Elsevier

Computers & Graphics

Volume 23, Issue 3, 1 June 1999, Pages 419-427
Computers & Graphics

Technical Section
Computer graphics for art creation: cultural biases against its acceptance in education

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0097-8493(99)00049-7Get rights and content

Abstract

The use of computer graphics in creating art has been an issue of hot debate among the fine art community. Revolution in new technologies allows the artists to use computer graphics to create art in more innovative ways. Yet this new form of art is so different from traditional mainstream art that it is not well accepted by conservative artists. This study examines the cultural biases against the acceptance of computer graphics in art education. A survey was conducted among high school students in the United States to assess the effects of cultural biases, aesthetics, and software usability on the acceptance of computer art. Results indicate that enhancing software usability would be one means to overcome cultural biases against the acceptance of computer graphics in art education.

Introduction

The debate may have quieted but the bias yet exists, computer art has simply not yet matured to the point of being fully accepted as a fine art form [1]. Acknowledging that the technology enabling computer art has matured dramatically, we note that computer graphics today are as common place as are televisions or radios. Indeed, computer images are used in myriad ways to sell, engage, and otherwise entice and entertain us [2]. We use icons on our computers to copy, sort, and manage our files. We generate greeting cards with endearing images from computerized vending machines or on our own personal computers (See Fig. 1 for an example). Different elements, such as photos and historical images, from different sources are brought together in a coherent piece on the computer [3], [4], [5]. It is a rare advertising firm that does not have multiple computers to be used in developing slick graphics for advertising campaigns [6]. Computer graphics is used in the development of movies [7] and medical imaging [8], [9]. With the help of computer technology, three-dimensional stochastic cloth objects can be animated [10]. But all of this may detract from rather than support the view of a computer as an accessible fine art medium. Perceptions are such that as a business tool one is accustomed to finding computers in the workplace; similarly computer technology is commonplace within the areas of education, the sciences, or even movie making. Yet if computers are used to generate engaging images then it is most likely to be perceived as a technical novelty [11], [12], [13] and less that of a fine art tour d'force.

Despite the growth of a sizeable contingent of computer artists [14] there exists a large body of established artists and critics alike who shun the computer as an artistic media with which to create fine art [15], [16]. Recent interviews with accomplished fine artists reveal the same bias. This is hardly a new phenomenon; Everett Rogers [17] in his book Diffusion of Innovations postulates the existence of a strong cultural bias resistant to any dramatic change imposed upon it. Certainly, computer art has had a tremendous impact on the arts and constitutes a radical change from the norm. Furthermore, as computer technology is in a constant state of flux offering new artistic vistas with every advance, there is adequate reason to classify it as one of Rogers’ `discontinuous innovations'. That is, one that continues to offer entirely new products that causes patrons of the arts to redefine how fine art is perceived, indeed, how it should be defined. However, computer art, or computer graphics, has existed for nearly 50 years [14], [18], it is time to evaluate computer art on the qualities that it possesses and not on the medium which has made its development possible [1], [19].

Since the creation of what has been identified as the first graphic images in 1950 on the Whirlwind mainframe computer of Massachusetts Institute of Technology [14] artists have been working to achieve visually engaging art exploiting computing technologies. With roots firmly entrenched in research and military applications, computer graphics has been largely the domain of scientists and engineers. Only through unique opportunities were few technically adept artists granted an opportunity to work with the technology. As the technology has grown its historically high cost has kept `cutting edge’ computer imaging technology out of reach of the lay person and within the domain of large corporations (e.g. advertising or movie making companies). Artists with a strong desire to work with developing technologies were therefore driven by competing agendas, i.e. whether to generate pure art or a form of commercialism [1], [12].

The result has been a growing perception among artists that computer graphics was and is highly technical, sterile, and overly stated focusing more on tricks, less on content [20], [21]. Only within the last two decades has computer technology been accessible in a reliable way to the lay person, and of that only the last decade or so has really made available hardware and software useable without undue modification with which to generate fine art. Even so the negative bias is difficult to erase. This paper examines the factors of cultural biases evidenced in the artistic community that hinder the acceptance of computer graphics as a fine art form. In the sections that follow we will: expound on some of the relevant biases that reject computer generated art, describe a model for the acceptance of computer generated fine art, describe our research and methodology, describe our findings, our conclusions, and suggest strategies for dispelling those biases that yet remain.

Section snippets

History

Computer graphics from the early 1950s–1970s might be broadly characterized by its primitive geometric, severely mechanistic qualities. As computing was a newly developing technology it typically fell under the auspices of (military) researchers. Computer art, or computer graphics, was primarily created by scientists or engineers, or through the collaboration between artists and engineers [22]. It required highly technical skills and perseverance on the part of the creator to be able to

Model

As suggested by Rogers, cultural biases are the keys to determining acceptance of innovation [17]. The aforementioned cultural biases may have hindered the acceptance of computer art and the use of computer graphics in art education. In order to understand these relationships fully, we develop a model to assess the impact of cultural biases on the acceptance of computer graphics in art education. As shown in Fig. 1, our acceptance model identifies cultural biases as the primary factor

Method

A survey was conducted to solicit perceptual measures for the testing of the hypothesized relationships. Our respondents were students of a high school that has a strong history in fine arts. It is expected that the generations of young people born since the late 1970s and early 1980s will see computers as commonplace and, more importantly, as less intimidating. They are a generation weaned on computer and video technologies and are presumably less resistant to the use of computer art packages.

Analysis

The instrument was validated by examining the factor loading from factor analysis and reliability index (Cronbach's alpha) [45]. All the variables in the model had high construct validity and reliability. The validity and reliability indices for the items are given in Table 1 while details of the items are explained in Table 2.

As shown in Table 1, the reliability coefficient for the items ranged from 0.69 to 0.90. The correlation of the items with the criteria was generally high, ranging from

Discussion and conclusion

Our study shows that there are three avenues to increasing the acceptance of computer art. First, software usability is the key to enhancing acceptance. The computer or artist interface speaks to the computer itself as a tool upon which to create and display computer art. Directly contributing to the success of the interfacing is the environment created by the software. The ability of the software to use many and varied input and output devices often limits the artist's choices. Unfortunately,

References (46)

  • N. Hays

    Art and science converge

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

    (1993)
  • N. Hays

    An artist thanks to the medium

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

    (1994)
  • N. Hays

    Layers of meaning

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

    (1995)
  • G. Sheridan

    Technologicthe European view of the computer

    Print

    (1996)
  • O. Jacob

    Computer graphics story: A personal overview of computer animation in the movies

    Computer Graphics

    (1997)
  • L. Li

    Animation of stochastic motion of 3-D cloth objects

    Computers and Graphics

    (1997)
  • W.W. Gibbs

    Artificial art

    Scientific American

    (1995)
  • L. Manovich

    The engineering of vision and the aesthetics of computer art

    Computer Graphics

    (1994)
  • D. Sims

    On the eve of an art revolution

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

    (1994)
  • Goodman G. Digital visions: computers and art; New York: H.N. Abrams; Syracuse,...
  • B. Meltzer

    Computers should be seen as artist's tools, rather than enemies of the arts

    PC Week

    (1988)
  • L. Noel Jr

    The new renaissance: the computer in fine arts

    Compute

    (1991)
  • E. Rogers

    Diffusion of Innovations

    (1995)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text