|
The Treachery of Digital Art
In a 1929 painting entitled "The Treachery of Images," Rene Magritte wrote, in careful script, under his precise rendition of a gentleman's tobacco pipe the seemingly obvious yet deeply enigmatic message, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (this is not a pipe). Taken in context with the painting's title the message is clear; images, as well as words, are not the things they represent. On the surface this is a light-hearted reminder of the abstract nature of all artistic representation. At a deeper level we are also presented the opportunity to consider the illusion behind the very process the human brain has evolved to extract our daily reality from the wordless and meaningless background of experience.
What we call reality is but a highly selected and filtered assortment of sensory impressions gathered by our mind out of all the random electromagnetic or atmospheric pressure waves awash in an undifferentiated chemical soup. Our brain has evolved as a central processing unit designed to: first, differentiate the things we can sense from within a very narrow band of this vast random ocean of experience then; secondly, attach meaning to this sensory data so that we ultimately experience such everyday things as "red" or "hydrogen sulfide" or "cold." This construct then provides the context for human experience that for the sake of having nothing else to compare it with becomes our reality. Rotten eggs smell "bad" to us not because there is such a thing as a bad smell, but rather because we have learned that a particular mixture of airborne chemicals is indicative of bad consequences should we try to ingest the source of the odor. As it turns out "red" and "cold" are the same things each resulting from various frequencies and wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. Red is "seen" in the visible light spectrum by receptors called eyes. Heat and its relativistic doppelganger "cold" are most often felt by other receptors distributed throughout our bodies. But, through the proper technology, our eyes can be augmented to see temperature gradients as well as so-called visible light. This is what technology does. It expands our senses or it extends our reach. In turn our brain is re-mapped to include the sphere of influence encompassed by the machines with which we interface.
Today it is quite feasible for a visual artist to extend and expand upon Magritte's observations. With preparation and a bit of programming an electronic cursor can be brought to make appear upon a CRT screen a mark possessing the visual cues of a dark, inky-wet "brushstroke." Likewise, a simulation of a calligraphy brush can be used to write below this mark the words, "This is not a brushstroke." Thus demonstrating that with digital tools the "treachery" goes deeper than the illusion of an image or a word, past the meaning of materials, right down to the individual marks that comprise an image itself. It is simply out of habit or expedience that we call this a "brushstroke," at all. It is at best a smudge of light as free of material reality as a passing thought; a visual representation of some-"thing" that can not be seen without the proper technology.
As I write these thoughts I am listening to a large section of violins. But, I know from the composer's own working methods and a slightly airy quality that this sound is not actually violins. Do I mourn the loss of wood and catgut? Or, do I enjoy the music? Now there is a sound much like a cymbal, now that cymbal becomes the sound of oceans rushing upon a beach, and as it modulates into the sum of a myriad of phase differentials the ocean/cymbal seems to orbit around the room. Must I turn a deaf ear to this remarkable sound because a traditional musical instrument could not have produced it?
After a period of sampling and pasting over a hot Midi, the composer assigned this sound to one simple digital keystroke on his electronic keyboard. Was this marvelous sound accomplished with too much ease, so that I must not listen? Has the music been devalued by including sounds that cannot be heard in nature? Fortunately for music, which has a long tradition of encompassing exotic instruments and sounds into compositions; the advent of digital production techniques is not a major issue. Perhaps, since there is very little material associated with sound and/or music anyway; the digitization, appropriation and synthesis of unnatural sounds are seen as artistry and not tomfoolery. So, why are the same techniques, when applied to visual art, viewed with a good deal more suspicion?
Perhaps this is because we still, even after recognizing the basic treachery of imagery as pointed out by Magritte, expect our artwork to be somewhat material. Seeing implies believing in, if nothing else, the object-hood of what our eyes tell us is there. But, what if "it" is not there? What if there is no "it," at all? Is there still Art, there? This quandary lingers even after a digital file is materialized in a form we commonly call a "print." And here again there is treachery as words fail to fully explain this digital artifact.
(Continued Next Column...)
“Braced”
Treachery Continued...
There was a time when a print was made by transferring an image from one surface to another through physical contact. This contact left an imprint of the matrix upon a substrate. Out of laziness or the desire to make photography less threatening and more acceptable to the art world the term "print" was stretched to cover a chemical process in which a precipitant is attracted to certain areas of a specifically prepared surface. Little or no physical contact was required and the artist worked through the proxy of a new and advancing technology to develop an image. The advent of digital tools stretches our understanding of the word print nearly to the breaking point. And, while the results are a repeatable physical manifestation of the encoded composition, there is, as with photography, no imprint of a matrix, no physical contact of materials. There is only light which, while making everything visible, remains in itself invisible. And, there is electricity, which performs work in many of our contraptions but remains, in essence, immaterial. There are, however, the many necessary and specialized tools of a new, advancing technology and, on the materials side, unique substrates and inks.
