The Digital Tool for Artists

The digital medium always represents a challenge, in a global view perhaps less, but in a context of Luxembourg more and more. So what does it means to do photography and digital art today here in Luxembourg, Europe? Hereby I understand Digital Art as any artwork which the computer has acquired, manipulated, transformed or influenced. My understanding of DA offers a wide range of experience. Artists continually experiment with and adopt new technologies so I would like to contribute promoting this new medium, especially here in Luxembourg, the country I am currently living in.

To tell you more about Luxembourg : The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a small landlocked country in western Europe, bordered by Belgium, France, and Germany. Luxembourg has a population of under half a million people. Luxembourg is one of the smallest countries in Europe, and ranked 175th in size of all the 194 independent countries of the world; the country is about 2,586 square kilometers (998 sq mi) in size, and measures 82 km (51 miles) long and 57 km (35 miles) wide. Read more about this country on Wikipedia. Doing photography and digital art in this small country where even photography seems not yet completely accepted and its ranking is far behind after painting ( this is said from a gallerist's and collector's point of view), I feel sometimes like one of these pioneers who began to conquer once new land in Siberia! But why not say that I like this feeling?! There is a lot to do, to move and to reach. With each exhibtion and each art market and open atelier I feel, that the interest and the acceptance are increasing, but to overcome all the existing prejudices, which are described below, needs in my opinion still a big push. It's simply a fact that the digital medium represents a challenge for the traditional understanding and notions of the artwork, audience and artist. As it has been one or more challenging decades in which to gain the public’s and the art world’s acceptance in the US. So I feel that here it needs some more time.

Historical view: When exactly the history of Digital Art began can be discussed. I read that in the 1970s artists started experimenting with computers engaging what was then known as “computer art”. You remember these first pictures? Color and texture could be created and manipulated with digital technology. Wasn'it suspect? All kinds of creative professions, e.g. painters, photographers, printmakers and video and performance artists began to experiment with computer imaging techniques allowing manipulation of scale, color and texture unknown and unfeasible for physical mediums.
.
Forms of Digital Art: The term Digital Art is a global term for a broad range of artistic practices and does not describe one specific form. Artists created, in some cases, works displaying distinctive characteristics of the digital, in other cases it is not easy to say whether we have to do with a digitally created work or not. Digital technology had also an enormous influence on music composition and audio. According to wordIQ Dictionary & Encyclopedia Digital art is art created on a computer in digital (that is, binary) form. The term is usually reserved for art that has been non-trivially modified by the computer; text data and raw audio and video recordings are not usually considered digital art, in themselves but can be part of a larger project, since the computer is merely the storage medium or tool which is used to create the work.
.
Digital art can be purely computer-generated, such as fractals (have a look to the beautiful fractals of Mandelbrot, I was completely excited when I saw them for the first time and I am always admiring them), or taken from another source, such as a scanned photograph or an image drawn using vector graphics software, using either a mouse or graphics tablet. The availability and popularity of photograph manipulation software has spawned a vast and creative library of highly modified images, many bearing little or no hint of the original image. Using electronic versions of brushes, filters and enlargers, these "Neographers" produce images unattainable through conventional photographic tools. In addition, digital artists may manipulate scanned drawings, paintings, collages or lithographs, as well as using any of the above-mentioned techniques in combination. Artists also use many other sources of information and programmes to create their work.

