I'm Back & A Little Birdie Told Me
Hi All,
The discussion continues concerning the digital/traditional art stonewall at the American Society of Aviation Artists. It is sometimes hard to see through the fog of some situations when your eyes are closed. Some might remember when blind flying, that is flying without visual reference was a big no no, until someone invented the gyro with a heading and horizon reference. Suddenly a whole new world opened and military and commercial aviation established a significant place in it.
I think most of the people that seem adverse to even an 'exploring event' concerning the digital question, seem to be repeating someone else's argument. Not much original thought. So I'm thinking it's probably from a singular source or maybe they only have one argument.
The concerns I'm hearing I don't understand. Why can't they see that all they have to do is ask the question? How did you do that Mr. Digiman? The traditionalist's don't always ask each other about their art because the final result is what they judge, not how they got there. Where did you get the references? Do you paint in the background first? How did you transfer them to your canvas? Did you draw them or trace them? Did you use a template? Is it true if you didn't get your reference from DG you aren't a true aviation artist in the traditional sense? Our (ASAA) Founders and charter members didn't all arrive at the final result in the same manner (I think?), tell me if I'm wrong. And, if they did we're talking about a whole new problem. Is this a religion... are we creating Icons here or are we being Iconoclasts, are we trying to destroy a traditional method? No, we are just trying to learn to understand and introduce a medium/method that is driving the commercial art market. The problem as I see it is... they are judging the medium from behind a wall of ignorance. I sense here the traditionalist as protectionist.
The very nature of our subject matter makes the representation of it in it's active state very difficult. Especially when compared to a traditional artist painting a still life. I'll have to admit... thank goodness for engineering drawing. As a tool, Keith Ferris has pioneered Descriptive Geometry in creating what I consider a major life's work and I don't see anyone on the immediate horizon that will match it. Why would anyone want to compete with the likes of Keith. He has been and still is one of a kind. Most artists would do well to find their own way to express themselves instead of learning his game. Because in the end you are judged by your own creativity, not how well you were able to copy someone else's method. Thank goodness that digital art has surfaced, someone such as myself can at least play with some new tools and maybe create a whole different arena to be judged. Those of you that haven't looked into CG at any level are in for a surprise. It will probably take me longer to get the hang of it than it did moving paint around on a canvas. It requires a different thought process and yes, I can create it with my own hand. The computer is DG on steroids. The digital artist creates what I consider a digital map, and much like DNA's Double Helix structure, is a launching pad. I don't much care if it is tangible or not. How it comes to life and presents itself visually makes no difference to me. This is a hurdle most traditional artists need to get over. If I create the map and a machine gives birth, it matters not to me. Again, Joe Public will decide my fate.
The ASAA is worried about photography becoming an accepted medium as I heard someone say, "what next, Photography?" By all means, I say 'yes' include it. Will a photographer ever become an Artist Fellow? If he is an Artist Photographer and deserves and earns it why not? Anyone can click the shutter, but it takes an artist to edit and compose. Anyone here ever heard of Ansel Adams? Was he not considered an artist? The key here is... you 'judge it' in it's category and in today's digital world it's applications are boundless. Does the trade magazine AWST include Aviation Photography in it's year end salute to Aviation Art? What's that all about? Now there's a potential for some dues paying members. A question is then asked of the guy with a camera... "are you an artist?" "No, I'm just a photographer," give me a break. He is being judged on his photography. There are people that take pictures and there are photographers that are artists. You will know the difference when you see it. I have seen many photos I would prefer over a painting. Why not be a part of a bigger picture instead of we all hide within a small group of traditional like minded artists, begging for corporate recognition and hand outs.
Has anyone heard, Jerry Garcia died. The deadheads are floundering, playing old soundtracks and still looking for a JG look alike.
Food for thought or not? Someone say something.
The discussion continues concerning the digital/traditional art stonewall at the American Society of Aviation Artists. It is sometimes hard to see through the fog of some situations when your eyes are closed. Some might remember when blind flying, that is flying without visual reference was a big no no, until someone invented the gyro with a heading and horizon reference. Suddenly a whole new world opened and military and commercial aviation established a significant place in it.
I think most of the people that seem adverse to even an 'exploring event' concerning the digital question, seem to be repeating someone else's argument. Not much original thought. So I'm thinking it's probably from a singular source or maybe they only have one argument.
