Is digital art real?

[Presence]

I was just having this discussion with someone.

Is digital art real?

I find it astonishing when people laugh at me when I tell them that our grandchildren are going to in contemporary art history and there will be a digital art movement.

But I still can not help to think that this synthetic medium is only available to us through a myriad of processors, memory, and pixels, that without, this art would not be possible.

And that is the thing that really gets me, for the first time we are using a medium that is current with our time, painting, drawing, sculpture is entirely familiar to us and has been for centuries. But digital art is a NEW medium on the scale yet has.

I was trying to explain that a digital canvas is just as legit as classical painting but it didn't seem to go over too well. That a wacom tablet is the cumulative drive towards the perfect brush, painter 8 the perfect pallet. It just makes sense to me.

Then again he is a fine arts major and I am the integrated media major, it's like Picasso and Dali trying to decide on a glass of wine.

[mtw]

Digital art is kind of like printmaking in that you can make endless copies of the original. I'm sure there are artists who have already made stuff on computers and shown them at galleries.

[Fozzybar]

Fozzybar opens the hyperlink chest:

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17512

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17949

[Presence]

NICE WORK FOZZ!!!

mtw I think you have a point but you can apply print making to anything nowadays

[Red_Rook]

how many of these threads are there now?

[Robert.B]

well firstly you have to define what art is , is art only defined by painting and drawing? Can art only be created through a pencil or paintbrush? And if so then why? I always thought art was what the creater took liscience in. I used to question rather artist who found objects and placed them in galleries were realy artist. If i were you i would reaserch the cannon of art starting with the ancient Greek and roman sculptures all the way to present time.

[malicious]

make sure you read the threads fozzybar linked to, there's lots of good insight there.

i'll make the same statement i did the last time i saw a thread involving the validity of digital art. it's art, no bones about it. i agree with presence, there will likely be some documentation on the digital revolution, eventually.

as for the scope of this revolution... i'm not so sure. it's a shift in medium, the techniques and principals are the same as traditional mediums. i imagine an important footnote would be that the digital canvas is always wet. "undo" commands and backups are godsends.

blah, back to that point i was going to make. art is not so much defined by the medium or the execution, but by the effort and creativity put into it. i say that execution is not so much a defining aspect of art because (in my opinion) the skill level of the artists does not make his art any more or less art.

[JoshuaTheJames]

Where's the smiley that stabs it's self repeatedly when you need it...

:bash:

[zeewee]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned photography in this discussion, being a photography student the question of how valid digital photography is always paramount. With the invention of the negative mass duplication of a photograph has always been possible. The comment by Sammy about when nano technology becomes advanced enough so that the Mona Lisa can be duplicated atom for atom is a very valid one, but doesn't the value then lie with the original, the one that was created by the human rather than the machine. Even if it is on a computer. Digital photography suffers from the same criticism that digital art does, but at the end of the dicussion, the amount of creativity on the artists part is still the same, much like digital art, digital photography sufferes from the same misconception that the artist clicks a button and the computer does the rest. I personally have sat infront of a computer for many days getting one photo perfect, the platform is just different.

Digital art and photography is just another product of postmodernism, when you look at what postmodernism offers, is a view of the world that is a product of everry past movement, rather than something that is totally new and original. Digital software being completely based on the techincal theory of the analoge, photoshop especially is almost a digtal copy of an Ilfospeed Colour Darkrooom enlarger. The idea that analogue art is real and digital art is not is a very modernist view, modernism needs to define between what is good and bad, right and wrong, real and unreal. Modernism likes increasing levels of order. A breakthrough arguement that you must all read is from Jean Baudrillard who said that in a postmodern society there is no original only copies. Postmodernism is something I have found can answer most questions about what is real, what is valid etc, or atleast it can tell me that its just as equal. But it is a very diverse subject that covers every aspect of life, not just art, so get reading. We do after all live in a most postmodern world.

[Minion]

Digital art is a bit different from digital painting.

In digital painting your talent is generally always well reflected in your work.

Digital "art" on the other hand it isn't always so apparent because there are too many different shortcuts and alternate processes one can take to produce better looking work than they might normally be capable of by digitally painting the image.

For example, I'm a texture artist. One of the most common techniques of a texture artist is texture sampling in photoshop. Basically it equates to making a new layer and rubber stamping another surface texture (usually from a digital photo) over your new one then changing the settings to get a result you like.

A good example of this is a mask texture I made a while back for a 3D model...

http://minfiles.r00tus.com/stuffs/TX_A_Indoril_HelmMask.jpg

The same image with no texture sampling.

http://minfiles.r00tus.com/stuffs/no_detail.jpg

As you can see it loses a lot of detail.

Could I have done the detail without the texture sampling? Maybe. But the fact is that I didn't, so we'll never know.

