A - I honestly don’t feel that the reluctance to accept computer-based painting or drawing is a personal smack at digital artists, the purists simply refuse to accept the idea that anything generated by a printer and a computer could be classified in the same area code as something hand painted or hand drawn. I actually agree with this entirely, however with so much of the nomenclature borrowed directly from the painting studio and the photography darkroom, direct comparisons and confusion are inevitable.

I’ve been a digital art advocate for two decades and am admittedly biased. If you survey the younger generations of under 30’s artists,  you’ll find far less reluctance to accept technology, in fact I wouldn’t have enough hours in the day if I agreed to offer lessons to every youth or adult who approaches me with a desire to explore digital imaging. Through my experience with both digital and traditional art, I can offer my two cents.

I think the root issue is the tradition related to the act of painting and the physical presence of the finished product. Paintings with oils, watercolours or acrylics have distinct qualities that add to the time-honoured nostalgia of creation and their finished appeal; for instance the act of mixing of paints and mediums, the aura of permanence, the varied methods of applying liquids onto a physical surface with one’s own hands and of course the personalized stroking and brushwork themselves that bring a three-dimensional presence and individuality to a  painting. Oil painting is very much a physical act. Digital painting often uses similar hand motions, but the distinction is the technology layer that lies between the artist and the art.  The implication is that hand painting is a more intimate, direct and  personal skill while digital painting is unjustly characterized as being mechanically detached. Some say the romance is lost in the computer.

A - I didn't say it is less romantic but many others imply it. In the world of large-ticket consumerism, sophisticated buyers like to see sparks of passion between the producer and the produced. The qualities of a caring touch and handmade uniqueness are very important factors for dozens of elite products from cheese and beverages to furniture and fine art. Take the case of  specialty restaurants or cottage wineries where the chefs and winemakers seem to live and breath the product. They claim to impart a slice of their hearts and souls on every plate or in every bottle.  Contrarily, the perception of large, automated producers is one of bland, lifeless, over-processed products that fail to impart any true emotion of the producer. It’s the image of the disengaged assembly line worker opposed to the skilled artisan hunching over his masterpiece late at night under dim incandescent light to apply the final touches. In digital art, for the most part the finished product is produced by a printer from a file created by the artist. That artist-file relationship doesn't instil the same romantic passion as the artist and a painted canvas.

Due to the technology juggernaut that has overwhelmed our society, many products even loosely-related to computers are automatically stereotyped as being negative affronts to our cultural tradition of fine craftsmanship. Digital art is often misconstrued as being programmed or assembled  rather than carefully created by a “real” artist.. Some call computer art too automated, too cold and lifeless. Many so-called “real” oil paintings also seem automated, cold and void of any feeling, but it's impossible to convince some people that digital artists put as much of themselves into those digital files as an oil painter. To me, it's simply a case of perception.

At the crux of the issue are the unbalanced apple vs. orange comparisons between the creator and his chosen tools. With oil painters or water colourists, the tools are treated as secondary to the artist. With technology, some wrongly assume that the computer is actually the creator rather than its user.  Once educated to understand that the computer artist is developing the work and the machine is only the chosen tool for printing an archival physical product of that creation, naysayers will then be able to compare the creative and technical capabilities between artists,  regardless of the methods and tools.

To clarify my point, a great photographer can get by with a photo that is a tad too contrasty or blurry if the piece is otherwise strong. An oil painting may receive praise for excellent detail and composition even if the choice of palette might be questioned by some. Digital art has no such acceptance buffer because many won’t even both to look at wonderful works once they discover that they were digitally printed. This is just plain wrong. Actually I’d say it’s a tad naïve or immature to marginalize ANY artist simply because of the tools he or she chooses to utilize. I think we’re moving past this, slowly but surely.

A - Probably not, but that depends on your definition of  “computer “ art. On one side you have the purely digital creations of video, image projections or monitor-based presentations that don’t exist without a computer and are exhibited only via the technology. They’ve developed into a New Media genre of their own and are gaining notoriety as something hot and important in most art centres either as headliners or show complements.

The other large area is more polemic, involving the use of computer equipment to produce two-dimensional wall works of many flavours from digital painting and drawing to enhanced or manipulated photography and collage work. As mentioned in the questions above, here is where the purists are dragging their feet a little bit since many feel that using a computer is akin to cheating; they feel that new artists are trying to reduce the learning curve or take shortcuts rather than learn traditional artistic techniques the long way by practice, trial and error in a painting studio or darkroom. Secondly, some intellectuals contend that digital artists are emulating or copying something else rather than adding new aesthetic values to their own  unique process.

A - Of course, there always have been and always will be art professionals who are overwhelmed by the latest movements. Hey, it took Picasso over 15 years before he could sell his "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon." Many traditionalists are reluctant to accept change. Some don’t understand digital and prefer to continue promoting the known entities that they master and control . . . like regular oil painting. Some are paranoid, others are selfish. Digital art portends to promise new rules and might even develop new aesthetic boundaries, plus it brings the possibility of creating art to millions of people that otherwise might never have attempted anything if it weren’t for the relatively low cost of a computer compared to the high costs of an adequate studio and art materials. Losing control always scares people, that unfortunately is basic human nature in a troubled society where individualism trumps community spirit.

