Graphic Design and the Computer

With programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator becoming so commonplace in recent days, much of the work within the graphic design field has moved to the digital realm, with most if not all of the content in many graphic design works being generated solely within the computer. There is no doubt that computer art technologies have been a plus within many areas in the field, allowing for the much faster and more accurate execution of various tasks. And perhaps the ability to explore various ideas in short spaces of time has allowed for possibilities within the graphic design field that did not exist before computers became an everyday tool. However, I cannot help but to think that many graphic designers of today have come to limit themselves to the computer, not even allowing for more traditionally created elements to be an option. Handcrafted design has become a true rarity, which is quite unfortunate, as such design can often make much more powerful statements than the overly complicated vector designs which seem to abound in the works of many graphic artists today.

Perhaps what is even more disconcerting is the idea of graphic design that exists within the minds of those not involved in creative fields such as the arts and design. At least from my own personal experience and observation, many such people seem to think that graphic design is only done within the realms of the computer. In other words, to them, graphic design = computer art. Given how much graphic design work is done digitally today, this surely is not surprising. Yet, I find it somewhat sad. The basic design principles used by all graphic designers today have existed for countless years before the advent of the computer, and while such principles can be learned through a computer interface, they probably shouldn’t. In a learning experience, I could only imagine that having to deal with the computer interface would detract from the creative process—and this must be the consensus among most institutions that teach design, as almost every beginning design course teaches exclusively through the use of traditional art-making methods.

*****

In relation to the above, I would like to share a little bit of information about an excellent book that I came across just quite recently. Authored by Chen Design Associates, the book Fingerprint: The Art of Using Hand-Made Elements in Graphic Design is a beautiful collection of examples of graphic design works that are primarily crafted through the use of traditional art-making techniques. The concept of the book is quite in line with my sentiments concerning graphic design and the computer, as it seriously takes into question whether or not the advancements of computer technologies have actually led to the creation of better design work. Many of the examples shown within the collection are truly breathtaking and utterly amazing, and perhaps they seem even more so because of the massive amounts of fancy vector images that we must digest in our day-to-day lives. (This is not to say that I dislike vector-based artwork or that I think that such works are worthless. On the contrary, I often find these types of works amazing and breath-taking as well. However, the creators of many such works often seem to forget that there are other options open—options which may, in fact, better suit their work.)

In the introduction to Fingerprint, Josh Chen writes, “Fingerprint is a reminder that in this day and age of e-gadgets, i-things, and all things high-tech and electronic, there remain some very reliable, non-high-tech tools that can help design reconnect with its audience.” Perhaps I am reading into this statement a little too much, but Chen seems to suggest that design, because of its recent obsession with the computer, has come to distance itself from its audience. As the designer has become more and more disconnected from his or her own creative process through the extensive use of the computer, the work itself has become weaker and less communicative. However, by showing recent examples of graphic design that take handmade elements to be the primary component, Chen proposes that “our infatuation with technology is over,” suggesting that an “exciting new revolution” in graphic design is on the horizon.

I highly recommend Fingerprint to anybody even remotely interested in issues of design. In addition to the full-color reproductions of many beautiful design works, also included are a few short essays by various graphic designers, which make for some good reading. The book should make a nice addition to the coffee table.

So Then, Are Video Games Art? What Exactly is ‘Art’?

In my previous post, I ended by touching upon the question of whether or not video games can or should be considered art. And in all honesty, I really do not have an answer, or even an argument for or against the notion. However, after examining various arguments made by several Internet writers, both scholarly and not, I have observed that, in the end, one’s view toward the issue comes down to what one’s definition of ‘art’ exactly is. In the following post, I will not be making an argument for or against considering video games as art. Rather, I will be explaining from my own observation how one’s definition of art becomes a defining factor in such an argument.

From browsing around the Internet, it seems that most arguments in support of considering video games as art have an extremely wide view toward what ‘art’ is. Such arguments tend to equate ‘art’ with ‘the arts’—a term that is often interchangeably used with ‘the humanities,’ which encompasses everything from philosophy to literature to performing arts to the fine arts, all of which are concerned with human thought and culture. These arguments consider novels and cinematic film to be ‘art,’ and thus attempt to justify video games as art. For example, in Video Games as Art, Internet writer clysm notes the ways in which video games share many structural elements with film and literature. This writer takes note of how video games often incorporate narratives, music, and elements of the visual arts, combining them together to form a ‘unique hybrid’ of existing art forms, and thus resulting in an almost entirely new art form. I think that arguments such as this one are actually quite plausible, but only under the assumption that ‘art’ is the same as ‘the arts.’ However, while many people like to equate ‘art’ and ‘the arts,’ many others do not consider them to be one in the same.

