i should think that it would count. however, to some DEGREE or variation it can be discredited. most of all (and this is the most politically correct and socially acceptable answer i can give), it varies on a piece-by-piece basis. in other words, how much thought and work really went into each piece. that should be the determining factor
Artwork is artwork. Art is expression and it doesn't matter what medium you use, it could be digital, it could be traditional, it could be through the use of poetry or music or photography. When a feeling and a thought has been placed in order it has become art. And the art-world is continuing to expand because of this ability to create artwork no matter what canvas and tools are available--we've grown as artists from painting with berries to carving in stone to crafting metal and using eggs in our dyes to make paint. We created pencils and discovered the use of charcoal and made ink.
Then one day someone picked up a computer and decided they wanted to use a mouse to draw, then programs like MS Paint, Photoshop, Gimp, and FireAlpaca appeared. People who didn't have money to constantly pay for expensive supplies were suddenly able to spend time mastering things. Sprites and Journal Dolls began to appear as people who would probably never have got into animation before were suddenly able to get into animation. Complex designs became more plausible as did personal artwork for those who planned to make money in an artistic career. And no matter which medium one learned their technique on, they can figure out how to apply it into the other one.
So the art community continues to grow. The artist ability to discover new ways to create more art creates more artists. More artists of every varying kind. And, if for any other reason, this is the reason the medium of which is chosen does not matter.
i like both but if i had to pick digital be cuase if you make a mistak you can just undo and Layers Lov the Layers...i use traditional most wehn im not able to be home or to print out my pictures like now i gotta make christmas cards by hand i had over 50 im now now in the 30s..noe if i could print them id had done them on the pc and be done with time to spare
I think...it depends of lot of points, first, as you said some people really dont need to work a lot on a pic and change it claiming its art, could be art could not, but they are looot of good digital artist and looot of ggod traditional artist, I admire this girl [link] and she is an entired artist for me, same with other traditional artists I couldn find right now x3 but...for me its just a dif kind of art and to call or not "art" a pic depends of lot of things and not only by the "medium" you used
Because if Duchamp can make a urinal Art, then you can draw on a computer and call it Art.
Digital Art has a clear advantage for type of Art where reproduction is Key. Things like Illustration and Graphic Design, where the original means nothing and the copy means everything. Since most posters, bus adverts, billboards, book covers, etc are printed using digital printers as opposed to traditional printing presses, working digitally is key for these areas, either by scanning or photographing a traditional piece and touching it up before print, or producing the work 100% digitally.
In an Art gallery you might have an advantage with a physical object in that you have something rare and collectable, one of a kind, that you can sell. A digital file can be copied and reproduced infinitely so it is difficult to sell an original. A lot of traditional artists make all their money on selling originals. An Illustrator has an advantage in that they make their money on commission and through image rights and licensing, so the lack of an original isn't so much a problem.
But yes it does come down to what you consider Art. Going into physical galleries, for years, I've seen video art and installation. Are Videos Art? Or are they imposters in the Gallery. What about digital photographs? Are they Art? What about David Hockney's Ipad Art? He did an exhibition where they just hung Ipads on the wall with his paintings he did on the ipad on them. Hockney has a history of using new technology to make Art (Fax machines and all sorts) and he's still considered a great Artist.
Did consistent pigments in bottles ruin painting? Did the advent of paper destroy the art of drawing (that had previously been done on stone)?
Did the invention of the gun destroy hunting?
Did the grocery store destroy cooking?
Is bread you buy in a package still bread?
They are tools. They are quicker, cheaper, and less time consuming than previous tools. That is all.
Saying digital art is ruining art, or is not art, is like saying that bread isn't bread unless you grow the wheat, harvest it, milk the cow, breed the yeast, grind the grain by hand, build an oven, gather the wood, make fire from flint, etc.
Ummm.....every professional digital artist have very strong traditional backgrounds. I can assure you that people like Marta Dahlig, Kevin Chen and Andrew Jones are very capable of picking up a pencil/charcoal and whipping up some amazing artwork.
What? Man, I dunno about you, but I can tell the difference between someone who can half-assedly collage a couple photos together and someone who can draw and happens to use photographic elements as part of their work. Anyone with even the vaguest critical eye can tell the difference, though they may not be able to articulate it.
Can digital art really be considered art? Well. Here's how the dictionary in my computer (the Oxford Dictionary of English) defines "art":
1 [ mass noun ] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris. • works produced by human creative skill and imagination: his collection of modern art | [ as modifier ] : an art critic. • creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture: she's good at art. 2 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance: the visual arts | [ in sing. ] : the art of photography. 3 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects): the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible | the Faculty of Arts. 4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice: the art of conversation.
The examples given are largely physical media, but ain't nothing in there explicitly barring new er media. Tell me a piece you've slaved over for hours isn't an "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", regardless of whether you did it in oil, acrylic, Photoshop, colored pencils, Illustrator, pen and ink, Sai, watercolors, Painter, Flash, clay, Maya, sand, glass, pixels, I could go on listing physical media and programs for quite some time here.
There are some people who will go on for hours about how THERE IS NO SOUL WHEN YOU HAVE UNDO but frankly my response to them after seeing this kind of thing on here every other week is fuck you, my soul IS cold and slick and stylized, and I work pretty damn hard to express that.
Also, well, go into a museum with a modern collection. You'll find traditional media, and you'll find digital work. The art establishment is quite happy to validate digital work as "real art". Honestly more and more I think that "digital art is not REAL ART" is something that people who're far from mastery say when they can't get the hang of it, to save their egos when someone who's learnt it does several nice pieces in the time it takes them to eke out one mediocre one.