Since all I did was rubberstamp in some texture samples, can you really call that detail my work?

With all the shortcuts and eases provided in digital art programs, can you really insinuate that it is real art and not "art + additional programmed processes"?

[Robert.B]

ok minion im a little confused becasue your focusing on one aspect of digital media and making a broad statement to follow it up.How is digital painting seperate from digital art? Its Digital" no matter how you look at it. Are you saying that digital painting is the only lagit form of cg art ? How so when when digital painting is just a simmulator of the actual painting process, when you paint on real canvas there is no (Ctrl Z) you have to control the medium which requires intense skill.I dont think that generalising on one clone stamp technique devorces digital media from the art cannon. Working with the computer only makes the creative process easier for the artist , which in the end allows for more creativity becasue the artist isnt fighting with the medium.

[Minion]

You misunderstand, I'm saying digital painting is the closesest thing to 'real art' that the digital medium has to offer.

It's also not just the clone stamp, pretty much every filter and half the tools in photoshop are designed to automate a complex process that usually relies on the users intuition and understanding of the concept. Rendered lighting for example, bevel effects, ripple distortions, color changes of highlight addition effects, etc, etc, etc.

[Robert.B]

yes i understand that, but all your naming are tools and short cuts, this shouldnt define rather its art or not. mabey you work wiht a representational goal aspect? if so i can see how this would seem generic to you, maybe you should open up to abstraction and then you will understand the digital medium better.

[sixBlade]

.. which when used without knowledge of the subject look crap and are easily visiblein most people who use those filters work. The texutre thing is a bit difficult.. sure you can add texture easier.. but surely its just like having say 30 brushes of all different types around you to make any texture you want quickly in traditional medium?

[Bradart]

i have thought about this subject, and i dont really think its as black and white, right or wrong, yes or no as we think it is. If someone posts a digital painting, we can never be sure if they actually painted it, or edited an image, or if they even did it. Inversely, it is just an easier way for someone to make art. But contrary to that, i believe that part of art being art is that the artist IS and artist because that CAN wrestle with their medium. If you draw with a pen and screw up, you either make it work or start over. in a computer you hit "undo". I'm not saying digital art is not real art, because art is about ideas. I really cant decide fully one way or the other.

[artistanbul]

not anyone can be craig mullins with textured low opacity brushes, and not everyone can be sargent with watercolors. thats that. what makes the difference is what we call art.

[haha]

truly. what does it matter what we define as art anyway?

[Minion]

Originally posted by noshadowmaster
yes i understand that, but all your naming are tools and short cuts, this shouldnt define rather its art or not. mabey you work wiht a representational goal aspect? if so i can see how this would seem generic to you, maybe you should open up to abstraction and then you will understand the digital medium better. Honestly I can barely make out your posts, this isn't meant to be an offense, just stating that I really don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

Tools, technique, and processes will *always* be a part of art. Simply having an imagination isn't artistic, it's your ability to portray it as you see it.

Artwork is made up of two words, art... and work...

The issue at hand is that when you use automated processes it becomes less and less of your own work.

[acuna_read]

Is it art? Yes it is!
Is it real? Yes it is!

It is art as mentioned in the other threads and this as there has been a creative process behind it (I would now consider most music not to be art). Its a very strange system/way of thinking I have.

But! There is something odd with it, does this then mean that traditional paintings become 3D, and are indeed not 2D? When something is painted there is emotion behind the painting, whether that be the harsh way in which a brush stroke is put down, showing the anger etc. If I see this on a computer screen having been created by a Wacom it has that 'feel/emotion' to it, but it does not exist as i cannot feel the undulations (although its a shame i'm not allowed to touch 'The Kiss' etc) to the paint. But once something is printed it then looses this quality, this personal touch as the technology/computer has interfered too much. If however the artist makes (or at least claims) that it was part of the process, perhaps in a similar way to Lichtenstein and his dots etc then it is 'real' art.

Thats my opinion, but then doesnt this just show that art is what we make it?:confused: :D

[Robert.B]

minion let me ask you this, what if there was a tool that allowed you to create what ever you imagined in your head with just a press of a button. Would your render not me conciderd art becasue you used that tool to create it.Art and artwork are not one and the same, Art can be what the viewer perceives it to be, the viewer doesnt have to work when he desides what an art piece is its a automatic reaction. you seem to believe that the rendering process is what defines art. As we develope a sartist we learn different rendering techniques which are just tools for us to make use of when trying to depict the images from are head or life. For instance cross hatching, just one of many drawing techiniques is a tool ( when i say tool i dont mean an actual object, i mean a mental tool which we utilze in are rendering process.What im trying to get at is basicaly this computers are tools just like the cross hatching is a tool the computer mimics this so that the process will be easier yes, but with ease comes greater level of imagination be casue your rendering process doesnt slow down your ideas.

