Have you ever heard of using an iPod for art? Creating pictures that look like they were painted with paints and a brush when in fact they were all created with one finger on an iPod just amazes me. Artist David Lasnier replied when asked how long it takes him to make his paintings: "About one hour; for me, it's hard to spend more time on it" (http://www.wired.com/culture/art/multimedia/2009/02/gallery_brushes). In an hour a masterpiece can be created!
This made me wonder: what would great artists such as Michelangelo and Raphael say about this? Would they approve of this new way of creating master pieces? Artists were always learning more and more about how to make the best paintings. They were progressive and learned about perspective and making realistic paintings. During the Renaissance they thrived on what was new and better. Would they think that this was new and better? Or would they feel like they were being jipped?
In a way I could see them being excited about this new invention. A simpler way to create something just as good. On the flip side I could easily see Michelangelo going, "I didn't finish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel 'in one hour because it's hard to spend more time on it'! I spent multiple hours and had to stop because it was physically straining to spend more time on it!"
As with most technology there are pros and cons. This new form of art is really captivating and unique, but I can't help but thinking that artists may think that this isn't truly art...
Torn opinions.
I enjoy looking at art in all forms. With art on a phone you are limited to the size of the screen you have. But one can create a very interesting piece and some look like they are real paintings
ReplyDeleteI fully agree on what you're saying and the way you think. This may be why out of all the other blogs I screen every week, I keep coming back to yours. It is true, some may not consider this new art really art. I also think it blurs the line between the creator and the casual. It comes down to a fundamental question about the picture we're seeing. Is it art or is it an image? The intention of artistic representation becomes unexplainingly clearer than when we look at a work that has no intentions of the kind at all.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Michelangelo would have used an air powered paint for part of his ceiling work if it had been a technology available to him. I can't image the amount of effort it took to do the Sistine Chapel.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that artists could view this as another "school" of painting, like impressionism, pointellism, cubism. Artists from different schools painting the same subject would come up with radically different results, but it's all art in the end. I respect anyone who's moved to create something, and then does it.
ReplyDelete