The concerns I'm hearing I don't understand. Why can't they see that all they have to do is ask the question? How did you do that Mr. Digiman? The traditionalist's don't always ask each other about their art because the final result is what they judge, not how they got there. Where did you get the references? Do you paint in the background first? How did you transfer them to your canvas? Did you draw them or trace them? Did you use a template? Is it true if you didn't get your reference from DG you aren't a true aviation artist in the traditional sense? Our (ASAA) Founders and charter members didn't all arrive at the final result in the same manner (I think?), tell me if I'm wrong. And, if they did we're talking about a whole new problem. Is this a religion... are we creating Icons here or are we being Iconoclasts, are we trying to destroy a traditional method? No, we are just trying to learn to understand and introduce a medium/method that is driving the commercial art market. The problem as I see it is... they are judging the medium from behind a wall of ignorance. I sense here the traditionalist as protectionist.
The very nature of our subject matter makes the representation of it in it's active state very difficult. Especially when compared to a traditional artist painting a still life. I'll have to admit... thank goodness for engineering drawing. As a tool, Keith Ferris has pioneered Descriptive Geometry in creating what I consider a major life's work and I don't see anyone on the immediate horizon that will match it. Why would anyone want to compete with the likes of Keith. He has been and still is one of a kind. Most artists would do well to find their own way to express themselves instead of learning his game. Because in the end you are judged by your own creativity, not how well you were able to copy someone else's method. Thank goodness that digital art has surfaced, someone such as myself can at least play with some new tools and maybe create a whole different arena to be judged. Those of you that haven't looked into CG at any level are in for a surprise. It will probably take me longer to get the hang of it than it did moving paint around on a canvas. It requires a different thought process and yes, I can create it with my own hand. The computer is DG on steroids. The digital artist creates what I consider a digital map, and much like DNA's Double Helix structure, is a launching pad. I don't much care if it is tangible or not. How it comes to life and presents itself visually makes no difference to me. This is a hurdle most traditional artists need to get over. If I create the map and a machine gives birth, it matters not to me. Again, Joe Public will decide my fate.
The ASAA is worried about photography becoming an accepted medium as I heard someone say, "what next, Photography?" By all means, I say 'yes' include it. Will a photographer ever become an Artist Fellow? If he is an Artist Photographer and deserves and earns it why not? Anyone can click the shutter, but it takes an artist to edit and compose. Anyone here ever heard of Ansel Adams? Was he not considered an artist? The key here is... you 'judge it' in it's category and in today's digital world it's applications are boundless. Does the trade magazine AWST include Aviation Photography in it's year end salute to Aviation Art? What's that all about? Now there's a potential for some dues paying members. A question is then asked of the guy with a camera... "are you an artist?" "No, I'm just a photographer," give me a break. He is being judged on his photography. There are people that take pictures and there are photographers that are artists. You will know the difference when you see it. I have seen many photos I would prefer over a painting. Why not be a part of a bigger picture instead of we all hide within a small group of traditional like minded artists, begging for corporate recognition and hand outs.
Has anyone heard, Jerry Garcia died. The deadheads are floundering, playing old soundtracks and still looking for a JG look alike.
Food for thought or not? Someone say something.
posted by OutThere at 5:27 PM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pasteldoc, Thank you for the encouragement. I was sorry to See John Sarsfield's resignation letter in the news section at the ASAA website. He was a good voice for change. I still support the organization and want to see it succeed and we needn't stop asking questions about it's future direction.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I do not understand the push to open the ASAA to Digital Art. I participated in the ASAA discussion board on the subject before John's resignation. Can I appreciate Digital Art? Sure. But it seems to me that if we (The ASAA) become all inclusive we loose the reason the society exists which in my opinion is to promote Aviation in Fine Art. The stated purpose of the organization says nothing to the contrary.
There are tons of other Organizations and Guilds whose focus is much narrower than the ASAA. Watercolorists, Air Brush Artists Scuplters etc.all have their own guilds and societies. Should they become all inclusive too? Pretty soon we'll become one big amourphos society that is art neutral, non specific, all inclusive, anything goes and everything qualifies. Maybe a great paper airplane design should be considered or maybe a beercan model. I'm sorry guys, I see nothing wrong with a narrow focus.
Just my opinion, kind of like a nose, everyone's got one.
Post a Comment
<< Home