Monday, February 1, 2016

Digital Means Digital

I've said it before here - I don't take "digital art" seriously at all. As a Stuckist and Remodernist, I'm all about painting and photography made on real equipment in the real world, not pixels that only inhabit the electronic imaginary fantasy-land known as The Internet.

But when on Mars, do as the Martians do. I enjoy twiddling around with MSPaint (the world's crappiest image software) to make weird little patterns out of nothing, and then tossing them aside and forgetting about them. I also employ digital techniques to treat my fine-art photography, sometimes with an eye for hyperrealism, sometimes with an eye for Glitch Art, sometimes with no eye at all.

But recently someone on that Internet thing "corrected" me to say I shouldn't be using the #digitalart hashtag on these treated photos, because in their view, digital art means only computer-generated bullshit.

No.

It's so elementary that I shouldn't even have to explain it; it should go without saying that since photography is art, a digital photo digitally altered on digital software on a digital device and dumped to a digital forum is, ipso facto, digital art. This would be obvious to anyone on any past point of the historical time-track, right up until a few years ago. I'm not going along with the new-think of commoners who have so fully assimilated the digital world into their lives that they consider it undifferentiated.

And on my pieces that appear both on the #digitalart and #nudeart hashtags, there's always an element of collage going on, even when it isn't apparent to the viewer. I'm not just slapping a filter on a photo and serving it. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Get it? Got it? Go. Oo-rah. Semper Fi. Over and out.

No comments:

Post a Comment