|
I think computer art is a misnomer. Graphics should be called graphics. Chefs should be called chefs. Calling something an "art" used be a compliment, an exaggeration offered to mean that something had exceeded the boundaries of its normal craft.
Language gradually gets worn away by overuse, and this is a pity with art. Anybody can call themselves an artist, I hear, and so the meaning of "art" is so diffuse as to have no meaning at all. The criteria for what's good or what isn't should be clear, should be intuitive, but actually we have to wonder if we're missing "the next Van Gogh" by disregarding any blatant display of rubbish.
We don't wonder if a doctor is good or not - a doctor is credentialled and required to adhere to certain conventions of his/her craft.
As far as significance, I'm not trying to be significant to every satellite and earthquake stretching forward or back a million years. There's only 50,000 years of humans (generally an agreed-upon anthropological standard for homo sapiens sapiens), or even less if you're religious. I think you can attempt to be significant for them.
Besides, my business cards say "painter." I'd be flattered to be called an artist.
|