Let’s face it: In March 2001 the art world’s acceptance of digital art was marked by the Whitney Museum of American Art’s exhibition: Bitstreams: Exploring the Importance of Digital technology in American Art. Some month later the Brooklyn Museum of Art staged its Digital. Digital prints are now part of the permanent collections of New York’s Metropolitain Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Art Institute of Chicago and so on…
.
Naturally, criticism has been leveled at the new medium from many sides. But why? Because it is the new medium. It seems to threaten, but this is a grave misconception. The new medium is not here to displace but to enhance, just as did the invention of paper, photography, the airbrush, and the endless list of other tools that have preceded us and our "machines". A main question is if technical methods including automation do diminish the value of creative works aided by them? I don’t think so. Look back into history again: Michelangelo used teams of assistants, as did Leonardo daVinci. Painters as Caravaggio, Ingres, Velasquez and Vermeer used a camera obscura or a camera lucida lens system to speed up and improve the initial drafting step in their paintings. In his book “Secret Knowledge : Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters » David Hockney makes a solid argument that artists were enthusiastically using lenses and mirrors (the highest of high-tech at the time) in creating their art. Hockney’s book opens people’s eyes to the fact that technology has always been an important part of art creation. It is erroneous to think that the “computer does it for you”. The computer and other digital tools are just that – tools. Used in a hand of a perceptive, talented artist, a computer is not subordinate to brushes, palette knives or enlargers. The fact is that the artist’s own hand lies heavy on most of the steps in the making of digital art. Using cameras, scanners, digital tablets, and a whole host of image-editing software, artists have a personal relationship with their images as they guide them through the various stages of creation, manipulation and printing. The aesthetic decisions are always the artist’s. The artist has a range of techniques at his disposal with which to creatively express himself. With the exception of machine art, this is not mechanical art; this is imagery that emanates from the mind and the soul of the artist. And it is and produces fun and art should be and produce fun!
.
Thanks to the
Sources: wordIQ Dictionary & Encyclopedia
Christiane Paul “Renderings of Digital Art”
Harald Johnson “Mastering Digital Printing”
David Hockney “Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Old Techniques of the Old Masters”

Comments

• Comment submitted by Nelly Rohel, France
  I agree with your thoughts about digital art. Sure, the PC and the mouse … are only new tools as the brush, canvas, knife, collages …The tool itself will not produce the art unless it is guided by an artist, who firstly has to know how to use it as well as having, more importantly, a creative soul.
  However the difficulty of recognizing digital art as a discipline in the art world is not this; a paintbrush and canvas makes a “unique piece of art” into “a unique original”. A computer and a mouse create a “unique piece of art” but can produce (and not REproduce) ‘originals’ at will.
  I, therefore, think that the disagreement between traditional painters and artists using the digital tools, lies within the difference of the production of the original artwork.
  (French original text :• Je suis d'accord avec ce que vous exposez sur l'art digital. Oui, l'ordinateur et la souris ... ne sont que des nouveaux outils comme le sont un pinceau, une toîle, un couteau, des collages ... L'outil ne fait pas l'art si la main qui le tient n'est pas guidée par un artiste ... qui sait l'utiliser et surtout qui a l'âme créatrice.
  
  Mais la difficulté à faire reconnaître l'art digital comme une discipline artistique n'est pas là.
  
  Une toîle et un pinceau font une "oeuvre unique" en un "original unique".
  
  Un ordinateur et une souris font une "oeuvre unique" mais pouvant produire (et non REproduire) des "originaux à volonté".
  
  Il me semble que les désaccords entre les peintres traditionnels et les artistes utilisant les outils numériques se situent dans cette différence de la production d'originaux.

  by yellowcat - 2/8/2008 11:16:16 PM

• Nelly Rohel makes a good point but I disagree. I started thinking about these issues and I apologize to Nelly for expanding it beyond her critique. Everything starts with the original, but the original what? Why should a handmade art object have more value, per se, than a reproduced object. Although a painting is a unique piece of art, and a carved marble is a unique piece of art, much of the art that is shown and sold today are not unique pieces of artist fabrication. The process of manufacture in all areas expands and yet narrows our options in individualizing what we make. Walter Benjamin identified this desire for uniqueness as the "fetishized object". What that term means is that we worship the object, we idolize it. We imbue value to these objects because of commodity capitalism. The basis is individualism, romanticism, and the cult of genius. Art separated from the rest of the world and now lives in isolation.
  Objects that can be reproduced are not fetishized but can be owned by anyone. They are like information. If art can be equated with information, I do not want my information in the hands of a few wealthy collectors. I would rather my work be in the homes of ordinary people. Are photographs unique pieces of work? Every time we see a great photo printed, even in a newspaper, we can "get it", grasp that transformation of understanding. Why should our artistic identity be attached to works of art? In earlier times artists were not individuals but members of a collective and did not need to stand out to find their identity. Even in the era of great classicism, the paintings of Ateliers were often the work of a large workshop of painters under the direction of the master. Jeff Koons has never painted a painting or made a sculpture. He is a designer. He hires scores of artists at an hourly wage to paint or fabricate them. Warhols early pieces were copies of manufactured products. His later works were copies of copies. The silkscreen paintings that were misregistered to give the appearance of uniqueness. How about prints? Silkscreens, lithographic, copperplate, zincplate etc. It can be said that they are individual, but that is not true. Each print has to be perfect. The ones that are individual are often misprints and discarded.
  My position is that digital prints are the creation of a unique artist and not a unique object. The focus is not on object but the artist that made it. There is also a misunderstanding as to hijacking or photoshopping of images. There are forensic analysts now who can tell how any digital print has been constructed and altered by analyzing pixels. My friend, whose work is on this site, Peter Ciccariello, is a master of hyperrealism in digital prints. His work is fully digital. The images look ancient. When Gila Paris creates a digitally manipulated photograph it is not like my work at all. Compare them. It is the unique vision that creates the artwork. The media and vagaries of technique and application are interesting but totally subsidiary to the artist.