An inkjet print can best be described as a "micro-airbrush rendering" wherein an image is misted onto a prepared surface through multiple nozzles that are often no larger in size than a human hair. Each linear pass of the airbrush module sprays ink onto the printable surface. The image being built up on the substrate in this manner resides on the computer's hard drive and is actually serving as the coded source for instructions controlling the inkjet imaging mechanism. This binary file is also seen on computer monitors similarly controlled by encoded scanning instructions. The artist composes or shapes these instructions through the manipulation of various hardware tools which are interactive devices that feedback via a graphic representation in real-time the affect that these actions have toward changing the binary code.
Digital software are the instruction codes that control how the input of tools and artists' actions will structure and re-arrange the data of the file being created. Each
input device or output mechanism is, in turn, controlled by an interface between raw digital data and its own operating parameters. This set of instructions is called a "driver." And, despite all the control being exerted on the tools the artist never touches the material of which the art is made. Everything is done through the proxy of the technology. And yet, we call these actions "brushstrokes," we "cut & paste," we "draw," bring "things" into composition and then "print." Whether out of laziness or an attempt to garner some familiarity and ease with this advancing technology it is arguable if recycling old terminology to explain something totally new and different does digital art any real service. The treachery of our own terminology in the desire to cling to tradition may be hiding this new medium's true powers or holding back a deeper appreciation of it.
Along with many of the aesthetic experiences offered by digital tools, the notion of "virtual reality" receives a lot of attention. Humans are intrigued by the realization that a high degree of simulated input fed into our senses results in a form of perceived reality. Studies show that often dreams or misperceptions can take the place of reality. But, in truth, art like everything else, like Magritte's non-pipe, like the color blue, like the smell of roses is there because we think it there. From the first mark to the finished piece, digital art embraces illusion, simulation, mimicry, and facsimile. Thereby reframing the "treachery of imagery" into the broader context of the treachery through which our mind cobbles our everyday existence from limited perceptions and word associations.
Or, perhaps there is no treachery at all. Since art composed by digital means remains close to its elemental state of pure, non-material thought, the treachery is less pronounced because the notion of illusion is now totally embraced and evident. Can there be treachery where there is total transparency? If we understand and deeply appreciate that digital art begins with illusion and ends in facsimile where is Magritte's treachery?
A mark is a mark no matter how it is made. What that mark is made of... may be immaterial. With a full appreciation of our mind's ability and our own human willingness to accept a well-constructed fantasy for a reality, it makes little difference if that mark is on paper or suspended inside a dream or registered as a fluctuation in the magnetic field of a hard drive. Ultimately that mark is there because, like everything else, we think it there. Through its process and presentation, digital art simply does a better job of representing or reminding us of this "ultimate treachery."
© 2009 JD Jarvis
About the Author:
Source:JD Jarvis; DP&I
In response to last week’s commentary:
“Dear Mary, I really loved your interesting article and the discussion on Legitimating Technology as an Artistic Medium. These are my own thoughts and my conclusion about it: Like Allen I agree, that it’s the Artists "vision from the creative soul" that is the main driving force behind creating Art. It’s not only the computer and the used software that is creating art. These tools are only a medium, like in other subjects of Art(film, literature, music, sculpture, etc. there are different methods and mediums that are used to bring these visions to life. Art in my opinion is a cultural product of human beings and it fulfills a wide range of different needs of the so called "Artists" to express themselves. Maybe to make a statement or for something else and whatever they want to accomplish with their product. And it’s for "free" (except political / religious oppression) and it also doesn’t have to serve any special purposes!
So I use the computer for creating surreal Photo manipulations. Beside my art courses in school in never had some further education in it. I’m a bad painter, drawer, musician, singer ... But in using the computer I found a perfect tool to release my "visions" and to feed my human need to bring them to life. As an "Artist" I want to make a statement about the time I’m living in. Tell about my feelings, thoughts, my believes and my quarrels with it. Ant it’s the perfect thing to put them into the level of "Art", so this isn’t misunderstood and falsely interpretive. My Images are maybe not beautiful or good in the technique that is used. Maybe they are disturbing to some people. That’s why I like symbolism and surreal collages. I’m trying to follow the paths and footsteps of others Artists (like Max Ernst), who brought opposing Images together and transformed them through an intuitive process into a new composition that tell a tale and have their own kind of poetry. I believe like in Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis into a common subconscious mind. Metaphorically speaking I’m a witness and passenger of the time we all live in. A changing time of a multicultural globalize world, overflowing with information and images. And it is getting harder and harder to understand it all from day to day. And it’s hard to find an orientation in this fast changing world, beside your own education, your cultural heritage etc. that has formed your personality. So with my Images I’m trying to show an extract of the things I feel, don’t understand with my mind and subconciousness and make a statement about it. I want to see If I can connect with other people around the world. And see If they feel the same or see it in a different way.
