How Technology Has Affected ArtBy Collin R Sullivan

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/2786646

Some people might say that art is dying. Art has changed completely over the course of time. It is a rare breed to find a portrait artist that can make a living from his work. Portrait painting is just not as popular as it once was which means that great portraits are hard to come by. Others would argue that art is just as popular, but not in the same forms as the past. People have changed from making marble statues and sculptures to graphic designs and movies. Art can take many different forms. It is all just a matter of how you view it.

Technology has changed a lot over the course of art history. Certain things can only be as nice as the tools that you have to use. Making a sculpture with outdated tools will seriously limit your capabilities. So in a world where many devices are so readily available, it is easier for those who do sculpt to have the best technology. Another way in which technology has changed art is developing new forms. The best example of that is graphic design. Now in the modern world of computers, people can create images through different programs that are truly captivating. Some would argue that it is not really art because the programs can give so much assistance. You do need to have that creative mind and eye to develop any type of art, whether it is by hand or computer.

Movies are a much debated form of art. Many movies can be classified as great works of art because of the different filming techniques and special effects that are used. The way that films can evoke such emotions makes them truly something special. If you or someone you know is skeptical of films as art, indie films or older movies usually serve as great examples. These are all about the true art of film making, not about making money like many of the major Hollywood movie companies. Sometimes you see how the whole public can appreciate the artistic nature of a movie. On special occasions an indie film will breakthrough and have popular success across the nation. These are the types of films that really reach the people.

One thing that is hard to argue is the importance of art. It speaks to the culture of an era. Art shows not only how the human mind thinks and works, but how the world has affected the people at that time. Art is full of feeling, whether it is the pain or happiness in a person's heart. It is a way for future generations to get a feel of the people that had come before them. There would be something seriously wrong with humanity if we let art die.

Connor R. Sullivan has been searching for the perfect portrait artist to give to his wife a portrait of their children as an anniversary gift. His love of portrait painting extends to when he was a young man and painted historic portraits of wartime in America.

Some Ways in Which the Emergence of the Computer Has Affected Art

Christopher Lotito, Drew University, 2001Supplementary Internet Resource:  users.drew.edu/clotito/001/index.htm             Some of the leading and by far most prolific participants involved in the production of art today have no limbs and no eyes.  In fact, these participants lack blood, flesh, and other things which are necessary to the determination of a being as human; this is due to the fact that in these participants are neither humans nor beings, they are machines.  One might ask how a machine could affect the artworld as a participant in the production or art, how such a machine could participate in the creation of art at all, and why no such machines existed in the past.  On the first question, the answer lies in the second; if a machine is able to become a participant in the production of art then it is a natural state that the participant should have some influence upon the artworld via their product.  A machine can be a participant in the production of art in the same numerous ways that a human can, for machines are entirely capable of mimicking many of the movements of man.  A few machines have been participants in the production of art in the past, however a distinction must be drawn between participants and tools.  Tools are used by humans to manipulate things in the world; participants may also be tools in this case, however they do enough without the direction of humans that it can be said that the machine is more like a servant or a slave than a tool.  Tools need to be micromanaged by those that drive them, while participants need merely to be directed and will in time produce a product or a stage of a final product.  Since the emergence of computing and other modern technologies there has been an increase in the number of tools which no longer need micromanagement and thus fit more closely the category of participant.  In this paper will be discussed the blurring of lines between tool and participant by photo editing software and software that is capable of generating art. Blurring the Lines Between Tool and Participant : Photo Editing SoftwareSupplementary Internet Source:  users.drew.edu/clotito/001/photo editing 1.htm

Examples of technology that enhances art can be seen in the evolution of photo editing software.  With photo editing software, one can take a photo or any other digitized picture and change its qualities.  For example, a photograph which was taken out of focus may be brought into focus through use of a computer program.

The photograph is art before it is processed by the computer and the processing of the computer renders it a new work of art.  Thus, the computer is a participant in the creation of a work of art.  In this case, the computer participates predominately as a tool.  First, the computer is given a subject and a command (i.e. bring the picture into focus).  Next, the computer carries out the command to the best of its ability.  This ability is determined by the quality of the software, which is in turn determined by the efforts of the software designer who created the software.  In light of this, several questions are raised:  What is the role of the computer in this case?  Who deserves credit for the creation of an artwork?  Is the edited picture a forgery?  What is the role of the person who is commanding the computer?

