The Artists Laptop

[bluphoto]

<p>What is the definition of an artist? Someone who translates their artistic vision into a medium which can be enjoyed by others, perhaps? Someone whose passion is for the creation of beauty above anything else? Someone whose mind works in a particular way, often countering the logical processes present in the mind of those with a more technical, mathematical way of thinking?</p>

<p> What makes an artist successful? Why are most successful artists dead?</p>

<p>I am certain that, historically, this is because the mind of a true artist strives solely for the act of creation, and not for recognition or success. The success comes only from the appreciation of the work by someone with a more logical thought process – which, in the case of so many of the “Grand Masters” arrived only posthumously.</p>

<p>So where does the title of this article “The Artists Laptop” come into play?</p>

<p>The laptop, or other computer, is by its nature a very technical piece of apparatus, as are the vast majority of modern digital cameras. With the countless images pouring into our hard drives, it is becoming a necessity to have some sort of “system”, to keep them filed and organised. The digital workflow is a minefield of processes, flowcharts, high-tech equipment and backups. This goes directly against every fibre in the mind of a true artist. Can you imagine Van Goch’s or Rembrand’s studios with huge filing cabinets of alphabetically sorted canvases, with rolodexes of lookup information containing image tags, dates, names etc? Of course not.</p>

<p>So the modern digital photographic artist is faced with a dilemma. Can the passionate, creative expressive mind required to realise ones artistic vision exist in the same head as the logical, mathematical mind required to handle the digital workflow, and business of digital photography? Perhaps, but surely each may only exist to the detriment of the other - with a "half-and-half" mindset, ending up merely "acceptable" in both areas.</p>

<p>Can people “switch” modes at will, from expressive and passionate, to calculating and logical? Psychologically, are there dangers to this switching on and off of these inherently opposing traits?</p>

<p>Interestingly, perhaps coincidentally, most of the people I know who have the ability to switch these "states of mind" at will are women. So why, then, is digital photography such a male dominated passtime?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Rembrandt, now that you mention him, had an elaborate portrait factory going. He had lots of (let's call them) interns doing work in his name, he had people working all day to procure, manipulate, or make pigments and to purify oils. He had to source and stock the surfaces on which he and his crew painted. He had to go out and drum up work, and keep track of paperwork related to commissions and such. He was running a very complex operation, in the scheme of things. He wasn't just going into his kitchen for a cup of coffee, and then sitting down to paint. <br /><br />Sure, computers are complex. But I worked in a photographic studio before there were small-business-affordable computers. Beautiful, artistic work - done by skilled photographers and darkroom specialists - was the order of the day. And there were a bunch of us assistants doing nothing but handling the huge organizational workflow that came in the wake that the creative people left behind. We <em>did</em> have hundreds of boxes of hundreds of untold thousands of negatives, and enormously elaborate filing systems to keep track of them all. We did have complex, lots-of-moving-parts systems to get proofs in front of people and record their opinions on them, and to manage the rest of the process of completing the work. <br /><br />The artists involved knew that there was such a system, but paid other people to operate it for them. A photographer working today can do exactly the same thing, paying an assistant to handle the workflow. And many do. <br /><br />Yes, people can switch modes if what they do doesn't generate enough cash flow to hire someone else to manage their affairs. Just like they have to fill their gas tanks, change the batteries in the smoke detectors, and learn how to buy fresh-looking vegetables ... they can use plug-and-play technology to manage their computer files. They can also pay a consultant <em>once</em> to set them up with a system that handles all of that more or less on cruise control. There are people who specialize in doing just that. <br /><br />Creativity and functional work habits aren't mutually exclusive. Was it Chuck Close who said that inspiration is for amateurs, and that everyone else just gets down to work?<br /><br />As for male/female ... I do believe that I've met (out here in the real world) at least as many actually-producing-photographs (with modern digital tools) women as men. It's possible that your sense of that is being skewed by the social aspects of this site's user demographcs. The women I've met seem more interested in producing work than talking about it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>You covered a lot of territory while making a lot of assumptions. You moved seamlessly from your own limited view of what an artist does and how an artist does it to talking about success. Success is one thing that some people want and others don't care about. Ways to approach art is a completely different consideration.</p>

<p>The notion that art is a passion to create beauty is as anachronistic as the Greeks. There are some aspects of truth in it, but beauty itself is a rather complex issue, and you haven't told us what you think it is? Is beauty a "pretty" landscape or is it the intrigue of a dramatically lit and emotion-bearing face, or is it the wonder that can be found in the back alleys and passageways of an urban ghetto?</p>

<p>Do you think Andy Warhol, for example, was seeking to create beauty? Or maybe he wasn't a legitimate artist.</p>

