We are currently living in a century dominated by
technological innovation and digital art is at the fore front of this innovation.
Many artists have taken to creating art digitally rather than traditionally.
New technology now allows artists to create drawings on different mediums, such
as the computer or even an iPad!
Take
a look at the North American debut of David Hockney’s drawings and paintings on
the iPhone and iPad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wzr6kPoxQhI. They were put
on display as the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Many of Hockney’s drawings
have been referred to as ‘a digital kind of beauty’.
However,
some conservative art lovers, who remain under the impression that if art is
not created using traditional tools, such as pens and watercolours, then they
cannot be seen as “real” works of art. So, can digital art really be considered
“real” art?
Vincent Van Gogh
VS
David Hockney
I
would argue yes. Federico Fellini once said: ‘All art is autobiographical. The
pearl is the oyster’s autobiography’, and I believe this to be completely true.
In my opinion, art is a form of expression, an event that occurs between two
different people. Essentially, one creates, and the other experiences the
creations. If it is stimulating another person’s senses then it is art. This is
true regardless of the field or medium.
I
do not think it matters whether the artist is holding a paint brush, or whether
they are holding an iPad, as the end product is still a heartfelt expression of
the artist him/herself. If an individual is responding to a drawing that has
been created on an iPad or a computer, then of course it is still art. I
believe it is just an artist’s personal preference as to which method they
choose to create their art. Roman’s made mosaics using coloured stones. Yet,
hardly anyone would argue that a mosaic is not a form of art. Roman’s were able
to undo parts of the mosaic, just like a digital artist can on an iPad, for
example. This does not mean that it was not considered a real form of art; it
was just another medium which had its benefits.
Some
supporters of digital art have made the compelling argument that digital art is
art, in the same way that digital animation is still animation and digitally
created music is still music. Artists tend to see the world slightly
differently to others, and try to capture what they see in the form of art, in
the hopes that someone else will see it too. The medium used is really
irrelevant. I’m pretty sure that artists who used oil paints must have felt
slightly threatened when acrylic paints came along, but this doesn’t change the
fact that both methods can be used to create artistic masterpieces. It’s really
in the hands of the artists. The more notable advantage of using an iPad to
create a piece of art rather than oil paint or acrylic paint is the fact that
there is just less of a mess to clean up afterwards!
In
society today, ‘the value of [an] object depends on its rarity and status
gauged by the price it fetches on the market’. Thus, some people believe that
if you create something that is digitally transferable or digitally created,
there is little value in the finished good. With traditional handmade art, the
original is always seen to be the most valuable, not matter how many times it
is replicated. A two dimensional image cannot be rendered unique by its
dimensions, the brush stroke, or even the texture of the paint. Digital art can
be replicated without showing any difference between the original and the copy.
Also, with digital art, you can’t exactly hang it on your wall, or hold it in
your hand, which is a drawback. However, I do not believe that this means that
digital art it of no value at all. Time and effort is still put into creating
digital art. Just because an artist is using an electronic or digital medium to
create art, does not mean that the method is any should
be less valued than traditional art, just because it was not created in a
conventional way.
I’m
not saying that things aren’t easier for them with modern digital tools. Yes,
there are some digital artists that allow iPads and other types of technology
to just do most of the work for them. In such as case very little of the
artist’s talents shine through because they have relied so heavily on the art
functions available to them to do the work for them. However, this is not true
for all digital artists. William O’Connor and Raymond Swanland are two examples
of digital artists that do not use photographs, texture fill, gradient, or any
other type of electronic program to create their art. They only use a pure
painting function.
Digital
artists are always trying to push the boundaries meaning that they are always trying
to push their skills to a new level. An artist using an iPad to create a piece
of art just has less of a mess to clean up afterwards! I personally think that
digital art might actually be raising the bar a little! Digital art tools are
so easily accessible that there are a vast number of individuals creating
digital art. But does this not mean that with so much competition even the best
have to now do better in order to stand out?
I
believe that digital art is still trying to establish its place within art
culture. It has only been around for approximately 40 years, in comparison to
around 42,000 years of traditional paintings. However, this does not mean that
it is not ‘real’ art.
