Is digital art?

I’m just wondering how everyone else feels about digital art. Art created on the computer. Is it it “art” in your opinion? Can digital art be “fine” art, as opposed to say, “mere” illustration? Ever notice how everybody is an “artist” these days, except for the “illustrators”? When does illustration become “art” and when does an illustrator become an “artist”?

For my own part, I have to say that illustrators are artists, in every sense of the word. Whether you’re creating something to hang on the wall, or doing it for an ad, it’s all art. Hence, digital media is as valid as “hand done” work, as long as it’s all done by the artist on their machine and elements (pictures, other people’s work, pre-existing stuff) are not lifted from other sources and used as “fill”. The only thing I can’t come to grips with is the fact that there is no “original”.

I’d like to hear other people weigh-in on this.

... technical drawings (cad) could be considered art... digital imaging could be considered art... digital audio can most certainly be art... anything could be considered art...

... sure, digital can be art...

interesting topic.....with the digital age comes digital artists.(i.e. doug horne). I love dougs work, and since he only does digital art, i gotta say, yes, it's art....these are strange times...with all the technology and possibilites available to artists, I believe that this will be a debated topic, not just here, but in the art world at large....the lines are definately going to get blurred on this one. As for illustrators, I always felt that they were artists. hell, shag was an illustrator before he was a painter. so was Paul moch and scores of others....

"Artist" has really become a catch-all phrase in the visual arts business, and "Art" has about as many definitions as there are people on the planet. If by "art" you mean something that is thought up, created and sold, sure digital is "art" (but so is the Flo-Bee, by that definition). There are many digital artists who do limited number runs of prints and sell them. It's not much different than printmaking in that respect, except that there's no guarantee that the original will be destroyed completely as there is when a print plate is destroyed. Will digital (printed) artworks ever have the collectible and/or historical value that traditional paintings have? Not likely. But that's okay, since digital "artists" shouldn't be trying to emulate an old industry anyway. It's a different business, more along the lines of commercial illustration, and there's no reason to assume it should adopt the methods or practices of the of painting, sculpting or printmaking businesses.

Where it really differs is in the art buyer. Some buy artwork as an investment, some just because they enjoy the piece. "Art" is more about the idea than the method of communicating it. I've done animation, 3D modeling, 2D illustration (both digital & traditional), industrial design, set building, graphic design, & technical illustration. Am I an artist? I suppose yes, in the loosest sense of the word. I usually don't call myself that, though, because I think it has connotations for the layperson of beret-wearing, Galoise-smoking cafe intellectuals who can't find "real" jobs. "Artist" is not a job title that gets much respect in this country. Frankly, I'm surprised I ever got paid to do the work I do, which is an opinion I think I share with many artists and non-artists alike.

Is it art?

Of course, everything can be art, from 17-syllable haikus to 30-minute sitcoms to rap music to the way you blow your nose.

Do I like it?

No, not yet.

I'm not sure of the definition of "fine art," but true "art" is usually reserved for works that demonstrate originality, universal messages, mastery of a given technique, and demonstrate good understanding of general aesthetics.

[ Edited by: mbonga 2006-01-06 14:59 ]

To continue the echo, yep, it's art.

mbonga touched on my personal hangup when he tossed in the phrase "mastery of a given technique." It's a lot easier for me to grasp the challenge a painter had when trying to capture a reflection of light, or the way a writer found just the right turn of phrase to capture a mood, or the way a sculptor or carver created a curve just so, but it's harder for me to appreciate what the challenges are on a computer, because much of that is foreign to me. Did the artist create that shading, or was there a function in the program he was using that did it for him? Composition and color choice can still be pretty cleanly appreciated, but beyond that, it's just harder to appreciate. That will probably change as time goes on and a wider audience is able to understand what is hard on a computer, and what is easy.

On 2006-01-06 15:08, Humuhumu wrote:
Did the artist create that shading, or was there a function in the program he was using that did it for him? Composition and color choice can still be pretty cleanly appreciated, but beyond that, it's just harder to appreciate. That will probably change as time goes on and a wider audience is able to understand what is hard on a computer, and what is easy.

