Talk:Digital art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Contemporary Art    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Overlapping articles[edit]

The following articles overlap:

I realize that "digital art" and "computer art" have technically different meanings, but in practice they almost always refer to the same thing, and they're resulting in similar articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. They need to be merged into one article, either digital art or computer art or similar. Computer-generated art can be confusing.

Note the existence of these more specific articles:

FAL 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree articles should be merged, if you can do it! Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover: May be it would be better to not show example images.... or let it be samples of the true pioneers.

Good point, I added/edited the necessary tags. The example images are pretty good but could be improved upon. FAL 06:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said previously the articles can't be represented by a few images, this is just being vain by the people inserting them. If there are to be images they should be ones which have been recognised as representative of the genre. But this will also cause problems as the most important images would need approval from the artist, or let them do it themselves. It seems most important 'digital artists' don't bother with this site. Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I feel the article Digital painting should also be merged as a technique used in the digital art process. Artingrid 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree and Strongly Disagree[edit]

Agree: It sensible to merge Computer art and Digital Art into the more distinctive Computer-generated art category despite subtile differences. Digital art not necessarily generated on the computer (digitized art) falls under the category of electronic media. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone wrote on August 8th, 2006: The article "Digital artist" should also be merged.

Strongly Disagree: It's a bad idea to merge digital artist (skill) and digital art (product.) The product is used by people with no concern for this skill. The skill produces much more than digital art. It would only serve to dilute the significance of both skill and product. Describing a skill has very little to do with describing the product of a skill and the products impact on technology or society. Artists should not be defined by one medium, technology or genre. Keep the artists separate from the art, or you will be helping neither. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 'Agree to Strongly Disagree The field of Digital art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, including computer graphics, computer animation, the Internet, interactive technologies, robotics, and biotechnology's, and relates them into cultural aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia (talkcontribs) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)



Agree Too Strongly Disagree'[edit]

My definition- Digital Art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, these may include computer based technologies but can also be representative or generated through any new media format and then aesthetically relates it to popular culture.


Yvesbodson 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)==Ease of locating desired information==

The focus here needs to be on the ability of users of Wikipedia to find the information they are looking for, not in the "proper term." This is especially important in areas where the final, correct terms have not yet been determined. For example, I entered "computer art" because I was interested in knowing its history. I would never have entered "digital art." I might agree that "digital art" describes the entire issue better, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have thought of it. I don't think I'm alone, in fact, I would guess that most users would think of "computer art" first. Whatever the final decision, if the term "computer art" were entered, wouldn't the "related" terms appear, even if there were no "computer art" page?

Bradfregger 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Computer art may be considered as a 'branche' from the 'Art' tree or trunk. However, the term could, or should, be sub to the more global 'digital art' which should / could be a main branche. Yves Bodson January 25th 2007

Title clarifation[edit]

Could someone clarify what authors or communities use the term "digital art" in this manner. This is not a poor definition, but I imagine that there are other equally valid ways to define "digital art". Unless this is a generally accepted term, defined as currently defined in the article, we need to clarify whose ideas are represented here. -Ryguasu 07:15 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

It's my definition[edit]

I created this page because Visual arts and design, which is linked from the Main Page. Links to it. I just kind if wrote it off the top of my head. There is (was? I did revision) similar material on computer generated art.

