is so subjective, but I feel this project should be done before another year slips by me. I know of hundreds of these building that will eventually become dust and be lost forever.

I think there is beauty in those old buildings. Please do it Sinc.

Yesterday a friend took me on a tour of her old stomping grounds around Avonlea. We passed several abandoned farm buildings. I tried to take pictures of some really wind blown outbuildings, but sadly my iPhone wasn't up to the task. The sun was so bright I couldn't see what I was aiming at and ended up with nothing.

The contrast between the old and the new would make an interesting photo essay. We stopped at her daughter's place and I calculated several million dollars worth of equipment in the yard, some of it on wheels and some hopper bottom grain bins for drying and storage. A far cry from how farmers worked even 50 years ago.

She told me about a relative who visited from New Brunswick and expressed dismay at seeing the bald prairie. "they sure cut down a lot of trees around here," she remarked. And she couldn't believe that the few visible trees were planted, not the other way around.

The drive yesterday kind of opened my eyes to how we experience things differently. I love driving across the open prairie. Some people find it boring. We stopped at a campground on the banks of a small creek. The trees along the creek were very nice, but I couldn't wait to get back to the prairie.

Sinc, to me your photos would be art. Others would not. There's no accounting for taste.

Does anyone consider art to be naturally occurring at times?

I would say no. Certainly there is naturally occurring beauty, and the appreciation of that beauty requires a conscious mind, but I consider art to be something intentionally created by a conscious mind to elicit an aesthetic or emotional response in someone. But this is certainly just a matter of definition.

I have long considered shooting a photographical account of the deserted farm buildings of the Canadian prairies. It has been on my mind for many years now and I guess I had best get at it.

Please do. You certainly won't be the first (I've done a few of these myself; and there will be many others) to try to capture this beauty photographically, but I agree that it's a great topic, and not only might you succeed in creating some wonderful photographs, you'll almost certainly enjoy the process.

If i do go out and compile a photo essay of her work, is my work art, or is it merely a reflection of Mother Nature's artistry?

It most certainly is art (by my definition), in that the images are things that you are making for the purpose of eliciting an aesthetic and/or emotional response (even if this is only in yourself).

I think there often arises problems of talking about art when one or more participants deem a specific work as being kitsch. This whole line of inquiry can get very sensitive in a heartbeat. I recall a prof doing a lecture once - an established Canadian painter, quite the rigorous intellectual who loved contemporary art theory and loved chatting about it. Anyway, this one time he discussed the four types of art: good good art, good bad art, bad good art and bad bad art. I forget the differences he maintained were legitimate - too much thinking along these lines and it gets fairly ridiculous - but I do often think I'm seeing bad art, albeit done with the very best of earnest intentions.

An opening definition of kitsch would be: shabby execution in combination with cliched, maudlin subject matter and themes.

Kitsch may also be adored as much as so-called 'real' art. I know quite a few individuals who collect examples of bad art, and proudly display them. My wife likes to go there. I'll have to take some pictures to better illustrate what I'm talking about. Again however, the caveat applies; my kitsch may be your fine art. I don't really see any hard and fast lines of demarcation here.

I'll be third in line to say yes, Sinc, definitely do it.

I would definitely say that everything evolves. Digital SLRs are easy to acquire and even use these days, music can be created by anyone, art can be on a physical or digital canvas, and heck who am I to say that manual is the only way to enjoy driving a car. Sign of the times, there will always be the select few who enjoy the traditional way of doing things as it should be.

One of the interesting things (to me) about creating art is that constraints are often useful, or even essential. The qualities or difficulty of using the tools or mastering the medium can provide inspiration in and of itself.

Modern digital tools are often criticized as being "too easy." On the face of it, this is an absurd criticism. What could be wrong with being too easy? But at a deeper level, there is something to this criticism. If we aren't constrained by our tools, the artistic mind has no resistance to push against, and we often just fall flat into boring and uninspired stuff.

This doesn't make the modern tools bad, but it is a genuine hazard that the modern artist must be on guard against.

My wife recently played with this idea a little, by making a digital pinhole camera. The combination of low and high tech was artistically stimulating, if nothing else :)

Digital tools aren't a hazard. Nor are they too easy. It's just as easy to make a bad drawing with a pencil as it is with a Wacom Cintiq.

The old school crowd often denigrates computers because they feel threatened by them. Alas, the fastest computer can't grant you one iota of talent. Nor does it think - the user does, or doesn't. It's still up to individuals.

Bottom line: if you don't know how to see, you are going to concoct some awful messes. You have to at least recognize that learning to see is a big part of rendering a great personal vision. That's half the battle.

This is where the basics do help at times. Life drawing teaches you to see, to parse out perspective and physical arrangements. Much like, i suppose, learning your scales and practising them gives you a better appreciation for the building blocks of music. You don't have to do any of these things - especially if you're a truly gifted prodigy, capable of cutting some remarkable corners - but it sure helps make for a more well-rounded creative discipline.

Too, photography once threatened artists - it sparked lively debates on what is and isn't real, what's worth capturing and conveying. Now it's computers and 3D everything which challenge us in our assumptions about creativity. Seems there's always something to shake us up in that manner.

I sometimes like to remember that, despite whatever I manage to accomplish as a home musician armed with a plethora of modern tools, some of the world's most revered musicians made legends of themselves armed with a single crappy, all too temperamental acoustic guitar. Very humbling, that.

It's not the tools, it's the person wielding them. It's lovely to have good tools - heaven to have marvellous ones - but the individual must do the heavy lifting.

Strong consensus appears to be that she has no support from this bunch!

An erroneous conclusion, methinks.