Good point, Humu. But I contend that art is ultimately all about making decisions. Whether that decision is what to chisel away from a chunk of marble or which shader to apply to that 3D object, it's still just a decision that a human being has made to suit some end or other. But digital artwork is still in its relative infancy and will require some time for the general public to catch up to what's going on. Or not. I mean, does everyone who enjoys good photography understand completely the process that great photographers used? Probably not unless the viewer is a photographer himself. They know he used a camera and a darkroom, and that's about it. I'd say that creating "art" is less about technical accomplishment than about innovative or creative thinking.

Computers have popularized access to image creation tools like no invention has before. These new "visualizers" may not be "artists", but there sure are a lot of them out there. I see tons of horrible 3D artwork all the time and even the most hackneyed, derivitive, or in the case of computers, push-button work can sometimes reveal the glimmer of an interesting idea. Whether I'd pay for it or want to hang that artwork on my wall is another matter :wink: I've sene many traditional paintings that were technically brilliant but that communicated nothing, and many digital artworks that conveyed interesting ideas or emotions or even beauty while being technically inauspicious.

On 2006-01-06 15:08, Humuhumu wrote:
To continue the echo, yep, it's art.

... Did the artist create that shading, or was there a function in the program he was using that did it for him?...

... an artist can render art in the medium of his/her choice...

... to quantify the steps one takes to arrive at their destination doesn't necessarily confirm the journey, rather, it's the arrival itself that does... this is where the viewer (or listener) finds the art...

... beer helps, too...

and lets not forget, andy Warhol paid other people to make his paintings for him. Yet many people consider him a great artist. Marcel Duchamps just hung a urinal up in a gallery... so its not always about the journey. Sometimes its just the idea!

(not that I'd buy a urinal and hang it on my wall....)

i used to have a big problem with digital art - until i learned how to use photoshop and illustrator. there are some people that will use a single filter on a photo and call it digital art, and then some people that will digitally "paint" something from scratch, yes - but isn't that the same as the difference between someone drawing a stick-man and someone rendering a near-photo-real drawing with the same pencil? admittedly, i still see the "single-filter" people and cringe, but now that i know more about what goes into digital art, i have no problem calling it as such. i AM, however, one of those unrefined sorts that has a hard time seeing, say, an installation of a urinal as art. (representational all the way, baby!)

my opinion on the difference between illustration and fine-art (but there are grey areas, as with anything): illustration is created as an accompaniment to or as an (you guessed it) illustration of a concept, a story, an editorial thought, instructions, or something else seperate from the art. fine art is done purely for the image's sake. some of the reasons the definition isn't 100% fast are - sometimes an extant piece of fine art is later used as an illustration; sometimes a piece of fine art is inspired by a historical or mythological event or concept (so is it then an illustration?). the line is blurry.

ok, i think i could write pages arguing this out with myself, so i'll just stop there... it's shades of grey.

you know, on re-reading some of the above comments, i'd have to say that, like SO MANY things in our world, the definitions and even concepts are changing and shifting every day. for instance, the masses had to stop categorizing music in only 3 bins in the early 90s when grunge and rap-rock and rave got big. technology and "advancement" of the human race blurs lines and erases old ways of thinking and doing all the time.

When one enters art school "what is art" is given and re-given as the topic you write essays about. I believe the idea is to keep informing the student that he/she is wrong simply to see if by Junior Year, they have the fortitude to keep getting rejected.

There is of course no answer.
There are onions and that's the great part where the nasty name calling comes in.

It seems to have nothing to do with the actual skills of the person who did the pieces (Or as is often the case like with Jeff Koons who had them fabricated or collected said pieces)

A piece of a Palm Tree that looks exactly like a woman's lower torso is as much a piece of art when looked at as a Roussou painting, or the soap made from humans in concentration camps, a cross in a jar of urine, or a bison painted on a cave wall in Lascaux. It never stops amazing me how much people like pulling the rug out from each other, or attacking something as not being art.

It seems to be more the object's ability to stir emotion....which all of those things do when noticed or viewed in a certain fashon. Both pleasant and vulgar images work...

