Art is a Thing of Beauty, Nothing Less

Why is there such resistance out there towards digital artwork? People say that it isn't "real"; that it doesn't convey the same "emotions"; that it isn't "art." A painting (with paint) is simply a splash of colours accross a two dimensional plane which impacts the viewer's visual field of perception. I think that the same results can be achieved in this sense whether the art be computer generated or a canvas with paint. The image in front of the viewer can still be beautiful.

Now, there is a sort of distancing from the viewer and the artist with a computer print-out. The artist himself didn't touch or take care with the particular print-off in question quite the same way he would an original painting. But does this minor aspect of the difference really matter in the grand appreciation of art as a whole? Can we not still enjoy the visual perception for what it is (i.e., a projection of light and colour upon our retinas?)

I think that using a computer in the aid of the creation of art is indispensable in the achievement of certain effects that would be ludicrously difficult should they be attempted by hand (let alone the difficulty of imagining such effects in the first place.) There are certain things that the computer can do better (faster, more colourful, more precise) than what can be done by hand. But inversely, there are certain things that can be done by hand that would be much more difficult to achieve synthetically through the computer alone, and so it makes sense to do them traditionally (e.g., sketching, paint textures, ink effects, paper granulity, expressive brush strokes, collage, linears, etc.) It would make more sense to do these things “naturally.” The computer is a tool like any other paint brush, pigment, canvas, or pencil.

I think that the future of two-dimensional art lies in the new technologies (i.e., the new tools) that become available to the artist. To ignore them, to ridicule them as cheating, or to look down upon them as "just using a filter" and having no artistic merit is simply being ignorant to the changes that have taken place in the world. If you were out hunting for food on the plain, why would you use a spear when you have a rifle readily available to you? Why walk 100 kilometers to visit your friend when you can take a train? Why spend six months painting a canvas, when you can achieve all the same artistic desires in two days on the computer (freeing you up to create more images, and express yourself to a greater degree to the art world?)

We learn from experience. The first painting I did was not as good as the second. The more images I created, the more I learned about colour, composition, aesthetics, beauty, expression, and what it is was I wanted to show the rest of humanity. The more images I can create, more quickly, the greater the speed at which I can learn these values and the quicker I can reach my vision and acheive my goals. If it took me six months to do a single painting, my learning curve would be a lot more flat, and my dreams would linger in the distance waiting patiently for me to catch up.

The computer is a tool: what you do with it is what makes the results artwork. As yet, there is no magic button that creates a finished piece of art on demand. To produce something of beauty still requires the involvement of an artistic intellect, and the judgements of a creative mind. The end-result of such a mind's exertions is nothing less than art.

If the day comes when a computer can produce an original piece of artwork of its own volition, then that would still not make the product not art. It would simply mean that the computer had become an intelligent mind of its own and would be equal to all other sentient life. It would thus have just as much right as other intelligent creatures to create works of art and to delve in things beautiful.

Digital painting does not mean fake painting. Physical painting does not mean it is necissarily artwork. Beauty = Art. That's all there is to it.