I read about this on Ezine.

I read about this on digitalart.org…

Digital art has, more or less, been relegated to the lower echelons of contemporary art scene by the gurus.

Following-up on submissions of his digital art portfolio to galleries, the three primary reasons George Glasser discovered for rejections were:

1. The programs are created for commercial artists – “It’s not real art.”

2. Digital art/graphics artists don’t have the skills of painters, etc.- “Anyone can create art on a computer.”

3. Digital art is not tangible – “It is just temporary electronic images”.

To a certain extent, some of the above reasons are relatively accurate, but not necessarily objective determinations – they are either based on preconceived notions or ignorance of the electronic medium.

While promoting his digital art to galleries, the reception was somewhat oxymoronic in nature. he queried one gallery owner suggesting that if he had submitted the same portfolio as lithographs would he be interested. The galllery responded “Yes”. As it turned out, he agreed that his work was of saleable quality; however, it was created in the wrong medium – the ‘digital art’ stigma was attached.

The irony was that the owner specialised in selling prints (lithos and photography). George could have

had high quality prints produced of any size on any type of paper, but because the art was created on a computer, he wasn’t interested.

For some obscure reason, even if fine quality prints were done from digital art, and if the pundits were aware the art was created on a computer, they would have a problem recognising it as art. However,

photographs and lithos are sold in contemporary galleries as art.

Throughout history, every new medium has suffered the same initial negative reception from the established art scene. For instance, at the inception, photography was a curiosity – simply a device to capture and document images/events. Photographers were not initially considered artists by the impresarios, patrons and pundits of the day. But now, photographers are accepted as artists and there is a thriving market for their work.

Presently, most photographers don’t spend hours mixing chemicals and working in the red illumination of a dark room. The majority have made the transition to digital cameras, and can achieve most any effect they want utilising a computer program. And somehow, it is still regarded as art in the classic context by pundits. However, if a painter decides to utilise a computer program as a creative tool, the finished product is not regarded as ‘valid art’ – it is simply ‘computer generated imagery’.

The paradox is in the reality that many contemporary galleries have no problem in welcoming photography created on digital cameras and manipulated using the very same computer programs used to create digital art.

Today, the general misconception of digital art as being without artistic substance is due to ignorance of the electronic medium by pundits and elite of the art world. There is also the snobbery about the ‘new kids on the block’ which comes into play. And finally, the thoughtless assumption that ‘anyone’ can create art using a computer program, which is the same as saying that anyone that owns a camera can be a great photographer.

Me, I enjoy viewing what I personally perceive to be ‘good art’ whatever the medium. I look at art objectively and from a personal perspective – it’s about appreciating the creativity, talent and

craftsmanship of the artisan – not being judgmental about how the artist created the finished product.

Artists producing work in the digital medium are no less artists than painters, photographers or sculptors and should be objectively judged by the same criteria as any other artist – craftsmanship, talent and creativity.

How long it will take the established contemporary art world to recognise digital artists is anyone’s guess, but it will eventually happen. Until then, Digital Art will be relegated to the same level as graffiti on a subway wall.