One other thing that was touched on...everybody being an ARTIST...it really is bullshit...the word is so overused it really has mutated to nothing. Further, the seemingly lower status of "Craftsman" as being below or less than Artist is irksome.

It seems like a less glamorous version...like for Artist who have to work for a living, and can't throw-up on their patron's are reduced to being Crafts People.

Rant rave

Great topic

...one of those unrefined sorts that has a hard time seeing, say, an installation of a urinal as art. (representational all the way, baby!)

... its not the urinal... its the way you use your best cursive to spell your name as you pee...

... that is art...

... and, again, beer helps...

... technology and "advancement" of the human race blurs lines and erases old ways of thinking and doing all the time...

... rather than blur, it refines and embellishes the path to the end...

Because you can create something artistic does not make you an Artist.
A person who paints paintings is a painter
A person who Sculpts is a Sculpter
Etc, Etc
Michaelangelo WAS an Artist!

Betty Paige.
She was living art.

The reason I asked the question is because sometimes when I mention to folks that a particular piece was born on the computer, any interest they may have had, suddenly goes away. I had the distinct impression that they were, perhaps turning their nose up at it. What I have a problem understanding was why was it desirable when they thought it was done in a conventional "artist's" manner and undesirable when it is learned that it was generated on a computer. Ya either like it or ya don't. Why is the medium so important? Because it's not limited? It can be limited easily. Far too easily (I lost 3 years of work in a crash, I was sick after that). If you take digital art and reproduce it in a traditional manner, say, a silkscreen, then all of a sudden it's acceptable to some of those folk and I kind'a understand that. Now we go back to the fact that, again, some people consider prints cheap copies of originals. So, how does that jibe when there is no "original"?

On 2006-01-07 01:45, cheekytiki wrote:
... Because you can create something artistic does not make you an Artist...

... actually, yes it does...

... whoever wants to be an artist can be an artist...

... if you believe you are an artist, then you are an artist...

... it is way more simple than it otherwise appears...

Hey Humu, I'd be curious what Hanford would call the images produced by his "Artage" software.

... if you believe you are an artist, then you are an artist...

in some ways i think that's true, but not in others. i mean, does someone that owns a guitar but only plays once a year call themselves a musician with any honesty? i think there's sometimes a difference between one who makes art and an artist.

For the sake of demonstration, this piece was included in a recent art show.

My first reaction was, "Wow, that's just a photo that's been photoshopped." My friend countered, "I can do that too."

Now I know the arguement is if you can do it, than why didn't you? But I can see how a common use of everyday software can be immediately dismissed whether it is art or not. It seems to be perceived as more of a "craft" in the paint-by-numbers or refrigerator art vein...

... i think there's sometimes a difference between one who makes art and an artist...

... if the beer is cold (and readily available), does any of this really matter?...

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore - fixed BB code - 2006-01-07 14:38 ]

On 2006-01-07 13:04, stuff-o-rama wrote:

...For the sake of demonstration, this piece was included in a recent art show.

My first reaction was, "Wow, that's just a photo that's been photoshopped." My friend countered, "I can do that too."...

... but then, one might say, "geez, that "photoshopped" girl looks not unlike a girl i loved dearly during my first two years in college... we shared an apartment, a life and made amazing love to each other... our relationship ended up in confusion and sadness... we never again saw (or heard from) each other... i still love her and hope to, one day, hear her voice again."...

... maybe it is art for some and not others...

[ This Message was edited, in the hopes that Pat Robertson was praying for us ]

[ Edited by: alohabros 2006-01-07 14:16 ]

On 2006-01-07 10:44, Tiki-bot wrote:
Hey Humu, I'd be curious what Hanford would call the images produced by his "Artage" software.

Art.

I think digital art (the kind you find in an art gallery) falls into two major categories: Art that is obviously digital, and art that is no-so-obviously digital. Obvious digital art is stuff like 3d rendering, or pixelated, or digital installations, etc. That kind of art tends to be appreciated less because it's less traditional not just in production but also in presentation; it's not trying to be traditional. This is common with many types of fringe art, not just digital. Found Art is an example, performance art is another. It's art, but is accepted less than, say, oil paintings.

