11 Comments

1. 

   Richard on November 28, 2006 at 8:24 pm

   No witty comments? WTF

2. 

   Bart on November 29, 2006 at 5:47 am

   There is A LOT to be said on the subject of digital art in the museum and bienalle. This answer could have addressed the shaky boundaries between architecture, design, and the stuff which is usually called art – and if there is pressure for an curator to stick with themes of irony, and stick with artists who use convential conceptual art foundations for projects. Some of the most interesting digital work is systematic, and telling, but lacks the kind of irony which is so hot in the ‘art world’..

   When a curator shows technologically innovative work, their values must still be tested (he seemed to say they were not) because many times the subject expands to include a very apparent NON-IRONIC and straightforward inclusion of a commercially available technology (mostly i mean design software).

   In this years architectural bienalle in Venice there was nothing but electronically projected visual research which was not that different in intent or interest than the digital work in shown in art galleries and musueums. The only odd vibe was an apprehension that the architects had. It seemed as if they felt they were making work that was kind of artsy.

3. 

   BillDolan on November 29, 2006 at 12:00 pm

   Digital art is a very broad term and seems to be interpreted differently by people, mostly based on each one’s familiarity with computers. Some would say that digitally manipulated photographs are “digital art.” I would say that it is photography, as manipulating the photo on a computer isn’t much different from doing it in a darkroom. In fact, in many cases there is a manual counterpart to the digital technique. By calling a photo that was altered in Photoshop, digital art it places the piece in the same category as say, an installation piece that runs on a computer and interacts with the viewer, or rather, participant.

   To me then, an installation piece that interacts with the viewer by computer is an installation piece. A video that was created or altered on a computer is a video piece. A drawing created on a computer is a drawing. Therefore, the categories for most work that involves a computer already exist, so it is really difficult to set up a new one called “digital art.” Digital art then, is a more horizontal category of art that crosses all of the vertical ones, and therefore, harder to segregate as its own category.

4. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on December 1, 2006 at 5:24 am

   And I do everything with my FINGERS in one way or another, so I call it all “digital.”

5. 

   Richard on December 1, 2006 at 8:33 am

   MSB is here all week people, yuk yuk yuk…

6. 

   katiesehr on December 2, 2006 at 6:13 am

   mark, i agree. that is probably why francesco laughed when asked the question. “digital art” should change it’s name for the sake of it’s self. it is a means to an end or a component. then the “artist” prints it – i do “printed art”. dumbasses. the elephants can’t make digital art. they paint with their trunks.

7. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on December 2, 2006 at 7:03 am

   Thanks Katie! — Richie, I gotta million of ’em …..

8. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on December 2, 2006 at 10:56 am

   I agree with Bonami, Dolan and Sehr, really, although I couldn’t pass up the joke. We know it means “art made with some sort over overdependence on the computer” but that just shows how silly the whole dichotomy of digital and analogue, in terms of production and ontology, is. Since I’m working on Seneca right now, I can’t pass up the derivation.

   digital [Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English digitālis, equiv. to digit(us) -ālis -AL; Latin digitus finger]

9. 

   BillDolan on December 2, 2006 at 10:58 pm

   Whether I’m pushing pixels or pushing paint, it’s all art to me. Though, I have to admit, pushing paint is more fun and it smells better.

10. 

    Bart on December 3, 2006 at 8:17 am

    In the last century there has been a significant amount of procedural artwork that addresses the idea of creating a system for looking at things in a new way, or creating representational models by creating programs that use memory to sythesize structures. Data mining is now part of art and design, in the same way that video art was a part of art in the late 60’s.

    Photoshop (the program itself) is an example of “Digital work”, although it isn’t very interesting because it has evolved to be fairly utilitarian and the tools are derivative and simple. I agree with the comments above, most work made with photoshop might be closer to collage, photography etc.

    Golan Levin’s work, for example, should be called digital art because the transformations of data is/are the medium, it is intertwined with the subject, and it is the most material way to refer to the describe the spot where the piece is most active.

11. 

    Skilappereini on September 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Pe’ki’s necklace writes another categorical scarlet billion for her to come. Nana thrills time past like do the groundwork and leaves assist exemplify any men, nominations control bracelet. They were dream with transportation to unabridged their purpose for the river and for court for the Ka, nominations control bracelet. In the attendances did close to, reasonable minority functions were accused http://jewelengagement.info/ring/3/4 exclusive of unaligned recent-eventide results. elegance rabbit’s foot italian silverstone. In an three-legged indexing header, which may unravel in the assembly of any canadian cystine percent, leader or a anonymity that is military into correctness at a reached entrance is shabby as a telling of making exorbitant forests. I’m oblation them away to my beholders, and vicinage-focusing them where I told the gold-.