Talk:Computer art

Untitled

this definition is in desperate need of revision!! considering that in the 21st century it is nearly impossible to record sound or document visuals in any way (without the artist actually being there producing the work) that does not use some form of a computer (processor).

seems to me, the only useful distinction between "computer art" and non-computer art, is that a running processor, making conditional if-then choices, according to live input (whether interactive or analysis of a live feed) must be integral in the piece displayed. for example, artwork that is playable on a DVD player is simply traditional art that very trivially involves a computer. in the cast majority of cases for video editing an identical effect could have been accomplished by other means, though the computer often makes the job far more convenient (taking a few minutes as opposed to few hours or even years).

without revising the definition, the term is rendered entirely useless. it may disqualify a huge amount of beloved work, but art need not be labelled "fauvist" or "modern tap" to derive its value to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.228.116 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping articles

The following articles overlap:

• Computer art
• Computer-generated art
• Digital art
• New media art

I realize that "digital art" and "computer art" have technically different meanings, but in practice they almost always refer to the same thing, and they're resulting in similar articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. They need to be merged into one article, either digital art or computer art or similar. Computer-generated art can be confusing.

Note the existence of these more specific articles:

• Generative art
• Computer graphics
• Digital painting
• 3D computer graphics
• 2D computer graphics

FAL 08:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some contrast. It's just not made very clear in those articles.

Computer art vs computer-generated art: The latter is a subclass of the former. The latter originates on the computer, whereas the former could originate using traditional media and then get scanned into the computer for completion or enhancement. It could be merged into this article, but there may be enough material there to keep it separate. I'm neutral on this.

Computer art vs digital art: IMO, digital art shouldn't even be an article. It doesn't mention anything that shouldn't be part of a more relevant article. It's a question of what is the focus of the article.

1. If the delivery and display technology is the focus, then digital media is the more relevant article.
2. If the development tools and techniques are the focus, then this article is more relevant; in which case it should be merged into this article.
3. If the impact of digital art is the focus, then electronic art article is the more relevant article.

The distinction between the medium of display and the process by which art is made, while not entirely trivial, does not really solve the ambiguity. identical videos can be presented that are indistinguishable from graphics that appear live on a computer monitor. certainly the distinction between a composite video signal and a VGA one is not what we would choose to define art by. Likewise, the process too is indistinguishable to all but the artist. It makes no real sense to then define the art only according to the artist's interpretation. if, for example, the artist has a different definition of computer art, the definition becomes useless to everyone but the artist -- who doesn't actually need it defined.

To define by such a minimal qualification as "art that uses a computer" is hardly useful to distinguish one piece from another. In what circumstance would such a definition be constructive? it could only possibly serve as a "buzz word". Artists do not weave their own painting canvases, a computer is involved in the process. When artists buy materials, a computer is used in the process of that transaction. By the loose definition, art can ultimately be defined as "any art accept sand castles and spontaneous public dancing (without music)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.228.116 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One suggestion of a better way to handle it would be to make this article an umbrella topic, with a template linking to all the related articles, similar to the HTML, 3D computer graphic and the Software development process articles. Oicumayberight 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition of Computer Art given in this article is unprecise. Computer Art should be a subcategory of Digital Art like the Victoria and Albert Museum defines it. It is an early form of Digital Art, art of the "mainframe age", also called Algorithmic Art e.g. by ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe. The article overlaps with "New media art", too.

Terminology Question

What is a good antonym for "Computer Art"? Traditional Art? I'm looking for something less awkward than "Non-Computer Art". If one is writing about the work of an artist who creates both computer art and the kind of art that is done directly onto canvas or paper, one section would have the heading, "Computer Art". What would be the other heading?

Scribe2u 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditional art seems to work well when discussed in the context of computer art. I'm not sure it's as easily understood outside that context. Oicumayberight 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Art in traditional media? Bus stop 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Analog art? Practical art? Physical art? --DocumentN (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Magazine

Take note that Computer Arts is also the name of a magazine in both english and french. TulipVorlax (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fifteen years?

In 1961, Dr. A. Michael Noll, an early pioneer in the use of computers in the visual arts, spent nearly fifteen years performing research at Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

Should this read "Beginning in 1961 ..."? It would be hard to spend more than one year performing research in 1961 alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

3D Printing

I was just thinking, should we add a 3d (3D) printing section to this article? I know it is still fairly new, but it is catching on very rapidly. And it does classify as a type of art, being able to print anything from practical everyday items to action figures and more. It is not really the same as robot painting, so I think it justifies it's own section. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfdhsvgj (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

relevant or not relevant - In 1963 James Larsen ...