Art that is not-so-obviously digital tends to get clustered into the "faking it" or "taking shortcuts" categories, and when people discover they've been duped they often are left with a bad taste in their mouth. Much in the same way that a lot of people rejected sampling when they first discovered that -- gasp! -- the drums in the hit song they've been listening to in their tape deck was just a recorded loop of digital percussion! I think this is human nature, people don't like to be tricked, and they tend to not want to believe that computers can replicate something that is so organic.

In the end I think it's extremely rare to have a great piece of art produced by a person who's not talented, whether a computer is used or not. We all know that if you're a shitty storyteller when you use a typewriter, you'll be a shitty storyteller when you use a word processor. Technical aspects improve when using a computer but your talent doesn't. whether it's writing or art.

Now, to answer Foamy's question:

Composition and overall quality aside, when I see computer-art in a gallery I tend to think less of it than I do a real painting or even a reproduction of a real painting. I don't know why, especially considering I'm mostly a digital artist myself. I still admire great digital art, though. It's just a higher standard I'm holding it to, so I see less great digital art than I do traditional.

In the end I think it's extremely rare to have a great piece of art produced by a person who's not talented, whether a computer is used or not. We all know that if you're a shitty storyteller when you use a typewriter, you'll be a shitty storyteller when you use a word processor. Technical aspects improve when using a computer but your talent doesn't. whether it's writing or art.

that's an excellent point.

i read once about a chinese calligraphy teacher that wadded up a piece of paper from his desk, dipped it in ink, and made a beautiful character with it. tools can help you up to a point, then it's more about ability.

....like the pop artists of the 60's and all other art movements that sought to push the limits of art and to broaden our horizons to newer possibilites in art, so too, the digital age will usher in yet another expansion of artistic possibilites, challenging us all and pushing us to yet again, open our minds to art in a technological age.......

in answer to hanford and foamy, i belive that the reason most folks feel so strongly about traditional art mediums as opposed to the newer digital art, is for the very reason we create it....we're human. traditional art reflects the "hands-on" applications of the artist.....we can see the brush strokes, see the chisel marks and feel all texture in a work of art.....you get none of this from a digital work of art and I think that sensing a human quality in something made by hand is just more appealing to folks.....it doesn't mean that digital is not art, just that the overall social concience has yet to warm up to the idea.....it probably will in time, just like people eventually warmed up to the impressionists, the dadaists, the pop artists, etc.......remember, there was a time when all new forms of art were looked at with skeptisizm and scrutiny both by acadamia as well as the general public......welcome to the new renaisiance......

Art is in the Eye of the Beholder.

If the beholder isn't there, than, it's just something You Do!!!

Everyone is an artist.

The Beholder, makes you an Artist.

p.s. I'm wearing 100% bamboo pants!( no cotton). Who ever sewed these pants is an artist, to me!!

Digital art is art to me. A lot of Sam Gambinos awesome work is "computerly" done. Foamy also has some killer digi art too.

I would also consider some of the recent digital films to be considered "art" too, in a very alternative way. The level of detail and "period-ness" in some films is amazing - look at the sets in The Incredibles. I dig it, in a big way.

Im not big on producing it myself though. You dont get that tangible feedback or interaction with your art as you do with a paintbrush, pencil, chisel, or urinal... okay, maybe not the urinal. With a chisel if you stuff up and take off too much you gotta work with it. The production of the artistic piece is a journey in itself. With digital art if you stuff up you just delete that last line and have another go. I dont know, it just aint the same.

I tend to have more respect for a "traditional" artist for this reason. Yes, digital art requires skills, and different from painting or carving skills. But the safety net just doesnt work for me. Yeh, Im a picky bastard I know.

And with digital artists like Foamy and Sam, I know they got the goods to create just as good art with a paint brush or pen, so I have more respect for them and their skills.

It someone spends time, thought and effort into creating a piece of work, then that deserves to be looked at and considered.

Now if you decide that you don't like it then that's fine. That's art.

