Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

3. RE: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Recommend

Tim Halbur

Posted 11-19-2021 01:07 PM

Thanks John. I have no problem with the Jean-Luc Ponty - setting an atmosphere is fine. I'm reacting specifically to what I see as changing the artist's work through animation and making it move. Artists use their own techniques to create lighting effects, the illusion of movement, the expressive nature of brushstrokes and color choice, and I feel that animation of any sort is beyond disrespectful. It is essentially negating the artist's work. Immersive Van Gogh is, I feel, similarly insulting but at least it isn't happening inside a museum on top of an actual Van Gogh.

------------------------------
Tim Halbur
Media Producer
J. Paul Getty Museum
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

Original Message

Original Message:
Sent: 11-19-2021 06:16 AM
From: John Wharton
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

At the first museum I worked at, the curator staged a show of masters with unusual lighting and Jean Luc Ponty as background music. I suspect not what Titian had in mind, but in the context of the show, it kind of worked. And, the devil's advocate here could say it might not have been an artist's intention to have his/her work interpreted as part of an audio tour. Or a coffee table book. Or a necktie in the museum shop…

The other aspect of this question is the ability of such technology to be used to bring in audiences that otherwise wouldn't step foot in an art museum. Current Van Gogh shows, anyone?

------------------------------
John Wharton
Museum Docent &
Retired Museum Professional
Bonita Springs FL
http://linkedin.com/in/john-wharton-9629149

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 12:31 PM
From: Tim Halbur
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Is anyone else being driven crazy by this Meta ad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W9YVkkn9U

The Tiger & The Buffalo

Step into a world of imagination with Meta and explore endless possibilities as two dimensions become three.

www.youtube.com

I was recently approached by a tech company that I shall not name that also wanted to animate the subjects in the paintings at our museum with AR. Over my years producing audio tours, I've often been sent presentations from companies wanting to do this.

I feel strongly that this is anti-art and highly disrespectful of the artist's intentions. If we wanted to watch a cartoon (and I'm a huge animation nerd), we have screens at home to do so. Paintings are paintings, and are to be appreciated for what they are, as are all artworks. Rothko lived at a time when animation existed, yet he choose the media of canvas and paint. Do you think his fondest wish would be to have his paintings shimmer and morph into funny faces while Skrillex plays in the background? Art doesn't need enhancement to be enjoyed and have power and be empowering.

Please let tech companies know that these techniques are misguided and have no place in museums.

AAM Annual Meeting & MuseumExpo, Baltimore, May 16-19, 2024, click to learn more

4. RE: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Recommend

Douglas Flandro

Posted 11-22-2021 09:37 AM

I love the idea of thoughtful riffing off of art works to create new art. I don't think you could argue that this Meta advertisement is thoughtful, well-executed, inspiring, nor art. It is bafflingly ill-judged no matter the medium.

Douglas Flandro, LEED AP BD+C, LEED AP ID+C, CPHC^®

Associate

CambridgeSeven
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
p: 617.492.7000 c: 617.460.3558

www.cambridgeseven.com

facebook instagram twitter linkedin

Original Message

Original Message:
Sent: 11/19/2021 6:17:00 AM
From: John Wharton
Subject: RE: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

At the first museum I worked at, the curator staged a show of masters with unusual lighting and Jean Luc Ponty as background music. I suspect not what Titian had in mind, but in the context of the show, it kind of worked. And, the devil's advocate here could say it might not have been an artist's intention to have his/her work interpreted as part of an audio tour. Or a coffee table book. Or a necktie in the museum shop…

The other aspect of this question is the ability of such technology to be used to bring in audiences that otherwise wouldn't step foot in an art museum. Current Van Gogh shows, anyone?

------------------------------
John Wharton
Museum Docent &
Retired Museum Professional
Bonita Springs FL
http://linkedin.com/in/john-wharton-9629149
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 12:31 PM
From: Tim Halbur
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Is anyone else being driven crazy by this Meta ad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W9YVkkn9U

The Tiger & The Buffalo

Step into a world of imagination with Meta and explore endless possibilities as two dimensions become three.

www.youtube.com

I was recently approached by a tech company that I shall not name that also wanted to animate the subjects in the paintings at our museum with AR. Over my years producing audio tours, I've often been sent presentations from companies wanting to do this.

I feel strongly that this is anti-art and highly disrespectful of the artist's intentions. If we wanted to watch a cartoon (and I'm a huge animation nerd), we have screens at home to do so. Paintings are paintings, and are to be appreciated for what they are, as are all artworks. Rothko lived at a time when animation existed, yet he choose the media of canvas and paint. Do you think his fondest wish would be to have his paintings shimmer and morph into funny faces while Skrillex plays in the background? Art doesn't need enhancement to be enjoyed and have power and be empowering.

