Monday, January 21, 2008

Original Art vs Digital Imaging

I have been seeing more and more people who have taken a photograph, put it through "artistic filters" in PhotoShop, and call it original art. I taught PhotoShop and can easily spot the effects. Some will print giclee prints and call those paintings too.  I feel that this is crossing the line and is dishonest and is mis-representing the work as something it is not.

Observation is probably the most important factor in art. When we look at a subject, we can adjust our vision to see certain things... whether it be value, color or texture... or whatever. A similar thing happens when we are looking for our keys in a box of junk... you have a certain shape or object in your head and when you spot that shape, a light goes off in your brain. I think that PhotoShop is a wonderful tool and I love using it. In fact, it can be a useful tool to show us how to see more abstractly, or how we can artificially saturate or de-saturate the colors and many other ways of changing an image and can be a real revelation in itself. It is a very cool thing. But to copy the image and call it original art is wrong, and I wish we could get this kind of image generation segregated into it's own category and away from original art. It is photography and digital imaging. 

As a plein air painter, one who paints on location, I used to get upset when I saw paintings that were obviously traced from photos or projected on a canvas, something that is very easy to recognize which I have come to accept as another artistic method... but this is worse... this is letting technology replace the creative element in painting. It is what it is, but don't call it ORIGIANL ART! At some point the word "Cheating" needs to be injected into the discussion.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Don, I hear ya. When studying art history I realized the changes in what is perceived or acknowledged as 'art'... unfortunately it has evolved into an almost standardless situation where shock is valued more than technique and 'anything goes'. I was intrigued with the days when actual observation, perception and interpretation were valued and still find that the art produced during those days touches my heart the most.

So as a contemporatry artist I've made a conscious choice to interpret the world around me as I feel inspired to do. Monet has his Roen cathedral and haystacks, I have my 'Yellow House' in Austell that I've drawn 7 times in varying seasons & times of day. Sargent had his portraits, I have a series of musician portraits that capture the essence of my beloved guitarists whose music inspires me as much as any painting ever has!
I don't own Print Shop, don't enjoy having reproductions made of my work any more, and actually relish just being an artist who seeks to let the viewer in on the world that inspires me. It is good to simplify. Just me and that blank paper and a box full of dusty pastels... heaven!

Donald Maier said...

Now you sound like an artist in the true sense of the word. The attitude you have is the pure artistic motivation that I was first speaking about. Come to the Asian show in Fayetteville if you can.