| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.23.40.152 |
Hockney on creating art in the digital age: On using technology to create art, he said: "I used to think watercolour was quite fast, faster say than oil so you could capture fleeting effects. "I now find the iPad is faster than anything." Hockney creates new pictures on his tablet computer every day - sending some to galleries, and others to friends. He said the device allowed him to condense "four or five hours' work into 30 seconds". | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.159.145.243 |
I gotta Ipad now! I think that is fair enough - having seen the results of Hockney's iPaddery in the Radio Times - for pictorial art, images etc. But it is a different debate regarding books, I feel. Having read a book on my Ipad (fair enough for non-fiction but still not possessing the enrichment provided by reading a traditional book), I'm even more entrenched in my earlier views about Ebooks. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.166.73 |
What digital writing/painting/photography does tend to do away with is 'the original'. If Leonardo had created the Mona Lisa on an iPad, it could hang simultaneously in the Louvre and the Salford Gallery (and pretty much everywhere else in between.) But there's something about the physical artefact... I've never stood before the Mona Lisa, but one day I'd love to- to see the original of that famous image. There's a difference between the creative tools used and the form the art takes, though. Most of us, I'm willing to bet, (although I know not all) write directly onto computer. I know I do. It's much faster for me than writing longhand and lends itself much more readily to editing. But there'll never be an auction when I croak for the 'original MS' of Tide of Souls or The Faceless, because there isn't one. So in a way, what Hockney's doing is just a version of what writers have been doing for years. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 77.98.13.43 |
Standing in front of the Mona Lisa, after I got through the inital gosh wow - here I am - aren't my feet sore after wandering through the Louvre (the place is like a moonbase!) - my next thought was how small it was. Really teeny tiny. I tried out a painting app on my iPad but it seems to be faulty - the pictures look rubbish. I've had similar issues with the music apps. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.179.35.191 |
Stephen - you beat me to the 'really tiny' observation! My other main recollection of the Louvre is that even though it's huge and full of marvels it seems there's a continual stream of people from the entrance all the way to the Mona Lisa and then to the exit, as if those folk only wanted to see the one painting. Madness. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.23.40.152 |
It's 30" x 20". That's not a bad size. But you can get bigger pictures at Tescos for less money. Every little helps. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.179.35.191 |
:-) it must be that the Mona Lisa is larger in my mind than in real life. It's such a big picture in many ways. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.23.40.152 |
A bit like actors. Al Pacino is only 3 foot 5, you know. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Simon, it's not really true that Hockney is just doing what authors already do, since the difference between writing a novel on a computer keyboard and writing it on a typewriter is not huge: it's essentially the same process. The difference between 'painting' with a computer programme and painting with paints is huge: it's a profoundly different process, though that doesn't mean that computer artwork is not valid (and Hockney's computer-painted landscapes are pretty good I think). It's like the difference between playing a guitar and using a digital sequencer to create a similar sound – would you say that difference is not significant? With writing, a parallel distinction is between a handwritten and a typed MS. The former is pretty rare these days and was quite rare even a generation ago (I mean a human generation, not a computer generation, which is about three weeks). I usually write better when I compose longhand and then revise while typing up than when I compose on-screen – there is even a correlation in terms of editorial and critical responses to my work. But using a computer from the outset saves so much time it's hard to stick to writing longhand. | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 77.98.13.43 |
I've used all sorts of devices for writing reviews - Alphasmart, PC, iPad, Chromebook - but at the moment I'm back to longhand. I bought a pack of yellow Silvine exercise books, which trigger an almost Pavlovian response, as if I'm back at school in English class, and the teacher is looking over my shoulder to see how I'm doing. It feels rather like driving down a road and watching it fall into place in front of me, whereas on the computer I sit back and have to build it consciously from the parts. Not sure I could write anything longer than a review by hand, though. My hands start to seize up after an hour or so of longhand, for one thing, whereas on the PC I can type for days on end since switching to the Dvorak layout. |