  by frank - 2/18/2008 7:56:15 AM

• Alow me to put forward certain points:
  - from time to time artists experiment in new midium and face a kind of challenge from the orthodox habits of seeing art.Digital art, if it is a suspect as a valid art-medium, is a same kind of social syndrom - suspicion.
  - in Indian context, all 'contemporary' art is less digested habit, but accepted as 'modern'way of living. Digital art is completely misunderstood - as 'machine-made', 'automatic' or accedental that the artist has anything to do with his choice. Secondly, as people in India (the art lovers/buyers/etc) are mostly not conversant with the process-manupulation-tools of digital world that produces such images, this art is almost untouchable.
  - as for artists, there is no hold for anything.
  - I see no danger in art, neither have I mission to educate my audience each time I print an edition.
  - Again, 'handmade' art and digital art are not really diffrent in pricing. Suppose, a painting costs X, same size digital art has the same price , only boken down into the number of editions. If I make 10 editions, X divided by 10 is the price for each one. So it is same.

  by amitabh - 12/15/2008 3:25:10 PM

• i thik culture inside need a comeety for select the work only word r debate is not enofh for art do some think spesol
  for tru artist amaad samdani

  by amaadsamdani - 12/18/2008 10:05:25 PM

• last think on the world only art on the world how don,t need of any digetel tools r any elctronic tool if artis can not comand on line force by hands not tru art if any body doutabout it plz reed book art throh ages plz go with truth go with old masters and see in your in site soul and work hard like old masters don,t fight agasnt nature these tools are harm full for art and artist cloose this debate and come to real art-------------amaad samdani------------

  by amaadsamdani - 12/20/2008 8:49:20 AM

• I want to say there is plenty of room for all of us as artist. I do not have problem with people trying to event new things but no one should try to talk others to stop prcaticing art the way they have always known it. But if you ask me, Art created with the hands is more superior to the so called digital art.

  by KrativeHands - 1/2/2009 9:48:00 AM

• hello everyone:) my point is that there should be place for everything and art should not be bounded in any way- thats exactly why art is ''art''. otherwise it would have been science or something down to earth. i think beauty of modern art is that its varied: anything can be a tool for creation and anything can be an object of admiration. after all, computers and photographs are man-made too, so technology is an art itself: so, something created with art cant be non-art.entire existence of humanity is art itself!
  ...humanity has already proved it can make marvellous pieces of art.now, we need to prove that we can also SEE marvellous things, not just create them. thats the main point of digital art: its art of seeing,- so why bound tools for its creation? 50 per cent of what is meant by art depends on the viewer, so the less is said, more art teaches people to think on their own. and one of the purposes of art is to push thinking,right? but theres also a danger of degradation: we should be very cautios in creating modern art. primitivizm is very deep and phylosophical way of expression but we should always try new things and experiment.
  and lastly... most important is that real artist is one for whom anything can be a tool for creation. artist is more a certain condition of soul, so digital art is just as amazing as hand-made art. both are beautifull in their own way.integrating all kinds of art is an Art of being a Human.
  thanks:)))

  by teona - 1/2/2009 2:07:57 PM

• I am happy to see new contributions to my, Nelly's and Franks reflections concerning "The Digital Tool For Artists". Go and read more about this theme.
  
