Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id DAA12189 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 03:54:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA252068462; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:54:22 -0800
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:54:22 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <1175@scribendum.win-uk.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Stephen Benson <stephenb@scribendum.win-uk.net>
To: lightwave@e55.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Models vs. CGI
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>At 04:06 PM 3/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>The end result of commercial CGI may not be art to some, but there is a lot of
>>art in what we do. The good stuff at least. If you're paid it's not art?
>>Is that it?
>
>Hardly! Picasso's heirs were certainly left with a tidy fortune! The
>question of what is and isn't art is the kind of thing that leads to endless
>debate, because there are no hard answers, only opinions.
>
>One of my favorites happens to come from Picasso; he said you can always
>tell real art because it has "teeth"!
>
>>Something need not attempt to "advance human consciousness" to be considered
>>"art."
I think there's no doubt that CGI will change/is changing our
consciousness -- new worlds and new forms of human interaction
(VRML and the virtual net etc), miniature worlds created by
God-like artists (a traditional view of art -- cf The Tempest).
And sometimes 'true art' is not _intentionally_ created as high art
but is a response to change; later it is seen as 'art'.