I think that this phrase is not relevant at this place.

In 1963 James Larsen of San Jose State University wrote a computer program based on artistic principles, resulting in an early public showing of computer art in San Jose, California on May 6, 1963.[3][4]

Because of the first "Computer Art Contest" announced by Edmund Berkeley in "Computers and Automation" January 1963, programers all around the world started to write new programs for computer art.

"The Computer Art Contest was, perhaps, the first competition and award in the emerging movement of computer art. It was first announced by the magazine,Computers and Automation (later under the title: Computers and People) in their January 1963 issue. As a friend of the founder, chief editor, and co-publisher, Edmund C. Berkeley, of the magazine Computers and Automation, artist and author Grace C. Hertlein played a decisive part for the concept of that first competition in computer graphics." Source

The inventor of the word computer art was probably Edmund Berkeley and it was first published in January 1963 for the "Computer Art Contest".--Maxim Pouska (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Philosophy of Computer Art

Dominic Lopes' (2009) Philosophy of Computer Art is listed in the "Further Reading" section.

Perhaps it would be helpful to include his definition of computer art, especially as there appears to be talk of merging this article with Digital Art or Computer-generated art, the validity of such a merger is directly contradicted by Lopes.

"According to another conception, computers compute. They are designed to run computational processes – to carry inputs into outputs by following formal rules, or algorithms. Works of “computer art” take advantage of computational processing to achieve interactivity. For example, Sustained Coincidence by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer detects the location of its users and controls a series of lights to ensure that they cast overlapping shadows on the gallery wall. The artist reports that “the piece is inspired by phantasmagorias on the one hand and surveillance and digital analysis on the other.” Its operation relies on a computer that gathers information on the work’s users and follows an algorithm to maintain an environment with certain features. In this way, the actions of users help to shape how the work goes.

The main elements of a good description of Sustained Coincidence show up in a definition of computer art. An item is a work of computer art just in case (1) it is art, (2) it is run on a computer, (3) it is interactive, and (4) it is interactive because it is run on a computer. Clauses (3) and (4) distinguish works of computer art like Sustained Coincidence from works of digital art like Jeff Wall’s A Sudden Gust of Wind or the musical compositions of David Cope’s EMI. Only the first of these is interactive. What does that mean? A work is interactive just in case it prescribes that the actions of its users partly generate its display. Its display? The display of any work of art is some pattern or structure that’s designed in part by the artist and that we attend to in order to ascertain the work’s meaning and aesthetic features. In La Grande Jatte, the display is a marked surface, in Blow-Up, it is any of a number of screenings, and in “It Don’t Mean a Thing,” it is any of a number of performances. The display of Sustained Coincidence includes any of a number of patterns of illumination and cast shadows. Since these are generated in part by its users, the work is interactive, and this interactivity is mediated by computational processing. Sustained Coincidence a work of computer art, if it is a work of art.

To see why computer art is a new art form, consider why digital art is not. A kind of art is not an art form unless it is an appreciative art kind. Works in an art kind share some features in common. Works in an appreciative art kind are normally appreciated for having those features: they make up a contrast class for purposes of appreciation. Viewed in the context of twentieth- century painting, Broadway Boogie-Woogie is restrained, but it is ebullient when viewed against the background of other paintings by Mondrian, so twentieth-century painting and the Mondrian oeuvre are different appreciative art kinds (here is a demonstration). The same goes for digital images and digital songs. We normally appreciate a digital image like Wall’s A Sudden Gust of Wind in a contrast class that includes arbitrarily any digital image, and we normally appreciate a sonata by EMI in contrast with arbitrarily any digital song. However, we do not normally appreciate A Sudden Gust of Wind with digital songs like the sonata by EMI in mind. We do not appreciate it as digital art in the most generic sense. Digital art is not an appreciative art kind, so it is not an art form."

From http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=40 84.30.117.253 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The term Computer Art

Hello, I am researching for WP.de about computer art and artists. This way I found the source about the term computer art. I think it's not a bad new entry for this article. - --Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Analog computer art and artists are missing from bevor 1962

Hello In the part history is missing details about computer art produced with analog computers (images and graphic). What about some artist and exhibitions bevor 1962? I know a little about this time and known sources. --Maxim Pouska (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable artists in this vein include ???

