02 May 2012
The value of Digital VS Traditional Art
I won't presume to define what's art and what isn't but I think I can explain some important differences between paper and screen and how that effects how we all view the final product and particularly its value as art.
There is not much difference on how art is conceived, wether it's analog or digital. It takes ideas, planning, skill and practice to do both. Most renderings will require research and reference images as well as testing of techniques and styles. Tracing and blocking out reference images save time and insure proportions and perspective are correct. So in many ways, the final product is produced using the same skills and procedures. So then, what is the difference?
While the quality and concepts of the final image may be the same, the thing that makes something "art" may boil down to uniqueness and permanence. A digital piece, though beautiful, can be reproduced at will but does not have the advantage of being truly tactile. It can also be modified and changed at any time. A huge plus. Art on paper etc is given value not just from its beauty but by its uniqueness. There will only ever be one like it. It's impermanence is what gives it some of its value. It may last a long time, but probably not forever. Working with real world materials force decisions that can't be corrected later on and can lead to very different decisions during creation. So while digital images may be on par visually with traditional art, and have certain advantages over it in terms of reproduction and flexibility, the things that make traditional art so rare also give it a value digital art can't replicate.
What do you think?