My intention here is to provide a brief overview of available tools. By no means is this an all-encompassing list. If there are alternatives that I’ve overlooked, feel free to comment and include a link to other tools worth considering. This is not intended to be a tutorial, but to help guide the budding digital artist towards tools to help them execute their vision. So, off we go:

The Basics

Image Manipulation: GIMP

The first thing any artist is likely to want to do on a computer is manipulate a digital image, whether a photo from a digital camera or a scan or some creative commons licensed image from a source like Flickr.

The defacto program for this sort of digital manipulation is Adobe Photoshop, and it is really difficult to find a Photoshop alternative that is as highly usable. If you have experience with Photoshop, GIMP can be an awkward program to get used to, but it does provide advanced image manipulation and is free.

Vector Graphics: Inkscape

Vector graphics are images that are drawn rather than pixel-ly bitmaps. The leading commercial product in this category is Adobe Illustrator. A strong open source alternative is Inkscape.

3D modeling: Blender

Elephants Dream from Blender Foundation on Vimeo.

3D modeling and film-making are very exciting, but also very complicated. Tools in this category can be extremely expensive and require a lot of training. The fact that a tool like Blender is available for free is a beautiful thing.

Documents: OpenOffice.org

There is no getting around the need to create spreadsheets, word documents, presentations, etc. Any project is going to include these sorts of things. Most people are familiar with Microsoft Office, but the open source alternative is OpenOffice. This tool set includes a drawing program without all the advanced features of Inkscape.

Now the fun starts
The above tools cover the basics of building the raw materials for your digital art project. But what if you want to incorporate advanced user interaction in your project? Well, here’s where things can get complicated. Say you want to wire a digital video camera to a projector and create an interactive wall display. Say you have visions of animatronic actors mimicking the behavior of real actors on a green screen, etc., etc. I won’t get into all the details of wiring this to that, but if you expect to involve electronics and experimental input devices, well you’re going to have to write some code. The following tools assume that you are open to experimenting with code and are not afraid to get your hands dirty. These tools are very technical.

An important thing to recognize when programming digital art is that the technique is a little different from traditional programming. Programming is often taught with an engineering focus. This shouldn’t scare off the artist who wants to accomplish advanced interactions. A digital artist wants to be expressive with code. Thus the tools for programming digital art and the process of accomplishing it can be a little different than a traditional development environment.

Foundations: Flex SDK
Adobe has made a lot of cool products and one that has changed the way we perceive the internet is Flash. Not a lot of people know is that the foundations of Flash are open source. Adobe provides a free solution developers kit for those users who are comfortable working with ActionScript and Flex code to programmatically define extremely sophisticated interactions without purchasing the Flash product. If you want to put your digital art project online, it is well worth the effort to become proficient with this tool set.

Glue: Processing
An alternative to the Flash approach to creating highly interactive digital art is to use a tool like Processing. Processing provides a simplified version of the Java programming language that is a great way to learn to program as well as a powerful tool for gluing together all sorts of interactions. There are many libraries of components for Processing that make accomplishing your artistic vision easier than you might think. Multi-touch interfaces, facial recognition, you name it, there is probably an available library that will let you experiment with some of the most innovative interactions out there.

One of my favorite libraries for processing is NextText. Check this out:

NextText for Processing from Obx Labs on Vimeo.

Digital Art Platform: Field (on a mac)

Field — Processing Plugin overview from OpenEndedGroup on Vimeo.

The Open Ended Group does some amazing work. They have open sourced their digital art development platform, Field. Unfortunately, it is currently only available on the Mac. Hopefully this gets ported to other operating systems because it is quite an innovative tool. If you use a Macintosh, play with this. Be sure to check out some of the performance videos to get a taste for what has been done with this tool set. Truly inspiring. Notice that this tool integrates nicely with Processing.

Digital Puppetry: Animata

Reverse Shadow Theatre from gabor papp on Vimeo.

I love Animata. I think it is so cool that the artists who are creating these sorts of tools recognize the value of open sourcing them. The video above shows an advanced application of the toolset that uses motion-sensing cameras to create a puppet show with real actors. There are also examples of creating digital puppets that respond to sound. This is a tool for creating digital puppets and assumes you have the know how to wire up the necessary components to accomplish your vision.

More Glue: Pure Data
I won’t go into too much detail here, but if your art involves sound, you should probably look at Pure Data. Creating innovative interactions involves plugging this into that. Pure Data is all about that. And it is not limited to manipulating sound. You can incorporate graphics, 3D models, and just about anything else you can dream up.

Machinima Movies: Movie Sandbox

OK, so you want to make a Machinima movie. Of course, you do. Why not take advantage of a 3D game engine to create your movie? Movie Sandbox may be just what you are looking for.

Inspiration:
There are some really interesting projects that have been done with the tools above. I’m just scratching the surface here. Each of the websites I’ve linked to include tutorials to get you started as well as compelling examples. Here are some additional links to explore:
The Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media & Performing Arts Center – Troy, NY USA
HOW TO CONTROL ANIMATA WITH OSC FROM MAX/MSP AND PURE DATA
3D ink scanner in your bathtub
Making Things: a place for hardware, robotics, etc.
Instructables: Tutorials for making things
Graffiti Research Labs
Puppenspiel-Performance at CyNet Art Dresden
Point A to B (excerpts, installation visualization)
RiTa Project Gallery
Christine Sciulli
Electronic Arts Intermix: Best practices for selling/protecting digital art installations
Treasure Islands

So what if you want to do digital art, but you don’t have or can’t afford a computer? Ellohay West Michigan is a local digital inclusion program in which a number of People Design folks have been involved. Its mission is to put gently used laptop computers in the hands of under-served individuals in the West Michigan region. These laptops are donated by area companies and equipped with the open source operating system Ubuntu. So no one needs to feel left out. Except where noted, all these tools should run on Ubuntu.