It is determined that the photo editing software creates art in the fulfillment of its purpose, but the same may be said of a paintbrush.  Photo editing software is technology that can take a pre-existing image, change its qualities, and thus create a new artwork.  A paintbrush is technology that can take a blank canvas or a pre-existing image, change its qualities, and thus create an original artwork.  Photo editing software requires a sentient being to use it; a paintbrush requires the same.  Both are tools, are made by humans, and are used by humans to create art; it does not seem that a paintbrush is a different kind of technological artistic tool than photo editing software.  In fact, the evidence listed previously indicates quite to the contrary.  Perhaps instead, the difference is a difference of degree; this is to say that each is a tool, however their qualities differ quite dramatically.  This is quite similar to the

results of a comparison of a screw-driver and an electric drill:  the screwdriver has a very limited use while the electric-drill does the same job as the screwdriver and a bit more as well.  Each is a tool, this they have in common, but they are each quite different in the degree of which they fulfill their collective purposes.  In applying this to the comparison of the paintbrush and the computer; one will note that the paintbrush requires close management by the artist using it, while the photo editing software requires little management other than initial commands which set in motion a series of actions that lead to the creation of art.  Thus, the photo editing software is a tool certainly, no different from the paintbrush in that respect; but the paintbrush requires much more direct effort on the part of the artist, therein lies the difference.

Next one might ask who is to get the credit in the creation of art with photo editing software.  Certainly, the software cannot be the artist for several reasons, not the least of which, the fact that the software has the status of a tool.  Furthermore, the software lacks important factors that would make it an artist, such as intention.  Software cannot have intention because it is not autonomous.   Software carries out the tasks and processes that have been programmed into it as the user requests them.  Likewise with the machine which runs the software; there is no autonomy thus no intention and therefore no artist.  So if neither the software nor the machine is the artist, who then is the artist?  The answer may be that the person using the software is the artist.  This, while logically arguable, somehow seems false when the amount of effort they put into commanding the software with the press of a button is considered.  They have both autonomy and intention, both of which are manifest, but they lack the means to create the art or at the least do not utilize them.  The art in a technical sense is created by the software which follows its pre-programmed steps when commanded.  It could reasonably be supposed that the creator and artist of the end product is in fact the creator of the software.  This does not seem incoherent when it is considered that the skills and actions of the software are in fact the recorded skills and actions of the creator of the software, who for these things is most certainly an artist.            Even though it is not the artist, both the software and the computer still maintain a status within the process of creating the art in this case.  It seems that since both lack autonomy and intention, and follow a set of pre-programmed guidelines from which they are unable to stray of their own accord that they must fulfill the status of tools. Art Generating Software: The Mondrian GeneratorSupplementary Internet Resource:  users.drew.edu/clotito/001/Mondrian.htm            There are artworks created by the artist Mondrian, a Dutch painter who founded neoplasticism.  Mondrian’s artworks tend to feature a series of differently sized white boxes with seemingly randomly selected ones filled in with primary colors.  There is also a computer program called the Mondrian Generator.  The purpose of the Mondrian Generator is to create paintings, or digital images anyway, that look like paintings of a series of differently sized white boxes with seemingly randomly selected ones filled in with primary colors.  Thus, it is often difficult to tell the difference between an image created by the painter Mondrian, and an image created by the program Mondrian Generator.  This brings up several questions.            First, there seems to be a consideration as to who receives the credit for the generated Mondrian image.  There are several possibilities.  Perhaps the software should receive the credit.  The software was told to create a Mondrian image so it did, with no help other than the original command.  The resulting image is a work of art, much like Mondrian’s paintings.  However, there seems to be a problem in that the software lacks important factors in attributing credit for the work to it.  The software lacks intention.  All art is the result of an artist’s work.  It is necessary to the existence of a work of art that it have been created by an

