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