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 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.’
It’s
that simple. 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
with the perception of ‘digital art’ because its history is less than thirty
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 photographic artist who worked during the film-to-digital transition I want
to go on record 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 but I doubt
there’ll be any takers.
