Is it possible to create art with digital?

[gns]

Digital is perfect for making art. Especially if you suggest it isn't possible.
Isn't art's business often challenging the previous way and resending the message in a new form?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[zuiko85]

All I can say is; 'Put down the can opener and step away from the worms!'

 

[seakayaker1]

. . . . . it is time to step into the way back machine . . . . .

Everyone put down your camera and pick up your pencil or paint brush.

Every civilized person knows that a true artist can only create an image using his eyes and hands and then draw or paint the image on paper, canvas, wall, ceiling, etc.


The light box gizmo can never be considered art.



OK. . . . . . . we can all step into the time machine and come on back.

 

[Sparrow]

thingy? winky? some pseudonym envy going on here? 😀

 

[igi]

The medium has a distinct effect on the final content though.

True, but whatever that final content is, it can still be possibly art.

 

[timor]

Yep, close this down! 😉

Yep.
Nuts, with wings.

 

[bigeye]

Separating "art" from "craft" defines this more clearly for me.

Modernism separated art and craft. There are many great modern painters who are not anywhere near as good at the craft of painting as the old masters, yet they present extraordinary artistic expression - as strongly or more so as the old masters.

Digital vs. film is a question on the "craft" side, it has little to do with artist expression or result.

A great and popular trompe l'oeil painting displays great craft, but little artistic power. Some great (the greatest?) artists master both the art and craft.

I disagree that digital is the same as film (a "negative"). Film has the property of being an original and an object present at the scene, touched by the artist, that collected light reflected directly from the subject. This varies in importance and significance, but owning HCB's or Ansel Adams' negatives, for example, is different from having digital copies of his pictures (well beyond commercial rights). To me it's similar to having an original painting vs. a print.

The net result of digitization and easy post processing, and the controversy versus film stems from the fact that it obviously 'cheapens' the medium - which is a question of "craft".

That doesn't change the "art" of the image.

- Charlie

 

[mdarnton]

Every civilized person knows that a true artist can only create an image using his eyes and hands and then draw or paint the image on paper, canvas, wall, ceiling, etc.

Before going to Florence, people warned me about the daze tourists fall into from being constantly exposed to art.

Me, about half way through the visit, I was suddenly struck by the fact that those "artists" were, in fact, decorators. People couldn't hop down to the wallpaper store to pick up a few rolls, so they hired some local painter guy to cover the walls with something more interesting. I already knew the amount of influence patrons had, on the line of "put my son closer to the front, that saint should be holding my dog, and I don't like that red you used there--replace it", and Florentine walls hammered that idea in with a vengeance.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is like asking is it possible to create art using watercolors or oil.

All seven year-olds have the right to ask questions! 😎

 

[d_ross]

Ken Rockwell says only pictures taken with analog cameras can ever be considered art. And he must know. Question answered, end of discussion.

Well whoever Ken Rockwell is, if he said that he's an idiot 🙂

 

[Chris101]

Too many people are assuming digital needs to follow in the footsteps of analog photography to have any artistic credibility.

Digital is it's own master and needs to bow to no other medium IMO!

Best take on this tired subject ever Keith. I sure hope that people can tell my digital work from my film work.