COMPUTERS -- JUST ANOTHER MEDIUM
Robert Stanley

Computer art is breaking the surface of the already swirling currents of the art world.   Symposia held in 1983 proclaimed that computer art is:
        - too tough to make (have to be a programmer or
           tech wizard)
        - too commercially slick
        - too crude
Dismissing the apparent self-contradictions in these statements, it can still be said that much of the current thinking about computer art misses several points:
        - Computer art is simply another medium, and as such
            shares the difficulties, limitations, and special
            qualities that go along with working in any
            medium.
        - The real question is the Art of the thing, not the 
            technology. 

The following quotations represent some of the shortcomings in thought about computer art.  The quotations come from two symposia: "The Symposium on Computer Art" (Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery and the University of Nebraska), and "The State of the Arts Symposium" (Michigan State University).  These symposia were reported in, and the quotations come from, "The New Art Examiner," Summer 1983.

"To keep pace with the "high-tech" title of the symposium, masters of computer graphics and wizards of laser technology made their magical presentations in the finest showman tradition, promising the audience that these were the art forms of the future.  Their demonstrations, however, suggest that it will be a long time before this technology achieves the esthetic sophistication of fine art.  Before that happens, artists will be reduced to programmers and technicians.  Since home computers have crude and limited graphic capabilities, equipment which can produce a well-defined image is probable too costly for the individual artist.  The direct relationship of mind, eye, hand, and surface available through traditional media far surpasses anything currently available in electronics.  Computer graphics and laser drawing may already find application in "commercial" art; there must be extensive refinement before they will be acceptable in the 'fine' arts."
           from MSU "The State of the Arts Symposium"
           Dolores S. Slowinski, Michigan editor, "NAE"

"The state of the art has not been created for artists.  The artists work with the crumbs of the technology."
        Robert Mallary, Sculpture Department, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

"For masterpieces in computer art to occur, we must await the development of the proper software."
    Jeffrey Bangert,  Graphics Academic Computing Center, University of Kansas-Lawrence

"One of the questions posed by Jaqueline Lipsky, the director of the conference, was whether it was possible for 'a computer program to incorporate the quirks and flashes of inspiration that go into masterpieces.'" 
                From "The Symposium on Computer Art" 

Having attended the National Computer Graphics Association Conference in June, 1983, I can see how such statements might be made.  Looking at $1,500,000 pieces of equipment and the highly commercial creations of such graphic computers, it would be easy to agree with all that was said at the symposia quoted above.  It would also be quite wrong.

Personal experiences tell me these statements are not accurate.  For years I have been exhibiting paintings, drawings, and prints in juried competitions and galleries.  I'm currently represented by the Joy Horwich Gallery in Chicago.  Yet, I was succumbing to the guilt of being "computer illiterate."  So, in February of 1983 I took an introduction to computers course at a local high school.  Sandwiched into the midst of learning about how to run the computer (Apple II+), about evaluating software, and a smidgeon of BASIC-- was one week of graphics.  With this limited knowledge, I began to work on making computer art.  

At the time, I didn't know it, but on reflection I see now that I was simply beginning to learn a new medium.  This new medium was not so different from printmaking.  Simplistic effects come quickly.  The media can be crude, but so is engraving on zinc plates.  Yet, no one claims "there must be extensive refinement before (it) will be acceptable in the 'fine' arts."  Just as with printmaking, as I progressed with the computer I discovered more and more power in the medium.  It is something like going from engraving to photomechanical or color viscosity intaglio.  In learning this new medium, I spent many hours (probably about 60) just to begin to get the feel of it.  But then, many hours must be spent in learning any media.  The medium I was using, by the way was a "home" computer:  first an Apple II+, and then an Apple IIe.  While I was learning, I did not have my own computer.  I used the ones available to students and faculty at Oakton Community College in DesPlaines, Illinois.  When I saw that this medium could work for me, I did buy my own computer.  As I began to explore, I learned another way in which the computer is similar to other media.  This lesson related to the "crudity" of the computer medium.

In the beginning, I was trying to use the computer to make things which looked like my acrylic paintings.  I figured this would be a fast way to do quick color sketches or to try revisions when some color or shape wasn't working in a painting.  It was very aggravating, then, when the graphics capabilities of the computer were so constraining.  Mixing colors is somewhat complicated and limited in the BASIC language, and strange and apparently unpredictable interference patterns come up even in commercial, "user-friendly" graphics programs.  Drawing an orange line next to a green area may produce a yellow edge!  That I now know this quirk shows that these accidents are not entirely unpredictable.  At the time, however, I was making a mistake akin to trying to make transparent watercolors look like saturated acrylics.  This is an important point.  Each medium must be treated according to its own strengths and weaknesses.  Watercolor, for example is "unpredictable" to a degree also.  We learn how to work with these "crudities" to produce good watercolors.  We also "incorporate the quirks and flashes of inspiration" into the development of the work.  The same thing happened with my new medium.  Once I learned not to try to imitate my paintings and not to try to produce slick works (as seen, for example, in TV logos and graphics), I was free to make art.

The making of art, to me, includes more than just "what you see is what you see."  It also includes more than a statement about self and/or society.  I believe that my statement is expressed by and molded by the medium.  In different media, the same strong statement will be revealed in different ways.  Thus, although the computer was different from my acrylic medium, I found I could use its quirks to express my usual concepts with clarity.  My paintings deal with the edges of perception, and how meaningfulness appears only vaguely at these edges.  In the paintings, I can achieve this concept through hue variation but tonal similarity at shape borders.  With the personal computer, such subtlety is nearly impossible.  Hues are limited and tonal values not very flexible.  Yet, by respecting the medium I can make it work for me in other ways.  For example, those interference lines mentioned before make quite nice separators between color areas that I want to both link and separate simultaneously.

One final point:  It seems much of the effort in computer development and use is to make "paint systems" available to artist.  With such a setup the artist can choose between "oil paint," "airbrush," or "watercolor."  "Paint pots," "palettes," and various size "brushes" are also available.  This trend reminds me of movies trying to be books or TV trying to be radio.  The new media should not ape the old.  Most of the critical comments from the symposia seem to be based on this false assumption.  These remarks reveal that computers, even home computers, are not seen for what they are: simply new media.  Artists learned how to paint in oils without doing what they did when painting in egg tempera.  Similarly, acrylics are worked differently than oils, photo etching differently than engraving-- any new medium requires a different approach.  Computers, like other media, will not replace other media.  Computers are just another medium.  If anything is to be done with the medium of computer, it waits not on the development of cheaper, less crude, or less difficult computers.  Computers need only artists.