Me: This is totally like a more intricate version of Kid Pix! I’m so excited.
*fifteen minutes later*
Me: This is not at all like Kid Pix and this tree looks like shit.
I would say something more profound about the digital age and its influence on artistic mediums if I knew what I was talking about. It’s not like I can draw particularly well on or off-screen, but Adobe Illustrator seemed challenging to me in all the wrong ways. Instead of focusing on how I could make my triangle more triangle-y, I spent most of my time desperately trying to locate the “add triangle” button.
This was an entirely new artistic realm in which I was not prepared to appreciate my incompetence. And I’m not critiquing digital art–I have friends who create truly breathtaking art that requires a great deal of skill using digital software. However, it begs the question: must we reconsider definition for art? Does the computer “middleman” affect how we perceive the validity of digital art?
I think there is definitely a perception that the computer makes things easier, or “less authentic,” which unfairly stigmatizes digital art and has always seemed to be a dubious claim to me. After all (as we all saw firsthand), a lot of these softwares have pretty steep barriers of entry. They have to be learned, like any other tool, and I’ve never heard someone try to argue that drawing a circle using a compass is somehow ‘artistically lesser’ than drawing one freehand. Maybe the stigma or unequal perception around digital art is based on the idea that the computer does all the work, but I would say that the computer is really just the tool. It’s a powerful tool, to be sure, but while there might be an ‘add triangle’ button, there certainly isn’t a ‘make this artwork that I’m imagining’ button. Skill, proper knowledge and application of materials, and effort are all central to digital art.
Kinda sorta but not really related, there was recently a debate about whether fanart can be considered “real art” or not and this response really cracked me up
http://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/87197880427/ghostier-i-hate-when-people-go-i-dont-credit
Your intro is so on accurate, and I also spent fifteen minutes looking for the circle button, and after clicking the wrong “circle” button for five minutes I realized it was hidden under the rectangle button…
I agree with Philippa, I think that using a computer creates distance because users don’t understand how their tool works. They can click a button, but how is that shape or line or design appearing on the screen? I think she also makes a very valid point that you still need to be creative to create something- a piece of original art isn’t going to just pop up on the screen.
It’s definitely interesting to explore why we view new mediums with such distrust. I think Professor Serrano mentioned in class once that Gutenberg was tried for witchcraft when he first debuted his printing press–I’d argue that there’s a similar witch hunt mentality when it comes to technology today.
I don’t think we really need to reconsider the definition of art just because a computer was added. Like was previously said, the computer is just a tool, no different than a compass (except that it’s more advanced). I think it’s just important that we recognize it as a different (but no greater or lesser) form of art. And it can really only be compared with other pieces from that same art form. Obviously we can’t evaluate sculptures in relation to paintings, so neither could we evaluate digital images in relation to handmade images.