IMO "digital art" encompasses just about any art created with, or substantially modified by, a computer. Plain text and CD audio, which is stored in digital form, doesn't really constitute "digital art", although these are border cases. Thoughts? -- Merphant
That sounds pretty reasonable. I think, however, the article currently suggests that "digital art" is broader than this, encompassing any work of art that has been digitized, including plain text, CD audio, a digitized photograph of a Monet, etc.. Perhaps the definition could be modified to fix this. I would propose, however, that it may work better to merge Computer-Generated Art and Digital art. After all, the distinction breaks down easily enough, such as when you take a scanned photograph and then manipulate it with Adobe Photoshop until the digital image does not resemble the original photo in any way whatsoever.
An interesting footnote in this regard is that under U.S. copyright law such a digital image (not resembling the original photo), if based on a scanned photograph the copyright of which belonged to someone else, would still be a copyright violation, as it would be regarded as a "derivative work"(!). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:48 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
A paragraph or two could still be devoted to the discussion of any distinctions seen as critical. --Ryguasu 20:51 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
I tried to write a paragraph about the distinction between various terms (digital art, computer art, computer-generated art, electronic art) in the article on electronic art. Spinster 08:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also just added my contribution. VIVE LE WIGDOR!!! --Keith-Wigdor 18:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I just removed it, because it wasn't a contribution; it was the electronic equivalent of writing "Keith is Great" on the chalkboard in your 8th grade History class. Tverbeek 03:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But to be fair, at least Keith was nice enough to tell us about it (and sign with his real name). Rhobite 03:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you all know that the user, "Keith-Wigdor" is an imposter harrassing an artist with the name Keith Wigdor. Wikipedia Administrators already know about it.Classicjupiter2 22:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also revised this page (some time ago. There seemed , and still is some confusion between 'commercial' uses and 'artistic' endeavours in Digital Art. Who termed the phrase 'Neographers' I've never heard of it anywhere else? A lot more could be written and it could also be divided up more. The problem is whether you give a very general description or go into more depth. Obviously the more depth there is the more problematic (and critised!) it becomes. I also added some of the links. This area is still woefully inadequate. Again that worries, because once you start, there's no stopping and soon it would become a lifetimes work, to get anywhwhere near a complete picture of the diversity of work that is being created! Still maybe one day... keith watson

PS. I really don't think there should be any reference to music, that's a whole nother area. of course there is Sound Art, but I think the term 'Digital art' encompasses visual work only. what do you think? Would it upset anyone to delete this bit! keith watson

I think the opening line for the entry of Digital art as being art created on a computer in digital form is a little dated, and misconstrues digital art as simply being all about the tool. Art is the result of tools used by artists, an interpretation of an idea by whatever means was employed, but this digital art entry possesses a flavor of proceduralism, (See Software, Art and Society by SERGI JORDÀ) rather than one of art in general, in the broad sense in which Wikipedia's Art should apply to this topic. All digital art is not made on a computer, and ALL digital art is not always presented in digital form. More often than not, digital art employs the USE of computers, scanners, cameras, projectors, etc…. but the art itself was thought up in the mind of an artist. To define digital art as an artform cannot be simply done by emphasizing its tool any more than defining painting would necessarily be “art created with a paint brush”. The common approach to learning digital art in the university setting has evolved into that of teaching concept, giving more thought to the idea than to learning software, hard drives, input and output devices. The term Post-Digital might help enlighten what I am attempting to put across here. Post-Anything means that the emphasis on any particular way of doing things has passed its zenith. In the case of digital art, the emphasis on the tool has passed, and the emphasis on styles, movements, methodologies and artists of digital art is the topic of discussion when defining digital art.Swatkins 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, You're right times have moved on, this whole description is too simplistic and needs a much more academmic approach to defining 'Digital Art'. The basic 'art created by computer (or other digital devises)' is still correct though, its just that the movement has grown as you describe, and much of it is defined now by 'New Media'. keith watson

Could we consider that 'digital' is equivalent to 'silver' used in photography? Then from there, digital being a state by which an image or a creation wil go through before being definitely transposed onto or into a physical medium such as CRT/LCD photo paper printed with a digita printer, ceramic, glass or whatever the medium. In such a perspective, digital becomes a form of 'sensor' like in a digital camera, whose only purpose is to capture information and pass it on to the next step. Yves Bodson January 25th, 2007

Link farm[edit]

I'm thinking of removing the whole "External links" section, as it's turning into a big link farm, and I don't see any real standard for what it should include, and what's just a self-promotional link. Any objections? Tverbeek 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea, since a lot of those links are useful and/or relevant. As for a lack of standard, that I agree with. This bit me in the ass already; I added a poor link to my site which was rightfully removed. However, yesterday I added a new link to my site, except this time I linked directly to the relevant page (a list of prominent digital artists' websites) and didn't make any reference to myself. I don't consider that a self-promotional link, but it is certainly a grey area since I was linking my own site.
Along the same lines, however, I just realized yesterday that the example images further up the page are both by a single artist, and he added them himself. *cough* self-promotion *cough* Jhocking
When I edited this article a long ago, it did not have any examples of digital art, so I added some of mine. This is not "self-promotion" as I did not put my name on the thumbnail caption, if you noticed. If you feel "uncomfortab;e" with this, you can replace them with other suitable images. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I think its online terrorism to take away links that someone has put here a good reason. Anybody adding links must have a feeling that they are doing so for the good of the site, not necessarily as self promotion. For instance I run Deluxe-arts which still an organisation which used to run deluxe gallery, which was an important gallery for new media/ digitla art in the UK and still an important site for anyone interested in this area. I also see someone has taken a lot of other links out which I believe are VERY important. I don't believe it is up to someone else to decide what they think is or isn't relevant, because it isn't going to be the same view as anyone else.

So if someone adds links, which are relevant they should be left in place, or ask the person who placed them BEFORE you delete it.

When I get time I will be re-adding the links that someone has taken away, because I and many people would consider them relevant.

i can see I'm gonna have to keep an eye on you guys! keith watson

digital artists versus software vendors?[edit]

Hello to all,

As a tech/artist, I am interested in this area of knowledge. I haven't seen much discussion on artists' frustration at software vendors discussed in a venue outside of the normal "technology" framework, but I feel it would be a valid entry either here, or maybe as a stub entry. It falls under the category of artistic process; how software frustration affects process. Involved with this is a look at the training digital artists go through versus training that traditional artists encounter, and whether or not this counts as "suffering", an ingredient that many traditional artists feel is important as an element for true art to be valid.

I am just now beginning my research into this, and I have not posted anywhere else. I do not iintend this as a trivial entry, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it. Thanks, Swatkins 19:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)



reply- would you mind clarifying what you mean about "suffering" as ingredient. Digital Artists develop personal and aesthetic relationships within the technological framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia (talkcontribs) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory[edit]

I will be pairing down the long list of external links, for this reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is a Jossi web directory. It will only keep the links Jossi the admin will allow and that is for sure not the link to cyberart pioneer Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because Jossi doesn't like high class competition. For this watch this history of this article. Artingrid 12:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe my motives are jelousy? ROFL! ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the links in this articles do not contain any personal sites as far as I am aware of. There are many thousands of digital artists and each have his/her own personal website and/or blog. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 17:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding personal pages to the list of external links. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I never added a personal page to the list of external links but two worldwide acknowledged sources which stand for digital art: Truly Virtual Web Art Museum of Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) and Webism, the worldwide digital art movement with more than 50 international artists as members (including prominent members like e. g. Professor Herbert W. Franke, one of the founders of the Ars Electronica. Just look up Google and you will know. Thanks. Do you own Wikipedia? Artingrid 08:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Virtual Web Art Museum" seems to be a personal page of Rodney Chang and other associates. Nonwithstanding you and your friends contributions to digital art, it does not seem to be notable enough to be listed alongsinde the MODA, the MOCA, or the Digital Art Museum. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a really good joke, dear Jossi-:) The "Truly Virtual Web Art Museum" is an acknowledged distinguished historical website of cyber art pioneer Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) which gives a broad insight in digital art and its history also featuring many artists from the digital realm. The Museum even is used as source by the Munich University Research Group on the Global Future: http://www.cap-lmu.de/fgz/portals/newsociety/arts/museums_gall.php

And btw the MODA is the Museum website of my friend and great artist Mariano Petit de Murat, Mexico City/Mexico who is a Webist. Artingrid 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


You may be interested in this, regarding the "awards" section on your colleague's website. It seems that the Who's Who publication's aren't too picky about who gets into their books. There are a lot of self-nominated people who haven't really accomplished much. Listings on these directories includes bowling coaches, gym teachers, undertakers, administrative assistants, landscapers and school nurses. Nearly everyone who is nominated (ort self-nominated) gets into the book as attested by the more than 100,000 entries. Read the Forbes article debunking the whole thing: "The Hall of Lame" ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if the Who's Who publication's aren't too picky about who gets into their books. But I do know that Dr. Chang is an outstanding personality and his education alone would be enough to be in Wikipedia. Otherwise guess you should take out at least 80 % of your biographies. Moreover there are enough proven third party sources I gave on the Rodney Chang article site. But you were only interested to find some "missing links". Artingrid 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Just read the article from Forbes to understand how these "awards" and "who's who" vanity books work. As for Mr. Chang's education, have you checked these? Fifteen minutes of research finds his "Ph.D. on Art Psychology" to be from a distance learning, non-mainstream institution called "The Union Institute" in Ohio. The dissertation is titled "A phenomenological case study of the psychological processes of art through an alternative dental servicing environment". [1] is, what can I say? absurd? Just read it. It is extraordinarly funny, or preposterous depending how you look at it. And what about his degree from "Columbia Pacific University", San Francisco? A non-accredited correspondence school, closed by court order [2], [3]. Furthermore what about his "degree" on "Counseling Psychology" from the University of Northern Colorado? The transcript at Mr. Chang's websites shows it to be a couse of 48 hrs of study only (4 to 8 hours per quarter over three years). So, OK. Mr Chang is a dentist with an undergraduate degree in Zoology from Haway Pacific University and an M.S, in Education from USC. Great. He is also an artist. Great. But by all measures he is no more notable than 1,000s of digital artists out there. Don't get me wrong: He may be a really nice guy, you may be very fond of him, his art may be interesting to some, etc. But he does not cross the threshold of notability for inclusion in this article as an external link in the section about Art Museums, and most definitively not as a biographical article in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Jossi, you are above notability. Artingrid 09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not discussing me. I am most definitively not a notable artist. We are discussing your client's profuse claims of notablity, and your attempt to add an external link to a personal website of a person you represent and in which you have an interest. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am awfully sorry but what you tell above cannot be left alone. I do not have clients as you call it and I never made an attempt to add an external link to a personal website of a person I represent. I only represent myself. And the link I added is a link to an acknoledged source to digital art in the whole wide web. You may ask Google. But please let us stop this fruitless talk now. Thank you.Artingrid 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. In Mr. Chang's website there are these statements:
  1. "Ingrid Kamerbeek, Publicist for Pygoya (as of July 2002)" [[4]]
  2. Mr. Chang also lists you as a contact to purchase his art in Europe: "Ingrid Kamerbeek, Art Agent, Europe" in PYGOYA'S CORPORATE ART PORTFOLIO [5].
  3. "The artist is represented by Alex Alexander & Associates (USA, California), Malie Moran (New York City, Hawaii), and Ingrid Kamerbeek (Europe)." [6]
So, it is natural that I interpreted these as I did, that you are representing Mr. Chang as his agent. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? You are mixing things. Artingrid 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just stating what is written there: that you are his representative. I have presented this publicly available information in response to your statement that you were not. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said I only represent myself. When I put the link to Dr. Chang's website here it is because "Truly Virtual Web Art Museum" of Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) is a worldwide acknowledged source for digital art not matter where and what and by whom Dr. Chang's art is sold. Every artist sells art. That is not the point here. But you can start talking to yourself now. My time indeed is too precious to spend my life talking to someone who acts like God at Wikipedia. Artingrid 10:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just responding to your assertion that you were not his representative. In your own words: "I do not have clients as you call it and I never made an attempt to add an external link to a personal website of a person I represent." But the fact is that you do represent Mr. Chang, and you did add a link to his website, as per your own admission above. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sample work of notable digital artists[edit]