<p>It is a very limited view that characterizes art as something that doesn't come from or can't be accompanied by mathematical or logical thinking and doesn't come from or can't be accompanied by an organized and technical-oriented workflow. Darkroom work was very demanding of organization, logical thinking, record-keeping, repetition, and yet was an act of creation, just as one can do sitting in front of a modern-day computer. Hey, think about it. People can learn of the birth of a grandchild or the death of a parent on a cell phone just like they could on a 1960s phone just as they could by a Western Union telegram before that. All those processes can lead to laughter or tears.</p>

<p>What do you think non-digital photographers do? Strew years' and years' worth of negatives all over the house or studio? Or do they dare file them and risk losing their status as artist-according-to-Guy? If they file them, god forbid alphabetically or by year, so much the worse.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Guy,</p>

<p>I am sure you are well aware that the human brain is a complex instrument that can analyse and synthesise information and make decisions about what to do with such input in the face of a wide variety of stimuli it receives (This is something that technology cannot yet accomplish under all the situations that the human mind deals with). Handling technical tasks and artistic ones in the same human mind is not the difficult or burdensome task for the human that you seem to present it to be.</p>

<p>Instruments are simply tools in any artistic or other process. As they develop in time, their new functions and capacities are available for transfer into our personal methodology, and we can either accept or reject them based usually upon their perceived utlity. The computer was first proposed in a workable form in the mid nineteenth century, using Boolean algebra, but in the absence of electronic means it had to use mechanical devices to make it work. If it had been useful to artists then it might well have been employed (although it can be noted that nineteenth century French Jacquard weaving did use a form of that Charles Babbage computer model with punched cards or boards). The instruments and their use do not subtract from man's parallel invocation of the artistic approach and they don't require a different mindset than that required to, say, work with the tools of photography or the fairly complex color chemistry of painting.</p>

<p>So I think that laptops and information technology are simply tools in the process that has always existed for the artist in some form or the other. The artistic approach runs parallel to all that and is not dependent upon the use of one technique or the other for its success, although techniques are part of the artist's toolkit if he is creating in a material domain (even the poet requires a manner to transfer his ideas to a readable or audible material product).</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I can understand the why and how of some of the points in the OP, but in any case, <em>The Artist's iPad</em> has a much better ring to it.<br /> The available materials of the medium more or less dictate the output. When it became possible for paint to be put in tubes, some painters chose to go outside rather than stay within the rigidness of their studio, and some of those painters became known as the impressionists.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"The available materials of the medium more or less dictate the output." </em></p>

<p>Phylo, I have lots of trouble with that observation. The artist's mind and perception/conception of the subject matter are for me what essentially determines the output. The rest is simply physical media that allows the result. Impressionism didn't need pigments in tubes or the outside always to allow it to develop. It was a different creative approach (omission of shadows, etc.) to dealing with subject matter. As were Fauvism, Cubism, Expressionism and other approaches.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>That's why I said <em>more or less</em>, and <em>some painters</em>. That different creative approach was only made possible too, because of new developments in the materials of paint. Not only photography, because it happens to be more technical, knows a development of materials, which results in different approaches and output. From film to digital to old processes. Same in the history of painting.<br /> There is the consideration of space also, like mentioned in the OP. It's now possible to store finished pictures on a harddrive. Most painters still need to have quite some physical space available for the paintings they end up with.<br /> There was a painter in Belgium some time ago who burned all of his paintings because he simply couldn't find the funding anymore ( and I guess also no buyers ) to hire the space needed to put the finished paintings in, which were quite large. Also true for photography, if the goal of the photograph is to be a physical framed object, besides a file on a hard-drive or online.<br /> Very real world implications and limitations. But freedoms too.<br /> Here, 'painting' on the iPad :<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OLP4nbAVA4&feature=related</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Imagine using a future iPad as an 8*10 view camera.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Quite often, historically, medium and tools helped dictate artistic approach. Note differences in 8x10 work compared to Polaroids. Artists are very sensitive to their mediums and their tools. It would make complete sense that they are, in part, guided by the differences among those mediums and tools. That is, unless they're too caught up in their heads to consider practicalities and realities and what's right in front of them.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Artists learn techniques and tools in their education and early experiences, and occasionally as new techniques or tools present themselves. Thereafter, having the tools dictate their approach or conceptions is to rest mired in the methodology rather than the message.</p>

<p>Fortunately, most of the more than two dozen artists I have had the privilege to exhibit in recent years have relied more on the latter than the former. Does anyone question a writer's results if he conceives his work via pen and paper rather than a computer and word processor (in considering the creative writing and not the prior research)?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>"The digital workflow is a minefield of processes, flowcharts, high-tech equipment and backups. This goes directly against every fibre in the mind of a true artist"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess I don't know any "true artists" then. The artists I know don't have fibers in their mind. They also tend to think in much clearer terms then the O.P. (original pontificator) of this pointless thread. They learn what they need to learn to get their work done. Technique is just technique and tools are just tools. </p>

