This is a big thing in the art community.
A lot of people seem to think digital art isn't art and that traditional art is worth more because it's 'harder'.
(which I think is bullshit. Both mediums have their challenges)
It's like the bloody argument that photography isn't an artform because anyone can do it!
Anyone can paint too!
A shit photo is just as bad as a shit painting.
What do you guys think?
Most Helpful Guy
I have met these brats who call themselves 'digital artists', and they are one of the most homogenous, ignorant and predictable groups I've ever known.
Theyre all the same. Upper/middle-class suburbanite students, typically from the ages of 21 to 28, with metrosexual accents, square glasses, flat light-colored beards, handbag-style bags, who are rich enough to buy an expensive camera from a shop and therefor call themselves an artist.
Typically consider themselves to be radical and cool - in a modestly understated, ironic, self-aware, modern, anti-hero way of course. Sarcasm and organic food, pretending to give a shit about the environment, idolising Steven Jobs, think Beyonce Knowles, Lily Allen, Kanye West and Arctic Monkeys are required listening - but trying to consolidate that with their - at least public - admiration of Radiohead and Sigur Ros. Members of Couchsurfing (when it became shit because they all joined), think that somehow being anti-commercial and being obsessed with digital technology aren't mutually exclusive, are rarely seriously into sport or even watch football. Scared of homeless and masculine men, defending the status quo, "positive discrimination" and Feminazism, pro-EU, pro-immigrant, hold their mainstream beliefs with an incredible self-righteousness, very pretentious - while trying to present everything at a self-aware slant. Obsessed with Facebook and think that somehow Facebook is 'cool'. Often their first Owns an Apple computer and an iPhone, "early adopter", likes drones and any other new sinister technology because (metrosexual accent) 'it can be used in good ways too!', and always thinks theyve discovered something cool (Burning Man, Couchsurfing, Flashmobs, Yoga, London, etc) before outsiders - whove known about them for years.
Rarely can you be this specific about the type of people who make up a group. With 'digital artists' (lol) you can be.
Oh yeah: they have absolutely no understanding of art whatsoever, although theyre often arrogant enough to think they do.
Basically: someone who went to a shop and bought an expensive camera. Pointed it at something (however pretentiously). Calls themselves an artist.
Takes a photo of La Sagrada Familia or Niagara Falls, and then attributes the beautiful architecture or nature to their own photographic skill, rather than to the internationally acclaimed architect and physical laborers, or natural force that actually made whats in the picture. Really arrogant faggots frankly.1
Most Helpful Girl
I'm a huge fan of photography, yet I've been painting and sketching all my life. Why do I prefer photography? I'm impatient, I can't spend longer than a week on something without me losing interest. With painting, I'm spending a month or so creating an image. With photography it's done with a click of a button. I really love painting, and have respect for those who can create masterpieces. For example, the Mona Lisa (fine art) was done with about seven layers. That doesn't mean the Mona Lisa is somewhat more impressive than a famous photograph, for example the iconic eye. It's just about the fact that fine art takes a lot longer and lot more skills is needed.0