If anyone can find one or two samples of digital art by notable artists to replace current samples, that will be appreciated. I could not find any in Wikipedia images or in commons so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, may be you try the MODA Museum guest section. Of course in your opinion these might be not notable digital artists. You are the king at Wikipedia. You decide. Artingrid 13:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is out of place. Any artist that is willing to upload one of his/her pieces digital of art and put it in the public domain under the GNU, will be most welcome to add that sample work to this article. Read Wikipedia images policy. And if that artist is a notable one, the better. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thing. I am one editor among thousands and one admin among hundreds here at Wikipedia. I have no more power than any other editor and I cannot abuse my powers as an admninstrator. You have as many rights as I do with the exception of admin privileges that are basically the ability to protect an article and to temporarily block users that engage in vandalism or that otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. So, I woulkd appreciate you tone down your rethoric and veiled spite and help make this article a better one. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a peaceful human being but nevertheless hate injustice. Yes, you are one editor among thousands but you are the one threatening. Don't worry. I will not talk to you anymore if you do not attack me. Artingrid 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have engaged you in several discussions related to the the AfD of two artists' biographies, including yours and one of an associate, and upon your statements about notability of that person, I provided you with publicly available information that challenged your assertions about such notability. If you construed that as an attack, my apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasnt been an esay task for me to promote and fight for Digital art or what I consider to be artistic creations generated by a computer. I created MODA Museum of Digital art Beacuse I felt every artist has a right to show their work so everyone can enjoy or hate it. This isn't the case with other digital art museums that are excesively selective and that's fine too but I still think everyone should be consider and respected as an artist if they're serious about their work so there is a space for all digital artists at MODA and that's something we're always be proud of. What Ingrid and Dr Chang have done to unite the digital art community and to promote their work through different projects is an admirable effort and I truly think they deserve everyone's respect, specially if we consider that digital art still finds closed doors in Physical museums and galleries. There is still a lot we can all do to fight for digital art recognition and I don't think it is a good idea to be against each other, we should all be together in this adventure.Mariano Petit de Murat. MODA site: MODA The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.138.64.213 (talk • contribs) .

Mariano, I am not against anyone. We are discussing notability as it pertains to Wikipedia guidelines. As you know, there are thousands of digital artists and hundreds of galleries of their work available online. This article can carry a small selection of these on-line galleries as examples, but note that Wikipedia is not a web directory (See WP:NOT). The selection of sites includes your website and other galleries and communities of artists as examples. Examples of digital art to be featured in this and other Wikipedia articles can be uploaded by the authors, providing they release it into the public domain under the GNU license. All artists deserve respect, but not all artists are notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Now, concerning Mrs Kamerbeek and Mr Chang, the reason for the debate is that there was an attempt made to get their biographical articles into Wikipedia. During that process, as it is customary, inquires were made about their notability. In the case of Mrs Kamerbeek, it was decided by the editors that reviewed her biography, that it would be best to "userfy" it, meaning that it was moved to her Wikipedia user page at Artingrid as she did not reach the threshold of notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. In regard of Mr. Chang's biography, it was decided that he did not reach the threshold of notability either, and his biography was deleted. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_Chang. I would argue that a person that claims notability in the manner that Mr. Chang does it in his website, opens himself to the kind of scrutinty he was subjected to during the review process. You may want to read Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability if you want to be learn about the guidelines applied. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts regarding the decision making about who is reaching notability to be included in Wikipedia: YOU ALONE DECIDED. And your are not a notable artist in your own words. And may be you are not in a position to decide who is a notable artist. Any expertise? In Wikipedia guidelines it is stated that the admin who puts an article to AfD is not the one who decides if it finally will be deleted. This should be decided by another admin who carefully watches the deletion debate and then decides. This "decider" was a 15 year old kid what speaks for itself. And everybody may look up the so-called deletion debate to find out what was really going on. Besides you and the 15 year old there were only 3 more folks who ever saw this debate. And those were folks without any knowledge about art or digital art. Only one of them tried to be constructive. It's absurd. You should be careful that not too many folks find out what happened here. I would love to make this more publically available. The world should know what is going on here! Crazy. THANK GOD YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DECIDE. AND YOUR SO-CALLED DECISION IS OBSCURE AND WORTHLESS. Moreover in this deletion debate you ignored worthy comments because you just didn't like them. Wikipedia is an open-source and states also folks outsite Wikipedia should not be ignored. But I am tired now. Who is Jossi? Only Wikipedia should be interested who he is because he makes Wikipedia indeed look bad. No wonder there are so many bad newspaper reports. Artingrid 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before several times, you have a recourse if you believe that the process of deletion was faulty. There may be a chance that the article of Mr. Chang could be re-considered as it was discussed that notability was borderline.
  1. Become familiar with the Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy
  2. List the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review
FYI, the deletion was based on two issues: noncompliance with Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability (people), so you may want to become familiar with these two aspects as well.
Also note that Wikipedia's content is open source, but the editing process is governed by a series on nonnegotiable principles, and a number of guidelines that have been accepted by consensus by the community of editors. You may want to read Wikipedia:Five pillars for an excellent overview of what Wikipedia is and is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


