There are more thoughts that I wanted to add to the "Adobe's hostages" discussion....
In pre-digital traditional media, artists regularly use tools that were never meant for art.
My wife is an art teacher and an occasional artist, and she's as likely to get things for
her work from a hardware store as an art supply shop. Given budget limitations, she
routinely takes common household items to her classroom.
In the allegedly "innovative" world of digital art, by contrast, it seems rare to find
artists who step beyond the limits of software that has been formally designated
as being aimed specifically at graphics. There are far too many pixel-pushers who
have their whole mental universe bounded by Adobe. The situation drips with irony,
as the most "creative" people, in this incredibly "creative" and "fluid" electronic
environment, refuse to ask the most elementary questions that painters and sculptors
routinely examine in every project they work on.
I've mentioned before on this list the programming language....
http://www.basic256.org/index_en
....that I use to produce my stuff:
http://pinterest.com/joelkahn/digital-art/
I've discussed my work with many people in a variety of settings, and I stress as much
as I can that the toolbox called BASIC-256 was *never* designed for any "serious"
artwork; it's graphics functions (like the rest of the language) are merely aimed at
providing young novice programmers with means to experiment. But it is still tough to
get this kind of message across.
Who has further thoughts in this area?
Joel
###
To unsubscribe from the schoolforge-discuss mailing list:
Send an e-mail message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with no subject
and a body of "unsubscribe schoolforge-discuss"