Digital Art is a new art
form brought about by the digital imaging revolution. The approximate birth date of digital art is
1990, the year Adobe Photoshop™
brought digital image processing to the consumer level via the personal
computer. Because photographers were the
early-adopters of digital technology and the (now) ubiquitous software
application is called photo-shop,
digital art is often confused with photography but they are not the same.
The definition of digital art is:
Any artwork that cannot be
created without the use of digital technology (computer + program) can be
considered ‘digital art.’ If digital
technology is required for the production of a specific artwork, and that
artwork cannot be created by any other means except by use of digital
technology, then the artwork is ‘digital art.’
We seem to have no trouble understanding how painting, drawing and
sculpture are unique art forms distinct from each other but when ‘digital’ is
mixed with photography there is confusion.
We can clear that confusion by setting distinct boundaries that define
when an image stops being a photograph and crosses the line into ‘digital
art.’ One way to define an image as a
photograph is whether or not you can go and see the scene depicted in the
photograph in real life. If it exists in
the real world and reflects light that can be recorded on film or a digital
camera’s sensor, then it’s a photograph.
Even some composite images can be photographs. If the composite image came from a darkroom
or uses digital processes that could be replicated in a darkroom, then that
composite image is a photograph. If that
composite image uses digital techniques without analog equivalents, then it is
no longer a photograph and should be recognized as digital art. High Dynamic Range images, although a result
of digital image processing, should be considered photographs because there are
analog techniques that, however difficult to produce, emulate the HDR
technique. Digital infrared photographs
are photographs the same as their film forebears, only a different spectrum is
used to create the image. Hybrid images
combining computer-generated elements with photographic elements are digital
art because a computer is required to make computer-generated imagery.
The photographic aspects of digital art are indeed confusing. When one describes their artworks as
‘photographs’ the viewer has a certain expectation about how that image should
look. When the image is so manipulated
that it violates the viewers’ expectations I use the term ‘photo/digital’ to
describe the artwork. ‘Photo/digital’ is
an honest and descriptive term and cues the viewer.
It took over one-hundred years for photography to be recognized as a
legitimate art form because, in the beginning, photography had no history. The same exact thing is occurring right now
in the perception of ‘digital art’ because its history is only twenty-five
years. I predict that within one
generation, ‘digital’ will be recognized as its own, legitimate, separate and
distinct art form.
Until ‘digital art’ has its own unique history it will be perceived as
‘photography’ or an offshoot of photography.
As a ‘bridge artist’ who worked during the film-to-digital transition I
want to go on record right now and
state unequivocally that ‘digital art’ or ‘photo/digital’ art are unique art
forms separate from others. I know of no
one in the exalted position of curator,
critic, director or gallerist who
has had the courage to go on record and define this new, digital, art form so
I’ve done it for them. If the art could not be created without the
use of digital imaging technology, it’s digital art. If anyone would like to discuss or
challenge this I’m more than willing to meet and debate the issue; I doubt
there’ll be any takers.
Dale O’Dell
April 14, 2015