Whether you decide you don't like a piece of work because it's poetry, dance or digital art, seems a little narrow minded.

No one else should tell you an artist is good. You decide.

On 2006-01-07 10:23, alohabros wrote:

On 2006-01-07 01:45, cheekytiki wrote:
... Because you can create something artistic does not make you an Artist...

... actually, yes it does...

... whoever wants to be an artist can be an artist...

... if you believe you are an artist, then you are an artist...

... it is way more simple than it otherwise appears...

I can make a Gin and Tonic, but I still don't believe that makes me a mixologist

Ive only just recently (since joining TC) started referring to myself as an artist. I still dont like to much. I create art, but Im just not big on the 'artist' tag.

I tend to immediately think of people who create what looks like a kids painting, gives it some fancy term thats 'in' this week, and then charges a gazillion bucks for it.

But then I consider people like Kenneth Howard (Von Dutch - the man, not the brand), Ed Roth, Coop, etc, and these guys are all cool artists. Yeh, I can dig that. An artist I am.

When a new tool first appears, it's purpose is usually to make something once very difficult easier.

(Computer Graphics, animation, Web layout...)

Once the one becomes familiar with the products rendered from these tools, the people with artistic/design talent, skills, or those who are simply clever start to surface.

Old mediums, like paint, and sculpture have less short cuts...I think that's why we give them more credibility as art.

To the point that "Everyone is an Artist"...does that mean that really there is no such thing as an artist? (In contrast to everyone is potentially a producer of Art?)

On 2006-01-09 15:16, cheekytiki wrote:

I can make a Gin and Tonic, but I still don't believe that makes me a mixologist

... quite to the contrary, you are a mixologist, sight unseen...

... mix·ol·o·gy, n. The study or skill of preparing mixed drinks...

... once you read about how to mix a drink, then try to mix a drink and enjoy your efforts (gee whiz, someone else may like 'em, too), you have become a mixologist...

... enjoy the moniker...

Pssst. Hey buddie, com'ere. I got some prime waterfront real estate ta sell ya...

On 2006-01-10 10:10, foamy wrote:

...Pssst. Hey buddie, com'ere. I got some prime waterfront real estate ta sell ya...

... the con is art, too...

... if you believe it, its true...

I actually believe that there is a law in the works that would make digital art pornography "pornography" and against the law for certain types of it.

This is just kind'a fun.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-01-12 07:09 ]

But is it art? Sure it's art, but is it GOOD? Even that is a question that can only have relative answers. Do you like it (and why)? To me that's a much more fun question. I think it's easy to get caught up in some of the connotative meanings beyond what a word like art actually means. Things like...

"art must carry an intentional creative message from the artist"
"art requires the mastery of a medium"
"art must be tangible"
"art cannot be the result of accident"
"art cannot be purely derivative"
"art cannot be something produced for purely commercial purposes"

All of these have counterexamples. I'd contend that it's much more fitting to allow a broad definition for "art" that encompasses most any creative act. Once you bypass the abstract debate over terms, you can get into the fun part, which is the specific discussions of what we like or dislike about specific creative works. That's when we get into things that characterize the experience, "does it inspire?","does it provoke?","is it familiar?","is it beautiful?","is it funny?". (About that last question "is it funny?", have you ever noticed that Oscars rarely go to comedies? Why should humor be considered less of an artistic achievement?) One of the interesting things about digital art forms is that they present new kinds of experience - a perfect example of "the medium is the message". In other words, how is the overall experience of digital art different as a result of its inherent features? Some little examples...

It can be copied more easily and experienced more widely at the same time, so the ratio between artist and audience is different. A truly original piece could simultaneously be in every museum in the world - original in the sense that all cases are exactly what the artist created (digitally) down to the last bit.

The creative process is more abstracted from the audience (no globs of paint or chisel marks) in many digital formats, so the results may seem less personal. What if you could record and playback the creative process? So when you experience an example of digital art, you can see not only a final product, but the entire process from scratch. This is impossible with something like a physical painting, but could re-introduce some of the personal element to the art form in the digital case.

