4 ms·

He's good and the video is a great example of the endless possibilities that await technology. But, while watching I still get the feeling that it is not great

by TGJ 16y ago

He's good and the video is a great example of the endless possibilities that await technology. But, while watching I still get the feeling that it is not great art. There is always the undo option for mistakes and it's not permanent. There is no original that will ever be shown, everything will always be a print out. It will make for a good photo to pass around the email lists but when it comes to print it out and put on the wall you will always know that a printer did the work and not a hand. It's like Rock Band vs a guitar. Both are great in their own right but you'll always know which one is better in the end. Either way, kudos to him for mastering another medium.

jacobolus 16y ago
What? Why does “great art” need to be a singular physical object? Can a wood block print be “great art”? Can a photograph? Can a Pixar film? How is this act of creation in any way comparable to rock band? The painting version of rock band would be something like a paint-by-numbers set.
- TGJ 16y ago
  It is art yes, but it's not great art simply because it is done on a computer. I am not trying to say that it is not good, simply that since it does not exist in the physical world on a solid object it is not 'great'. When I see the end result, I just see a picture. There is nothing. There is no evidence of emotion in the brush stroke or feeling in the texture. His picture is just a bunch of pixels. It looks good but that is it.
  - qwzybug 16y ago
    blink blink Walter Benjamin? Is that you? Your aura looks pink today. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/g...
kranner 16y ago
Hands don't make art. People do.
Hari_Seldon 16y ago
The same argument could be made for music made with a sequencer or recording to hard disk (pro tools), endless undos. The "print out" equivalent is bounce to disk (render). Do you think great art can't be made this way? if so. you've got to rule out most music from the last 20 years or so.

by TGJ 16y ago

jacobolus 16y ago

What? Why does “great art” need to be a singular physical object? Can a wood block print be “great art”? Can a photograph? Can a Pixar film? How is this act of creation in any way comparable to rock band? The painting version of rock band would be something like a paint-by-numbers set.

TGJ 16y ago
It is art yes, but it's not great art simply because it is done on a computer. I am not trying to say that it is not good, simply that since it does not exist in the physical world on a solid object it is not 'great'. When I see the end result, I just see a picture. There is nothing. There is no evidence of emotion in the brush stroke or feeling in the texture. His picture is just a bunch of pixels. It looks good but that is it.
- qwzybug 16y ago
  blink blink Walter Benjamin? Is that you? Your aura looks pink today. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/g...

kranner 16y ago

Hands don't make art. People do.

Hari_Seldon 16y ago

The same argument could be made for music made with a sequencer or recording to hard disk (pro tools), endless undos. The "print out" equivalent is bounce to disk (render). Do you think great art can't be made this way? if so. you've got to rule out most music from the last 20 years or so.