I think this is a really good discussion. Anytime this sort of thing comes up, however, I'm torn between throwing my two cents (or more in this case) in and thinking we (digital artists, people who might care about this kind of thing) should be over this stuff by now.

From a reception standpoint, I think Paul's analogy with guitars shines a lot of light on things. We're not likely to to value someone playing the same "louie louie" riff we've all heard before, in the same way we might not value someone applying a "mezzotint" filter to a photo and calling it art.

We might, however, (emphasis on might) appreciate guitar playing that (a) acknowledges it's primitiveness and highlights, spins, or critiques it (ramones, vu, etc.) (b) reaches a certain level of virtuosity (yngwie malmsteen, steve vai, etc.) (c) pushes the boundaries of what a guitar is supposed to do (hendrix in his time, post rock, etc.) or (d) just sounds "good" to us (i happen to really like the guitar on the first television album). (We could definitely add more approaches to this list too)

I think the same holds true for photoshop or flash art. What complicates things, is that for so long there has been so much bad photoshop and flash going around that we end up blaming the tools and not the work or the system that values it. I think this is definitely changing, however - i can't remember the last time I saw someone get away with the "craquelure" filter.

(This of course says nothing about the program's interfaces, or their company's politics, both of which can definitely be a bummer).

- mbs 4-01-2006 12:46 am





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.