We judge much of the great art of centuries ago by very physical means (signature analysis, pigment analysis, brushstrokes, infra-red tests) and digital pieces don’t offer that as an option. Perhaps living in the information age, we think we won’t need to use those techniques any longer. Goodness knows today, nothing is attributed to the wrong person (ha). Giclees attempt to bridge that gap by making a print more unique to it’s origin, but I suspect they only do so much. Creating on a virtual canvas vs. a physical one, does change things.

All of us can admire digitally created art for the craftsmanship and skill applied by the artist. But down the line, it’s only shortcoming is indeed the lack of a physical fingerprint on the work that says “This piece was created in this day and time, by this person– and is unique.” In that regard, a print forever remains…well, a print.

That said, I too know many students that are getting awfully good using digital tools as their launching point. Even Martiniere himself was initially drawn to the use of Photoshop because of its freedom and flexibility. Would I prefer to live in a world where the amount of work he’s created would be cut down to a third just to know there’s more “original” art out there?

Hell, no.

Digital artwork does one thing that traditional media cannot do and that’s paint with light. The whole visible spectrum of light, RGB, is your palette and the brightness of color this can produce is stunning….when viewed on a computer monitor or, as Irene suggested, projected on a surface. When viewed like this, no traditional piece can hold a candle to a digital one. When printed in CMYK and held next to a traditional piece, the digital has lost what soul it should have and appears somehow less for the loss.

Traditional artwork has a clear advantage over digital when viewing an actual, physical piece. You can see individual brushstrokes and can almost ‘feel’ what the artist was doing with the brush. You can purchase that piece and know that it’s the original piece. When scanned into a computer, however, and shown next to a digital piece, that traditional piece appears dull and less vibrant.

The great equalizer would be the Almighty Press. Book covers and magazines erase (to varying degrees) the advantages of both traditional and digital giving both a level playing field. I enjoy hand-painted Giancola and Dos Santos pieces as much as I do Martiniere and Sparth.

So I would say that for printed media, digital has indeed matched traditional and has taken an equal place in that field. In the field of a ‘masterpiece’, you will have to view digital in it’s best…er…light or you’re doing it a disservice and making it always subservient to anything done in traditional media…digital will always loose something in the transition. To go back to Irene’s comment, if a gallery were to show Martiniere’s work, they would become masterpieces if they were viewed as projections, or better yet, the ‘canvases’ would be large HD monitors hung on the walls, displaying each piece with the stunning glow that only RGB can provide.

I personally value the artistry of digital works, and certainly agree that the masters of digital art produce artistic masterpieces that at the very least equal in artistry to more traditional forms of painting.

To me digital art isn’t inferior artistically – it is simply a riskier investment for a collector.

The issue boils down to originals versus limited editions. Given the costs involved with buying art from successful artists, purchasing originals is a serious financial investment. I personally am not interested in investing significant amounts of money in any limited edition print.

I certainly would never argue that an artist should focus purely on producing works for collectors. I would have thought however that producing hand crafted originals could at the very least be a useful sideline to help further an artist’s career, and provide an additional income stream.

On the topic of masterpieces, I think it will be interesting to see how public art galleries handle acquiring purely digital masterpieces into their permanent collections.

As for being a person that loves to see museum and gallery exhibits, then I do think there is no replacing a traditional painting, if you are presenting it as a traditional painting. I think digital art for exhibition will come into it’s own when it it thought of as installation art. How great would it be to walk into a large empty room with Stephan Martiniere’s work projected throughout!

But where I see digital as having its most surprising effect isn’t in the outcome of paintings, but in the learning process. When I went to high school out the suburbs of Long Island, no one around me had any interest in art. With some effort I went to summer programs and weekend workshops, but I was fairly isolated in my interests. Now any 15 year old can post their work on any number of art boards and get feedback from their peers and working professionals. They are banding together, pushing each other, and getting good fast! I’m seeing college kids that I want to hire, and that was unheard of 10 years ago.