artist.  Even found art can be said to have been revealed as art by an artist.  When an artist creates art they do so intentionally, so thusly, intention becomes a necessity to the existence of art.  The software lacks intention in that it lacks the capability for intention as a process that lacks intelligence and free thought.  If software cannot have intention, then it cannot be an artist and so it should not be attributed credit for the creation of the artwork.  For these same reasons it would also be incorrect to refer to the computer as the artist.            Another possibility is that the artist is in fact Mondrian.  This may seem ludicrous to posit, but if the processes that are being used by the computer are the recorded processes of Mondrian than it seems logical that the credit should go to Mondrian as the artist.  However, it would seem that a point is being missed in there somewhere because crediting Mondrian would allow that Mondrian is still capable of creating art regardless of the fact that he has been dead for 58 years; an allowance which is at the best ludicrous and at the worst tragically flawed (though admittedly an impressive feat were it the case).            Finally, it is possible that the creator of the program is the one who should receive credit for the art it generates.  The art is generated by a series of processes that are played back when the program is commanded to make a Mondrian image.  It seems that the creator of these processes should be the artist in this case.  Mondrian could not have created the processes used in the program because, as we have already established, he has been dead since at least 30 years before the modern computer was invented.  It is reasonable to assume that the creator of the program created these processes in an attempt to mimic the processes evident in the paintings by Mondrian.  So the processes, though extremely similar to the processes of Mondrian, are instead those of the person who created the program, thus the creator of the program would logically be the party most closely resembling an artist in this case.            An interesting point is made above about the fact that the artist who created the Mondrian Generator was intending to mimic the art of Mondrian.  This brings up the question as to what the nature of the art of the Mondrian Generator is. There are several possibilities.  First is that due to it’s similarity to the paintings by Mondrian, that the Mondrian Generator is a forgery, or that more specifically that the works produced by it are forgeries.  It seems as though once again, the question is one of intent.  Logically, the most important factor in determining that something is a forgery is the determination that the artist created it with the intention of passing it off as a work created by the artist being forged.  In the case of the Mondrian Generator, it would seem that the intention was to not to create something that could be passed off as a Mondrian painting, but simply to create an infinite number of paintings in the style of Mondrian.  So, the intention to forge is not there and the art is not a forgery.            The next possibility is that the nature of the art is such that it makes a statement.  There are certainly a couple statements that the work makes, and so this seems like the correct answer.  It looks as though the artist is using the Mondrian Generator to make a point about the times we live in (predominately in reference to the technology we experience each day) and the effect it is having on art.  Years ago, it was difficult to detect forgeries, especially if made by someone who had studied under the artist, or even simply that a very talented artist created them.  The creator of the Mondrian Generator makes the point that now it may be impossible to tell what is real and what is spurious.  What was once a unique occurrence of creativity that ended with the life of the artist is now instantly repeatable.  To a great extent, art has lost it’s uniqueness.  Mondrian style paintings are now easily creatable with the click of a mouse.  There is not point to paying for a real Mondrian when you can a get a Mondrian style painting now for almost nothing.  The only reason to continue buying real Mondrians is if you are buying them not for their artistic qualities, but for the reputation of the artist.  Technology today has taken away the value of

all art because all art is now reproducible.  It would be incorrect to say that paintings have no value, but the value that they do carry is merely the prestige of a name and nothing to do with the functionality of the art itself.  The Mondrian Generator makes this point quite nicely.            Another point that the Mondrian Generator makes is that the person who created it likes Mondrian paintings a lot.  This seems like a valid point, but it seems that the more important of the two points is the former and so that seems to be the primary message and purpose of the Mondrian Generator. Art Generating Software Part Two: Landscape GeneratorsSupplementary Internet Resource:  users.drew.edu/clotito/001/landscape1.htm            There is a type of software that can be used to generate landscapes rivaling photo quality images.  In function and form these images can equal photos, which raises a number of questions when considering their place in the artworld.  If they are art, it needs to be determined what kind of art they are, who the artist is, and how they compare to the photographic art that they most closely resemble.            Computer generated landscapes are most certainly art.  They fit the criteria for art in many ways.  For example, they fulfill the requirements for the Imitation theory of art that states that

something is a work of art only if it is an imitation (Goldblatt and Brown, 5-8) because it generated landscapes can be said to imitate real landscapes.  Generated landscapes can also be said to fulfill the Institutional theory of art which states

X is an artwork if and only if it is an artifact upon which someone acting on the behalf of the artworld confers the status of being a candidate for appreciation. (Goldblatt and Brown, 524-528)