Please let tech companies know that these techniques are misguided and have no place in museums.

6. RE: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Recommend

Meredith Peruzzi

Posted 11-22-2021 10:59 AM

I'm with Mike here. This is an expansion of art. It is art on top of art. This ad in no way diminishes the original work, and Rousseau has been dead for over a hundred years, so I don't think he cares. If this attracts young people to his work, what is the harm? Who cares?

Perhaps what is misguided is attributing a Rousseau to Rothko, and prescribing how other people should feel about art.

------------------------------
Meredith Peruzzi
National Deaf Life Museum
Gallaudet University
Washington DC
------------------------------

Original Message

Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2021 02:41 AM
From: Mike Watson
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

I've seen both a tiger and a buffalo in person. The painting doesn't look like a particularly realistic tiger or buffalo. Perhaps that means this Rousseau isn't art?

I thought the AR was kind of cool. As an ad, it kind of worked for me. In a museum, I'd look at it for sure. (I have separate feelings about having to use your cell phone in a museum, but we'll set that aside here.)

I understand how you can not like it for you, and even not like it for your museum, but to limit animation to only being watched at home, and call something that a team of people toiled on "not art" is closed-minded and kind of offensive to... well, artists.

------------------------------
Mike Watson
San Diego History Center
San Diego CA

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 12:31 PM
From: Tim Halbur
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Is anyone else being driven crazy by this Meta ad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W9YVkkn9U

The Tiger & The Buffalo

Step into a world of imagination with Meta and explore endless possibilities as two dimensions become three.

www.youtube.com

I was recently approached by a tech company that I shall not name that also wanted to animate the subjects in the paintings at our museum with AR. Over my years producing audio tours, I've often been sent presentations from companies wanting to do this.

I feel strongly that this is anti-art and highly disrespectful of the artist's intentions. If we wanted to watch a cartoon (and I'm a huge animation nerd), we have screens at home to do so. Paintings are paintings, and are to be appreciated for what they are, as are all artworks. Rothko lived at a time when animation existed, yet he choose the media of canvas and paint. Do you think his fondest wish would be to have his paintings shimmer and morph into funny faces while Skrillex plays in the background? Art doesn't need enhancement to be enjoyed and have power and be empowering.

Please let tech companies know that these techniques are misguided and have no place in museums.

7. RE: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Recommend

Harry Klinkhamer

Posted 11-22-2021 02:32 PM

And how does this relate to musical artists, their creations, and the use of sampling? Is there a correlation to bring to this thread?

------------------------------
Harry Klinkhamer
Historical Resources Manager
Venice Museum and Archives
Venice FL
------------------------------

Original Message

Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2021 02:41 AM
From: Mike Watson
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

I've seen both a tiger and a buffalo in person. The painting doesn't look like a particularly realistic tiger or buffalo. Perhaps that means this Rousseau isn't art?

I thought the AR was kind of cool. As an ad, it kind of worked for me. In a museum, I'd look at it for sure. (I have separate feelings about having to use your cell phone in a museum, but we'll set that aside here.)

I understand how you can not like it for you, and even not like it for your museum, but to limit animation to only being watched at home, and call something that a team of people toiled on "not art" is closed-minded and kind of offensive to... well, artists.

------------------------------
Mike Watson
San Diego History Center
San Diego CA

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 12:31 PM
From: Tim Halbur
Subject: Making paintings come alive is disrespectful to artists

Is anyone else being driven crazy by this Meta ad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W9YVkkn9U

The Tiger & The Buffalo

Step into a world of imagination with Meta and explore endless possibilities as two dimensions become three.

www.youtube.com

I was recently approached by a tech company that I shall not name that also wanted to animate the subjects in the paintings at our museum with AR. Over my years producing audio tours, I've often been sent presentations from companies wanting to do this.

I feel strongly that this is anti-art and highly disrespectful of the artist's intentions. If we wanted to watch a cartoon (and I'm a huge animation nerd), we have screens at home to do so. Paintings are paintings, and are to be appreciated for what they are, as are all artworks. Rothko lived at a time when animation existed, yet he choose the media of canvas and paint. Do you think his fondest wish would be to have his paintings shimmer and morph into funny faces while Skrillex plays in the background? Art doesn't need enhancement to be enjoyed and have power and be empowering.

Please let tech companies know that these techniques are misguided and have no place in museums.

Open Forum