I've been around for a while now. I've been alive long enough to know that campaign promises never materialize, all teenagers are stupid and computer-generated graphics are always getting better. I'm thinking of two main branches of graphics here: video game and cinema graphics. Graphics are a really interesting case-existing in the intersection of a number of commercial, logical and artistic forces.

"But Daniel!" you say, worried, "You're a prince among men. Surely you don't fritter away your time with the Devil's Charades!" While it's true that these days I have very little time to spend in Azeroth, I wasn't always Gerard Butler's stunt double. I logged many, many hours playing video games growing up. What I realized was whenever the "next generation" of consoles and graphics was revealed, I would see the graphics and think that they were absolutely perfect. I literally saw them as flawless. Then, when the generation after that rolled around, I would look back and be disgusted that I tolerated the "old" graphics as long as I did. This happened from SNES to N64, from N64 to PS2 and from PS2 to XBOX 360, and it will presumably happen again. Game graphics are revolutionary, until they are abruptly unbearable. It's a similar case for CGI-heavy films like "Speed Racer" or "Wall-E." They just don't age gracefully.

Graphics are in a constant state of advancement, which is unique (to my knowledge) among visual art forms. Most styles of art don't really get labeled "obsolete." They become part of a "movement," which is a nicer word. The reason that graphics get this special treatment is because they are incredibly market driven. People make better graphics because they know they can sell them to you. That's the dirty truth. And even though Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel on contract at sword point (if you believe the stories), we tend to, in principle, look down on art made primarily for money. (Mainstream music and film could be exempt ... but not really when you think about it.) It comes off as "fake," because the artist wasn't really expressing him or herself through the piece.

You can take that argument if you like. But it's somewhat elitist, like preferring a handmade item over a factory-made one, just because the former took more effort. I buy art prints, but I would print them on my own printer if I could get the same quality. By that token, if something is inspiring for me, I don't care if someone was paid to make it. I thought "Speed Racer" was one of the finest films of last year because it was such a visual treat. I loved every second I spent in that theater, and the fact that maybe one film critic on the planet agreed with me didn't change my experience in the slightest.

Graphics are a field of art fueled by consumption. That's fine. They keep getting better because we're paying for it. That doesn't mean, however, that graphics are not significant artistic achievements. It doesn't mean that they can't be beautiful. The amount of skill that goes into modern graphics-the mastery that is necessary to develop such advanced techniques-might rival that of any classical master.

I wrote about programming a few weeks back-arguing that logic can be beautiful art. Graphics are programming with the intent of making visual art, which is like art squared. Graphics combine technological mastery with a more traditional artistic vision, and the fact that people get paid sweet, sweet cash to do it is by and large irrelevant.