Hi all,
Timely question --
I will stand in support of the 'digital mark.' It is, as you say, critically
different from the mark made with vine charcoal or a loaded brush, and it’s
a difference with implications to say the least. But the question is whether
this works against the project of drawing. Like others on this great list I
see drawing as a vitally synthetic, generative operation of the engaged
conscious mind, such that it should be the natural first point of departure
for serious contemplation, in practice, on such sets of implications.
If the original question was about the relative value we ascribe to marks,
then I will say that I think we could do with a little less of the sacred,
which in any case is not something easily identified, nor executed.
Finally, isn’t the idea of a digital ‘mark’ merely analogical, in any case?
David Griffin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Down" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: The digital mark
Hi All,
I think that part of the issue is indeed a kind anonymity of the mark which
derives from the mediation between the drawing surface (tablet or mouse-pad)
and the drawing itself (screen) and any physical output (print). This is
something that actually appeals to me quite a bit because my own work hovers
at an intersection between drawing, print, photo and painting and which
seems like a natural place for digital imaging.
Chris Down
________________________________________
From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen Scalway
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 June 2010 06:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The digital mark
James, Nathan
Perhaps another issue is that one is using a box of marks pre-made by a
software engineer; the pre-madeness may be disconcerting but how the marks
are used may be more important, when it comes to questions of 'value'
(itself an ambiguous term here).
I think with 'the sacred' that we're in the territory concerning 'aura'
evoked by Benjamin in his 1936 essay 'The Work of Art in The Age of
Mechanical Reproduction'.
Helen Scalway
________________________________
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:32:07 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The digital mark
To: [log in to unmask]
Hi James / Nathan
I feel that one of the problems with the digital mark is that it lacks
physicality. On screen it is ungraspable and once printed off it becomes
something different altogether. I think that it needs to be viewed within
that context, as something which is not in competition with what we
historically understand as markmaking.
Fiona Robinson
On 15 Jun 2010, at 09:18, Nathan Chenery wrote:
Hi James,
I think you bring up the main problem with digital mark and that's the
sacred, how could it be? I tend to think of things being sacred that are
earthy, I see a real spirituality in art. In saying this I have no objection
to Digital art but as with all mediums it sits in a different box, it will
never be sacred. One issue is the ease of reproduction and the manner in
which it is viewed by the world. It is hard to connect with something on a
screen and print off's also don't seem to live up to the 'original'.
It would seem the problem is dissemination of a digital image and staying
true to it's form, but then what is it's form? when it is so fluid. Thinking
of that have you read Bauman's - Liquid Modernity?
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
Nathan Chenery
www.nathanchenery.co.uk<http://www.nathanchenery.co.uk/>
www.revolving-gallery.com<http://www.revolving-gallery.com/>
www.twitter.com/nathanchenery<http://www.twitter.com/nathanchenery>
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, james horn
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi all,
This is an area of research I've been looking into recently and I was
wondering if any of you have any opinions on this (feel free to mail me
personally if you'd like to avoid a discussion with the whole list...)
The immediacy of the drawn, painted or sculpted mark is an act or great
power. As an expression of an artists’s intent, it makes real what is until
that point a mere concept, an idea, without being. Yet once that mark is
placed, the artwork is tangible and holds a meaning to both artist and
viewer.
These marks are refined and collected into the final work and this has a
value, both artistically and financially. This is the creation of art.
Yet place those marks with a mouse, graphics tablet or touchscreen and their
value is degraded. What was a primal, expressive act, becomes a fad, a
gimmick, a lesser action. Where is the sacred in the digital mark? What is
it's value?
It would be great to hear people's opinions on the matter, both positive and
negative.
Kind regards and thanks,
James Horn
Senior Research Artist
FreeStyleGames Ltd
Fiona Robinson
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://www.fionarobinson.com<http://www.fionarobinson.com/>
http://fionarobinsonwritings.wordpress.com<http://fionarobinsonwritings.wordpress.com/>/
________________________________
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail – Free. Sign-up
now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/>
|