[artistanbul]

man. yeah everything is art. but I guess we are talking about artistic value. and that can bu formulized as this:

(artist x tool)-(the guy over there x tool)

if there is a huge difference it has a huge artistic value.
and you, as a viewer, appreciator will decide the levels of difference, ergo the value.

[jetpack42]

I've been thinking about reality alot lately; what it is, how I can define it, how I can be sure of it. I haven't come up with a solid answer. One thing I have decided, is that reality is different for everybody; as in, The way I percieve my reality is different from the way somebody else percieves thier reality. I believe Einstien's theory of relativity is similar (if not the same) as what I am trying to say. 2 people experiencing the same thing see it 2 different ways.

I think this applies to art as well. If you believe digital art is "art"...then it is. Conversely, if you don't, you don't. It's something you have to decide for yourself.

That said...Jackson Pollock is no "artist" in my book, whereas, Craig Mullins whips the llama's ass.

[artistanbul]

AND I NEVER LIKED VAN GOGH!! I HATE VAN GOGH!! HATE!
whew.. what a relief... glad its out of my system at last...

[sepulveda]

After reading the replies on this and other threads I had to put my two cents...I am a firm believer of Digital Art, I have participated in art exhibits with pieces that are 100% digital, painter or photoshop, and the most common comment I have heard is "I didn't know you could do THAT with a computer"... or "how do you do that with a mouse?" .... and what I notice is that the general public has no idea what can be done with a wacom tablet, or seen the amazing work we see on a daily basis on this forum, they have no idea what painter is, maybe they know about the uses of photoshop for photo manipulation, but not the great uses we have for the brush tool, and especially what can be done with a wacom tablet...

One time I was talking to a friend of mine, who had only seen my airbrushed illustrations, and told me he loved my artwork, but when I mentioned I have done Digital Art, he laughed and told me: "Well, I wouldn't call it Art" (he made this comment withouth seeing the work)....so I went on the offensive as to why he didn't consider it Art, and from discussing the subject with him, I found out he had never seen anything close to sparth illustrations, or graig mullins artwwork. since I was at his home, I could only show him small jpgs of my work from my website, but the next day I went back with a couple of my digital prints , and based from his reaction, he had a different opinion....and also said to me: "I didn't know you could do THAT with the computer"

[Minion]

Originally posted by noshadowmaster
minion let me ask you this, what if there was a tool that allowed you to create what ever you imagined in your head with just a press of a button. Would your render not me conciderd art becasue you used that tool to create it.Art and artwork are not one and the same, Art can be what the viewer perceives it to be, the viewer doesnt have to work when he desides what an art piece is its a automatic reaction. you seem to believe that the rendering process is what defines art. As we develope a sartist we learn different rendering techniques which are just tools for us to make use of when trying to depict the images from are head or life. For instance cross hatching, just one of many drawing techiniques is a tool ( when i say tool i dont mean an actual object, i mean a mental tool which we utilze in are rendering process.What im trying to get at is basicaly this computers are tools just like the cross hatching is a tool the computer mimics this so that the process will be easier yes, but with ease comes greater level of imagination be casue your rendering process doesnt slow down your ideas. Imagination is imagination. Art is a conjunction of usage between imagination and a medium. That's why there are various kinds of arts, literary arts, performing arts, musical arts, etc.

Simply having an imagination doesn't mean you're an artist.

[bat]

There are still people who don't think that airbrushed art isn't art, considering this as too new/easy to use of a medium, not knowing that the airbrush was invented in the 1800's and that an airbrush itself takes skill to use, especially when not using stencils and doing everything freehand.

I personally believe that whatever medium a person uses to convey an idea into a form that can be shared with others can be considered art. Some people still mix their own pigments, some people are skilled with a graphics tablet, but fundamentally, all are striving towards the same goal.

bat

[Presence]

For those of you complaining about this thread being done over and over, some of have not in fact believe it or not been around as long as you and it may be a new conversation to us,

so chill.

[jwo]

is macaroni art real?

[PoX]

I don't see why this is such a big issue. Digital art is no different or less valid than any other type of art. Its just a newer medium.

Computers can not think creatively, they just crunch numbers. A computer/wacom is just an art tool. No different than a brush or pencil is an art tool. It just happens to be a very powerful tool. As we all know, if you give an absolute noob the latest and greatest computer/software and let him paint, he will produce shit because he has no artistic skill/talent.

The general public can be forgiven for their ignorance, and assuming that the computer is doing all the work, but everyone here should know better.

I think some people think its less valid because in some ways its easier than using traditional media. Thats just an effect of human progression, creating art has gotten easier and will continue to, both through newer tools and access to better learning resources.

But just because newer methods/tools make it easier does not detract from its value or validity.