[bluphoto]

<p>Sorry guys. Was just spouting some thoughts. Looks like I was way off base.<br>

Feel free to either ignore this pointless thread, or if you prefer, continue to rub my nose in it.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone question a writer's results if he conceives his work via pen and paper rather than a computer and word processor (in considering the creative writing and not the prior research)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The writer may question the results or the difference between working with pen and paper or on a computer. And then some may prefer the rhythm of a typewriter's sound while writing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I guess we know different artists. :-)</p>

<p>Most painters I know say they have a different vision and aesthetic approach when they use oils, when they use watercolors, and when they use pastels.</p>

<p>Most photographers I know say they actually see somewhat differently depending on the camera they are using and the lens they might be using. That would affect what and how they create.</p>

<p>I think tools and medium can have great influence on artistic vision. Where the OP went wrong, IMO, is assuming that one medium or set of tools is artistic and another isn't.</p>

<p>P.S. I believe you even said you utilize black and white differently from color and experience the two with a variety of differences. That would, in part, affect your artistic vision. And it is a significant change in medium. Maybe we're not talking about the same things, I don't know. But given your thoughts on black and white and color I'm surprised to hear you say that medium and tools don't have quite an influence on artistic approach and vision.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I don't think it is a completely thoughtless idea you are try9ingto express Guy. Tools do change how we work and how we think and evaluate the work itself. Kafka thought that about the typewriter ("these new tools are changing the way we think") . Doubtless Michelangelo thought that about Fresco painting techniques and tools. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>With all respect, I think you greatly missed my point and are speaking to a different subject than me. What I said was that acquiring a technique is something that is learned and explored but not dwelt upon greatly thereafter. When I change from color to black and white or vice versa it is true that I use different media with different methods. But that doesn't change my artistic approach and doesn't determine it. Let's say I have one vehicle with a standard gear shift and another with an automatic transmision. My overall approach to driving is not at all changed whether I am in one or the other, just as my mentally determined creative process wouldn't change in going from oils to acryklics. I would have the same artistic approach to composition and content with either of the two technical media.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Technologies do dictate what is your head--literally. I cite you to "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains," by Nicholas Carr, 2010:</p>

<p>"The recent discoveries about neuroplasticity make the essence of the intellect more visible, its steps and boundaries easier to mark. They tell us that the tools man has used to support or extend his nervous system... have shaped the physical structure and workings of the human mind. Their use has strengthened some neural circuits and weakened others, reinforcing certain mental traits while leaving others to fade away." p. 48</p>

<p>"If the experience of modern society shows us anything... it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning.... Sometimes our tools do what we tell them to. Other times, we adapt ourselves to our tools' requirements." p. 47</p>

<p>"The tight bonds we formed with our tools go both ways. Even as our technologies become extensions of ourselves, we become extensions of our technologies... Every tool imposes limitations even as it opens possibilities. The more we use it, the more we mold ourselves to its form and function." p. 209</p>

<p>"Our ways of thinking, perceiving, and acting, we now know, are not entirely determined by our genes. Nor are they entirely determined by our childhood experiences. We change them through the way we live--and, as Nietzsche sensed, through the tools we use. Years before Edward Taub opened his rehabilitation clinic in Alabama, he conducted a famous experiment on a group of right handed violinists.... Playing a violin, a musical tool, had resulted in substantial physical changes in the brain. That was true even for the musicians who had first taken up their instruments as adults.<br>

"When scientists have trained primates and other animals to use simple tools, they've discovered just how profoundly the brain can be influenced by technology.... The tools, so far as the animal's brains were concerned, had become part of their bodies. As the researchers who conducted the experiment with the pliers reported, the monkey's brains began to act 'as if the pliers were now the hand fingers.'"</p>

<p>pp. 31-2.</p>

<p>When Nietzsche changed from writing long hand and started using a typewriter, his writing style changed.</p>

<p>"When a carpenter picks up a hammer, the hammer becomes, so far as the brain is concerned, part of his hand.... The experiments on pliers-wielding monkeys revealed how readily the plastic primate brain can incorporate tools into its sensory maps, making the artificial feel real. In the human brain, that capacity has advanced far beyond what's seen in our closest primate cousins. Our ability to meld with all manner of tools is one of the qualities that most distinguishes us as a species. In combination with our superior cognitive skills, it's what makes us so good at using new technologies. It's also what make us so good at inventing them. Our brains can imagine the mechanics and the benefits of using a new device before that device even exists." p. 208.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Allen, I would maintain that those changes you cite are minimal and far less important than the mental creative process that is mainly independent of tools.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>I think the point of the above is that there is no such thing as an independent "mental creative process," one that has not been influenced by the tools we have used so far, and which will remained unchanged when we adopt new tools.</p>