So with Art, as a "cultural platform" I have the freedom to express this in an appropriate way. It’s some kind of Island for me where these things are accepted and I can communicate and have a discussion with the viewer or other artists. So it’s clear to see that there’s much more behind the thing called "Computer Arts" and the use of technology as a medium. It’s just like the fabulous Werner Hornung said "the most important software is situated at the right side of your brain and called INSPIRATION" Best regards, Bernd Dreilich, Germany” - from = Bernd.Dreilich@gmx.de
“As always, you are right on top of things and the 2002 Jarvis article is quite broad and helpful toward the ends you suggest. However, things have not "run their course stylistically. Which is to say that the ‘style-makers’, the critics, galleries and academicians, have created a sufficient number of broadly defined styles as to fit all occasions and visual statements." The new styles on the MOCA site prove that. I would not be able to categorize my work using those given.
My work does not use layers; has no "collaged" elements; and does not start from scratch using a paint program. It begins with an original photograph and through digital subtraction, geometric alteration and filtering is changed into a new and original piece of art.
I have dubbed the new art form “refacimento,” (pronounced ree-FATCH-i-men-toe.) The term was first used by William Safire, in On Language, NY Times Magazine, 02-15-09, and was defined as “the radical refashioning of a work of art, often by computer.”
I explore what is already there, exclude what I feel is of no artistic value and elaborate on what is left, to obtain the creation I envision. In many pieces you can see what was in the original, in others you only see a new and captivating piece of art. See H Gay Allen for the latest work in collections and studies.
Perhaps, MOCA should expound on the Jarvis attempt and publish a compendium of the latest work adding the new categories that have evolved on you site and elsewhere since 2002.“ from = H. Gay Allen, hgayalleln@earthlink.net
Thank you for your contributions to this rather complex discussion. I hope by featuring yet another great essay by JD Jarvis this week we are continuing to explore this challenging topic. Please keep your thoughts coming! Mary
A Need for a Common Language...
JD Jarvis recommended this Glossary created in 2005... here's a quote from the source website:
The Glossary of Digital Art and Printmaking
Welcome to the Glossary of Digital Art and Printmaking from the Digital Art Practices & Terminology Task Force (DAPTTF), a group of professionals with a mission of compiling and disseminating a digital art lexicon/glossary to interested parties in and outside of the art community. This Glossary was produced by fifteen dedicated professionals in the digital art community over a period of some eight months in 2004. The DAPTTF roster includes not only digital artists and printmakers, but also gallery and museum professionals, art educators, consultants, and other members of the digital art industry.
The Glossary is published with the intent to minimize and ameliorate the misunderstanding and confusion about the terminology (words and phrases) involved in the creation, production, and distribution of digital art, both photographic and non-photographic, as those activities primarily relate to digital printmaking.
We hope that this Glossary will provide an evolving terms-of-reference document that will: (1) provide a common ground of accurate communication, (2) become a tool to further the acceptance of digital art, and (3) enhance the understanding of those within and outside the art community about digital art and its unique qualities and characteristics.
Bookmark this and refer to it often! The DIGITAL ART GLOSSARY by DAPTTF
Links and Winks
Des is at it again! His newest endeavor a combination of scanned watercolor painting, photography and handwritten text using a graphics tablet.
It is part of his ongoing "James Joyce Dubliners" body of work which can be previewed at the
Portsmouth City Council (UK). They are host to his solo exhibition in the city's central library during March 2010. See new work from Des at
IN-BOX
“What you do advise? How am I to be???”
from = Noise
Dear Noise, Ah, if only I knew. All I can offer is -- be true to yourself, do what you need to do to thrive and be well. Mary
“Thanks. I have been searching for this information for a long time.” :)
from = Be[dm]o[chk]A
“Outstanding article. Brevity is clearly the sister of the author.” ;)
from = Denis [Milyukov]
“I am pleased with your [blog]. It is always very interesting to read, including this theme.” :) from = Fedor
“I somehow don’t agree with a few things, but it is great anyway.“ from = Foreign Currency Trading
"What will you say, if I will assert that all your communications, are not more than the fabrication of the author?" from = Vyacheslav Menshikov
Dear Vyacheslav, I wish I could take credit for all of the comments on "Mary's Page"! Unforunately, I cannot. The page relies on a vast array of resources for input and expertise. I hope that you find the page of interest - thank you for writing. Mary
Regarding GEOART:
“Dear Mary, Thank you very much for citing me in your page. After Christmas I will add a "link" section to my website Tracemaker and your page will be certainly there! All the best, Andrea”
“P.S. it's not a big problem, but in your page you say "SHE believes that the cultural...", although I'm male! In Italian Andrea could be either masculine or feminine noun.”
Dear Andrea, My sincerest apologies for this error! As soon as you brought this to my attention it was corrected. Mary
Quote:
"Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people."
Recommended Reading:
"Digital Art History (Computers and the History of Art)"
This page posted 21 December 2009
|
