This is definitely an accurate depiction of man's fall in the Garden of Eden ... if reality was constructed from Lego blocks or if God had intended reality to be a bad 1980's music video. Thanks to technology, this is now considered art. This is art. That statement is usually followed by the question, "Who is the artist?". If by that question one is trying to infer who was behind the computer when this pixelated revelation came to fruition, then my good friend Metin Seven is the answer. Metin was born in Brussels, Belgium. Raised in the Netherlands during the 1970's and 80's, Metin began his relationship with graphic design in the 90's with the new found accessibility individuals had to the internet. He has quite the resume delving into many forms of graphic art, and even doing some graphic design for some video games. He has not however achieved his own Wikipedia page yet, but I guess we all need a goal to strive for.
Well now that you know Metin, lets begin to dissect this particular... umm... piece? Start by noticing the umm... technique he used to umm... make the ehhh... tree with the... snake or..... What is art anymore? How do we judge this... piece? By it's accuracy? Perhaps it is accurate because all the main characters from the story are present (Adam, Eve, Snake) or because the setting is correct (Grass, Tree, Fruit), but honestly I do not think it is accurate at all because although I am no Biblical scholar, I do not think Adam and Eve were square, blockish, digital, etc. They barely look like people. Hell, even the fruit is square. We either evolved from some kid's mega block play set or this artist's depiction of humanity is horribly misconstrued. Nothing is added to the story through this piece of "art". No new window to look through, nothing people have never seen before. Only "art" for the sake of "art".
Proponents of modern art would probably look down on me and say, "You're missing the big picture of what the artist intended" or "There is a lot of underlying symbolism the artist is trying to convey you just wouldn't understand". Perhaps they are right. But I would argue there is no human artist for this picture. Only a computer programer typing keys. The closest thing to an artist here is the medium itself, i.e. the computer. And as far as I am concerned computers cannot create something with inherent symbolic meaning. It just does what it's told.
Gone are the days of tireless brushstroke techniques and unwavering dedication to the perfection of human variables. Now the computer is our artist and we just commission the pieces. This piece does affirm one truth that should never be forgotten though, especially in the ever progressing world we live in, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." I would like some oppinions on this topic because I am not all that intelligent and I am certainly not an expert in modern art by any means. Unless someone changes my mind however I stand by the statement, "Art is dead. And Steve Jobs Killed It."
P.S. Is this sketch of a Leprechaun art?
In many ways, I agree with what you said. Sometimes, we may not necessarily have to put that much emphasis on looking os deeply into a piece of art, trying to find some deeper meaning that the artist was attempting to get across to viewers. I think it is safe to say that sometimes art is just made for the sake of just being art. With this particular piece, I wholeheartedly contend with the aforementioned sentiment. I do not however have to agree with your your final claim which says that "art is dead." I think that this a very strong claim and should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. I believe that art be pure definition is an expression of any creative skill stemming from the imagination. Now whether or not this art has to have underlying themes, and multiple interpretations is up for debate, but I would say however that art is still fully alive, and that those who do do things just for the sake of doing them are a very small minority. I know for a fact, that there is still a great majority which expresses themselves through the use of a brush and or writing utensils. And I still think that even if the "art" was generated electronically,it still may (or may not) have some type of emotional connection to it, even if the computer was just following instructions. Just some thoughts to consider.
ReplyDeleteI love your sarcastic tone throughout the blog - very funny. However, I disagree with you on two points. Although this piece was not hand painted, I still believe it is art and that it can be said it was created by a human artist. The computer did not generate this image on its own, there had to be a creator, or artist telling the computer how to create the image. Also, I do not think that the art of personally painting or drawing is "dead." I know personally I still spend hours painting humans and so do many others. The art of personally painting is not dying because of the introduction of graphic design, it is merely adding another form of expression.
ReplyDeleteAs a graphic design major, I have to disagree about art being "dead" and a computer's role in producing art. Graphic design is not solely limited to computer-generated images such as Mr. Seven's lovely rendition; and to agree with the others, painting, drawing, and other "manual" art forms are certainly still alive. In fact, graphic design combines traditional art with computer enhancements, marrying human ingenuity and creativity with technology.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, though, this piece's blockish presentation doesn't add much to my knowledge of this Genesis story. It's pretty straightforward, and I don't like being shown the same story twice. Some kind of insight accompanied with this new style would have made this picture better (though I am curious about Adam's and Eve's individual facial expressions). Alas, the artist could have taken advantage of such technology to literally enhance this scene.
I don't think Steve Jobbs killed art. I think the contemptible people try to kill art. The jealous bash art. The uncreative whine about art.
ReplyDeleteBack to our controversial question of "What is the point of thinking critically?" there is a lot of the same potential answers for the difference of "art" and art.
Life is about perspective. Even that sentence/belief could be seen as my perspective, or the perspective of the masses, but disagreed with by others with a different idea. This goes for the same for art. What is the point? What was the artist thinking? What is defined as art?
Traditionally we see art as the Sistine Chapel or George Rodrigue, but honestly, sometimes I think art could be a delicious meal, like the fried rice I am eating now. I mean, they dont call it culinary ARTS for nothing.
As long as the human race has existed, we have thought that since we are distinguished amongst other creatures, our thoughts and ideas should be shared with everyone. This includes Steve Jobbs. And lucky number Seven.
I agree that this interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is pretty unappealing. But like most others said, i do not think the ability to create works using the computer has degraded art. I mean think about it, there must have been people drawing badly back in the days of Michelangelo and Monet, but those pictures drawn by the hands of the untalented did not survive to be widely known today. I believe the same will happen to this work of "art."
ReplyDeleteAnd to go off of what Allison said, art will be in the eye of the beholder. But mostly I think art is defined by what the majority decides art is. What is put on a pedestal by society, and what is held back.