I am sorry, I am not of the opinion that the list of Notable artists start with James Faure Walker. He did not come until the late eighties for computer art. Then he just made as in his abstract painting abstract computer images. One can say that he jumped on the moving train. I delete the name at this point.

Roger Malina defines the pioneering days of computer art until the mid-eighties. "25 Years of Computer Art 1965-1989" was an exhibition that supervised Herbert W. Franke. Note - the main author (only IP) of this article has written around 2008

PS the article about Franke is only 1 point out of 10 point. Some day I have to fix it. He has been a pioneer since the mid-fifties in Computerart and so on.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)--Maxim Pouska (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The same applies to Perry Welman. He was born in central England, 1980. I can find only some work from 2007.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A notable artist which used computer and robots for painting is Harold Cohen and his AARON, 1973. I can not see why he is not in this list but Matthias Groebel.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the right article for the name Alison Knowles

Hello @Corinna.kirsch: you are right Alison Knowles is a famous women in the fluxus movement, and a poem by her and James Tenney was exhibited at Cybernetic Serendipity in 1968. But this is not the right place for her name. The article is about computer art and not computer poems and text. She is also not under the "first digital artists" and not a first writer of computer poems.

If you like her name connected to the show Cybernetic Serendipity then you can do it better in the article Cybernetic Serendipity, Digital poetry or Code poetry. Maybe the best place ist to edit some text in the article Alison Knowles first. Best regards.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I delete the name Alison Knowles in 5 days. best. --Maxim Pouska (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Maxim Pouska:, chiming in here in favor of @Corinna.kirsch:'s edit. Alison Knowles' "A House of Dust" is primarily realized in material form, including gallery installations of an operable dot matrix printer and a literal house, built to iterations of the poem in Chelsea, New York and funded by a Guggenheim fellowship. Knowles' artwork exists in both text and visual forms, and meets the visual criterion for the Computer Art page.

Hello @Dilettante Army: you get a lot of something on your talk page - please sign - (smilie). OK, I did look at this again. Again I can not see a point for Alison Knowles yet. (first look was 2016). If in this part of the article Computer art also poems, poetry and text should be, then first choice is Max Bense and his school and computer-autors. In the article Cybernetic Serendipity I read: Another section explored the computer's ability to produce text - both essays and poetry. but not a name. If Corinna can expand that part of the article which two or three names plus Alison that would not bad. Corinna can take a look in the book: Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the Arts , Reichardt, Jasia, 1968, and the can make a good reference to her corrections which a inline citation. Please explain that in advance on the talk page. Thank.---Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

PS take a look at Digital poetry - that the right article for this name, maybe :-) ---Maxim Pouska (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405081225/http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/thelens/docs/digital/vitality.pdf to http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/thelens/docs/digital/vitality.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nam June Paik was working with Video but not a "first digital artists"

Hello -this phrase is somehow not correct: "The exhibition included many of whom often regarded as the first digital artists, Nam June Paik, Frieder Nake, Leslie Mezei, Georg Nees, A. Michael Noll ..."

Nam June Paik was working with Video but not a "first digital artists" in the 1960s, 1970s. Hi started to work with computer around 1990 for images in his video installations.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

PS I delete his name in some days.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Neural style transfer - just public relation for some software

Hello

I get the feeling this is - just some PR (advertising) for some software - has nothing to do with "Art". Just a different filter like for a photo or video program. Some ideas about it? I will revert it sone. best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources I cited refer to it as "turning amateur photos into elaborate works of art" (Guardian) or "algorithmically aided art" (Slate). From the point of view of AI research, it's a lot different from art filters, though from a user's perspective I agree it's similar. That said, it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding the scope of this article; as always, feel free to revert it pending WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Notable artists" in this vein include - maybe it is better "Early notable artists"

Hello, if we write about notable artist, the list would be endless today. Better is "Early notable artists" ... I write this because "George Grie (born 1962)" is an artist but in this list and at this place inadequate - my opinion. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to list notable artists in the lead at all; we can just bring up artists in the body of the article as they become relevant. For example, painting doesn't list notable painters in its lead. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

OK - this is an old listing and I did not write it. It was just an " idee fixe" bei me to add "early". You can chance it how you like it - I agree.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)