Have an interesting digital art project? Have an inspiring link? Please share. We love this stuff.

Now get out there and make!

Recently I exchanged emails with one client who has engaged us to redesign their logo, but started to hedge just before finalizing the work. They asked if I could run down the opportunities and risks of changing the logo as I perceive them. I thought I would share my (edited) response here. It applies to anyone looking to evolve their identity.

Changing the graphic identity of any company is always a big step. Companies often get very excited about these efforts right until someone asks: “Do we have to repaint the trucks?” or “How much is that sign going to cost?” That’s about the time they get cold feet. If you find yourself at that point, ask yourself: How serious am I about it? Is it really a step my company is willing to take?

If you prescribe transformative changes and commit to implementing them, if conditions spell opportunity for you to gain market share, then perhaps now is the time to change your logo.

Is it absolutely necessary for your survival? Perhaps not. Is it the best way to signal a change? Absolutely. So the question may be: How committed are you to transforming your brand and signaling that change your stakeholders and customers? If there is not a broader commitment to change, then don’t change the logo. If there is, I can’t imagine not changing it.

If you’re contemplating such a change, you may already be in it. Are you embarking on new initiatives or strategies? Is it a new day in your market? Does your logo symbolize the best of what your company offers? Is your current logo becoming more or less valuable with age?

A new logo is the best way to signal to all stakeholders that your company is doing something different: You have been busy, you are worth another look, you mean something different today. Or, if your customer is new or never took notice in the first place, perhaps they will now.

Changing logos isn’t as scary as it used to be. It shouldn’t be a regular affair, but companies who deal in customer perception (which is to say, all companies with an eye toward the future) evolve their identities regularly. Customers are used to this.

It’s a big investment in your future, in terms of both time and money. But you’re going to be investing anyway – it’s just a matter of how. Invest in the current course, or in a direction that suggests a new future. It’s a tough time in the market for everyone, but it spells opportunity for someone.

People fear change, but to evolve is to change. Not everyone will agree at first. In fact, it’s practically guaranteed that someone won’t like any new direction. But in my experience, the best people will support progressive steps. It can take time, but good ideas generally win. What’s common practice today was new at one time.

Leaders lead. Have the courage of your convictions to confidently take a bold step.

In most organizations, innovation continues to be an event, a job, or a department – a small number of individuals that seem to fit a stereotypical description of outside-the-box or strategic thinkers.

Using the structure supplied by assessments such as Meyers Briggs or DISC, I believe there are at least four personality categories that apply to the innovation process. Each category can be considered both a step in the process and a set of skills that contribute to innovation.

Observers
Individuals obsessed with data populate this category. They read everything they can get their hands on, and they find the time to actually listen to all the podcasts the rest of us merely subscribe to. These individuals are vital for identifying what is happening, changing, emerging, or being talked about.

Connectors
People in this category are adept at finding patterns. They have a natural ability to scan large amounts of information, make connections between seemingly unrelated data, and develop hypotheses about how these data fit together and what the patterns might imply.

Evaluators
This category is reserved for people who excel at recognizing the advantages (or disadvantages) of any given idea, plan, scenario, etc. They possess keen analytical skills. Their insights are highly valuable.

Implementers
Individuals in this category set priorities and execute. They know what it takes to implement new processes and commercialize new products and services.

Thought leaders in this space are predicting a future when the organizations commonly thought of as “innovative” will be the ones who will find a way to manage around the fact that innovation is not a linear process. Innovation functions best when individuals contribute to the steps of the process that most closely match their personality. Observers observing. Connectors connecting. Evaluators evaluating. Implementers implementing.

In our office, we’re constantly passing around emails with links to articles, websites, etc. that someone here finds interesting – usually things that relate loosely to design, technology, or communication. Every once in a while one of these emails will find its way into our thinking or our processes, but more often than not these nuggets of information are digested, then lost. Not the right time, out of context, etc.

Imagine if each of those emails could be tagged and made available for the entire organization in a user-friendly format. The number of data points would grow over time. Information would group or cluster.

Now imagine an individual developing hypotheses based on these information clusters. These hypotheses could range from the predictable to the never-before-considered. Like the data points, the hypotheses would be tagged and made available for the entire organization. Also like the data points, we would begin to see clusters over time. What would happen if the organization could react to and provide critical analysis of these hypotheses?

Over time this process of discussion and analysis would begin to enable the groups of hypotheses to be categorized by their likelihood of panning out. Taking it a step further, imagine if this smaller group of hypotheses-most-likely-to-pan-out could be ranked by the organization in a Digg-like fashion.

Imagine this scenario not as an event, but as a fluid activity. Individuals could participate in as few or as many steps in the process as they felt comfortable, based on their personality. The result of all of this could potentially provide a snapshot of what the organization as a whole is paying attention to at any point in time, as well as our predictions about how these things could impact the organization, our priorities, and our rationale for what we believe deserves attention.

If getting a greater number of people involved in innovation efforts is important to an organization, this is the type of thing that needs to happen. Otherwise, innovation will remain the domain of a small number of people.