Preface
Isaac Victor Kerlow
Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York
Chairman of the SIGGRAPH '91 Art and Design Show
Welcome to the SIGGRAPH '91 Art and Design Show!
This year's show continues with the SIGGRAPH tradition of showcasing some of the most outstanding visual works created with the aid of computer graphics technology. But this year's show also has a new facet. For the first time in its history, this year's show has two distinct components: fine arts and design.
The show is now presented as the SIGGRAPH '91 Art and Design Show. The addition of a design category was made in light of the increasing number of submissions to the show that were never intended to be seen - or judged - as fine arts pieces, but instead were created as designs for business or communications purposes. In recent years many of these pieces were not included in the show because the show was conceived as a fine arts show instead of an event where different kinds of visual works created and produced with the aid of computer technology could be viewed. To recognize the increasing number of design submissions to the SIGGRAPH show, we expanded the show's scope to include such works.
The Selection Process
A "blind" jury selected works in both categories the names of the creators were not revealed to the jurors during the selection process. Fine arts and design each had separate juries. The fine arts jury was composed of Timothy Binkley, Director of Computer Studies at the School of Visual Arts; Eleanor Flomenhaft, Director of the Fine Arts Museum ofLong Island; and Cynthia Goodman, an independent art historian and critic. Judson Rosebush, President of Rosebush Visions, joined the fine arts jury for the review and selection of computer animation submitted to the show. The design jury was composed of Kent Hunter, Creative Director at Frankfurt, Gips and Balkind; David Peters, Graphic Designer at 212 Associates; Donald M. Rorke, Executive Vice President of Design at The Knoll Group; and Wendy Richmond, Co-Director of the WGBH Design Lab. Isaac Victor Kerlow, chairman ofthe SIGGRAPH '91 Art and Design Show, participated in both juries.
There were over 1,200 entries in the fine arts category and 700 in the design category. The fine arts jury selected works entirely from slides submitted by the artists. The design jury selected works based on the actual "physical" entries (i.e. posters, books). The final selection of works for the show includes almost 60 pieces in the fine arts category and close to 70 in the design category.
The Selection Criteria
The SIGGRAPH '91 Contributor's Guidelines were mailed to past participants and to individuals interested in participating in the show. These guidelines listed the five basic criteria that guided the selection process. Entries had to
- be created with the use of a computer.
- be critically related to computer graphics technology and possess a strong aesthetic value.
- use the computer in more ways than just as a production tool.
- approach artistic creation and design in original ways.
- be concerned with contemporary art or design issues, and its sole purpose could notbe limited to illustrating specific computer graphics techniques.
In addition to the criteria included in the Contributor's Guidelines, the fine arts and design juries each established additional guidelines for fine- tuning the selection of finalists. The fine arts jury valued stylistic consis
tency when multiple works were submitted by the same person. The fine arts jury also optec not to give preference to styles or types of work that have been displayed extensively in recent SIGGRAPH shows unless the works were unique and especially innovative.
The design jury focused on pieces where the computer had played a crucial role in the final "look," style, or production of the piece. As one juror put it, the design jury "was not interested just in supporting technical acrobatics." A great deal of attention was paid to the functionality and adequacy of the designs as well as to overall contemporary design trends.
Fine Arts Trends
The show is about variety, not uniformity. The fine arts category in the SIGGRAPH '91 show continues with the tradition of presenting a survey of the work created with the aid of computer graphics technology. As in the past, the works included in the fine arts category cover a wide range of styles, techniques, and creative philosophies. Several trends that dominated this year's show were observed throughout the review and selection process:
- The number of fine arts entries based on 3D modeling and rendering techniques seems to have decreased in comparison to recent SIGGRAPH shows. On the other hand, the overall technical level of most 3D submissions is generally quite high and consistent.
- The number of fine arts entries based on photographic manipulation increased dramatically. This can be explained by the increased availability of microcomputer-based image processing software within the last couple of years.
- There still is a tremendous variety of technical achievement, originality, and artistic sophistication in the work submitted to the fine arts category of the SIGGRAPH '91 Show.
Design Trends
The design category in SIGGRAPH '91 is especially interesting because SIGGRAPH has never sponsored a juried design exhibition (although a curated design show was presented in 1984 in Minneapolis). Several trends dominate this year's show:
- The number of entries submitted for review was substantial considering that this is the first year that SIGGRAPH has sponsored a show that focuses on design. Most of the entrants in the design category were unfamiliar with SIGGRAPH's activities before they received the Call for Participation.
- The overall technical level of most entries is remarkably high. Almost all entries represented professionally produced projects; in contrast to the fine arts category, there were few student entries in the design category.
- The number of design entries that dealt directly with computer-human interface (CHI) design was insignificant, which came as a surprise to the jurors.
- The new design category in the SIGGRAPH '91 Show seems to have generated a lot of enthusiasm. One hopes this trend will continue in the future.
A 100% Desktop Publication!
For the first time ever in SIGGRAPH history the publication that accompanies the Art and Design Show has been entirely produced electronically on a desktop computer system. The manuscripts were all created, converted and/or edited in the Word 4.0 format. Unformatted text files were flowed into Xpress 3.0 and laid out in a document with multiple grids. The images (mostly 35 mm color slides) were sampled with a ColorGetter scanner at 12-bits per channel and converted to the 24-bit color TIFF file format. Color correction was done with Color Studio. All files were assembled in the Xpress document. Output was done at 2000 dpi on a ColorSetter imagesetter.
[...]
List of Participants
(Fine Arts, Excerpt)
Yoshiyuki Abe
Tokyo, Japan
p. 33
Stephen Axelrod
Long Beach, California
John Banks
Rising Star Graphics; Chicago, Illinois
p. 24
Chiara Boeri
Visuals, S. P. A.; Milan, Italy
p. 25
Semannia Luk Cheung
Design Vision Inc.; Toronto, Canada
p. 37
Jack Cliggett
Drexel University; Philidelphia,
Pennsylvania
p. 25
Char Davies
SOFTIMAGE Inc., Montreal, Canada
pp. 36 and 39
Diane Fox
University of Tennesee; Knoxville,
Tennessee
p. 20
Masaki Fujihata
Frogs, Inc.; Tokyo, Japan
pp. 17 and 30
Jeff Gates
Baltimore, Maryland
p. 23
Darcy Gerbarg
New York City
p. 29
Ken Goldberg
Hollywood, California
p. 28
Jean-Pierre Hebert
Santa Barbara, California
p. 31
Jean Ippolito
Ohio State University; Columbus, Ohio
p. 28
Amy K. Jenkins
New York City
p. 22
Eduardo Kac
Chicago, Illinois
p. 35
Azuma Kawaguchi
Tokyo, Japan
p. 18
Michael King
City of London Polytechnic; London, England
p. 33
Michael Klug
MIT Media Lab; Cambridge,
Massachusetts
p. 34
C. E. Kolb
Yale University; New Haven, Connecticut
p. 40
[...]
Char Davies
ROOT, 1991
Photographic transparency, 42 x 72
Char Davies
SAND, 1990
Photographic transparency, 312 x 6
This article may include minor changes from the original publication in order to improve legibility and layout consistency within the Immersence Website. † Significant changes from the original text have been indicated in red square brackets.