This list could go on needlessly, but it should be taken as a matter of fact that generated landscapes can constitute art.  The main problem with attempting to label anything as art is that we do not yet have a clear or complete definition of what is art, mostly due to the fact that art is an open concept.  However, the rebuttal to that problem, which is at this moment indisputable, is the simple fact that we cannot prove that it is not art and so must be considered as such.            Computer generated landscapes are not paintings quite obviously and with the same obviousness are also not photos though they may resemble them closely.  Most certainly, computer generated landscapes must be considered an art form unto their own for they do not compare to anything we have seen before, though it may be noted that they also fit under the broad heading of digital art because they originate from and are most frequently stored in digital format.            As with the previous examples of art above, there are several possible answers when considering who the artist is in this case.  First, the possibility of either the computer or the software can be ruled as before due to a lack of autonomy and intention.  Next, the user of the program in this case may be considered the artist because the generation of a landscape, even with the software, requires several steps and many decisions that must be made by the user.  Finally, the creator of the software has put processes into the software that are identical to the processes that artists use to create landscapes while at the same time intending that the software be used to create art.  The processes are identical not in the generation of the landscape, but instead in the rendering.  The computer monitor portrays what the computer interprets from the data it has collected, much the way that humans attempt to portray what their mind interprets from the data that their senses collect.  Therefore, it seems in this case that both the user and creator of the software share in the credit for the creation of the finished artwork, but as before, neither the machine nor the software may be considered the artist in the least.

            Photos are a form of art which is first and foremost representative in nature, but may also be considered for other factors such form, content, and miscellaneous features.  Generated landscapes are not representative other than on a comparative basis because they have no corollary to the real world beyond their formalistic values.  That is to say that though they may resemble the real world, they seldom represent it and never in such accuracy as a photograph.  Their content is linked to the real world such that they each contain similar elements but hold no correlation beyond that.  Even the process of taking a photograph as compared to generating a landscape is different; in the computer, the light is always perfect for your purposes, there is no more wind or rain than you wish, and nothing changes unless you command in which case it instantly bends to your will. Beyond resemblance, computer generated landscapes and photos have no similarity. Conclusions, etc.            So in the comparison of these three new technologies several common factors can be observed, namely the inability of either software or machine to serve as artist at this stage of human technological developement

 by Daisy Duru

Created on: May 12, 2007

Last Updated: May 21, 2007

Imagine this scene: A group of students take a trip to an art museum. The first exhibition they are

shown contain paintings that seem to be done using a variety of media that range from acrylic

paints to watercolors and pastels. As the students look at the different pieces, a guide explains to

them that all the works were done entirely on a computer using a graphics program and tablet.

Such a scene is not too far off from the future.

Over the last several years, graphics software has greatly impacted the production of visual art

and related industries. This new era of technology and creativity has launched a wave of

pioneers who will define and surpass the boundaries of art like never before. The invention and

continued improvement of programs, such as Adobe Photoshop and Corel Painter have

revolutionized the ways that art is produced by allowing artists to do entire works on the

computer. However, in spite of technology allowing for the complete jump from a paper canvas to

a digital one, artists who use only the computer for the entire creation process are in the minority.

Instead, many opt to scan in a sketch or finished line art and then use a graphics program for the

coloring process.

With digital software there is a fear that artists may loose the organic feel one has with traditional

media and is the reason that many traditional artists are reluctant to embrace digital art. There is

also the belief that one does not have to be a talented artist in order to utilize programs like

Photoshop to create great artwork. However, as the saying goes, the tools do not make the artist.

In fact, many successful digital artists have found that the same skills needed to produce

traditional pieces are still necessary in their digital work.

The influence of modern technology can easily be seen in the entertainment and advertising

industries. The evolution of visual art is not only due to programs like Photoshop and Corel

Painter, but also 3-D programs like Maya and 3ds Max. Some advanced artists have also gone

as far as to use both 2-D and 3-D graphics to create surrealistic images that instantly captivate

an audience. There is the potential to create work that is not possible on a paper canvas.

It is without a doubt that entertainment has become a niche in which the limit of digital software is

stretched time and time again. The video game industry is virtually dependent on it. Photoshop in

particular has become one of the industry standards because it is both cost effective

and efficient. Artists and designers of software companies and in-house studios can use these

programs to quickly produce a finished art piece in less than a week, without the mess traditional

media presents. This is a necessity since many gaming companies have time as a factor when

releasing games.

