talk-archive: originals

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD49A5.D4B36500
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I like the way digital art is forcing us into looking in new =
ways/concepts at the term "original".=20

Like every other artist/student in the pre-digital age, I was taught =
that the visual arts could only be "honestly" appreciated when viewing =
the orignal. I had trouble with the concept then, and I am pleased that =
computers have thrown the question into new light now.

True, my first contact with an original Picasso at the Chicago Art =
Institute was a
revelation - I particularly enjoyed the rawness of his painting, a =
hastiness, intentness, revealed in the fact that paint/color did not =
always evenly flow into pre-
sketched lines, and the sketched lines themselves were visible - and it =
gave me a
confidence in my own work that I had not felt before.

But still - still - it was the postcard sized reproductions that one =
might encounter in
Time magazine, or a library book, that turned me on to the man. And that =
was true
of every artist I learned to appreciate. My first contact was never the =
original but always the reprints.

I grew up in a small Arkansas Ozarks town in the 40s and 50s where comic =
books
and pulp-fiction paperback cover art was my original introduction to the =
pleasures,
fasicnations, and skills of art. The only "fine art" I encountered my =
first 12 years of
public school was a poster sized print of "Blue Boy" which my class of =
forty students won for our home-room class because more of our parents =
than any other attended that year's monthly PTA meetings.

And of course there was stuff like the Saturday Evening Post with =
premeir Norman
Rockwells and the ilk - all of whom I enjoyed very much.

It wasn't until I joined the army at age 17, was shipped to Germany, and =
visited Paris three months after my 18th birthday that I encounted the =
"real" stuff. Beautiful! The Venus DeMilo, the Mona Lisa, etc., etc., =
etc.

So there has been a part of me, a very real vital part that has always =
been skeptical about the value of "original".

It was like in reading. The point to "Crime and Punishment" was to read =
it - and it
hardly mattered if the form was in a paperback, hard-back library =
check-out, or the
newspapers in which it was initialally serialized, or the original =
handwritten manuscript in St. Petersburg.=20

And this is what I like about digital art. That it returns "originality" =
to that area where it should belong - Collectors. Money. The Art Market. =
And has little to do with Art. With work. With communication. With =
saying - hey, I was here, I did this,
I thought that. I live. My life counts.

And if that message can only arrive on the back of a bubble-gum wrapper, =
I say more power to it!

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD49A5.D4B36500
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I like the way digital art is forcing us into = looking in new=20 ways/concepts at the term "original".

Like every other artist/student in the pre-digital = age, I was=20 taught that the visual arts could only be "honestly" = appreciated when=20 viewing the orignal. I had trouble with the concept then, and I am = pleased that=20 computers have thrown the question into new light now.

True, my first contact with an original Picasso at = the Chicago=20 Art Institute was a

revelation - I particularly enjoyed the = rawness of his=20 painting, a hastiness, intentness, revealed in the fact that paint/color = did not=20 always evenly flow into pre-

sketched lines, and the sketched lines themselves = were visible=20 - and it gave me a

confidence in my own work that I had not felt=20 before.

But still - still - it was the postcard sized = reproductions=20 that one might encounter in

Time magazine, or a library book, that turned me on = to the=20 man. And that was true

of every artist I learned to appreciate. My first = contact was=20 never the original but always the reprints.

I grew up in a small Arkansas Ozarks town in the 40s = and 50s=20 where comic books

and pulp-fiction paperback cover art was my original = introduction to the pleasures,

fasicnations, and skills of art. The only "fine = art"=20 I encountered my first 12 years of

public school was a poster sized print of "Blue = Boy"=20 which my class of forty students won for our home-room class because = more of our=20 parents than any other attended that year's monthly PTA = meetings.

And of course there was stuff like the Saturday = Evening Post=20 with premeir Norman

Rockwells and the ilk - all of whom I enjoyed very=20 much.

It wasn't until I joined the army at age 17, was = shipped to=20 Germany, and visited Paris three months after my 18th birthday that I = encounted=20 the "real" stuff. Beautiful! The Venus DeMilo, the Mona Lisa, = etc.,=20 etc., etc.

But it was the comics and pulp fiction art = "repos"=20 that took me there.

So there has been a part of me, a very real vital = part that=20 has always been skeptical about the value of = "original".

It was like in reading. The point to "Crime and = Punishment" was to read it - and it

hardly mattered if the form was in a paperback, = hard-back=20 library check-out, or the

newspapers in which it was initialally serialized, = or the=20 original handwritten manuscript in St. Petersburg.

And this is what I like about digital art. That it = returns=20 "originality" to that area where it should belong - = Collectors. Money.=20 The Art Market. And has little to do with Art. With work. With = communication.=20 With saying - hey, I was here, I did this,

And if that message can only arrive on the back of a = bubble-gum wrapper, I say more power to it!