Another interesting essay I came across in regards to the plausibility of video games as art, which I actually linked to in my previous post, is an essay written for the online journal Contemporary Aesthetics, a journal sponsored by the Rhode Island School of Design. For the most part, theorist Aaron Smuts seems to share the sentiment of those that I have mentioned above as to the definition of art, but he brings up another interesting point that I think is worthy of consideration. Point being that many museums and prestigious art programs have begun to incorporate video games and related subject matter into their exhibitions and curriculum. This point is interesting because many museums and art schools do not support the idea that ‘art’ is the same thing as ‘the arts.’ Such institutions often put great emphasis on the fine arts and more often than not the conceptual arts, and thus the fact that these institutions accept video games as a valid medium for art-making process becomes an interesting component of the argument for video games as a form of art.

However, I do not think that just because prestigious art institutions accept video game theory and technology as valid sources for art-making that one should assume that these same institutions would consider video games themselves, or video games in general, to be art. Many people within the art world equate the definition of ‘art’ with that of ‘conceptual art,’ which emphasizes the means and process of art-making as well as the ideas and concepts that go into a piece of art. Thus, many such people would resist the notion of considering video games as art.

So again, within the argument of whether or not video games should be considered art, it is my view that the position of each person will differ depending on what his or her own definition of ‘art’ is. I myself am not even sure what my definition of art is, as I have been exposed to so many differing and even opposing definitions in the past couple of years. However, upon creating this blog, I have carefully considered the fact that many people do have differing definitions for art, and that is why I have stated that I will be exploring not only art but also other creative activities when making my arguments in this blog. That is, I do not want to limit myself to any one definition of art that will prevent me from examining various types of creative projects. And although I have not yet established a clear definition of art for myself, it is still interesting to think about whether or not video games are a valid art form, as it is evident that the development of video game technology in the recent couple of decades has brought about various opposing schools of thought in relation to art. Therefore, not only has recent technology had a drastic effect on art itself, but it has also affected art theory in more ways than meets the eye.

ART + technology = Interactive Media Art = Video Game?

As the first example of the technology’s effect on the possibilities of art, I would like to examine a relatively new and somewhat obscure ‘video game’ entitled Electroplankton.

Electroplankton, released on the Nintendo DS in 2005 in Japan, is not the typical, every-day video game. In fact, when looking at various reviews and impressions on the Internet, it seems that most would even hesitate to call it a video game, due to there being no set goal toward which the ‘player’ aims. Time limits and high scores simply do not exist, nor does any sort of save function. The genre of Electroplankton is officially labeled as ‘media art,’ and in an interview published on the official website, the creator refuses to call it a ‘game.’ So then, what is it that the user does with Electroplankton? Put simply, the user is given the opportunity to interact with animated, electric ‘plankton’ through the Nintendo DS’s touch-screen interface and microphone function, creating a visual and musical experience that becomes solely his or her own. In all, the user is given a choice of ten different interfaces to manipulate, each consisting of differing sounds and visuals. Because the user is limited to interacting with one of the ten interfaces at a time, some would argue that the game actually gives a limited interactive experience. However, it is up to the user how he or she would like to manipulate each of the interfaces, and is highly unlikely that any two experiences with each interface would end up being identical.

An in-'game' screen capture from Electroplankton.

Developed by the Japanese interactive media and installation artist, Iwai Toshio, Electroplankton, in fact, shares many similarities with interactive, digital media installations of the last few decades, embracing the idea of ‘response’ becoming a primary medium of the work. In an essay entitled Responsive Environments, new media artist Myron W. Krueger suggests the advent of a “new art medium based on commitment to real-time interaction between men and machines”—a medium that is comprised of “sensing, display and control systems.” While a traditional painting can be considered a completed work of art without the presence of an audience, artworks that take audience response as a primary medium simply cannot exist, or at the very least cannot be complete, without the interaction of the audience. This is very much the case with Electroplankton. Without the interaction of the player through the Nintendo DS interface, it remains static and unchanging, thus failing to become complete. (Interestingly, however, Electroplankton actually has what is called an ‘audience mode,’ which allows the player to simply watch and listen to a continuous musical performance as programmed into the software. However, I have disregarded this mode in this posting, as I believe it should be considered as a completely separate work from the main ‘performance mode’ as described above.)