Its like saying, oh you used paint from a tube, instead of mixing up your own from scratch, that’s cheating because your using someone elses product/tool.
Using an airbrush? Thats cheating because you can get smooth gradients so easy where as that would be much harder with a brush. And you didn't make that airbrush. Using a template to airbrush? Cheating…

Using a ruler to lay down perspective lines? CHEATING! Its much easier than drawing straight lines free hand.
In fact you bought that paintbrush from a shop, it was manufactured in a factory, Thats cheating because you should of made all your tools from scratch. And that canvas, you didn't make that either.

This whole argument is ridiculous, and aims to push art backward instead of advancing it forward. Following this thought process; we should all be smearing coloured mud on cave walls.

So is digital art real? Its as real as any other form of art.

[JM]

Well..what I think it that if guys back in the renaissance had computers and art programs they would use them too. They used what they had and now we use what we have.

[Robert.B]

Quote



MysteriousBlue
Sword Pupil


Well..what I think it that if guys back in the renaissance had computers and art programs they would use them too. They used what they had and now we use what we have.

[.cfb]

art1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

Noah Webster would agree with those of you that say Digital Art is, in fact, art. That clears that up: by definition, it is. Is that enough? Well, has semantics ever stopped anyone from arguing, no?

My personal opinion: although it still takes skill and talent to use a stylus and a tablet, and I respect those that can, I (subconsciously, maybe?) never give a painting done digitally as much credit as one done traditionally. It's not something I'm proud of, but I do it. Why? Because the digital medium is significatly easier to use; it allows you to cover up your mistakes easier.

But that doesn't mean it's not art.

[Redder]

Originally posted by jetpack42
That said...Jackson Pollock is no "artist" in my book, whereas, Craig Mullins whips the llama's ass.

<gasping> Insolent fool! :p

Originally posted by artistanbul
AND I NEVER LIKED VAN GOGH!! I HATE VAN GOGH!! HATE!
whew.. what a relief... glad its out of my system at last...

:jawdrop: Guards seize the traitor!

[flavorite]

if you can sense it in any way (such as seeing it) then it is as real as "real" will ever be.

[Molly]

I have never asked myself this question (about Digital Art being 'real' art?) and after reading through this thread, I believe it always has been, and always will be.
The computer is just a tool. As much as a paint brush, pen, pencil...blah blah blah...
The operater, is the artist....

Mollyx;)

[N D Hill]

All definitions aside, (we've had a dozen or so topics regarding this already) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that digital artists have to justify what they do to themselves and the easily excitable so-called "experts" and "teachers" who get all worked up when someone suggests that their narrow minded scope of art is lacking.
Do what you want to do (as long as your not steeling). Create what you want to create. If someone tells you not to because it's different from what they do, tell them to piss off. I find it hilarious that the self-proclaimed know-it-alls who hate digital mediums can even call themselves artists after undermining another's conduit for self expression. God knows it'd be anarchy if artists were allowed to work in any way they see most fit to express themselves! We can't have that now can we.
If someone doesn't like it and tries to discredit you just because of your prefered medium and you continue anyway, your a better artist for having done so. Anyone who dwells whether or not a medium is valid while completely ignoring an original idea that it's presenting is simply ignorant. Plain and simple.

[sixBlade]

it is art but not in the traditional sense - endless perfect reproductions are possible. How do you define the original copy? Why is it worth more than another print-out? etc

[Robert.B]

I hate pollock too i always have why the hell is his crap in museums????????

[sixBlade]

because the CIA funded his career; America had absolutely no art movements it could call its own so they paid pollock loads of money and popularised his art forcefully.

I hate his 'art' too.

[Robert.B]

hey any body want ta check out some of my threads?


http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22012


http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22268


http://vermad.deviantart.com/

[sixBlade]

yes because they are of course just SO relevant to this thread!

Stop the spam asshole. [everyone else plz excuse my french]

[Presence]

The thing that gets to me a bit is this, there are just so many parallels, the canvas is the screen, the paints are the tools in photoshop etc.

I really think that it is indeed art, bottom line and I think that for the first time we have finally come to a serious stage in our society where technology and art have really begun to come together.

AND why is everyone harping on Jackson so badly, I just finished my contemporary art history semester and I really enjoyed his work, I don't think he is the most significant artists to come around in the past century but I really do enjoy it.....and isnt that the point.

[sixBlade]

well since his work is supposed to show his emotion; which was mostly severe depression I'd have to say no. ;)

He isn't like other artists.. he was manufactured into pseudo-popularity.. everyone in America has heard of him because the CIA forced him into the public eye so everyone would know about him. Thats so fake! People should get into the media because their work is really great, not because the government pay the media to advertise work which otherwise would likely never have got anywhere. Its too artifical for me.