'Post Digital'
"Is inevitable so why wait?"
WARNING
Ideas and opinions expressed here constitute a major re-assessment of 'digital'
as a valid medium. Those with entrenched views or an unwillingness to test
their faith may wish NOT to read the contents of this web site, Blog or
whatever it is?
warning level=orange ( medium)
|
|
Digital Art:
Is digital art
better than nothing at all?
|
Lets have a: Massdebate
© ®
ARTYhog,
roots through the scraps of the digital art world.
|
|
All views expressed
here are highly subjective, and many are based solely on a lack of hard
evidence.
|
| |
|
The debate opens.
Well yes of course it's better than nothing
if you accept that it
is purely an absorbing pastime with little or no other use.
Is a digital watch better than nothing at all? As a watch lover I would
have to say no. Why? For reasons similar to digital art that's why. Did
the digital watch 'evolve' out of practicality, aesthetic or ease of use?
More likely it came on the scene because it was easy to manufacture such
an object. And where are they now? Languishing in the bottom of drawers
with dead batteries and dead displays. The Service station 99p/c bargain
just
the thing when cleaning the car.
So what's so bad about 'digital'? For me it is a soulless 'unit' regular
and conforming building things with all the passion and imagination of
an ant hill. All it becomes is the sum of its parts, nothing more. An
illusion of optical mixing. Put it under the microscope and what do you
learn
nothing? The unit grinds along. Even grains of sand on a beach
are all different.
The unit is the problem. You can't describe an analogue universe with
a digital 'string'. Well that's not strictly true you can describe it
but
you can't emulate it, or create an expression of it in the same 'system'.
So what about digital
music then! I thought of that
the sound ( if we are talking of anything
other than snyth music) is created with analogue and listened to with
analogue. Digital is only the carrier, the matrix' that transports the
sound from A to B. You could argue so does a digital image, yes if it's
a photograph, but most digital art isn't . It's a composite of created
illusion or algorithmic manipulation.
So how far have I
got? Well I could concede that a digital photograph has value, and is
not such an intrusive display of pixels. I feel happy about that
for
now.
Over to you?
|
Further.
I met my old art teacher one day in a book shop; trying
to impress him that all his efforts had not been wasted ( though I doubt
he cared much, as most of us teach for the money) I spoke up.
" I have really started getting into surrealist painting"
He looked up from a book he was reading, and through his John Lennon style
glasses replied.
"Self indulgent crap"
I hadn't expected that, but he did it with a smile, as a sort of acknowledgement
that at least I was trying.
"No-one wants to know your dreams" he continued.
That meeting has stuck in my head for 25years, probably because he is
absolutely right.
I think you can figure it out for yourself why I mentioned it.
|
|
|