Imagine what Dali would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop

Mark_S · Feb 28, 2008

Svend Videbak said:
"I would say my style is surreal/fantasy-based with a touch of sci-fi here and there. I absolutely adore the work of M C Escher and Salvador Dali. Who knows what they would have been capable of creating, should they have had Photoshop at their disposal"

What made Dali special was his vision, photoshop is a tool that helps with expression of a vision, and Dali seemed to have no problem expressing his vision using a different medium. Would Michelangelo have done a better job sculpting David if he had a pneumatic drill? - probably wouldn't have made a difference except possibly allowing him to do some of the rough shaping more quickly.

Photo Engineer · Feb 28, 2008

I think Dali would not have used photoshop, he would have used Kai's GOO.

PE

RobC · Feb 28, 2008

what I find really funny is that people seem to think that photoshop is some really fantistic tool for enhancing creativity. It's not. Infact in the greater scheme of things it equates more to a childs painting by numbers play thing.

You only have to look at some of the tools available to the motion picture industry to realise that photoshop is a low end mass market and very basic raster editing tool. Nothing more. It has no 3d tools. No ray tracing. Virtually no control over shapes and especially 3d shapes. Infact virtually every tool set it has is very basic and only designed for 2d. Adobe are not great innovators in digital imaging. Their target is low end mass market.

So don't waste your time worrying about it. Whoever wrote the original statement about dali is quite obviously so ignorant about digital manipulation that I'm amazed this thread ever got of the ground...

go check out maya as a start point for imaging. Thats what some of the cgi graphics studios use as a starting point for creating characters for their animations...

elekm · Feb 28, 2008

At the newspaper where I work, the artists work in traditional media: oil, charcoal, pens and pastels. Then they scan their work in so it can be added to pages.

At another newspaper, one guy worked totally in Adobe Illustrator and spent most of his time moving curves or various points.

But I don't think the mouse or a tablet comes close to ever replicating the experience of working with paint or charcoal.

rpsawin · Feb 28, 2008

I think the real statement is "Imagine the influence Dali had on the PS developers". I think artists inspire and influence technicians and not so much the reverse.

Bob

JBrunner · Feb 29, 2008

Photoshop and Dali have about as much in common as photography and Dali.

PhotoHistorian · Mar 1, 2008

rob champagne said:
what I find really funny is that people seem to think that photoshop is some really fantistic tool for enhancing creativity. It's not. Infact in the greater scheme of things it equates more to a childs painting by numbers play thing.

You only have to look at some of the tools available to the motion picture industry to realise that photoshop is a low end mass market and very basic raster editing tool. Nothing more. It has no 3d tools. No ray tracing. Virtually no control over shapes and especially 3d shapes. Infact virtually every tool set it has is very basic and only designed for 2d. Adobe are not great innovators in digital imaging. Their target is low end mass market.

So don't waste your time worrying about it. Whoever wrote the original statement about dali is quite obviously so ignorant about digital manipulation that I'm amazed this thread ever got of the ground...

go check out maya as a start point for imaging. Thats what some of the cgi graphics studios use as a starting point for creating characters for their animations...

Photoshop is what it is....a graphics editing program. To compare Photoshop to CGI programs used for 3D, animations and high end applications in the film industry is like comparing a Minox to an 8x10 view camera. Each has a purpose but they are not in competition with one another. As a photographer /graphic artist, I have used Photoshop for more than 10 years and it is a valuable tool. A tool just like my view camera or light meter. It is tools and the mind that equal creativity.
And if you think Photoshop equates to a child's painting by numbers play thing, please show us what you have created with this kid's toy.

Walker

Nicole · Mar 1, 2008

Who knows what anyone one would do with any tool that's available to them. Art is art and we choose our mediums that fit the artist's vision best. Just because a whiz-bang tool is available doesn't mean everyone jumps on the bandwagon. I admire those that are not influenced by the mainstream but choose wisely and remain true to their own vision. Art comes in many forms, emotions and influences. IMO - Romance is a big part of art. Without romance there would be no art; without art there would be no romance. We all have our dreams.

Photo Engineer · Mar 1, 2008

I doubt if anyone here has ever used GOO. I posted that earlier as I have used the product. It used to be bundled with most Kodak digitall imaging software. It is truly more apt for a Daliesque approach than PS. It was used to put the extra smile on the Mona Lisa in the pictures that you may have seen.

You can use it to become your own Dali. I have had my family ROFL over some pictures 'alterations' that I made for them, and that is about all I can say about digital. It can be fun when something like this is used.

