Taking Digital Art Seriously

Are digital artists discriminated against in the art world? Digital artist Jim Plaxco thinks so and so do I.

The issue recently came up in the "pFAn" (professional Fine Art network) discussion group on LinkedIn. The original topic question was, are females are discriminated against in the art world? There was only one comment on the original subject, but Jim's assertion that digital artists are the ones most discriminated against stimulated a number of long and thoughtful comments about the prejudices that digital artists must face, and how they might be overcome. Here are some thoughts based on my own postings in that discussion.

Most legitimate digital artists feel the freezing snub of the art world. Nancy and I recently participated in an exciting and fulfilling international art event, the "Chianciano International Prize for Digital Art and Photography" in Chianciano Terme, (Tuscany), Italy. The exhibition covered two floors of the Museo d'Arte, and displayed work by over 100 digital artists and photographers from 35 countries. The work was superb, and varied from the lyrical to the logical. The artists were predictably all very different from one another in dress, appearance and demeanor. But one clear common denominator existed among all, a kind of group release and elation, as if the group was collectively thinking, "Wow, we're being taken seriously. AT LAST!"

Digital artists do face many forms of discrimination, and there are many reasons for it. Leading the list of course: ignorance. At a recent opening of my work in the States, a nice woman sincerely asked me, "Now, do you do the work or does the computer do the work?"

Adding to this dilemma is the perception that if the artist uses the computer as a tool s/he is taking some kind of shortcut, not doing real work or that that there is little artistic skill involved. Some of this may be due to early "art" pieces which were actually playful bits of programming. and may also stem from a variant of computerphobia. A competent digital artist would argue that the computer and printer combinations used to produce good digital art are merely tools, and that the image itself and its content and emotional effect on the viewer is the important thing.

Artistic quality is a matter of the artist's own talent, perceptions and sensibilities, never the tool. A talented artist can make art out of anything, as Lee Bontecue proved in the early 50's with her works made on cheap cardboard using black smoke from an acetylene torch. Conversely, technical skill is only a matter of training, whether it's oil paints or computers. A technical tour de force is only that - it takes an artist to make it into art.

Many otherwise knowledgeable art buyers, gallerists and curators de-legitimize a work if a computer is involved in its production, apparently because they think little artistic skill is required. I recall a potential buyer peering closely at one of my early works, especially admiring the precision of a fine rectangular rule around the image. When I explained that it was done in the computer he grimaced and walked away without a word. Apparently he felt that the minor skill required to hand-rule a line was legitimate artistically, yet the considerable skill required to manage complex image processing software is not. I’m sure that if he only knew how much work is involved in mastering complex color management, or acquiring and learning sophisticated equipment, or composing and processing intricate images with great subtlety, he would never have been so disparaging.

Basic misperceptions about the alleged simplicity of making computer art stubbornly persist. Even a good friend, a painter of traditional landscapes, bridled visibly when I claimed, "It takes at least as much time to master digital software as a creative tool as it does to complete an MFA as an oil painter." Fact: it’s difficult to develop high-level mastery of digital tools. I've been learning Photoshop continuously for over ten years and reckon that I’ve only mastered about half of what it can do.

Supposing we get past all this, there are still the fairly real problems of provenance and infinite reproducibility, and related to that, authenticity. A computer can print the same file an infinite number of times - therefore it cannot be real art -- or so the thinking goes. The fact is, no digital artist wants to spend time making copies of an image when there are so many other ideas to explore. And it would be nearly impossible to sell them.

The truth is that when all steps are totaled together it takes about as long to create and print a major piece of digital art as it does to make a medium-sized oil painting. Once it's done and a few proofs have been made, it's on to the next image - or onward with the unending quest to find buyers. We’re artists, not publishers. We make art and we're smart. And that’s why you won’t find digital artists making huge value-diluting editions.

But what about copies or art found on the Internet? Internet copying of legitimate digital art is not a genuine problem. Most digital art files are huge - much larger than the vast majority of images found on the internet. And most digital artists are savvy about rights management and licensing. Still, a quality piece of digital art must be authenticated and assurances must be provided so the buyer knows that the piece they are considering has been directly produced or at least approved by the artist as his or her own work.

Buyers have a right to buy artworks that are rare, special and which won't be diluted in value by copies. For this, one needs to limit production, make each piece special and legitimately the direct product of the artist, and of long-lasting archival quality.

This is why I've come to think that a strategy of using lab-tested pigment inks, archival paper, personally signing and dating each piece, using genuinely restricted limited editions, supplying legitimate certificates of authenticity and keeping a careful database of each piece made, sold, loaned, exhibited, or given - all must work together to provide the all-important buyer assurance.

The knowledgeable art buyer needs and deserves to know that the piece s/he buys is not only genuinely produced or approved by the artist but is rare, limited, made for the ages, and will not be diluted in value by a flood of copies.

And of course, the work has to be stellar. No artist can avoid the really hard work of facing themselves, meeting self-imposed challenges, stepping up their game and working to make the best possible art s/he can. Even if "the computer does all the work." Ha.

In the end, if we digital artists want respect, we'll have to earn it through education, professionalism and personal excellence.