hi, 'Jossi'

Could you clarify who you are? You say: I have no more power than any other editor and I cannot abuse my powers as an admninstrator. You have as many rights as I do with the exception of admin privileges that are basically the ability to protect an article and to temporarily block users that engage in vandalism or that otherwise disrupt Wikipedia.

so are you an official of Wikipedia?

Sample digital art[edit]

I think that people need further examples of work sof digital art in oder to understand its relevance. UCSC Professor Warren Sack is a software designer and media theorist whose work explores theories and designs for online public space and public discussion. His field of expertise is social computing. As a field of research, social computing explores two issues: (A) How can the insights of social, critical, cultural, and media theory be incorporated into and used to critique and evaluate software? and, (B) How can new media be designed to address outstanding social and political issues? Current and past projects include work in news media, Open Source software development, locative media, computer-supported translation, systems for visualizing and facilitating online discussions, and the design and analysis of network-based learning environments.

PROJECTS

This short video provides an overview of several of the following projects. Warren Sack, Conversation Map Warren Sack & Sawad Brooks, Translation Map Warren Sack, "Agonistics: A Language Game" Aphid Stern, Michael Dale, Mark Deckert, Warren Sack, Metavid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia (talkcontribs) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the dispute on this page, I am removing my samples of digital art from this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this page should have any images, you can't have one singular image to represent the whole field of Digital Art, so we either have none or a whole gallery. keith watson

After many months and no replies, I've deleted the pic, it wasn't particularly good and the field is too big and varied to be represnted by this picture. Keith

links to organisations[edit]

I don't think there should be a link to Amoda within the main description, if they have paragraph, then there should be a description on every organisation. Their approach is not unique. Can I delete or at least change it, perhaps add others then to make it fairer and more rounded? keith watson

I've waited a while and no reply so I've deleted this apragraph, its not fai on all the other venues, we either have them all or none. Keith

Digital art vs. Digital illustration, design, etc.[edit]

Is it right to include applied arts such as illustration and design involving digital technologies in this article? I'm not sure if we can make use of separate terms such as Digital Art (designating digital Fine Art) and Digital arts (designating all arts where at some point some digital technology was used). Now the article looks too general to me: It includes on one hand commercial illustrators, photographers, designers whom I would call 'contemporary craftsmen', on the other hand avant-garde artists working on digital media. The latter (e.g. software artists, internet artists) were included in 'Other' and 'See Also' sections although IMO they are supposed to be the main focus of this article.--spAs 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Spas. This article is confusing and doesn't meet the theme. There should be two articles: "Applied Digital Arts" and "Digital Fine Arts". Artingrid 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, splitting the article that way could also ease the problem of huge number of links that seem to be out of control. Any other suggestions on naming or any arguments against splitting? An alternative way of organization could be similar to the one in Christiane Paul's book "Digital Art". She organized two chapters in her book as follows:

  • Digital technologies as a tool (finished work is presented in a traditional medium but digital technologies were used in its creation: digital photography, digital print, digital sculpture, etc.)
  • Digital technologies as a medium (the work is presented via a digital medium: installation, film, video, animation, internet-art, software art, virtual reality, sound-art, etc.) --spAs 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, I think your suggestion for the two different areas seems like a good idea, but I suggest we start by writing two different sections in this article, expanding into two separate articles when it becomes necessary. (To be frank, the text could use a rewrite from the ground up) Henrik 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Henrik's proposal is a sound one. Let's develop these sections, and once these are substantial we can spin off separate articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Link collection (again)[edit]

The external links section on this article has grown out of control, per WP:NOT a collection of links I propose we remove most of it and replace it with a link to a suitable web directory. Also see Wikipedia:External_links. I see that there have been attempts to remove it before, but I think it's time for another go. Henrik 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Assuming no one objects before then, I'll most likely remove it sometime tomorrow. Henrik 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Link spammers should be removed periodically, at least once a week!!! --Artsgrie 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Yesterday i added two new links which i considered them to be a useful resource for Digital Artists. I will re-add them today. Any objections? --Sensodyne 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so; our purpose isn't to provide resources for digital artists. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a artist gallery. Perhaps the few images provided on the right column are enough. Darbus 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Image[edit]

I've added another image. It's my own, so there shouldn't be any problems. escapologist File:Exquisite-kate.png 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures[edit]

There are way too many images being used on this article. Most add nothing to the article and only serve to publish them as original works which is contrary to WP:OR and WP:NOT. Many of them should be removed. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a few images and reorganized the rest. I'll remove any added without reason. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reproducibility as a criterion[edit]

The text of the article currently contains: "One reason why the established art community finds it difficult to accept digital art is the erroneous perception of digital prints being endlessly reproducible. Many artists though are erasing the relevant image file after the first print, thus making it a unique artwork."

I don't know if this section belongs in the article or not (particularly without citation) but it strikes me as a philosophical controversy in need of expansion, perhaps in another article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen (talkcontribs) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

cuts[edit]

I think we should cut the extra questionable stuff out. Valueyou (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

what is the basis of your argument to remove relevant sub-headings? Maybe have patience, the article will develop and the current outline will help this. Also, the topics are roughly representative of the digital art forms covered in Paul, Christiane (2006), Digital Art, Thames & Hudson. Measles (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that issues like Post-digital art is off topic and irrrelevant. (Why not pre-digital art?) As is this statement that I took out and has been restored:"As silicon-dry digital media converges with wet biological systems, Roy Ascott has pointed to the emergence of a "moistmedia" substrate for 21st century art.[4]". There is already a page on immersive virtual reality and Software art and Interactive art and computer art and Post-digital - so they simply should be listed in a "See also" list - and not clutter up the page. That is my opinion. Valueyou (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well the matter of Post-digital and its relevance, maybe this needs to be borne out by the sources available on the topic, and I think there are enough sources to warrant mention here. Moreover, post-digital art (or 'postdigital' - depending on the source), as an aesthetic practice, depends upon digital technology for its creation; this cannot be said for "pre-digital" as you called it. In terms of other articles existing on the items you mention, yes, true, but it's common practice to have a main 'themed' article that collates all directly related articles in one place, by providing summaries, with links to the main articles. I think it's a more effective presentation style than adding a list of 'See also' at the bottom, it is also potentially more informative as a reader can very quickly get an overview of a subject matter in one glance. Though the sub sections have not yet been fleshed out, a reader can currently survey what topics constitute the subject 'digital art', so I think it's constructive to have the 'please expand tags' in place. We can open this up for wider discussion if you like? Will I post a WP:3O? Measles (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes let's open it up. For me the sub-sections muddy the page. I have never had a problem using the See Also lists on pages. Valueyou (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside Opinion[edit]