The movie industry is now starting to follow in the same suit as many gaming companies, in

particular with animated movies. Much of the 2-D animation produced is now done using various

digital media because of the fast turn around time. Digital technology has erased the need for

animation studios to spend thousands on the cost of materials once needed to produce a

feature. In recent years there has also been the boom of 3-D animated movies. One of the first

major attempts was done by a video game company called Square Co. (now know as Square

Enix). Even though, the movie bombed by Movie industry standards, it brought attention the fact

that there was a new realm in movie making to be explored.

Fast-forward a few years later and there is now the success of 3-D animated movies by studios

such as Pixar and DreamWorks. The push for more 3-D animated movies led to Disney closing

all its 2-D animation studios at one point. Reasons for why graphics software has been such a

dominate force are the vision and drive from people such as Ed Catmull. As Pixar's founder and

president, he is now the head of a company that is considered a 3D animation giant. With movies

such as Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and The Incredibles underneath their belt, Pixar now in

conjunction with Disney have proved time and time again why they are the best in the business.

Looking back at the past, one can only imagine what else modern technology has in store for

visual arts. As computer software and hardware continue to improve, there are those who will

experiment and continue to create, pushing the envelope of what has been seen before.

Ultimately, the boundaries are limitless.

 

Magazine

October 1997 http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/oct/cameron.html

The Effect of Technology on Aesthetics

by Steven G. Cameron

Have computers given today's students a better education in the

creative arts fields in our Universities? Are they better

prepared, because of the computer applications at their disposal, to design buildings, draw pictures,

produce advertising, and enhance cinematography? Is the work they

are doing more polished, more professional, and are they able to

achieve those higher-quality results much more quickly? Are they more

capable when they leave our universities to win and keep new

jobs?

For the past few years, we have been educating our students as though the answers to the questions above were definitively affirmative. We have argued for radically increased budgets to bring new technology into our school systems, on the primary, secondary, and university levels. We have rushed headlong into the purchase of systems and software. And now we are seeing the results.

The disciplines I teach, multimedia, 3-D animation, and video, have always depended on a merging of creativity and technology. My students at Fairleigh Dickinson University need to learn the tools as well as bring their own aesthetic sense to their projects. Their success in the classroom, and ultimately in the job market, depends on their ability to synthesize their artistic and technical expertise. My experience indicates, however, that they are making great inroads into technology often at the considerable sacrifice of art.

Technology seems to be replacing pure graphical skills in students' minds. While there is no doubt that the computer affords the user the ability to draw straight lines and perfect circles, it doesn't provide the understanding one needs to show the movement of muscles beneath the skin. You can't depend upon a computer to draw a perfect human being, complete with

correct proportions, and show that human being looking natural as he stands, sits, or runs. Even the best computer programs available today can't yet duplicate facial expressions well. We can still discern the difference between a video or a photograph of a person versus a computer-generated animated version.

From what I, along with others in the field, have observed, we need to spend more time on the basics. Students still need to learn rudimentary drawing techniques, the human form, and design. As Michael Sullivan wrote in a 1996 article for Electronic Tools and Trends, called, "The Sorry State of Design Education," the "new type of design graduates emerging from our colleges and universities," …"simply aren't able to master the vast array of tools needed to perform today's design jobs." Why? Because our students, in imitating the computerized, animated commercials on TV, or the fantastical image-enhancements in the movies - imagery that is distinctly stimulating and that should absolutely attract them - have depended on their computer applications to bridge what they lack in true artistic skills. It's as if someone were so excited by the Mars Pathfinder mission that he or she decided to build a rocket to Saturn without having learned basic mathematics or even elementary physics. The outside of the spaceship may look good, but it isn't going to fly.

I teach three art-based courses at Fairleigh Dickinson - multimedia, 3-D design, and 3-D animation, the latter two using Kinetix's 3-D Studio MAX. Although all of my students must have some basic grounding in computer techniques before taking any of these courses, strangely, they are not required to take any basic art courses first.

The majority of the students can readily manipulate squares and boxes and photographs from their experiences with software applications such as Photoshop. Because these computer packages give them the ability to make the elements of their designs "perfect," they can approach something that looks right to the untrained eye very quickly. That in and of itself creates a large problem for these students - because everything comes together so fast, they have never learned to struggle with a design. They feel it is complete long before it really is.