  Amitabh, you are right with your price calculation base ... it's similar to photography, price depends if we have to do with unique works, limited editions ... open-ended prints and posters ...
  
  and Teona : I personally love what you say here : TEONA (citation): "and lastly... most important is that real artist is one for whom anything can be a tool for creation. artist is more a certain condition of soul, so digital art is just as amazing as hand-made art. both are beautifull in their own way.integrating all kinds of art is an Art of being a Human.
  
  

  by gila - 1/5/2009 7:40:52 AM

• Hellooo all over the world
  First of all,I want to say congratulate,for you created to the big world.
  
  IN THE COUNTRY PEACE
  IN THE WOLRD PEACE
  Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK said...
  The big Hero

  by gurkan - 1/31/2009 9:33:38 AM

• hi,friends my name is bazil samdani iam 4and half year old
  i create some paintings with digetel tools and paints this is new teqniqe paints invalved with mouse plz vist my gallery and send your coments thanks

  by bazil_samdani2000 - 2/7/2009 11:43:27 AM

• Hello my dear artists all over the world
  
  With all due respect
  Do you know what art is?
  We are showing our exceptional artistic talents and we exhibiting our artworks for sale.
  As you knew artists work hard and no one support them. We should work hand in hand if we really want to achieve our ambitions, when there is a will there is a way.
  Best luck,
  Noura Debbouche
  

  by NouraDebbouche - 3/17/2009 7:07:30 PM

• to sir frank and teona,
  
  I like your statement!

  by gcabig - 3/22/2009 4:01:53 AM

• There is no limits neither boarders for art at all. Use of new technologies is as important as traditional tools to create artworks.
  
  When Vassily Kandinsky (originally musician) and well known as painter, discovered photography knew immediately that a new age begun.
  
  It is not the tool used but the brain and emotions of the artist what produces what we call art. We´re in 21st century and therefore to exclude new ways to approach to art is a terrible error.
  
  I´m not a painter, I do write and many of my works are included in paintings, scultures, videos, perfomances, photos. Once we finish our work many other artist can and must study them, in order recreate other things as important as what we did it: I respect them all.
  
  Art is communication, like the two rairoad tracks where trains goes, but inside of those trains (where art travels are plenty of people and artist who seeks and interpret with their own souls). They got into the train and stop whenever they wanted to go or they must go for many different reasons.
  
  To me, an artwork it is a pulsion that reach us. Many times we cannot explain it why or there is no explanation for it.
  
  That is how I see it,
  
  If I´m wrong: what else can I do?
  
  Besr regards to all,
  
  Jesús María Serrano

  by JesusMariaSerrano - 5/28/2009 12:22:58 PM

• As a sculptor the question of originals crops up often, many who work in bronze begin with an original in clay or wax, in this case the original is worthless and very often destroyed in the reproduction process, but without it there can be no editions made,Many sculptors have at first the idea, someone else will build the armature, another prepare the clay, another will make the mold, the foundry will cast and finish the piece, then an edition of up to ten originals are made, have we not lost something here??As a stone carver my original cut by me, remains the original, i have had editions made in bronze and they become the original bronzes from the original stone,and usually lack something.

  by thenoop - 5/28/2009 6:01:13 PM

• I am an artist ( painter)

  by artmuller2003 - 6/26/2009 4:54:58 AM

• Hi to you all. I am new to the site & working in the media of digital art was drawn to this debate. I seems a lot of you are missing the point completly. I have worked with pencils, inks, oils & silk screening in the past. I now choose to work with the computer.
  
  The art that I have produced over the years has been for my enjoyment, for the release of the aesthetic within me, for my satisfaction. If others like it then the emotions evoked is for their enjoyment. If they don'tlike it it's completely irrelevent for me. I have had the emotional release & enjoyment in creating it.
  All the best to all of you creating works for your own soul.
  
  Cheers Rob
  
  

  by rreynolds - 7/24/2009 12:08:18 PM

• just my two cents
  
  Digital tools allow to fast share artistic pictures and at no visible cost. So speed and exposure are the key points. And they are both positive.
  
  I like my pencils and acryl colors but i like my digital tablet too. And i will for sure die without my 100 grams cameraphone. I can remeber, just 20 years ago, the long run to see a developed black and white photo. Hours in a black room and stink of toxic acids on my finger. Forget the romantic rethoric. Pure bullshit.
  