PE

RobC · Mar 1, 2008

PhotoHistorian said:
Photoshop is what it is....a graphics editing program. To compare Photoshop to CGI programs used for 3D, animations and high end applications in the film industry is like comparing a Minox to an 8x10 view camera. Each has a purpose but they are not in competition with one another. As a photographer /graphic artist, I have used Photoshop for more than 10 years and it is a valuable tool. A tool just like my view camera or light meter. It is tools and the mind that equal creativity.
And if you think Photoshop equates to a child's painting by numbers play thing, please show us what you have created with this kid's toy.

Walker

I do photography not painting. The problem is that most little sub cultures such as photographers, really don't see past the end of their nose when it comes to something outside of their comfort zone. It's put about by the other little sub culture called the graphics industry, that adobe products are the dogs bollocks when it comes to anything graphical. They are not. Photoshop is designed purely as a 2d raster image editing tool. That's all. It's not meant to be a paint program. It makes no claims about being a paint program. There are far superior paint programs out there. The point being that the original quote was suggesting dali would have used photoshop if he could and that would have enhanced his creativity. The point I'm making is that dali would have looked past the end of his nose and found far superior products. Clearly you haven't or have no need to.
And by the way, Maya is only the starting point for some cgi graphics. As a stand alone tool, it is a 3d drawing and rendering program using ray tracing.
If I wanted to create images from the ground up, I would not think photoshop was the tool of choice. It's for editing and printing photos. That's all. Many people bang their head against the wall trying to use it to do other things in complete ignorant bliss that there are better tools for what they are attempting. Maybe you are one of them. I don't know.

RobC · Mar 1, 2008

And another thing.
A few years ago (approx 2002 ) I went to a small art gallery in York UK. There was a room with a piece of electronic installation art. It had a long description of what it was all about. There was a video camera and when you moved in front of the camera, sounds were generated from a stored archive in a database. Depending on your speed of movement, the sounds may have been light or aggressive. That was about it.
I stood and thought about this piece of art. I concluded that it was unbelievably naive. Why? Because if I look at any game for any of the game playstations out there, they are all far more sophisticated with massively more intellligent interactive features and with with stunning graphics which are highly creative in their conception.
Problem is that most people wouldn't consider games on a playstion as interactive art.
Have a little think about that one. You know, what really went into creating that "game" and how it stacks up against something produced from photoshop...

John Koehrer · Mar 1, 2008

JBrunner said:
Photoshop and Dali have about as much in common as photography and Dali.

THANK YOU!
Dali wasn't a shadow catcher was he?

Mike Crawford · Mar 2, 2008

Imagine what Dali would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop?

It was bad enough what he came up with using paint and canvas!
Great 'tache though.

pauliej · Mar 2, 2008

I dont think Dali would have used ps, as Dali was an artist. Just my opinion of course.

paulie

Andrey · Mar 3, 2008

pauliej said:
I dont think Dali would have used ps, as Dali was an artist. Just my opinion of course.

Unless I'm reading into it the wrong way, it seems you're implying that artists don't use photoshop... or that the users of photoshop are not artists.

Or am I missing something?

Andrey · Mar 4, 2008

I don't know about Dali, but looking at FEDs vs leica pages, I stumbled across this thing:
http://www.artzites.com/camera1.htm

Allegedly, that's comrade Picasso with a FED-2 around his neck.

I also saw a documentary on Helmut Newton that that guy really didn't care which camera he used. I believe he had a digital 4/3 system, a rebel with a kit lens and of course a number of camera from the beginning of his career, but never a leica and maybe not even a hassy.

arigram · Mar 4, 2008

Picasso had a digital camera?

Andrey · Mar 4, 2008

arigram said:
Picasso had a digital camera?

No, but if my memory serves me right, Helmut Newton did.

arigram · Mar 4, 2008

Must have been the Dry Martini screwing up the comprehension of your post Andrey.
Anyway.
Dali was of another era. If surrealistic painting was made so easy as with Photoshop,
probably he wouldn't have done much. Its hard to consider the revolution of surrealism
when its so easy to do montage and mutation of images, then print a million identical
copies of it. Surrealism was all about screwing up your perception of reality and playing
with your mind and digital manipulation has made that so common place its not happening anymore.

If you want to talk about an "traditional" artist that used computers, talk about Andy Warhol who
used the revolutionary Amiga 1000 and loved it, considering it a great tool for his work. He didn't
abandon his other media though, just added one more tool to use. He was also a Pop artist and
so one should approach this differently.

Imagine what Dali would have been able to accomplish with Photoshop

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency