On Photography, Digital Art and Traditional Art.
As an artist and teacher I am confronted by the enormous changes taking place in art. The world is opening up in ways never imagined. In 1946, a mere sixty years ago, ENIAC, the world’s first digital computer came into being. In 1964, a proposal for the internet was suggested by the cold war think tank RAND corporation. The first digital art was produced in 1968 by Douglas Engelbart, consisting of a bitmap image.
As we talk, massive changes in technology are having surprising and impacting socio-economic changes in the world. NAVA reports that the Congo Republic, one of the poorest countries in Africa is having a massive proliferation of mobile technology. A country with little in the way of infrastructure is using diesel powered generators to recharge mobiles. Two years ago there were 63 million users in the Congo, today an increase to 152 million. People’s lives have changed dramatically because of this technology. Still in Africa, the first full-length movie “SMS Sugar Man” has just been made in South Africa using a mobile phone.
As we undergo this technological revolution or “hypermedia” (a term coined by Theodor Nelson) a media culture absorbed by the digital, we are ultimately confronted not just with change but the immense expansive capabilities to communicate. Digital art is but a small part of this growing hypermedia culture. Global culture is impacted on, the way we think, communicate and live our lives.
So what of digital art? First, there are the stereotypes of what it is. The view that it is a sterile image locked into the bitmap block format or that it isn’t really art, because art needs to be made by hand, or requires some technical skill. Culturally, we carry the idea that great art takes time to make, and somehow although we love the idea of technology making life easier and faster, it fights against our values when we come to our notions of art. To some extent Digital art shares the same conundrums as photography. Photography emerged in 1839 and followed a difficult road of acceptance within the fine art arena. Only with the emergence of Surrealism and photography’s technical abilities to manipulate images, did it begin to receive relevance as fine art. To some extent digital art has carried this over, and in its infancy relied on the groundwork of montage and skilled photographic manipulation inherited from photography.
Clearly, digital art even in its infancy is much more. Questions arise as to categories of digital art. Is there a difference between digital painting, photo manipulation, montage, fractal art and digital photography. How do we make these distinctions?
There is also debate on how we consider “surface”. Art viewed on a high resolution screen. How do we understand the meaning of the word print (ink and paper) in this new technological milieu?
These debates are I suspect, diversions to the artist. How digital art relates to traditional art is perhaps more productive and interesting to consider. If we get beyond the stereotypes of digital art, we find a potential that is essential to the notion of artistic creativity. Artists trained is traditional methods discover the digital process to enhance and expand the way one works. There is also a misconception that digital art is somehow cold and detached lacking in the sensuality one associates with paint. Artists find that it’s possible to develop strong emotional content in the work and one is able to develop a sense of emotional satisfaction, even if at a more cerebral level, as with other forms of traditional art.
There is also greater flexibility in changing compositional concerns at the latter stages of the artwork… With traditional work as one progresses one tends to “tighten up”, whereas with the digital image, even at the last stages there is great flexibility for change and this I suggest allows for greater creative dialogue.
The artist, Michael Rush in his book “New Media in the late 20th Century” writes:
“ As more and more artists turn to the digital world (and they will for who can resist having their work seen by millions of people with the click of a mouse without waiting for the approval of the gallery or museum system?) a reconfiguring of the meaning of art, of aesthetics, of artists’ relationships with dealers and institutions, indeed with artists relationships with any kind of market, will occur…For some this has meant the death of art, for others it has heralded vast beginnings.”
If we are to find any validation in what Michael Rush writes, being open to technology brings with it new opportunities. To those who are cynical of this progress, one is reminded that through the history of art there has always been new technology, whether it is the invention of oil paint, acrylic, photography, lithography and serigraphy. Why should the computer be any different?
David Trout.
November 2006
As an artist and teacher I am confronted by the enormous changes taking place in art. The world is opening up in ways never imagined. In 1946, a mere sixty years ago, ENIAC, the world’s first digital computer came into being. In 1964, a proposal for the internet was suggested by the cold war think tank RAND corporation. The first digital art was produced in 1968 by Douglas Engelbart, consisting of a bitmap image.
As we talk, massive changes in technology are having surprising and impacting socio-economic changes in the world. NAVA reports that the Congo Republic, one of the poorest countries in Africa is having a massive proliferation of mobile technology. A country with little in the way of infrastructure is using diesel powered generators to recharge mobiles. Two years ago there were 63 million users in the Congo, today an increase to 152 million. People’s lives have changed dramatically because of this technology. Still in Africa, the first full-length movie “SMS Sugar Man” has just been made in South Africa using a mobile phone.
As we undergo this technological revolution or “hypermedia” (a term coined by Theodor Nelson) a media culture absorbed by the digital, we are ultimately confronted not just with change but the immense expansive capabilities to communicate. Digital art is but a small part of this growing hypermedia culture. Global culture is impacted on, the way we think, communicate and live our lives.
So what of digital art? First, there are the stereotypes of what it is. The view that it is a sterile image locked into the bitmap block format or that it isn’t really art, because art needs to be made by hand, or requires some technical skill. Culturally, we carry the idea that great art takes time to make, and somehow although we love the idea of technology making life easier and faster, it fights against our values when we come to our notions of art. To some extent Digital art shares the same conundrums as photography. Photography emerged in 1839 and followed a difficult road of acceptance within the fine art arena. Only with the emergence of Surrealism and photography’s technical abilities to manipulate images, did it begin to receive relevance as fine art. To some extent digital art has carried this over, and in its infancy relied on the groundwork of montage and skilled photographic manipulation inherited from photography.
Clearly, digital art even in its infancy is much more. Questions arise as to categories of digital art. Is there a difference between digital painting, photo manipulation, montage, fractal art and digital photography. How do we make these distinctions?
There is also debate on how we consider “surface”. Art viewed on a high resolution screen. How do we understand the meaning of the word print (ink and paper) in this new technological milieu?
These debates are I suspect, diversions to the artist. How digital art relates to traditional art is perhaps more productive and interesting to consider. If we get beyond the stereotypes of digital art, we find a potential that is essential to the notion of artistic creativity. Artists trained is traditional methods discover the digital process to enhance and expand the way one works. There is also a misconception that digital art is somehow cold and detached lacking in the sensuality one associates with paint. Artists find that it’s possible to develop strong emotional content in the work and one is able to develop a sense of emotional satisfaction, even if at a more cerebral level, as with other forms of traditional art.
There is also greater flexibility in changing compositional concerns at the latter stages of the artwork… With traditional work as one progresses one tends to “tighten up”, whereas with the digital image, even at the last stages there is great flexibility for change and this I suggest allows for greater creative dialogue.
The artist, Michael Rush in his book “New Media in the late 20th Century” writes:
“ As more and more artists turn to the digital world (and they will for who can resist having their work seen by millions of people with the click of a mouse without waiting for the approval of the gallery or museum system?) a reconfiguring of the meaning of art, of aesthetics, of artists’ relationships with dealers and institutions, indeed with artists relationships with any kind of market, will occur…For some this has meant the death of art, for others it has heralded vast beginnings.”
If we are to find any validation in what Michael Rush writes, being open to technology brings with it new opportunities. To those who are cynical of this progress, one is reminded that through the history of art there has always been new technology, whether it is the invention of oil paint, acrylic, photography, lithography and serigraphy. Why should the computer be any different?
David Trout.
November 2006