 

[indraneel]

<p>There is no one truth, in any field of human (or non human) endeavor, that cannot be split into smaller components. As photographers, that is what we record and express.</p>

<p>As for those "<em>who have the ability to switch these "states of mind" at will</em>", the phrase "borderline personality" pops into mind. There may be those who are higher functioning than others.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, this has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.</p>

<p>I do and many others do allow my medium and tools (want them) to change my vision and aesthetic accordingly. You do not. I find many artists have an intimacy with their medium that does demand that change of rhythm Phylo talks about. I was recently talking to a poet friend who said his writing is very much different when on the computer and when taking pen to ink. He feels it in his bones, he said to me. I understood completely. I have more experience with pianos than with cameras and I can tell you I think and feel much differently musically whether I'm on an upright, a console, or a baby grand. Many artists establish a kind of intimacy with their medium not unlike the intimacies established with lovers. I am sure a different lover with different partners. It's as if pianos, cameras, and paints talk back to us.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, the phrase "with all due respect" is an expression used in my country to convey a disagreement made in a friendly manner. It is simply a very polite debating expression, that's all.</p>

<p>The point that Allan and yourself might give some notice too, and it is a nuanced one, is that I have not denied the differences between media and tools in the arts and their effect on the creative process. As one who practices, albeit to lesser degrees than photography, occasional sculpting (fashioned metal art) and painting, I am quite aware of the differences each involves and offers or imposes on my visual expression. Taking the tools argument to extremes, you might even say that there is a very small difference (in comparative terms, between the artist's mental input and the effects of the tools) in using either a PC or a MAC to make Photoshop post exposure adjustments to an image.</p>

<p>I think we should be talking about nuances and not either - or (as in your your expression of "I do not", which is here nothing more than your assumption). The point I tried to make, in regard to the OP, is that the principal consideration in all forms of art is the nature of the creative contribution to a work made by the artist, and for me this happens mainly (I don't believe I ever said exclusively) in the mind of the artist and less by the specifics of his tools. I believe I used an expression "mainly mental process".</p>

<p>I welcome you and Allan to re-read them, to perhaps better understand the weight I was placing on the artist's mental approach and the influence of his tools, once mastered, on determining the uniqueness of his output.</p>

<p>There seems to be a feeling, if I remember the OP, that a laptop or some other tool is going to change the nature of art as a creative process. It might be easier to somehow rewire our minds if that is the hypothesis.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Guy,<br>

Don't be scared off.... My first reaction to your post was also a bit "huh, how many assumptions does one want to make?", but the basic idea behind the question is not a wrong question to wonder and ponder about in any way.<br>

Just one thing about it, the division Computer/Digital versus "rest" is made a bit too hard. As other said, negatives and slides also needed sorting and archiving. Cameras are by design somewhat mathematical tools, as understanding exposure values requires some understanding of figures. It's not a hard-edged either/or, and the "digital revolution" is not as large a contributor as it may seem to changes in photography as an expressive medium (*). Just saying because of the frequent notion how digital imaging would ruin the trade - which I severly doubt is the case.</p>

<p>In my view, people do not swich modes between one state of mind and the other. There actually aren't two states. None of us is completely cut off from emotional responses and fully logical-rational, as nobody is completely illogical and fully driven by emotional responses. It's an endless gradient between the two.<br>

You learn your tools, and you sharpen your vision. Together they make your work stand out (or not) - you need both elements. For any art form I can think off.<br>

As for the difference mathematical mind versus the creative mind, Mondriaan serves nicely to show they are not so mutually exclusive, I think.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I think Allen and I are quite capable of reading and understanding you and having a clear and distinct difference of opinion from you. As I see it, we disagree. I think I quite understand the weight you place on the mental approach of the artist, the creative aspect which you often assert. I place much more weight on nuts and bolts and groundedness, physical processes, and ties to Earth than you do. It has come up again and again. I think a lot of art is work, mundane, and about very practical decisions. It is those practical decisions, those physical processes, that are used to create. Mental states don't create anything. Mental states drive physical acts. Hell, mental states <em>are</em> physical acts.</p>

<p>The difference is clear to me. Allen and I think that mediums and tools have great influence and great potential for influence over an artist's aesthetics. You started out by saying that influence is much less a factor than the artists mental approach.</p>

<p>I'm less clear what you're saying now as you try to assert that there's little difference between our positions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Over the course of several threads now, there seems to be a desire on the part of some to say that we're all really saying and thinking the same thing. That all this is a matter of misunderstanding, not reading each other carefully, or mere semantics. I say nuts to that. I think there are radical differences in ideas, methods, and tone. Those differences are what stimulate me. The kumbaya stuff (we're all in agreement) feels like an appeasement mechanism and a conciliatory waste of time.</p>