From: utzoo!utcsrgv!elf
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Title: Art and C.G.
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.999
Posted: Thu Feb 10 12:36:19 1983
Received: Thu Feb 10 13:39:52 1983

It is interesting that there has been some consensus re art and c.g. expressed
in this newsgroup.  Assuming we all share the same basic intuitive ideas on
what art is, the consensus is that there's lots of sparkle to computer
generated/mediated work, but not enough "artistic" content.
The Siggraph '82 film show was a glittering (ugh) example of this.
I was so enthusiastic after Siggraph '81 (anyone seeing III's juggler or
Robert Abel's Chicago and paper airplane sequences would be) that high-tech
and art can co-exist, and so '82 proved quite disappointing.  As I indicated
in an earlier message, I am very optimistic that this situation will
improve.  After all, the participants in this discussion are ample evidence
that some artists have approached (embraced) c.g.   I'm encouraged to see
that this is happening, because in many other areas of endeavour, the computer
is distrusted by all but the technologists.

Regarding the "two cultures", art and science, I tend to believe C.P. Snow,
somewhat (The Two Cultures--available in paperback, very cheap, very good).
However, while the "acts of creation" may be identical for the artist and
the scientist, I think what happens afterwards, the social process of
acceptance by the relevant community, is different.  So is they way the
products of creation are viewed.  This message is getting long, so I won't
elaborate.  All in all, though, if you think about it, it is surprising how
analogously scientific and artistic communities behave as social organisms.
Maybe not so surprising; my latest observations indicate that these communities
are composed of the same stuff--human beings.

			Eugene Fiume
			utzoo!utcsrgv!elf
			U of Toronto