The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
In today’s world, it seems that everything is becoming increasingly digitised. Whether this is a good or bad thing for society is constantly debated, with arguments for both sides. There are those who believe that we are losing any number of skills by performing so many tasks on machines, while others see a world of possibilities. Nowhere is this argument better demonstrated than in the art community, where the movement towards digital art has resulted in deep schisms and has sparked innumerable debates and disputes.
While most people are familiar with the concept of putting brush to paper and creating a physical masterpiece, digital art is something far more intangible—at the end of the day simply a colourful collection of pixels—leaving many traditional artists questioning whether it should even be considered art. Further questions are raised about the true skill of a digital artist as opposed to that of a master painter. While it may have taken the true masters countless hours of sweat and blood to finish a single painting, in digital art it is generally acknowledged that it is notably quicker to produce an equivalent product: a scary thought in a world where we are able to simply print a piece onto a canvas.
Personally, as both a traditional and digital artist, I can appreciate and acknowledge that the two media have their strengths and weaknesses. Digital art provides a world of possibilities within its versatility, offering artists everything from 2D, 3D and animated platforms. However, it cannot be touched, or have physical texture in the way that traditional art can, at least for the moment. Traditional art is also unable to be truly reproduced, it is unique... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline