A Brief Evolution of Art and the Influence of Technology on Photography

Art has become one of the most versatile and commonly used words used to describe forms of aesthetic appeal. It’s associated with things that are aligned, unaligned, proportionate, skewed, beautiful, and even disturbing; all of these traits aside, art has one definitive aspect: effectiveness. The goal is to make an impression, describe something that cannot be communicated in any other way, make the audience feel something incredible, and discover something new. Some have argued that art is an accident ordained by the Gods using the hand of mortals, others toil feverishly to perfect every last inch of whatever piece they have created, leaving no room for debate or Godly help; either way the “effectiveness” is there, taking just as many forms as it always did, and grasping just as many minds. So there in lays the newest, ancient, issue argued by artists, theorists and philosophers alike: Has technology tainted or enlightened art as a whole? Since art is an ambiguous term, the issue will prove to be a long standing and well established debate between knowledgeable, credible individuals.

Photography is an interesting form of artistic expression because of its vast difference from what most would call “fine art.” Photography began in the 1820’s with the very first photograph being taken by Niépce, who joined forces with Louis Daguerre in developing the details of their project, entitled, the “Daguerreotype.” 

Some people found the technology fascinating and as an opportunity to seize their chunk of a new innovation, since this new process of creating still life, long lasting images of things required no skill in drawing or painting. But, others with already existing artistic skills found the Daguerreotype threatening, and lacking of a true creative nature. Somehow, in between an exact portrait and an exact photograph, art found a home over, under and through both of these mediums. There is no debate today, for photography has established itself as a worthy form of artistic expression; effective no less than a painting or a sculpture.

Can Digital Photography be…Photography?

Most people became instantly enthralled with the idea of a Digital Camera because being able to see the picture before you take it is really “cool.” Let’s face it, humans are gluttons to the technology industry, biting off more than we can chew and chewing more than we can taste. But, photographers think of Digital Photography in a very different way. Just as portrait painters thought back in 1826: Will this new invention end my career as an artist?

Out of the Dark room and into the light?

The discussion is not whether or not Digital cameras should replace film; that is typically a matter of preference and purpose. Digital photography brings up issues that are far more enduring, issues that are not as simple to resolve. With Digital Photography, the concept of a true dark room is eliminated, and in its place: photo manipulation software. Whether you’re an amateur and you use the free photo suite program thrown in with your camera, or whether you’re a pro who use the latest most comprehensive techniques; there is no contest that the Digital tools allow more control over the final product.
This is considered a good thing, right? From an onlookers stand point, yes it is. But for an artist who specializes in the dark room and the techniques of film photography, these new innovations might prove to eliminate the essence of one’s specialization.

The art of photography relies heavily on the element of surprise, spontaneity, and sometimes even accident. Within a photo lies one single instance, possibly only existing for the one hundredth of a second that it took the camera to flash over the scene. Any experienced photographer will tell you that it is important to take as many pictures as possible to hopefully find that beautiful gem of a moment surrounded by other similar, but ordinary seconds of time. Digital technology now allows complete control over those sacred moments, and even opportunity to edit the photograph afterwards, possibly creating these moments, virtually. Has the accident of photography been one up-ed? Or has the true livelihood of photography been demolished and in its place something, too new?

Digital art and photography seem to be the reincarnation of what portrait painting was to original photography. In it lays a new sense of control and exact ability; much more like the control of paint on canvas, but much less like the well established medium, photography. 

But, even paint on canvas can be controlled digitally. Using common illustration software such as creol draw, adobe illustrator, Maya, and many more, you can actually paint an entire oil painting using only an electronic pen hooked up to a pad. When things like painting and photography seem to define the entire realm of the art industry, the idea of a Digital tool doing these things more efficiently seems awfully overwhelming for a fine artist. So, herein lies the problem. As I said, this will be a long standing and worthy debate, but never effectual enough to take the true effect from any medium or form of art.
It is safe to say that art is not a win lose game, where one medium has the ability to “beat” another. No matter how similar Digital Photography and Photography seem to be, they are very different in their approaches and in their final outcome. Today, comparing a Portrait to a photograph is like comparing apples to oranges. They may look similar, but they taste, feel, are something very, very different. Art is a matter of expression, and there are infinite numbers of ways to express. 

When art is approached in a different way, it is only progress; art is timeless and doesn’t fade away with the latest trend. It has been proven through the ages that art will change, and new styles of artistic expression only enhance the industry as a whole. The camera did not eliminate realistic painting, and technology will not eliminate the traditions of fine art.

Art Box: A Great Way to Get Creative with Children

You've had it! If you hear, "I'm bored. What can I do? There's nothing to do!" or one more whine you'll surely put your head in the dryer and slam the door shut! Keeping kids occupied challenges the most stalwart of adults. Let's face it; we're no match for the leprechaun like stealth of the half-pint human who exhibits no shame while in pursuit of getting what they want. In this case, the want is something to do! Take a deep breath and grab the art box. Aren't you glad you planned for just this kind of rainy, I'm bored day?

The art box is alive with fun projects for little fingers and minds. The key to creating this mother's little helper is to keep it fresh and growing. First you'll need a box. Find a fascinating box, either plastic, heavy cardboard, or a Rubbermaid container. Make sure it's colorful, big and fun. After all, this is a special box, not you're ordinary run of the mill type of box filled with just paper and crayons. The art box I pulled together is a plastic one in primary colors of red, blue and yellow with a snap on lid and a carrying handle. It cost about $5.00 at a big box store.