I want to be perfectly clear. I admire and respect all types of artists and art world professionals, even those who choose to marginalize digital art. My only message to them is that one art form does not need to replace another. Each has its place and will continue to have its place in the fine art market. One is not superior or inferior, they are simply different. A Rolls Royce and a Ferrari will both get you from New York to L.A. but the experience will hardly be the same. Different style and tastes, but both are great rides.

A - That might seem a little harsh, but there certainly is plenty of room for more mutual respect and cooperation. All I say is look at the finished products and judge the art for its visual appeal. Appreciate the tremendous stroking ability of a great painter or marvel at the contrast and lighting control of a master photographer. By the same token, I’d like to think that the best digital artists will eventually be recognized for their tremendous work in this relatively new field. I don't expect the values of the best digital works to ever approach the prices of the best oil paintings since there are many factors that determine value. But certainly the gap will narrow somewhat so that more young, talented digital artists can make a living through their work rather than just exhibit it for free on the internet!

A -  Easier and quicker? Of course not. During my classes and seminars, I’ve rambled for hours and shed plenty of light on some myths about the differences and similarities of digital versus traditional art. Until any artist or critic has intimate experience with both, he or she simply won’t have the basic criteria to say that one is inherently easier than the other. Like anything in life, the easiest option is often the one you know the best.

Digital brushwork blending dozens of layers or seamlessly matching disparate elements into one congruent picture plane are not quick skills to master. Nor is it simple to design images using a 17 inch monitor that are destined for printing six or seven feet wide. the talent and skill sets are quite different actually.

First, a computer does not reduce any existing learning curve, it creates an additional, unique curve. Consider this: Those who begin to explore digital art will quickly find that any previous experience with painting, drawing or darkroom photography will aid them immensely in their transition to digital. Many digital art professors say they can gauge the potential of new students simple by reviewing their drawing portfolios long before they touch their first digitizing tablet. Contrarily, computer drawing skills won’t necessarily help someone become a better oil painter because the two physical processes of painting are radically different. An artist who masters one won’t necessarily be able to master the other.

Second, people are focusing far too much on the tools and methods rather than the creative visions and innovations. Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator won’t create the next Mona Lisa any sooner than Microsoft Word will create the next Hamlet unless the person sitting in front of the monitor and keyboard has the appropriate master talent. As they’ve said since the invention of the computer . . . Garbage In, Garbage Out. Its very simple . . . a computer does NOT create art.

I once worked for a fine art gallery where we sold a Picasso drawing of an owl comprised of a few simplistic sweeping lines, a beak-like mark and a couple of circles for eyes. Probably took Pablo five minutes to sketch, but the value was not in the time or effort, rather in Picasso’s brilliant control of forms, balance and precise expression. The physical act of drawing the piece would have been roughly the same between a pencil and a mouse, but the perceived difference in value is enormous due to  erroneous perceptions of digital versus non-digital art. What some refuse to acknowledge is that there is no button that says, "draw me a Picasso owl."

Digital painting with a mouse or drawing tablet can emulate many “physical” qualities electronically, including the precise mixing of colours on a monitor-based palette and near infinite control of “paint” application devices, but the application itself is not directly physical since the artist’s moves must be translated through a layer of technology. Although the act of conceiving and developing a digital painting is similar, the digital piece is not produced directly.. 

That’s why I say these are two different methods to communicate visually even though much of the terminology is shared. Perhaps printed digital art should be compared more closely with artists who make the plates for serigraphs or lithographs rather than oil painters. In oil painting, the work comes to life as the artist proceeds to apply paint. In producing any form of limited editions, the design and artistry comes before the actual work is brought to life through a secondary process. It is still the work of the hands of the artist, but indirect. Serigraphs or lithographs are not less valuable than originals because  they are easier to produce. They cost less because the artist is apportioning his development costs over the quantity of the edition. The same applies to digital work. Supply and demand, the less there are the more they cost. Simply economics.

To anyone with knowledge of the field, a digital artist can be just as quickly identified by both the style of the finished works and by the techniques used to arrive at a work’s conclusion. You don't say, "oh that was done by a Mac," or "that was done with Photoshop on a PC" any more than you say that a particular painting was done with a sable brush with Winsor & Newton paint! It's just not that important.

People new to the digital arts might not be able to recognize the leaders in the field, much less determine good from bad technique, hence their reluctance to legitimize the field to date.

To answer your question., a highly-skilled digital artist might produce some types of intricate work quicker, but a computer neither shortens the artistic learning curve nor is easier, especially in the hands of a novice with no artistic background . Learning is similarly long and arduous but results in totally unique skills.

A - Time is a difficult question. Digital art has certain advantages but they don’t relate to the physical act of applying strokes to complete a work. Making a line takes the same amount of time in both methods.

The time advantages of digital painting relate to some very useful commands such as “undo” that can instantly remove mistakes. This allows the artist to proceed quicker with creation rather than wasting time patching a mistake with paint, or worse still, starting over after a serious mistake. Multiple current states of an image file allow for more efficient trial and error on the fly. Instant previews of possible options is a great time saver. And repetitive actions, once captured, can simplify some procedures.

Perhaps the most important digital time saver is that the artist doesn’t have to wait hours or even days for layers of paint to dry. And he or she can work on dozens of pieces simultaneously without the need for a huge studio. As for effort itself, I disagree that one form of painting takes less effort than another. I also think that the art collector is sophisticated enough to understand that fine art is not valued by the number of brush strokes. That's why Picasso's owl drawings easily fetched five or six figures and Tamayo's naive symbols sell for huge sums.