It occurs to me that people who do not accept the legitimacy of digital art are not asking themselves “Is it Art?” but “Is it Photography?”
Critics of art works created in computer art software – Corel Painter for instance – seem to regard drawing as some kind of fairground trick. Regardless of the often quoted fact that such artists as Canaletto and Durer used the camera obscura and other contraptions as aids, they seem to hold it in the back of their heads that artistic talent really does depend on being able to draw without mechanical aids.
What happens? They turn up their noses at digital art as cheating.
Yet surely we all know in our hearts that being able to imitate a camera is not the end but the beginning of talent.
Communicating emotion is of course a huge part of the art of Art.
Art also manipulates the process of perception.
Looking at the world around us, or a photo of it, we don’t in fact take it in as a whole instantly. Our eyes dart around it, and our brains apply all kinds of filters based on past experience that enable us to ‘understand’ it.
That’s before we are even aware we are seeing something!
It’s not how a painting represents the world but how it distorts it that holds the secret of its meaning.
Did the artist start with a photo or a sketch? Was this art work made with a computer, an iphone or a burnt stick?
Does it matter?
Tags: art, creative, digital painting, drawing, fine art, memory, metaphor, perception, photography, photos, sketching, valerie beeby, visualisation, visualise, visualize
COME ALONG NOW, PUT YOUR WORST FACE FORWARD!
PAINTER 12 BRUSHES
Oh that’s very good. Imitating a camera “is not the end but the beginning of talent.” You are a wordsmith — an artist even!
Does the medium matter? I think not. I agree that artists distort and reorganize the data by what is central and primary, and then re-present it in some creative way. Just watch a digital artist run through this process and try to duplicate it exactly. Can’t be done any more than duplicating a watercolor or a mixed media abstract!
When is art not art? The answer is as varied as the viewers…
It’s lovely to hear from you too Barb. Yes, true, the answer is as varied as the viewers. As varied as the artists too!
Very true, Karol. I can sometimes feel fooled if I learn that what I thought was an unaltered photo turns out to have been manipulated. I suppose it’s a matter of judgement though. After all, professional photographers rarely tell you what adjustments they have made – in Photoshop or with traditional photography, in the darkroom. I wish they did. I’d be so interested to know how they got their effects!
Very well said. This applies to images edited in Photoshop as well. I understand the argument that people feel fooled, or that the photographer/artist is trying to “put one over” on them. If an image is presented as a photograph, then it is good to briefly outline what changes were made, but a photograph can also be art, and subject to interpretation by both the artist and the viewer. Thank goodness!
.-= Karol Grace´s last blog ..Josie =-.