Talk:Computer art

message: this definition is in desperate need of revision!!  considering that in the 21st century it is nearly impossible to record sound or document visuals in any way (without the artist actually being there producing the work) that does not use some form of a computer (processor).  
seems to me, the only useful distinction between "computer art" and non-computer art, is that a running processor, making conditional if-then choices, according to live input (whether interactive or analysis of a live feed) must be integral in the piece displayed.  for example, artwork that is playable on a DVD player is simply traditional art that very trivially involves a computer.  in the cast majority of cases for video editing an identical effect could have been accomplished by other means, though the computer often makes the job far more convenient (taking a few minutes as opposed to few hours or even years).
without revising the definition, the term is rendered entirely useless.  it may disqualify a huge amount of beloved work, but art need not be labelled "fauvist" or "modern tap" to derive its value to us.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.228.116 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is a good antonym for "Computer Art"?  Traditional Art?  I'm looking for something less awkward than "Non-Computer Art".  If one is writing about the work of an artist who creates both computer art and the kind of art that is done directly onto canvas or paper, one section would have the heading, "Computer Art".  What would be the other heading?
Scribe2u 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional art seems to work well when discussed in the context of computer art. I'm not sure it's as easily understood outside that context. Oicumayberight 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Art in traditional media? Bus stop 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Analog art? Practical art? Physical art? --DocumentN (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Question 

message: Take note that Computer Arts is also the name of a magazine in both english and french. TulipVorlax (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine 

message: :In 1961, Dr. A. Michael Noll, an early pioneer in the use of computers in the visual arts, spent nearly fifteen years performing research at Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
Should this read "Beginning in 1961 ..."? It would be hard to spend more than one year performing research in 1961 alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fifteen years?

message: I was just thinking, should we add a 3d (3D) printing section to this article? I know it is still fairly new, but it is catching on very rapidly. And it does classify as a type of art, being able to print anything from practical everyday items to action figures and more. It is not really the same as robot painting, so I think it justifies it's own section. Do you agree?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfdhsvgj (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Printing 

message: I think that this phrase is not relevant at this place.
In 1963 James Larsen of San Jose State University wrote a computer program based on artistic principles, resulting in an early public showing of computer art in San Jose, California on May 6, 1963.[3][4]
Because of the first "Computer Art Contest" announced by Edmund Berkeley in "Computers and Automation" January 1963, programers all around the world started to write new programs for computer art.
"The Computer Art Contest was, perhaps, the first competition and award in the emerging movement of computer art. It was first announced by the magazine,Computers and Automation (later under the title: Computers and People) in their January 1963 issue.
As a friend of the founder, chief editor, and co-publisher, Edmund C. Berkeley, of the magazine Computers and Automation, artist and author  Grace C. Hertlein played a decisive part for the concept of that first competition in computer graphics."
Sourcehttp://dada.compart-bremen.de/item/Publication/206
The inventor of the word computer art was probably Edmund Berkeley and it was first published in January 1963 for the "Computer Art Contest".--Maxim Pouska (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevant or not relevant - In 1963 James Larsen ... 

