"Real" Art or "Fake?"

Chiriku

cirom said:
I wonder however that the reverse scenario might also be at play. For example we might appreciate the acting and storytelling of a classic movie from the earlier days of Hollywood, and yet if we remove our nostalgic rose tinted glasses, the acting and the sets from those movies is so stylized that we can't truly "believe" even if we appreciate the performance. By comparison to the visual reality of todays productions, those past movies are the "faux" or "almost" and the further back you go in time the more "faux" it becomes. We are hardly going to brought to tears or laughter by a Shakespearean performance in the Round House as would the audience of the day.

I don't think this scenario--which is an apt analogy--is the reverse of what I mean; I think it's the same thing I'm talking about. In whatever time or culture we live, there's a certain norm ( for what's "moral," for what's "beautiful," for what's "realistic") and we're conditioned to that. Anything different to that causes dissonance for our brains and we're not able to fully buy into whatever "truth" is handed to us, even if we wanted to.

This conditioning comes in and out of vogue in different eras in places. The Shakespearean acting of the 16th century--which, yes, would appear overblown, clownish and absurd to the eyes of someone living in England or America now--can be re-introduced. If it becomes the mode and gains traction within society, eventually a new generation of children will grow up believing it to be the norm. These kids' brains will experience dissonance at viewing old clips from Clint Eastwood or Meryl Streep movies; on a subconscious level, that type of acting just won't 'work' for them because they haven't been conditioned to it.

cirom said:
I think what may be happening here is that Tarot being so steeped in history causes a kind of knee jerk rejection of contemporary variations. Thats not a criticism, just a thought.....

I agree, and think it's once more an example of cultural conditioning. Tarot is meant to be 'old' and 'authentic' (a highly fraught word, that). In the cultures of most people who consume tarot decks, old and authentic are associated with "organic" and, for cultural reasons, digitally-produced or -arranged art is far removed from "organic" in the public consciousness.

I don't even know if young teens and grammar school-aged kids today understand the idea of "virtual reality" as people were talking about it in the 80s. To them, their exceptionally well-rendered video games and blockbuster movies and so on are not all that "virtual." The line between "reality" and "virtual" is not distinct for them as it was for those before them, and I am interested to learn if that generation--I guess in another 10 years or so--will take like a fish to water to tarot decks with digitally-produced or-arranged art.

I want to know if, as you hint here, they will look at, say, the watercolor art of the Llewellyn Tarot or the realistic landscape paintings of the Hallowquest Tarot and feel a subconscious dissonance they can't explain, that just "leaves them cold" (sound familiar?)...

cirom

I agree with all the analogies you made about perceived reality and appreciation of the audience depending on their conditioning as it were. But I think the underlying point I'm making and probably where we may disagree, is that you are assuming that CGI in all its variable ways is still distinguishable from any "real" "previous" or "traditional medium" whereas my perspective is that it does'nt have to be, and can be done in so many way that it can be indistinguishable from any and all the others, and of course also be completely new. Its just that for the most part Tarot has not necessarily shown CGI off in its best light yet... and yes I include myself in that category. The really good guys haven't discovered or bothered with Tarot ... yet.... But as in my previous analogy disliking CGI art is like blaming the paint brush and oil paint for not liking a Picasso.

What I'm suggesting to everyone is try forgetting the if it is or isn't CGI consideration and just judge the work for itself..........

Barleywine

cirom said:
Barleywine.

I certainly have no problem with your post, I think its an interesting and your observations are quite valid. I believe some people do consider CGI cheating. I'd like to think that if they understood the process better they would be less dismissive, hence my frustration that I alluded to earlier. But an interesting topic nevertheless.

After my early, humbling experience with computer-assisted (is that more palatable?) art, I have nothing but respect for those who have mastered the process. From the standpoint of a reader rather than an artist, though, I often find that I don't experience the atmospheric warmth or emotional immediacy in the finished product that are signature qualities of more "painterly" decks like the Thoth. There seems to be a "smoothing" effect that leaves the same numbing impression on me that air-brushed art used to. It could very well be my non-digital "early conditioning," but even as a geezer I've played some very beautiful and convincing computer games that make "suspension of disbelief" (one of the goals of their designers) an easy transition. Not that, as you note, photo-realism should be the measure of good digital art, but I'd like to think that the ability to thoroughly immerse the observer in the image and forge a strong emotional bond would be. It seems like a prerequisite to "kick-starting the subconscious," as someone so nicely put it.

Debra

Barleywine said:
There seems to be a "smoothing" effect that leaves the same numbing impression on me that air-brushed art used to.

It goes along with a particular color palette and a tendency to saturated colors, and a particular style of representing people and landscapes.

My question is how much of this is a natural result of the medium and how much is due to artistic decisions to make the figures in the art look "smooth"?