Keep on keeping on, I say! In the end, every individual who praises creativity helps legitimize all of us who like to dream - whether it's through paint, ink, clay, music, or any number of noble tools.

Since I'm surrounded by literary people right now....

There was a time when most people could not write, and so to be a writer was a specialized skill. So the act of writing had a lot of importance and expertise associated with it.

Now, pretty much everyone in the industrialized world can write. But not all of them are writers. And not all writing is art. In fact, some really, really good writing is not art, and some very artistic writing is just not enjoyable to read. Just because it is written, doesn't make it art, and just because it is art, doesn't make it good. (Then add publishing to the mix, and you really have a mess.)

Since I'm surrounded by literary people right now....

There was a time when most people could not write, and so to be a writer was a specialized skill. So the act of writing had a lot of importance and expertise associated with it.

Now, pretty much everyone in the industrialized world can write. But not all of them are writers. And not all writing is art. In fact, some really, really good writing is not art, and some very artistic writing is just not enjoyable to read. Just because it is written, doesn't make it art, and just because it is art, doesn't make it good. (Then add publishing to the mix, and you really have a mess.)

You're right, Sonal. It's about communication, whether it is of the spoken, sung, painted or any other variety. Some approaches are more effective than others, and usually the best communicators are the ones with the most practice, who learned from their elders but are courageous enough to come up with their own style.

And not all writing is art. In fact, some really, really good writing is not art

This is a really good point. I would not consider myself a good writer by any means, but I do alright, and I do enough writing that I occasionally pull off a few really good paragraphs. But my writing is never art (at least not intentionally) because I am trying to convey complex information as succinctly and clearly as possible. The intentional absence of ambiguity in scientific writing is, I think, what make even the best of it "not art." It seems to me that for writing (or anything else) to be art, there has to be some ambiguity that allows the reader/viewer/listener/audience to project themselves into the piece and participate in it somehow.

I agree, bryanc. Although it seems to me that the very best of technical writing can be fairly described as an art.

Back to you, Winwintoo: that woman swiping her fingers across your iPad was being incredibly rude. Perhaps she was simply jealous of your ability, or of your ownership of a cool gadget. At any rate, she had no right to be so presumptuous. As to her remark that such work is not permanent, I an only ask "what is?" All art becomes, one day, remnants of art, then forgotten entirely. Just as each of us will be obliged to take the great dirt nap. This whole permanency argument is specious. Seems to me the woman was simply in a bad mood and had forgotten her manners. She owes you an apology. She doesn't have to like your art but she has to sufficiently respect it. She really ought to grow up.

Just reading this thread now. I can't believe that woman. I would have completely lost it, firstly because she touched my device, and secondly because of her pigheaded, ignorant comments.

It is unfortunate that she represents the opinions of some of the artists in the area. I would definitely stop going to that club and start my own, reaching out to folks I know are of the same mind.

She is crotchety, scared that she is becoming irrelevant, and rude. To say digital art is not art is absurd and her defense of it not being permanent is laughable.

I agree, bryanc. Although it seems to me that the very best of technical writing can be fairly described as an art.

Back to you, Winwintoo: that woman swiping her fingers across your iPad was being incredibly rude. Perhaps she was simply jealous of your ability, or of your ownership of a cool gadget. At any rate, she had no right to be so presumptuous. As to her remark that such work is not permanent, I an only ask "what is?" All art becomes, one day, remnants of art, then forgotten entirely. Just as each of us will be obliged to take the great dirt nap. This whole permanency argument is specious. Seems to me the woman was simply in a bad mood and had forgotten her manners. She owes you an apology. She doesn't have to like your art but she has to sufficiently respect it. She really ought to grow up.

I agree. I was in a mood myself and rather than stoop to her level, I left the room. I later learned that she has disrupted the efforts of others as well, so it wasn't just me. Also, her life story would make an interesting case study for a psychology class. She might benefit from having an iPad with her so she could channel her frustrations into making art rather than making noise.

In other news, one of our Alzheimer's neighbors sat beside me one day as I was drawing. She seemed to be transfixed. Her repetitive chatter stopped and we were able to have a nice conversation while I drew. She didn't care if it was art, she was fascinated by the gestures I was making.

Mainframe computers changed the world in the 60s, home computers and the Internet changed the world in the 90s, iPads and other tablets are changing the world in the 'teens.

Of the three, I think tablets will have the most impact.

Sounds like the woman has issues and is a chronic attention-seeker. You have to take her actions at face value and discount them as legitimate art criticism.

I think the internet is going to be the biggest single thing, myself. Increasingly, it's what ties humanity together. Tablets and other computers are merely hardware. The data, and the sharing of it, is what counts.

Sounds like the woman has issues and is a chronic attention-seeker. You have to take her actions at face value and discount them as legitimate art criticism.

I think the internet is going to be the biggest single thing, myself. Increasingly, it's what ties humanity together. Tablets and other computers are merely hardware. The data, and the sharing of it, is what counts.

Maybe in numbers, you are right, but think of the stroke victims who can use a tablet to communicate. The autistic kids who can speak using a tablet. New immigrants negotiating the beuraucracy in a new country. Sightless people being able to read anywhere, not just at their computer.

A hotel in England is replacing Gideon Bibles with Kindles. Imaging if all the competing religions cooperated to presents their revered texts on the same device and discovered that they aren't so different after all. What if hotel guests accede toy read the Koran instead of the Bible (or vice versa) and discovered that what they feared doesn't exist.

I see what you mean and agree that these devices can be extremely liberating for all kinds of people, but eventually all that hardware will become largely invisible and the greater development, in terms of the history of human civilization, will prove to be the net itself. It's becoming increasingly ubiquitous and accessible to the masses.

One hopes, at any rate.