When these students create a beautiful spaceship or a wonderful robot - and it's interesting as a side comment to note how many of them are drawn to these futuristic subjects - the objects they create don't fit well into their natural environment. Many of the nuances and details are missing. The animated objects - robots, spaceships, humans - don't run smoothly. Relying on the software, the students recycle the three or four seconds' worth of frames that they have the patience to create, and expect it to carry the design. Obviously, the repetition is immediately discernable and is viscerally labeled artificial.

As the exception that proves the rule, one of my students created a wonderful rendering of the interior of a subway station. What differentiated this one student's work from the others who had attempted

similar interior settings, is that he did not repeat the patterns for the tiles that made up his floor or walls. He had an innate understanding that no tile is ever set perfectly - the light catches each one and is uniquely reflected. This student painstakingly manipulated virtually every tile in his rendering, adding splotches of dirt, grime, and graffiti. And this care gave his interior a photo-realistic appearance.

Why and how was this student different? He had only had a computer at home for a short time. He cared about art in the traditional sense. He understood, with watercolors or acrylics or oils, that one must paint each section of canvas step by step and build it into a completed work. And instinctively, he brought the same skills to his computer artwork.

The creation of a work of art, whether animated or not, must be true to its own internal rules. Yet, because computer students today have access to so many "bells and whistles," they tend to apply them for the sake of the "effect" rather than judging whether or not the enhancements are in fact a constructive part of an integrated design. It's as though a beginning poet were to write ten wonderful sentences and then assemble them, without thought, into a single poem. Although the sentences may each and every one be a gem, when brought together in this manner, they certainly will not create a successful poem.

Like this fictional poet, our art students need to understand the appropriateness of design to the finished project. One of my multimedia students worked very hard, creating a presentation about birds, their colors, their sounds, and some basic background information. In theory, it was a commendable idea. However, each slide contained a minute or two of the bird's chirping. After five or six slides, this ceased to be charming and became overtly annoying. And there were about 100 slides. When our students today cease to think about the affect a computer-generated element will have on their audience, and think instead about what a "cool effect" it is, they are turning themselves not into designers but technicians.

Having spent some time teaching primary and secondary school, I have an understanding of one reason why our university students approach their artistic work in this way. The introduction of computers into our classrooms, often to the exclusion of other, more "traditional" courses, such as music or art, are defrauding our youngest students of the opportunities to learn to apply their talents in these fields. Todd Oppenheimer, in a recent Atlantic Monthly article, included some sobering statistics:

"The Kittridge Street Elementary School, in Los Angeles, killed its music program last year to hire a technology coordinator; in Mansfield, Massachusetts, administrators dropped proposed teaching positions in art, music, and physical education, and then spent $333,000 on computers; in one Virginia school the art room was turned into a computer laboratory. Ironically, a half dozen preliminary studies recently suggested that music

and art classes may build the physical size of a child's brain, and its powers for subjects such as language, math, science, and engineering - in one case far more than computer work did."

This same article speaks of how research papers are cobbled together without thought, how students who attempt 3-D computer generated modeling are creating "a two-D replica of a three-D world. If you took a kid who grew up on Nintendo, he's not going to have the necessary skills. He needs to have done it first with Tinkertoys or clay, or carved it out of balsa wood."

So for the most part, the questions posed in the first paragraph of this article need to be answered in the negative. What our students do not realize, in their impatience to sit down at the computer and "just work," is how they are doing themselves a grave injustice that will hurt them when they want to land that "dream" job. Today's recruiters in the film, multimedia, advertising, and related industries are looking for students who also have traditional design skills. They have seen a lot of the "stiffness or flatness, a lack of richness and depth" that comes from potential employees who are merely computer-based designers. It's not what these prospective employers are looking for.

Our students need to take elementary art courses, classes in the theater department that will teach them movement, and courses in communication that teach them the importance of the audience. If they want to focus on animation, it is critical that they take zoology courses, which will give them insight into animal and human movement. Why did Leonardo De Vinci draw animate forms so wonderfully? Because he invested time - a lot of time - in dissection and in learning anatomy.

This coming semester, I have an opportunity to help address these current shortcomings in my students. In a course titled, "The Philosophy of 3-D Animation," I will be turning back to the basics. The stated objectives of the course are to understand the motivational aspects of three-dimensional designs and to further their understanding using inverse kinematics. In this course, my students will have exposure to the disciplines mentioned above. There will be no work done on computer. Instead, they will be using pencils and sketchpads, clay, and, most importantly, their eyes. They will study movement from a scientific viewpoint, and from videotapes of dancers. They will create clay figures of animals and people. The students will create 30-frame single cel flipbooks for their final project.