People don't always have the right words to explain why something "speaks to my heart" or "leaves me cold." But I'd like to think most preferences are based on aesthetic judgement rather than an unexamined bias

cirom

Debra said:
It goes along with a particular color palette and a tendency to saturated colors, and a particular style of representing people and landscapes.

My question is how much of this is a natural result of the medium and how much is due to artistic decisions to make the figures in the art look "smooth"?

To answer your question Its a 100% choice. If you want gnarled textured gritty stained sunburned skin texture you can produce it.* If you want Barbie smoothness you can produce that also... But it does require additional understanding,,, and work.
Same with the color pallet and saturation... its all personal choice, there is no tendency for a particular color pallet or saturation. Both are completely controllable from black and white through all shades of gray through to 16,000,000 plus tones of color, some of which can be seen on screen but physically impossible to reproduce in print. Now how people respond to your choice of course is their choice.

An example of the less smoother complexion

Chiska

Chiriku said:
I don't like computer-created/modified tarot art that my brain interprets as an attempt to look like it's handpainted or photographic, because it never will truly look so, and the dissonance is jarring.

I thought about this and I think that this is what really puts me off of some computer generated artwork. If it looks too real, it isn't real enough and it is, well, uncomfortable to look at. Hard to explain. Must be some sort of perception thing. I am not well versed in this or much of anything. But when it comes to "art," I just know what I like. And in tarot, I especially love those one-off creations who make a deck based on their own hearts/experience/whatever. The art is usually dismissed as "primitive" or "childish," or worse. But it isn't the "art," it is the way they express tarot that makes it special.

Chiriku

cirom said:
But I think the underlying point I'm making and probably where we may disagree, is that you are assuming that CGI in all its variable ways is still distinguishable from any "real" "previous" or "traditional medium" whereas my perspective is that it does'nt have to be, and can be done in so many way that it can be indistinguishable from any and all the others, and of course also be completely new.

Now, I see your point--thanks for that. And yes, I have been operating from the underlying assumption that ' CGI in all its variable ways is still distinguishable from any "real" "previous" or "traditional medium. " '

That's because I share some of these feelings:

Barleywine said:
I often find that I don't experience the atmospheric warmth or emotional immediacy in the finished product that are signature qualities of more "painterly" decks like the Thoth. There seems to be a "smoothing" effect that leaves the same numbing impression on me that air-brushed art used to.

... Not that, as you note, photo-realism should be the measure of good digital art, but I'd like to think that the ability to thoroughly immerse the observer in the image and forge a strong emotional bond would be. .

Debra said:
My question is how much of this is a natural result of the medium and how much is due to artistic decisions to make the figures in the art look "smooth"?

Barleywine really hit the nail on the head with that description above.

But now that he and Debra have elucidated one of my beefs with the digitally-inflected tarot decks I've seen, I realize that I also feel a distinct lack of warmth and emotional immediacy with hand-painted decks in which there's an airbrushed or overly (to my eyes) smooth quality. An example of that might be the Hudes (which includes collage in the backdrops, but all the human figures were, to my knowledge, hand-painted).

cirom said:
An example of the less smoother complexion

That is fantastic. I don't see any of that in recent digitally-inflected decks that shall remain nameless (no, not yours), and now it seems from what you've said that this could either be due to lack of skill on the part of the artist or artistic preference for vacant smoothness.

Chiriku

Chiska said:
I thought about this and I think that this is what really puts me off of some computer generated artwork. If it looks too real, it isn't real enough and it is, well, uncomfortable to look at. Hard to explain. Must be some sort of perception thing.

That's what I meant, yes, thanks. It's that "oh-so-close-to-X-yet-not-quite," even if the artist wasn't striving to look like X, that, almost on a deeper level, stirs something uncomfortable in many viewers, I think--in me, at least. Give us something totally, blatantly not-X (for me, that would be a blatant collage like the Voyager Tarot) and we're okay.

Debra

the Uncanny Valley

Chiriku said:
It's that "oh-so-close-to-X-yet-not-quite," even if the artist wasn't striving to look like X, that, almost on a deeper level, stirs something uncomfortable in many viewers, I think--in me, at least.

Oh, this is called the "uncanny valley"!

As I understand it, it was discovered by people in the field of robotics, and applies also to puppets, dolls, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Poser people tend to be permanent residents.

http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/Soft-Key-B.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Elemental402/lotuseaters-1.jpg

Richard

I don't think computer art necessarily looks any less painterly than, say, traditional airbrush. There is a lot of bad computer art, but that's true of all other mediums as well. I love Ciro's mastery of the medium (although for reasons unrelated to aesthetic merit I am not fond of his Tarot decks). His new Lenormand really sizzles, and not merely because of the "Lady Godiva" on a carousel horse. I'm sorely tempted to buy it, although it would wreck my self-imposed allowance for non-essential items.

"Real" Art or "Fake?"

Chiriku

cirom

Barleywine

Debra

cirom

Attachments

Chiska

Chiriku

Chiriku

Debra

Richard