• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/incident-of-2018-08-13.27381/

Is Digital Art, Art?


GPS: "Repopulating"
Local time
Today, 02:16
Aug 20, 2016
Down the hole with Alice
Seems we've lost a few threads and posts. I suppose I'll make up for that a little with some poorly-arranged sophistic masturbatory argumentation:

Digital art is meaningless. AI will shit it out at the press of a button. It seems "assisted," like having a prosthesis; the special olympics of art. Traditional mediums coupled with a creator's intrinsic flaws and personal nuances spawned, well, creativity, in overcoming those limitations, resulting in a product high in genuine authenticity, which is why it is more meaningful. "Real" art demonstrates the developmental process of an individual.

Older mediums... pencils and brushes, techniques and methods... also had a diversifying effect; a closer bond between maker, medium, and expression, but the effect of digital tools is negatively equalizing, homogenizing, and bland.

Though digitech is effectively a tool that synthesizes multitudes of other tools, everything filtered through the creation of a relatively minute group of programmers, who may possess a false belief that they've incorporated sufficient flexibility so as to replicate some aspect of reality, is reductionist, like feeding a rainbow through a prism to produce white light.
Local time
Today, 00:16
Apr 4, 2010
You have selected one medium and imposed it on another to show that the other medium is fake. Digital Art is its own medium not a substitute for others. Replication is not duplication. Games are the obvious example. It is another way to tell a story. Or on its own learn how to do something new. It is a form of interactivity. All medium is interactive to an extent. The digital medium is highly fluid. You can make it do almost anything, create almost anything. It has it's own physics to it.


Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 19:16
Dec 12, 2009
As I see it art is defined by four schools of thought:

Art as a Concept
The art depicts the artist's thoughts, this could be a joke, a political statement or a meme, the quality or aesthetic appeal of the art itself is irrelevant rather the merit of this kind of art is judged by the relevance and cleverness of the concept.

Art as Expression
This is one of the more prestigious kinds of art but the actual reason for its value is commonly misunderstood, the Mona Lisa is a nice picture but there's nothing truly exceptional about what it depicts. We're bombarded with pictures of pretty girls with nice smiles every day but the Mona Lisa is valuable because it was painted by a famous artist who died a long time ago. It's a relic, a collector's item, it's famous and valuable because it's famous and valuable, it's the Kim Kardashian of the art world.

Art as an Observation
Realistic still-life paintings, photography, even impressionist paintings capture the mood of a scene if not a faithful depiction of the scene itself, there's a lot of artists who specialize in painting landscapes.

Art as Decoration
This could be any of the above, it's just aesthetics for its own sake.

Personally I don't care how art is made, if someone makes an AI that churns out hundreds of impressionist landscapes that serve as decoration in restaurants and hotel lobbies I don't see anything wrong with that. I do take offense to art being considered good because the artist is some semi-famous weirdo because the art itself has no merit, distressingly this is all too common, hence why most people in a modern art gallery tend to be thinking "wtf is this shit?".
Local time
Today, 01:16
Oct 6, 2014
All four of those schools exist and all four are perverse. Art as concept is its politicization, art as "expression" its commodification and academicization, art as observation its reduction to a pedestrian record of external conditions, art as decoration its demotion to congenial piece of scenery. None of these possible instrumentalizations of art tells us what art qua art actually is. A Gothic cathedral, a portrait by Rembrandt, a tragedy by Shakespeare, and a symphony by Beethoven have something in common that a speech by Barack Obama, an antique chamber pot, a military reconnaissance report, and a potted plant do not: expression. Not the expression of external, but always internal conditions. Art speaks not of space, but always of time, not of facts, but of the truth, not of the frigid world of appearances, but of the irruption into that world of one's molten quintessence, of passion, of yearning and suffering in their innumerable gradations and shades, keys and melodies. Art begins and ends always with the subject as expresser and as experiencer, not any object. Hell, music doesn't even have an object! I say "wtf is this shit?" at art galleries too, and it's not because those objects of modern art are repugnant to me (though many of them are), but because whatever emotion the artists sought to capture in those objects (if they are to be credited with any artistic intent at all- frankly I think most of them are inutterably dishonest charlatans so trivial are the works with which they think to occupy our time) proved incommunicable to me through that object under those circumstances.

I see nothing clever, profitable, observational, or decorative in this work of art. It's a gospel, simple and true.

Top Bottom