Participation in such a course at this stage in my students' lives is an afterthought, an attempt to remedy a genuine lack in their training. How much simpler would it be if we had been more judicious in our rush to embrace technology at all costs. And how much simpler will it be for the current generation of school children were we to learn the lesson these

students are teaching us today. 

References

Gibbs, W. Wayt. "Taking Computers to Task," Scientific American, July 1997.

Kaletsky, Anatole. Snakeoil, software and Gates, The London Times, September 10, 1997

Miller, Sarah Bryan. "Lost in the 'Ring'? Click on Wontan, The New York Times, Sunday, March 23, 1997.

Murray, Eileen Duane. Creative Director, Logical Design Solutions. Interview Regarding Prospective Graphic Designers, September 5, 1997.

Oppenheimer, Todd. "The Computer Delusion," The Atlantic Monthly, July 15, 1997.

Ross, John Minor and Price, Garnet. "Dante's Divine Comedy: Multimedia in an Art Gallery," Multimedia at Work, IEEE MultiMedia, Vol. 4, No. 2, April-June 1997.

Sullivan, Michael. "The Sorry State of Design Education," Electronic Tools & Trends, 1996.

Steven G. Cameron (stevecam@interactive.net) is a professor at Fairleigh Dickinson's Department of Visual and Performing Arts, teaching courses in video, multimedia, and 3-D animation. He has over two decades of professional experience in the film and video industries as a gaffer and lighting director. He also has worked as a computer consultant, and was previously Technology Coordinator for a private school, creating computer infrastructure and curricula for K-12.

Copyright © 1997 by Steven G. Cameron. All Rights Reserved.

             

Interrelated Unitcontinued.

Suggested Activities Possible Resources

The Effect of Technology on the Arts

In the 1920s there were great technological advances which affected the society of the time and continue to affect the society of today. With the advent of running water and electricity, work in the home was reduced and women's lives were greatly changed. The development of the radio led to a shift away from the piano as the focal point of family entertainment. People began to take a less active role in creating music and sheet music was in less demand. The juke box and the phonograph made certain selections of music available at the drop of a needle. Dance styles developed and changed due to the availability and popularity of music and film. The movies influenced fashions and trends. Life began to move at a faster pace with the development of the motor car. Designs of all kinds, including those of cars, roads, service stations, logos and billboards, reflected this acceleration in lifestyle.

Visual ArtIn the twenties, the machine had taken over and the conveniences it provided caused great changes in people's lives. More free time was available and everything was moving faster. Poster and billboard design became more simplified so that people could see and understand the concept in a couple of seconds as they drove past on the road. Look at poster design prior to the twenties, during the twenties and today. How have the images, the use of the elements and principles, the content, etc. changed over the years?

Reference books on poster and billboard design

Visual artists of the twenties reflected this concern with time in their works. The movement which developed was known as Futurism. Repetitive line and shape, brush work and multiple images were used to create motion on a two-dimensional surface. The images were like the action of a machine. Recreate the action of a

Reference books on art and art history

Saskatchewan Art Works, slide # 55

machine or person using some of these methods. Look at the work of Stan Day; "Circus Acceleration", for example.

Drama and Music

Until 1927 and the release of the first "talkie", The Jazz Singer, movie-goers were audience to silent films. Subtitles told the story and a keyboard player or an orchestra played music to create the necessary atmosphere for the movie. View some of the classic silent films. Ask students to identify the elements of theatre form in these films. Discuss how these elements were incorporated into the films and how they functioned in this medium. Arrange to view a contemporary film. Compare the use of the elements of theatre form in this film with their use in the silent films.

Any available silent films for which permission has been granted for students to view in classrooms

Pay close attention to the music in the film. Discuss how the elements of music and principles of composition are manipulated to create feelings of tension, love, joy, anger, etc. Is the music appropriate for the drama? Do we recognize some sounds today as being "clichéd"?

Visual Art and MusicHave students work in groups to plan and produce a silent movie. Students should incorporate some of the insights and information gained through the viewing of silent movies. Have the actors mouth their lines and try to eliminate all superficial noise. Insert subtitles to accompany the action by writing on the board and filming the message. Improvise music with available instruments and voices to create the appropriate atmosphere for the movie. Play the music live while viewing the film.