message: Dominic Lopes' (2009) Philosophy of Computer Art is listed in the "Further Reading" section.
Perhaps it would be helpful to include his definition of computer art, especially as there appears to be talk of merging this article with Digital Art or Computer-generated art, the validity of such a merger is directly contradicted by Lopes.
"According to another conception, computers compute. They are designed to run computational processes – to carry inputs into outputs by following formal rules, or algorithms. Works of “computer art” take advantage of computational processing to achieve interactivity. For example, Sustained Coincidence by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer detects the location of its users and controls a series of lights to ensure that they cast overlapping shadows on the gallery wall. The artist reports that “the piece is inspired by phantasmagorias on the one hand and surveillance and digital analysis on the other.” Its operation relies on a computer that gathers information on the work’s users and follows an algorithm to maintain an environment with certain features. In this way, the actions of users help to shape how the work goes.
The main elements of a good description of Sustained Coincidence show up in a definition of computer art. An item is a work of computer art just in case (1) it is art, (2) it is run on a computer, (3) it is interactive, and (4) it is interactive because it is run on a computer. Clauses (3) and (4) distinguish works of computer art like Sustained Coincidence from works of digital art like Jeff Wall’s A Sudden Gust of Wind or the musical compositions of David Cope’s EMI. Only the first of these is interactive. What does that mean? A work is interactive just in case it prescribes that the actions of its users partly generate its display. Its display? The display of any work of art is some pattern or structure that’s designed in part by the artist and that we attend to in order to ascertain the work’s meaning and aesthetic features. In La Grande Jatte, the display is a marked surface, in Blow-Up, it is any of a number of screenings, and in “It Don’t Mean a Thing,” it is any of a number of performances. The display of Sustained Coincidence includes any of a number of patterns of illumination and cast shadows. Since these are generated in part by its users, the work is interactive, and this interactivity is mediated by computational processing. Sustained Coincidence a work of computer art, if it is a work of art.
To see why computer art is a new art form, consider why digital art is not. A kind of art is not an art form unless it is an appreciative art kind. Works in an art kind share some features in common. Works in an appreciative art kind are normally appreciated for having those features: they make up a contrast class for purposes of appreciation. Viewed in the context of twentieth- century painting, Broadway Boogie-Woogie is restrained, but it is ebullient when viewed against the background of other paintings by Mondrian, so twentieth-century painting and the Mondrian oeuvre are different appreciative art kinds (here is a demonstration). The same goes for digital images and digital songs. We normally appreciate a digital image like Wall’s A Sudden Gust of Wind in a contrast class that includes arbitrarily any digital image, and we normally appreciate a sonata by EMI in contrast with arbitrarily any digital song. However, we do not normally appreciate A Sudden Gust of Wind with digital songs like the sonata by EMI in mind. We do not appreciate it as digital art in the most generic sense. Digital art is not an appreciative art kind, so it is not an art form."
From http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=40
84.30.117.253 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy of Computer Art 

message: Hello, I am researching for WP.de about computer art and artists. This way I found the source about the term computer art. I think it's not a bad new entry for this article. - --Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term Computer Art 

message: Hello
In the part history is missing details about computer art produced with analog computers (images and graphic). What about some artist and exhibitions bevor 1962? I know a little about this time and known sources. --Maxim Pouska (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analog computer art and artists are missing from bevor 1962 

message: I am sorry, I am not of the opinion that the list of Notable artists start with James Faure Walker. He did not come until the late eighties for computer art. Then he just made as in his abstract painting abstract computer images. One can say that he jumped on the moving train.  I delete the name at this point.
Roger Malina defines the pioneering days of computer art until the mid-eighties. "25 Years of Computer Art 1965-1989" was an exhibition that supervised Herbert W. Franke.
Note - the main author (only IP) of this article has written around 2008
:PS the article about Franke is only 1 point out of 10 point. Some day I have to fix it. He has been a pioneer since the mid-fifties in Computerart and so on.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies to Perry Welman. He was born in central England, 1980. I can find only some work from 2007.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  A notable artist which used computer and robots for painting is Harold Cohen and his AARON, 1973. I can not see why he is not in this list but Matthias Groebel.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable artists in this vein include ??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Computer art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405081225/http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/thelens/docs/digital/vitality.pdf to http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/thelens/docs/digital/vitality.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello -this phrase is somehow not correct: "The exhibition included many of whom often regarded as the first digital artists, Nam June Paik, Frieder Nake, Leslie Mezei, Georg Nees, A. Michael Noll ..."
Nam June Paik was working with Video but not a "first digital artists" in the 1960s, 1970s. Hi started to work with computer around 1990 for images in his video installations.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nam June Paik was working with Video but not a "first digital artists"  

message: Hello
I get the feeling this is - just some PR (advertising) for some software - has nothing to do with "Art". Just a different filter like for a photo or video program. Some ideas about it? I will revert it sone. best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I cited refer to it as "turning amateur photos into elaborate works of art" (Guardian) or "algorithmically aided art" (Slate). From the point of view of AI research, it's a lot different from art filters, though from a user's perspective I agree it's similar. That said, it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding the scope of this article; as always, feel free to revert it pending WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neural style transfer - just public relation for some software 

message: Hello, if we write about notable artist, the list would be endless today. Better is "Early notable artists" ... I write this because "George Grie (born 1962)" is an artist but in this list and at this place inadequate - my opinion. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to list notable artists in the lead at all; we can just bring up artists in the body of the article as they become relevant. For example, painting doesn't list notable painters in its lead. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - this is an old listing and I did not write it. It was just an " idee fixe" bei me to add "early". You can chance it how you like it - I agree.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable artists" in this vein include - maybe it is better "Early notable artists"