Does writing the theory of relativity from memory, make you a math genius?

The issue is the autistic artist Stephen Wiltshire, who became famous after appearing in some TV show where he presented his remarkable photographic memory abilities. First, I would like to honestly state, that I am truly empathic and happy for his success and have nothing in person against him. He really seems like a cute guy.
What I am more concerned about is the definition of art in regards to Wiltshire's abilities. I'll break this down to art's three basic components, as I perceive them.

The three aspects of fine art
Formation: Wiltshire's art scales from basic sketching lessons to advanced architectural drawings at the most. Some of his works are no more than elementary car design sketches or urban views. No innovation of technique and no originality in the perception of reality and it's translation to art. Just plain sketching you might see scattered abundantly around the internet.
Have you ever seen an architect or a car designer selling their sketches as works of art for prices ranging up to 13,000 pounds? I suppose not.

Content: Plain urban views or different motive transportations. No depths of issues, no message, no meaning, no purpose; just some "pretty things" to gaze at.

Awareness: Having evaluated the first two ingredients of fine art and concluded that they sum up to nothing, we are left with the most important one of all.
How does an artist approach a work of art? Well, I assume that there are numerous subtle nuances which define each and every artist of the past, present or future, but the basic grid is the same: you approach art with deep awareness.
What is the motive, the purpose, the essence, the meaning? What is it that which you want to say and what atmosphere will help you convey that message? How will you create that atmosphere and how will the compositional architecture, color scheme, shape formations, light, textures and perspectives influence the atmosphere you are trying to create?
The deeper the message and the more profound the essence are, that much conscious awareness must be present in order to realize that work of art.

On the other hand, when all you want is to copy something from one place to another - with no emphasis on the technique and style, with no intent of purposeful content, with no awareness to the derivative criteria of creation - all you need is the hand-eye coordination awareness, hence the basic instinctual human consciousness.
So far as the context of art is concerned, there should be absolutely no meaning to whether the copying is from another picture using a translucent paper or directly from nature, or as in this case using the memory as the copying source.

So, you're the Rain Man?
Being the artist an autistic-savant automatically boosted the value of his art, simply because there has never been in the recorded history of art another one like him. People might have said to themselves: "Well, there is nothing unique about his art, in neither venue, but hey, he's autistic and he remembers stuff... Oh hey, and it's just like that guy in that movie... I mean, wow!"

Well-greased marketing also helped to obscure from the art establishment and the general public the fact that actually, so far as art and artistic standards are concerned, there is nothing here to make so much fuss about. Had any other non-autistic artist presented such art to any respected gallery or museum in the world, I think that he would have gotten the cold shoulder.

Plainly saying, in this day and age art is mostly a gimmick, which without the appropriate marketing will not see the light of day, not to mention fortune and fame.

More at findigart.com

"This was the solution that was required by itself." - Pier Luigi Nervi

Calm Nervi
He was a renowned construction engineer and an architect. His brilliance of structural engineering and his innovative techniques of using reinforced concrete made him a corner stone in the history of architecture. Yet, his novelty did not bear the intention of rebelling against the "international style" of contemporary architecture of his time. He simply wanted to use concrete according to its own innate statute, to be able to do whatever he feels like in order to realize constructions and buildings that could not have been build otherwise, and that by their very constitution were the immediate and most natural outcome of the purpose they were supposed to serve. And so, very simply, he just did it.

The Goal
Most artists have a style, a certain artistic formative depiction that characterizes them like an unclear fingerprint. Now, one might think after seeing my works that I have many styles ranging from realistic to abstract, from romantic to expressionistic. I seem to be fluctuating between the personal and self-expressive and the generic and impartial.

However, despite the above mentioned or even my repeated criticism of the art establishment and of certain contemporary "ordained" artists - like Nervi I too have no anti-style statement or rebellion behind this approach, nor is it a vane and insecure attempt to be unique. You might also observe my works with superficial formatively judging eyes and arrive to the unjust conclusion that it's just an immature and unripe mish-mash of techniques and styles.
But actually, I am just fully committed to the message and content of the work and all the rest are just by-products. The goal sanctifies the means. Whatever style or technique it is that I might have to use, whether or not it already has a name - so be it.
Indeed it might seem that I don't have a style, but I sure as hell have a lot to say.

Interim criticism
Casually, I might add that having to do the same thing over and over again throughout your life just because you are committed to preserving your personal style as Mondrian did, for example, is somewhat boring. Evolution must take on different ways of expression in order to remain natural, open and flexible.
How can it be that everything that you have to say and express throughout your entire life can always be summed up to a few lines and some colorful squares or say, to the analytic cubistic dissection of figurative perception? What are you, a robot?
Yes, you might say that remaining fanatically committed to purposeful art is in itself a fixation. True, but I can't be perfect, no matter how much I try and believe me - I do (hint: that's the most realistic joke ever been made).

The Name
"This was the simplest way to achieve the goal" - this kind of simple and humble utterance by Nervi, not once concluded operations that stunned the world of engineering and architecture with their innovative genius.
I am not non-pretentious like Nervi. I only want to deliver a message, that's true but along with that I have a tremendous amount of arrogance in me - I am aware of it and I express it.
Oh, God all mighty, you wouldn't have Created me so haughtily condescending if is wasn't for the purpose of me trampling upon them all and proving them wrong...

So do not be confused: my art expresses greater depths than anything else that was ever done before. findigart is the name.

More at www.findigart.com

Would you happen to know, if the hairs of Picasso's brushes were made of ponytails?

Like Pepsi...
findigart - digital fine art; I already chose the name findigart and I love it. In the realms of my own mind it is already an international brand name and I am not going to change it.
However, today it feels important to me to emphasize or even mention the digital facet of my art, more or less like it probably felt important to Picasso to emphasize or even mention that he creates his art using paintbrushes with hairs from antelope's eyelashes. It's simply not relevant anymore.

A man's best friend
What I do is art. If my inclination was towards painting then I would have painted the damn thing, you know. But I've been around computers all my life, I studied computerized graphics in high school, I worked as a system administrator for years - I know computers, I feel comfortable with them. It was only natural that if and when I wanted to do art, I'd use them for that purpose the same as I've been using them for all other purposes in my life. Besides, I admire mathematical precision, I'm fascinated by accurate linear depth perspectives and I am in awe of the sterility of hi-tech. I like my canvas clean when I'm done with it, dig? Anyway, all those could never be truly achieved with bear hands and paintbrushes - certainly not as naturally.

The digital massacre of art
When I surf the Internet for search of other sites and artists who create digital art, I realize why indeed the emphasis is on the digital of their art. What they do exactly reflects the preface of my work [AA00] Ceci nes't pas findigart: "The artwork emerged from the fear of conservativeness, for perhaps there exists the misconception that digital art isn't real art, but rather another way to pass free time with fractal technocracy, computerized simulations of this and that or visual mumbo jumbo of imaginative landscapes and other folly, which are shallow, meaningless and purposeless although they require high technical proficiency and many hours of labor...". So indeed, the essence of their work is digital, while as the art itself vanishes behind all those bits and bytes.

...So is findigart
When it comes to my art, what stands out is not the fact that is was created using a computer and computer software of this or that sort. The prominence is of the fine art essence. And so, I think to myself that I would not want to be positioned in the same category with all those technicians of digitality just because I use a computer to create art. As a matter of fact, I've got nothing to do with "digital art" and I am not a "digital artist"; I am simply an artist and what I create is fine art - fine art in it's finest.

More at www.findigart.com