The experience of digital art comes in one of two forms - presented "natively" in its digital form on a device like a screen, or extracted from the digital environment and reproduced in some tangible form like a print. In the first case, visual digital art resembles other art forms like music. You can't touch or look at a song to experience the musical performance. You can only experience a song while it's performed, either live or from a recording. With a work of visual digital art, once you turn off the screen it's gone. But actually the two cases are closer to each other than that if you think about it. You could leave the screen on just as long as you have the print hanging. Taking down the print and putting it in the closet is equivalent to turning off the screen. And both forms introduce a conversion process that makes the audience experience different (even in small ways) from what the artist saw or heard - things like different color values on the screen or in the print process.

Digital art also affords other possibilities that traditional art forms don't, like interactivity. And as some of the earlier posts suggested, it also enables the distribution of work that is creative in different ways. Many works of digital visual art are the equivalent of music produced with a drum machine. Although the computer provides shortcuts in some parts of the creative process that would traditionally have to be performed, it also allows for new forms of creativity that can still be appreciated as having real creative value (in the eye or ear of the beholder). This is why it makes sense to me that people would naturally use different criteria for their opinions of digital art, because the experience is different and the creative process is different, so therefore the ideal is different. I think it'll be really interesting to see how opinions and attitudes change in unexpected ways as a result of these new kinds of experience from the new media.

Sorry for getting all philosophical and stuff, these kinds of discussions are fun. Here's a few artists that I like, who do or did use digital tools at least some of the time. Don't wanna step on toes, since I'm not sure if any of them would consider themselves digital artists though. All of these people used to have works in the Burning Brush auctions, btw. I think Kirsten Ulve is the only one whose work at Burning Brush was literally a print of a digitally created work (and it did sell).

Kirsten Ulve,
Chris Reccardi,
Lynne Naylor,
Miles Thompson (not sure if he'd call himself a digital artist these days though),
Carlos Ramos

-Randy

Those are some nice links you posted there. That stuff just works for me. Great explanation of how you feel about digital as well. There are some nice, concise thoughts expressed in this thread and I am appreciative.

Speaking of Aquarj and digital art, here's someone that, I think, would consider himself a digital artist. His name is Nick Pugh and he painted this collage of images directly on a laptop. He calls it digital plein air painting or digital impressionism.
http://www.nickpugh.com/
The reason I chose this group of images to show is that if you look in the lower right-hand corner, you will find that our own Aquarj has been immortalized in this digital art.

On another note, when modern photography first came about in 1839, it was seen mainly as a tool for painters to record studies from which to paint. Certain artists of the late 1800s were the first to see photography as a new art medium. Unfortunately, to this day, you still see a clear delineation in art galleries between "artists" and "photographers." (a pet peeve of mine.) Perhaps this is because of the mechanical assistance of the camera vs art by a brush. There are some that would refer to art using the medium of photography as "photo art," but more often than not, the majority still see a separation. I think it will be some time before computer-based art will be accepted by the mainstream as well as traditional art has because of that same perception of the mechanical assistance of the computer just as it was with the camera. Luckily, I am fortunate to see, firsthand, the emergence of digital artists who are doing more than just applying a filter in Photoshop and actually using a more raw artistic talent and original style to convey expression with computers.

His name is Nick Pugh and he painted this collage of images directly on a laptop. He calls it digital plein air painting or digital impressionism.

Woops, thanks for mentioning Nick, vintagegirl! I forgot to mention him because I think of him as working in just about every medium. One interesting thing about all the images you showed is that they were part of an exercise Nick was doing for a while with two self-imposed restrictions. His only tools were a laptop and a pen tablet, and he would finish each one in 10-15 minutes! He wasn't even using any special software with "painterly" brushes and such, just the basic photoshop brushes. Nick's ability to catch the right color tones and values is really impressive.

Also, your comments about photography remind me of another art medium that has evolved over the years - animation cels. I think the initial reaction was that it was a pretty strange idea to sell those as art, since they were sort of steps along the way in the creation of a greater art - an animated film. They may still not be considered fine art in some circles, but there certainly is an enthusiastic art collector market for such works today.

-Randy