EvokeOne - v5

Ted Yavuzkurt: {1} Who is Daniel Kong? Let us in a bit to who you are, what makes you tick, and how art is a part of your life.

Daniel Kong: There's not much to say, really. I'm an academics focused guy who happens to have art and not much else as an interest. By art I don't just mean visual art, but also film (I would consider myself something of a connoisseur, but I'm sure others would call me a hipster), music ( 90's East coast hip-hop, and, uh, Leonard Cohen), literature (feel free to call bullshit on this though), and anything else. Besides that I'm mainly focused on my studies; I'm majoring in mathematics and economics, and minoring in computer science.

Ted Yavuzkurt: {2} That's quite an academic program for someone as artistically gifted as you!

Being an all around appreciator of the arts, do you play any instruments or dabble in any other mediums (i.e. photography), or is digital visual art your sole focus?

Daniel Kong: Dabble would indeed be the right word there. I play a little bit of guitar and had several years of classical training in violin as a kid. As for photography, I would lucky to find the menu to adjust the zoom.

Digital arts isn't the only way I draw, though; I probably do more traditional art than digital art, and maintain a few sketchbooks. I also do oil painting but I'm not very proud of my skills there.

Ted Yavuzkurt: {3} Well, it's obvious what makes you different from your average 'hipster.' You can back up your interest with actual talent that doesn't consist of going to a starbucks and opening a copy of photoshop on your macbook while you sip your iced chai.

Such talent takes time to develop. And so I'm sure everyone would like to know how long you've been interested in/creating art? What piqued your interest initially and what has kept you going since?

Daniel Kong: Full disclosure, I'm typing on a Macbook right now.

Maybe when I was four or five, I realized I had a knack for drawing. My parents were encouraging and signed me up for classes, so I developed good drawing skills at a pretty young age.

I doodled a ton during school, which was good practice, and I vividly remember my fourth grade teacher being upset that my homework assignments had doodles all over them. She contemptuously told me to have some pride in my work. Ironically, I think that's what pushed me towards improving artistically: having pride in my work.

I hit a brick wall when I was trying to learn how to paint a few years later, and as a result stopped drawing for a couple years, but digital art pushed me back into it with more determination than before.

Ted Yavuzkurt: {4} I know that in the music industry right now, especially when it comes to DJing, you see a lot of people who are very angry when they discover DJs who only learned their craft via digital techniques and who cannot throw together a mix without the aid of a computer. The rationale for this is that mastering analog, low-tech methods improves ones ability to appreciate music. I see a lot of similar parallels in the world of art. Many 'artists' now learn solely by sitting down with Photoshop and screwing around until something cool comes out; certainly there many who have gotten far starting in this manner.

So coming from your background learning traditional techniques first, what do you think the role of computers and technology are when it comes to art? Can you get the same feel for art 'digitally' as you can hands on?

Do you think that having that firm traditional foundation before exploring the digital frontier helped your artistic development in the long run? i.e. do you think you could be where you are today having learned everything with digital tools?

Daniel Kong: I'm a huge proponent of advancing technology. Technical skill and dexterity are a huge part of what we consider classical arts. But they are not the art itself. Imagine a mechanism that could read minds, and render into reality the creative thoughts of an artist. That would be art in its purest form.

Computers, Photoshop, and mixing programs help move us toward this form of pure art, such that the only variable in art is creativity. Does this devalue the artist? Probably, but art itself would advance. I'm sure others would argue that technical skill and dexterity are just as big a part of art as creativity, but I'm in the other, lonelier school.

Physical drawing is a whole lot easier to learn than digital art in its current form. I always encourage people to pick up a pencil before buying a tablet. Same with painting - though my patience for waiting for paint to dry is as thin as the layer of paint my frugality allows. I wouldn't have any objections for beginning to learn on a digital medium once the technology is there though.

Ted Yavuzkurt: {5} So you're arguing that creativity is something innate to the artist. If a system were created that could render thoughts as imagery then the variable of technical skill would completely leave the picture. Thus we'd instantly see who was actually an artist and who was merely following photoshop tutorials.

But I've seen cases where an artist improves simultaneously in technique and creativity. The very ideas an artist tries to convey become more complex over time, suggesting that creativity can be learned and cultured. Therefore cutting corners technically means cutting corners creatively. Many 'purely digital' artists (and musicians) end up cutting corners, becoming only great imitators. Developing creativity and 'having something to say' is certainly the hardest part of being an artist.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Do you think creativity can be learned or developed? How do you personally come up with ideas? Are there factors in your lifestyle and environment that foster creativity?

Daniel Kong: I don't think that technique improvement causes creativity improvement, but rather they are both a function of age and experience. Indeed, often creativity is confused with experience. I believe creativity, like intelligence, has a degree of innateness, where there is a range, and the environment determines where they fall in this range. I'm probably just regurgitating some basic psychology theories, but that seems about right.

I take a lot of inspiration from the art I consume, and remodel it in my own way, but it's probably not my biggest influence. People tend to only see art when it's framed, but life offers so much beautiful stimuli that inspiration can be taken from absolutely anywhere. My most complete ideas tend to compile and form when I'm between the moments of sleep and wake.

I tend to be the most ambitious then, and I suspect it's not because of increased creativity, but lack of inhibition. I can form complete pictures in my head because nothing is telling me that it is a bad idea. Imagine the thoughts I will have on my deathbed! To this end, I think what artists need isn't more inspiration, but less apprehension.

Ted Yavuzkurt: {6} That's certainly a very Zen way of looking at the creative process; I'm sure many aspiring artists can benefit from your wisdom.

In any case, to avoid boring everyone to death with pure philosophy, let's get down to brass tacks. I take it, given your intense academic program, that you do not plan on using your art as a career path. Will you be a pure, die-hard hobbyist (for lack of a better word) till the end?

Daniel Kong: Haha, wisdom? You give me too much credit. If I'm lucky, I hope to become a professional artist after I retire from whatever the hell I end up doing, but if not, then yeah, it will always be only a hobby to me.