  So what ? Where are the shadows of digital art ?
  It seems there are no visible costs but this is not true. In facts we are all paying for a high-speed connection and someone earn rivers of cash from it. This is not new and not scandalous but some proportions have no precedents.
  I mean, producers of canvas and colors earn also much more then any average artist. The modern art star system feed their sales and in this wide perspective the traditional art-market-circus twinkle like the jackpot you need to sell
  lottery tickets.
  
  Digital art makes a step further. It burns on your screen just as long as you pay your bills to the telephon and electric companies. You cannot own it, you can just rent it. On the other hand nobody really owns it.
  Push the power-off button and digital art disappear.
  
  Bad ? Yo. Yes and no. For example i like the sex-pistols a lot but as soon as i have enough i push the stop button and they quit.
  It does not hurt me. God save the stop button.
  Digital art is something quite similar and shoud use the same I-tunes business model. Something like: see a free preview in internet and then for 50 cents download a full slideshow for your 40" tv screen. Am i too optimistic ? can digital art compete with a new Snoop Dog video ?
  

  by victurbine - 8/22/2009 5:08:40 PM

• It's all about creating. Digital art is not easy as some seem to imply. It takes a lot of work to learn to use any tool to the point that one is able to be creative and express the spirit. Let us respect each others choice for the tool(s) we use to create art.

  by moise - 9/2/2009 10:52:19 PM

• I am not optimistic about entering Snoop Dog's turf. miaou.

  by barbionit - 9/9/2009 9:21:54 AM

• One of the techniques of digital art, as mentioned in the main article, is fractal-art. Lately I have been writing some blogs on this issue:
  Fractals and Fractal-art
  Fractals and Fractal-art (2) and
  Fractals and Fractal-art (3)..
  for anyone whos is interested, see :
  http://www.cultureinside.com/123/section.aspx/Member/juliette_gribnau

  by juliette_gribnau - 10/6/2009 8:49:19 PM

• quote found on Hal Gould's website:
  
  "Art is in the Artist, not in the medium!"
  (Hal Gould)

  by juliette_gribnau - 10/8/2009 12:00:20 PM

• For us (my wife and I) digital art came as a blessing.
  
  After years of sculpting in stone, bronze and acrylic, serious health problems made it impossible to work in the material we loved.
  We took the big step to learn how to handle the computer and that was not an easy path.
  Feeling like ' Neanderthals ' coming from The Stone Age, we've decided to translate our sculptures and visions into images, using computer programs as our hammer and chisel.
  By taking this huge step it was possible for us to learn new ways of expression. And now we feel at home again and The Digital Age provides the tools to communicate.
  
  Willem and Madeleine

  by Hyperborea - 10/8/2009 1:20:16 PM

• Interesting points by Frank above and I generally agree with his drift. However, his point about the work of Peter Ciccariello "look[ing] ancient" is questionable. They look like smooth, modern, digital images to me as do many of the other thousands of digital works I have looked at over the years. (That isn't to say that Peter is not a worthy artist - I find his work outstanding) The processes associated with digital imaging seem to me to have an effect upon the finished product as do all processes associated with all media. Art is generally described as relating to human skill, but I prefer the notion that some people are born with the ability, (or learn) how to see the world through the eyes of an artist. That is a remarkable ability and I am sure all artists understand what it means. Some artists appear to show great craftmanship in terms of producing by design an artefact or two incorporating individuality and creativity and others just chance upon an sublime outcome. Who cares about the medium, the artefacts whilst interesting are not really what an artist's life is all about.

  by - 10/22/2009 3:19:57 AM

• Art is not created by the hand (as some have said) but by the mind and the soul. The tools we choose to use are not important. Great skill, in any medium, does not always mean great art. If we are to cling to the methods of the past, how far back do we go - cave painting perhaps. There will be good and bad digital art as there is good and bad in any other field af creative endeavour.

  by PETERFELTON - 11/6/2009 10:57:25 AM

• If you use digital age to promote your art,then how can you reject digital tools producing it?It s not an issue anymore we all are part of this process called evolution.
  The materialistic value of art is based on market value of artist,digetal art is dangerously democratic .
  love to you all.
  

  by heikeheilig - 11/25/2009 10:52:18 AM