I thank all involved editors for their efforts. If you would be so kind, please concisely summarize the nature of the discussion, and what the differing points of view are. I will then be able to render an informed opinion in a timely manner. Thanks again! —Finn Casey 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, see the preceding discussion, that pretty much sums it up, view my last comment above if you need my position on the matter.ThanksMeasles (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that the page looks bad as is and would be tighter with a typical "See also" list. Valueyou (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

General Summary[edit]

Those viewpoints are both reasonable and understandable. I believe all involved editors have put commendable energy and effort into this project. I agree with Valueyou that the current page structure is inappropriately cluttered and overly extensive. I recommend that Valueyou enacts the proposed revisions. This will lead to an easy-to-read article that is more encyclopedic. Thanks again for all your efforts! —Finn Casey * * * 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion on the matter, but I strongly disagree with your assessment, and reject it on the grounds that:
1. The article currently reflects a general (though reduced) outline of the subject matter, namely Digital art, as presented in Paul, Christiane (2006), Digital Art, Thames & Hudson. It is therefore most certainly not "overly extensive".
2. The current outline presents the reader with an adequate encyclopedic reference. Associated articles are easily accessible via this main page.
3. There are no guidelines that view the use of 'request for expansion' tags as inappropriate, especially when it is clear that expansion is necessary; if a broad overview of the subject is to be achieved (rather than limiting it to a narrowly defined region of the digital arts).
I will therefore move to WP:RFC to request additional input. Thanks. Measles (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that this issue should take up much of our energy, but I wish to point out that the Paul, Christiane (2006), Digital Art book is no longer definitive. We now have: Lieser, Wolf. Digital Art. Langenscheidt: h.f. ullmann. 2009 (where these categories are not maintained) and other (see References list i.e. Edward A. Shanken, Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. ISBN 9780714847825 and Wands, Bruce (2006). Art of the Digital Age, London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-23817-0. also see the Further reading list. So I agree with the third opinion - that of Finn Casey. Valueyou (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
there are plenty of books out there on the subject, but we need to start somewhere. Up until recently, this article was exclusively concerned with visual media, and there is still an abundance of questionable images presented on this page; by way of supporting what is a misguided notion of 'digital art'. I simply don't see the harm in letting readers know that in actuality digital art is not about simply making kitchy images with Photoshop but is instead a much broader field of inquiry; one that encompasses the application of digital technology in a wide range of creative activities. Measles (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with you. The question is how to best do that.Valueyou (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Digital Art article structure & expansion requests[edit]

Difference of opinion on how the article should proceed, in terms of content offered, and content expansion requested. Please my last comment above for one of the positions. Measles (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

An RFC is a great way to ask for additional coverage of the issue. I appreciate Measles' concerns, and look forward to recieving ideas from any other editors who may wish to comment. As of now however, the clarity and efficiency of the streamlined version, as proposed by Valueyou, is the majority/consensus version. Thanks again! —Finn Casey * * * 21:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Finn, I don't mean to be a bore, but concensus does not equate with majority in the way that you suggest here. Stating that it's a 2:1 vote, end of story, is not the way things work, hence the RFC. Measles (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
resolved. Measles (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chimeraobscura2002.jpg[edit]

The image File:Chimeraobscura2002.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Narcissism[edit]

This article has become a dump for promotion. Most of the pictures add little educational value to the article. Tomorrow, I will begin harsh cutting down of all content about individual artists, move lists at Category pages, and remove the gallery. Any objections? *glares at everyone*

In the future, if you wish to add a picture to the page, at least have the decency of expanding the accompanying text to explain why that picture is relevant to the subject.--ObsidinSoul 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the tone I don't disagree. Self-promotion has no place here. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Nyeah, someone tried to politely bring attention to it before (see above subsections), didn't work, heh. I got too busy today to actually do it. If you can help, please do. I'll start removing the unnecessary stuff when I get the time.--ObsidinSoul 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at axing the majority of promotion and misinformation. A couple of the links may still need to be removed but I think we're in a better place. I also axed the external links en masse. If they're really that important, they should be used to add to the article not just linked from it. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)