How to Make Your Own Video

Video in Focus

The first documentaries were being made in the 1920s as a result of the new technology in film making. View a documentary film about an artist; for example, a film from the Expressions series. Compare it and a feature dramatic film about an artist; for example, "Lust for Life" which tells about Van Gogh's life. How are the filming techniques different? How is the information

Documentary films about artists

Expressions

delivered in each? Prepare a documentary film about a special game in the school, an interesting person in the community, an issue of interest to the students, the arts education classes in the school, etc.

DramaRadio listening became a popular pastime in the 1920s. In 1927 the first national radio broadcast in Canada was aired. This broadcast was the forerunner of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which was formed in the following decade. Design a project in which the students research the early history of national broadcasting in Canada and the influence of the CBC on Canadian identity and unity. A comparison of the current role and status of the CBC to those of its early days could be included.

Reference materials on the history of the CBC

Listen to early Canadian radio broadcasts. Design a project in which small groups of students create a radio drama or fifteen minutes of other radio time, modelled on the early broadcasts. If possible, structure this project into the drama they are currently working through.

Any available early radio broadcasts for which permission has been granted for teachers to use in classrooms

The Optional Inter-related Unit Continues

s

http://www.technologyinthearts.org/?p=1407

Audience 2.0, Part II: Thoughts for the FutureBy Joe Frandoni | July 14, 2010

Check out Part I for an overview of the NEA’s recent report Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation

While Audience 2.0 gives some useful statistics on technology and media participation in the arts, the report does not provide the answers or the data that I am looking for regarding arts participation and technology.

How does arts participation through one technology affect participation in other technologies?  For example, how does participating through television affect web participation?

What impact has social media had on arts participation? How do people participate in the arts digitally and online?  What are they doing on the web when they are

participating? Has participation in the arts via technology affected online giving to arts organizations?

Audience 2.0 draws into question the timeliness of national arts research, the vehicle being used to conduct this research, and the understanding of where arts audiences are heading in the future. This report was a useful audience analysis for 2008, but the survey upon which Audience 2.0 bases its analysis lacked a sense of forward motion as well as the ability to predict future arts participation through rapidly changing technologies.

The data used in Audience 2.0 was gathered three years ago before many current technologies were available and before many new technology users had invaded the digital market.  In his blog post Back To The Future, on Danceusa.org, Marc Kirshner states that:

Since the beginning of the 2007 survey period [for the 2008 report]: Four generations of iPhones have been released [and the Android network has been launched] Facebook’s user base has grown from 20 million to 400 million users The entire book publishing industry has been turned upside down by e-readers, such as the Kindle, Nook and

iPad Millions of set-top boxes, Blu-ray DVD and home theater PCs have connected televisions to broadband Internet Hulu launched its online video service to the public More than 300,000 people viewed simulcasts and encores of the Metropolitan Opera’s Carmen The first 3-D network began broadcasting

The three year time gap between data collection and report publication created a lack of focus on many forms of new media and social networking platforms currently leading many technology discussions in the nonprofit arts industry today. Correspondingly, the relevance of the report in our current environment is brought into question, and we must remember that the report represents a snapshot in time more than a study of current habits. Due to the speed with which technology advances and its usage changes, traditional forms of data collection and publication no longer appear as useful for tracking these trends.

The survey asks about participation in the arts through technology, but Audience 2.0does not provide answers about specific actions and their effects. The survey does not ask participants if electronic and digital media makes them more or less likely to attend a live event, but the report draws based upon a perceived correlation in the participation data. Without causality data, this correlation leaves us with a “chicken or the egg” dilemma.  Does electronic/digital/online participation in the arts lead to an increase in live participation, or are participants in live arts events simply more likely to participate in electronic/digital/online arts events?

I would like to see more direct questions being asked of people who responded that they participated in the arts through electronic and digital media. Obtaining this next level of understanding will provide us with a deeper understanding of the effects of electronic and digital media on arts participation.

Audience 2.0 raises more questions than it provides answers, but it does show a commitment on the federal level to assess the impact of technology on the arts. I am hopeful that future reports will delve deeper into the seemingly symbiotic relationship between technology and arts participation by focusing more specifically on the  digital/online arts participant.