Views on computer art

The study and history of computer art is as intellectually stimulating as it is mind-boggling. It serves as both the natural progression of man’s intimacy with nature’s forces to some, and as an oxymoron to others.

The term “computer art” is not even in the vocabularies of some “cultured” individuals. This art form has long been the subject of controversy; technologists do not view it as true computing, and artists do not view it as true art.

Why the topic of computer art is a controversy, however, eludes my understanding. For an artist to deem another’s work inconsistent with the boundaries of art — of which there are none, whatsoever — is incredibly hypocritical. If a post-modern artist refuses to accept algorithmic art as such, then why should anyone accept his painting of a blue box, for example, as art?

The obvious concern for such naysayers is the use of computer as a technological medium by which to express this form of “art.” These individuals assert that the use of technology in art is sacrilegious. However, these individuals fail to realize that the use of technology in art is ubiquitous.

Quite frankly, there has never been a form of artistic expression devoid of technology. Ancient humans created cave paintings by devising a clever way of extracting color from rocks. Renaissance artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are heralded for their masterful use of the paintbrush, — another technological device. Therefore, to claim the use of technology invalidates a work as art is to blatantly ignore art history itself.

Art historians are not ignorant about the intricacies of their field. So there must be an underlying, subliminal reason for their vehement attitude some display towards computer art.