Once you've found the perfect box you can begin filling it. There's no need to fill it all at once. The idea is to start with the basics: construction paper in lots of colors, crayons, markers, scissors, glue, and a sketchpad. These items can be varied depending on the age of the child. Washable markers are a good idea for the younger set along with small, scissors with rounded ends. Add to the box periodically so when it's opened there's something new inside. Play dough makes a great addition. Forget the molds and the fancy tools. Let the children just use their hands and imagination to create whimsical masterpieces. Toss in stickers from time to time, especially for upcoming holidays. Paints of all kinds can be added. Start with watercolors. Move on to tempra for the older kids, but always have finger paints for the little ones. Sidewalk chalk is a big hit in the summer and in the winter it can be used on large newspaper print. You can usually get the end rolls free or for a nominal fee from newspaper publishers.

Think out of the "box" when coming up with new ideas. Collect little treasures when out walking. Botanicals like small pinecones, straw flowers, dried grasses or try your hand at pressing flowers with your wee ones. These can be glued on to paper to make wonderful nature pictures. Tiny shells and sea glass collected from a trip to the beach will surprise and delight when the box is opened. Glitter, pieces of fabric in bright colors, ribbons and rickrack all get the creative juices flowing. At some point you'll want to add colored pencils, stencils, and a handy dandy ruler. A compass or protractor for the older children will acquaint them with these items as well as aid in the artful creativity that makes children everywhere smile. (At least for a while.)

Keep a look out for unusual items that you can add to the art box. Purchase various colors of tissue paper for paper flowers and roses or to be used in whatever way your child comes up with. Petal paper is a very special paper that is made with bits and pieces of flower petals, grasses and other gifts from nature. It's a bit pricey, but what a treat for the older children.

The more fascinating the items the children find in the box, the more special it becomes. Look around your home. You'll find items that make for interesting art projects like: cotton balls, colorful pastas, sponges, buttons of every size and hue, dryer lint (?) I was just kidding on that one. Keep a good supply of stickers of all kinds on hand to add when nothing else is available

The true key to the "special" box is to have little surprises inside that were not there the last time it was brought down from it's safe spot. This is not the everyday color jar filled with broken bits of crayons; this box is brought out when things become really dire. It's a "special" art box. The special box is only used at the table or easel. No preschoolers are allowed to take one item from the box and walk around with it. Again, the idea is to make it so special that it brings excitement and smiles to the faces of the bored and fretting. It's worked for me and I'm sure it will work for you as well. So get crackin' you never know when the clouds might appear on the horizon or your child's face. As adults, we seriously need all the help we can get. The special art box will give you a moment or if you're lucky, two or three to take a deep cleansing breath. Just look at their cherubic faces. "NOOO don't paint the cat!!!"

Primer: Perhaps the Smartest Sci-Fi Film of All Time

here

If your all time favorite science-fiction movie stars California’s governor, please stop reading this review now. Still here? Good because in all likelihood you have not heard of Primer, a newly released DVD from Shane Carruth. This film is a must see for any serious sci-fi fan or for that matter any serious connoisseur of fine independent cinema. This intellectually challenging movie was made for just $7,000.00 in the summer of 2001. That was one fantastic investment since it earned more than $425,000.00 in a limited theatrical run and won the 2004 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize. The film tells the story of Abe (David Sullivan) and Aaron (Carruth), two young, hard working, and ambitious engineers, who spend their evenings and weekends trying to become the next Steve Jobs and Steven Wozniak (the founders of Apple Computer for the trivia challenged) by creating and patenting new inventions in Aaron’s garage. While fine tuning one of these inventions, a machine which can counteract gravity, lowering an item’s apparent mass, the boys inadvertently discover that their device has some, well, unexpected capabilities too. Being careful not to spoil the story, it is fair to say that one of these capabilities seemingly allows Abe and Aaron to do just about anything they want and earn a ton of money in the process. From there the film looks at how absolute power affects the duo and examines how they deal with the consequences of their actions. To put it mildly, their lives change in unexpected and astounding ways. The plot is complex and void of exploding cars, supermodels dressed like hookers, and most of the normal Hollywood fare, in other words it is well written, if not a bit ambitious considering that many moviegoers will be challenged. The film is visually interesting, intense, and image driven. Viewers will find it hard to believe that much of the movie was filmed at Carruth’s parent’s house and a U-haul storage center. Almost a complex as this fine film’s story line, is the story of just how this movie was made. Carruth, who is math geek, wrote, directed, filmed, stared in, edited, and scored the movie. Carruth had worked at three engineering-oriented companies, but hated it. Then turned to writing short stories and novels, but soon realized that was not for him either. Eventually, Carruth hit on the idea of becoming a filmmaker. It didn’t seem to matter that he did not have the least idea about how movies were made. Carruth had very little money to invest in his new career, so Primer was made on a real shoe-string budget, but you wouldn’t know it from watching the movie, which looks every bit as good as major movies that can cost millions of dollars. In fact, Carruth’s tiny budget forced him to be creative, it almost makes you wonder if Hollywood should try forcing more filmmakers to be creative. The bottom line is that this PG-13 rated (for brief language) film is an excellent example of modern cinema well worth watching.