The "Craft" debate
Again and again, the digital/analogue disussion crops up on APUG. The latest involves a discussion on the idea of craft. This has come up before and I'm sure I have addressed it in APUG and on this blog. But for the thick minds that seem to infest so much of the online world (at least the online world I live in, here again is another analogy that describes the difference: Note that I am not questioning the digital medium as an Art form. I am pointing out a difference in the two mediums, (Digital imaging and Photography). I feel there is a significant difference in the way the medium is exercised. The difference is most apparent in the use or application of craft.
I will try to describe the difference through analogy:
I work in several mediums, photography being one of them (The primary). I also work as a cabinet maker, and use the tools and materials that make up the Art of woodworking. The term can describe a broad spectrum of craft/aesthetic influences and capabilities. Wood as a material is very diversified. In some ways it is not unlike sensitized emulsion in its ability to display a range of characteristics that ultimately affect the final work, and influence the sensibility of the Artist in determining the direction of the final work.
Characteristics influencing creative and functional decisions include: Hardness, machining capabilities, paintability, stainability, weather resistance, stability, etc. Now imagine a woodworking-like photoshop tool that works kind of like this:
The User inputs all requirements related to the final piece. These could include characteristics like functionality-Use, (this could include non functionality/display only, or any use in between), color, finish, wear resistance, etc.
The user then creates an image of the piece using software driven drawing tools, (Using the algorithms inherent in the software.) Creation is initiated when the “Enter” button is hit. The software evaluates the match between the requirements and the design and determines the wood (emulsion) right for the job. Further, the software is attached to a machining tool that performs all the cutting, sanding, milling, routing, gluing, etc.
Maybe this machine exists today, I suspect it probably does.
So the User in this example can create a work of Art using a tool that calls on algorithms to supplant human knowledge.(or at least the knowledge of the User in this example). It effectively negates the craft that necessitates the need to understand the materials. It also eliminates any of the tools required to actually create the physical piece.
Is the user in this example a cabinet maker? Is he/she an Artist? Are the processes of decision and creation similar enough to traditional cabinet making to justify a complete blurring of the two approaches? Should the public, society, the culture itself lose or become ignorant of such differences?
In my opinion, the user in this example could very well be an Artist. The work created can be Art. But, the user is not a cabinet maker. The process is not the same as cabinet making and should not be referred as such. This analogy can be applied to the Digital vs analogue debate.
I will try to describe the difference through analogy:
I work in several mediums, photography being one of them (The primary). I also work as a cabinet maker, and use the tools and materials that make up the Art of woodworking. The term can describe a broad spectrum of craft/aesthetic influences and capabilities. Wood as a material is very diversified. In some ways it is not unlike sensitized emulsion in its ability to display a range of characteristics that ultimately affect the final work, and influence the sensibility of the Artist in determining the direction of the final work.
Characteristics influencing creative and functional decisions include: Hardness, machining capabilities, paintability, stainability, weather resistance, stability, etc. Now imagine a woodworking-like photoshop tool that works kind of like this:
The User inputs all requirements related to the final piece. These could include characteristics like functionality-Use, (this could include non functionality/display only, or any use in between), color, finish, wear resistance, etc.
The user then creates an image of the piece using software driven drawing tools, (Using the algorithms inherent in the software.) Creation is initiated when the “Enter” button is hit. The software evaluates the match between the requirements and the design and determines the wood (emulsion) right for the job. Further, the software is attached to a machining tool that performs all the cutting, sanding, milling, routing, gluing, etc.
Maybe this machine exists today, I suspect it probably does.
So the User in this example can create a work of Art using a tool that calls on algorithms to supplant human knowledge.(or at least the knowledge of the User in this example). It effectively negates the craft that necessitates the need to understand the materials. It also eliminates any of the tools required to actually create the physical piece.
Is the user in this example a cabinet maker? Is he/she an Artist? Are the processes of decision and creation similar enough to traditional cabinet making to justify a complete blurring of the two approaches? Should the public, society, the culture itself lose or become ignorant of such differences?
In my opinion, the user in this example could very well be an Artist. The work created can be Art. But, the user is not a cabinet maker. The process is not the same as cabinet making and should not be referred as such. This analogy can be applied to the Digital vs analogue debate.
