"Real" Art or "Fake?"

[greatdane]

Very true, Cirom

I just wanted to voice what I feel I don't like about a specific use of CGI. As you said, there are all different ways to use it. That's one I don't care for even when it's done well.

 

[gregory]

But the real point is why should it matter so much anyway, why not judge the image for what it is, like or dislike it for what it is, not how you assume it was done, or how easy you assume it was to do, and as such categorize it as not "real" by some nebulous "arty" subjectivity. From cave paintings to CGI, art is about communicating a concept, a message, a story, an emotion.

THIS ! If it works - it works. If it doesn't - well...

 

[Aulruna]

CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery, normally it means generating images with a 3D program - which is NOT what Ciro does, he draws and paints, by hand, on a graphic tablet.

Personally, I'm not a fan of imagery done with programs like Poser, but that is just my personal preference.

There are awesome collage decks ... I still love Arnell Ando's Transformational Tarot, for example. With the Victoria Regina (not Romantic!) or MRP decks, the images used have been altered and developed so much, I'm not sure if I would even call it collage anymore.

I know horrible hand painted decks and breathtakingly beautiful ones.

I don't have any artistic training, and to be quite frank, with some of the commercially produced decks I find it hard to determine which technique was actually used ... digital collage, paper scraps glued on paper? Digitally enhanced sketches? Stock photography painted over? I have no idea, and I don't really care. I think I can probably distinguish between professional level and amateur art ... and yet I own a few completely amateurish decks, amateurishly produced, which have tremendous charm AND maybe even pushed the Tarot envelope for me.

And I can't separate the medium from the imagery when it comes to Tarot, because Tarot itself is a medium for me - and as such, it needs to work for me, which most of the time wins over the artistic merit.

ETA: Ciro posted very much the same while I was busy typing this

 

[Barleywine]

Ciro, your excellent response made me think of Marshall McLuhan. This from Wiki:

"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived.

If McLuhan is right (and I'm not at all sure I agree with him relative to tarot art) then in the present case the medium seems to be influencing the message to an exaggerated degree, at least in the minds of some observers.

 

[nicky]

The CGI umbrella covers a multitude of both horrific decks through those that are brilliantly executed - but someone can still not like that type of deck -

I am not fond of the Marseilles decks - so shoot me.

As far as the topic goes - I think the well executed (as in time spent, skills honed, etc) in any category - photographic/collage/cgi/paint/etc is 'real'.

Now, assuming I comprehend the question in the first place, I have to admit I have more 'respect' for the one's someone drew themselves as opposed to manipulated images.
It is most likely because I cannot draw to save myself.

 

[Chiriku]

Nevertheless I for one don't approach my digital work to make it look like it was a "real" photo, or a "real" painting as an earlier post described. I produce it to be just a realistic "image" in its own right, just as I did in my earlier days with airbrush, paint brush and physical pencil, its merely my preferred tool at this point.

My post was one of the ones that suggested this. Although your point here stands, I want to clarify that I wasn't suggesting the artist was attempting to make their digital work appear like "real" paintings or photos. I meant instead that the brains of many people who don't like digital art work get the subconscious message that the resulting artwork is "not-quite-human" or "not-quite-painting," if you like.

[ETA: I see my wording in my first post didn't convey what I meant to say--sorry about that]

I believe that conditioning plays a large role in this. That's why I believe that the current young generation and generations thereafter, having grown up with digital imagery all around them and in their living rooms day to day, will likely not experience this dissonance from which some of us currently suffer. Their brains don't have to do any translation because they've been conditioned to take digital art as it comes, on its own terms, instead of subconsciously perceiving it as "almost" or "faux."

With the subconscious, as you know, the actor does not consciously control his or her preferences. Again, attraction preferences for different ethnic groups is an apt analogy, I think. Most people don't realize that social conditioning contributed to them not finding X ethnicity attractive; they just experience a lack of attraction on a visceral level. (Likewise, most people don't know that can re-condition their tastes to a certain degree, often through a different type of exposure than they've experienced in the past).

From cave paintings to CGI, art is about communicating a concept, a message, a story, an emotion.

I agree with this.

I feel its misleading to even describe CGI as being computer generated images, because in fact they are generated by humans...... using a computer. Just as you wouldn't describe a Da Vinci or Picasso as oil generated. They are vastly different styles using a common denominator of medium....

This is an effective argument.

 

[Barleywine]

A Quick Time-Out

Please don't take the title of this thread too literally. I was looking for a "hook" that would stir people up and draw them into the conversation, especially after marveling at the VR-bashing blood-bath in another thread (strictly my impression of the carnage, of course, others may not share it). Almost anything can be art; witness some of the "installation" pieces that pass for public art in many cities. I was trying to highlight the fact that collage art and to a lesser extent computer-generated art strike some people as "cheating" to some indefinable degree. I thought I made it clear in the original post that, in sensitive hands, these media are capable of some truly striking results (whether or not they appeal to individual taste). But they do seem to get less "respect" on this forum if the hundreds of posts I've read on the subject in the last year of my participation are any indication. I was looking to get a better fix on how prevalent that attitude really is.

 

[cirom]

I believe that conditioning plays a large role in this. That's why I believe that the current young generation and generations thereafter, having grown up with digital imagery all around them and in their living rooms day to day, will likely not experience this dissonance from which some of us currently suffer. Their brains don't have to do any translation because they've been conditioned to take digital art as it comes, on its own terms, instead of subconsciously perceiving it as "almost" or "faux."

This is a very interesting concept. 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 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.....

 

[cirom]

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.

 

[greatdane]

Well like Gregory said...

If it works, it works. We all have our preferences, I would not suggest that any work isn't art, it's subjective. Like the saying goes, I just know what I like. More aptly, I know what I like to read with.