A video demonstrating some of the interactive plankton interfaces from Electroplankton.

Electroplankton is obviously a great example of how new technologies have allowed for new and innovative ways of displaying creativity. Not only does the media art piece allow for an interactive art experience that is unique to each member of the audience, as do many installation and Internet-based works, but it also allows one to do so on a commercially successful gaming system, which adds a new layer of experience. Whereas other such experiences must be experienced within a gallery or a location with an Internet connection, Electroplankton can be experienced virtually anywhere. In addition, I would assume that most users would begin their experience expecting to be playing a ‘video game’ rather than viewing and interacting with an art piece. This could both, enhance the experience or detract from the experience, depending on whether the player readily accepts the ephemeral 'gameplay' of Electroplankton, which cannot be saved. The fact that it is packaged and sold as a video game definitely affects the way that people view the piece, and I find it to be one of the more interesting new media art pieces in recent history, despite its relative obscurity.

In a sense, Electroplankton, despite the artist’s refusal to call it a game, blurs the line between interactive media art and video games. And in actuality, it may be more correct to say that it further blurs this line, as some people would already argue that video games, or at least some video games, should be considered a form of art. Such arguments are quite interesting, and often times these arguments depend on what exactly one’s interpretation of ‘art’ is. Is art simply something that has aesthetic value, or must it have conceptual value as well? Must it be communicating something to be considered art? However, this discussion has another time and place, and perhaps I will come back and visit this idea at another time, as I believe that it is quite relevant to the main topic of this blog.

ART ± technology + Introduction.

Welcome to ART ± technology. In this blog, I will be examining specific examples of artworks and other creative projects from out in the world, analyzing how the advent of new technologies and media has affected the creative processes of various artists. While this blog will examine the relationships that exist between art and technology, it will not necessarily be a blog about new media theory, at least in the direct sense. That is to say, new media theory addresses a wide range of issues, including issues of networking and communication, which may or may not be covered in this blog. Interestingly, the examples of artworks and creative projects covered in this blog will not always be those that have been executed through new technological means, which leads me to a pivotal argument that I anticipate to be touching on throughout many of my posts.

While the advent of new media technologies within the last century and particularly the last couple of decades has certainly opened up the doors to many new possibilities within the arts, I would also argue that many artists and creators have started to limit themselves to such technologies, thus limiting their creative processes. Perhaps for many of these artists and creators, such a situation is inevitable, as there is no doubt that artistic works created through new technologies have become the norm in today’s society—or perhaps even what is expected by today’s society. However, I think that this idea of technology limiting creativity is one that many people today overlook. Many people are often so absorbed in the latest and greatest thing, thus sometimes forgetting that more traditional means can achieve their purposes—and perhaps even in a more effective way.

In an essay entitled New Media from Borges to HTML, new media theorist Lev Manovich proposes eight propositions that describe new media and technology. In one of these propositions, Manovich describes new media as a “faster execution of algorithms previously executed manually or through other technologies.” In discussing this point, Manovich mentions the example of the composite photograph. In the nineteenth century, soon after the invention of photography, many photographers were creating “combination prints” which were made by putting together multiple photographs. (Example shown below.) This is obviously the traditional version of ‘Photoshopping.’ What used to take hours upon hours to do in the nineteenth century can now be done in a much shorter time period with just a few clicks of the mouse in Photoshop. However, while Manovich mentions that new technologies allow for faster ways of executing various processes, nowhere in his essay does he mention that new media provides for better ways of doing so. Traditional means of making art will always have their time and place, and it is my belief that some people miss out on this opportunity by being too caught up in the latest and greatest technology.

Henry Peach Robinson's Fading Away, 1858. A combination print made up of multiple photographs.

Although I have spent the majority of this post discussing how I believe artists often limit themselves to new technologies, this argument is not even half of what I intend to be exploring in this blog. I have simply touched upon that idea in detail as it is probably the one that would be most foreign or unfamiliar to most readers (if I ever get an audience). I will certainly also be exploring the many interesting ways in which new technology has enhanced the art-making process, as there truly are countless examples of such cases. And perhaps my first one or two posts will be in this category. In addition, I will probably throw in numerous other arguments and observations in various posts, in accordance to the subject matter that I am discussing, thus making the blog into an all-around journal about the relationships between art and technology.

Stay tuned, and see you next post.