After reading the article, I had mixed thoughts on the topic it discussed. Digital art allows artists to take what we knew to be art, and expand it. The possibilities are quite literally endless, and it feels as though Michael Green, the artist of the GIF, had the mindset of making money first, and being an artist second. This thought comes from the fact that Green felt the need to raise his selling price once he realized his original offer wasn't effective. If he had left it at the price not getting the results he wanted, it would have seemed less malicious, but he then made it about Jeff Koons' sculpture selling for such a large price, so he made the cost higher.
Nonetheless, I do believe that digital art is as valuable as traditional art, as it requires a large amount of skill to produce. Just as technology has replaced many physical aspects of our lives–books, music, writing, etc–it also has changed the way we create art. Applications like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere have opened up doors for opportunity, especially for those who are more technologically inclined. That isn't meant to take away from the power and talent in physical and traditional art methods, it is simply a different medium, which I think is sometimes what people forget. Art is art, and so no matter the medium, our thoughts or perception of a piece of art shouldn't change.
Just as we do with other methods of technological change, digital art should be thought of with positive intention. This, I believe, makes the difference between the mind set of technology negatively replacing what used to be, and the mind set of technology advancing our lives, in almost all ways we are used to today.
Comments