English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm a graphic designer by trade, and of the galleries that I've gone to, the digital art displays seem to get less attention than, say, an oil painting of a rock. I feel that just as much effort, technique and talent is necessary to produce high-quality digital art as mainstream art, so shouldn't it get as much attention?

2006-10-17 07:56:31 · 5 answers · asked by ? 2 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Other - Visual Arts

5 answers

Well, sure it should. And musicians who are "sell-outs" deserve as much attention as the "non-sell-outs." That's what this is all about. Graphic designers like you and me, bub, we're the Sell-Outs. But since we get paid (at least in theory) for our work, it "doesn't count."

I know, fine artists work on commission and get paid, too, etc. But it's like museums and such are only for the fine arts as opposed to graphic design. Let's you and me start a graphic-arts-only museum.

Oh, and, note to Gordo: graphic design is soooo NOT 2-dimensional! Just look on the shelf next time you're at the grocery and tell me that well-designed box of haircolor or packet of seasoning mix is 2-D!

2006-10-17 08:44:25 · answer #1 · answered by Bitsie 3 · 0 0

It really depends on what your displaying! If it's an abstract and the digital art is a part, but who can say.

Lesser things have been considered art and displayed in the Googenhime Museum of Art.

Regular Art, or pictures made with paint take the same creative juices, so to speak, as digital art expression, and the same talent.

Maybe, its because its so easy to "copy and paste" other work and pretend its yours.

2006-10-17 11:53:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree and disagree.

An equal amount of skill and workmanship goes in to creating a piece of digital art as traditional art. You deal with compostion, color, creativity, etc...

but, digital art falls into the same category as photography. It is flat, two dimensional, easily reproduced (same quality as original) products.

I believe that art is subjective. Anything can be considered art if it appeals to the viewer. So, yes I consider it as a candidate as gallery art.

2006-10-17 08:13:20 · answer #3 · answered by Gordo J 2 · 0 0

all depends on the gallery and the quality of photo. i suspect you might be able to get a very good photo on a canvas in a needy bog standard gallery.

2006-10-17 08:29:43 · answer #4 · answered by shadow 5 · 0 0

Crazy

2016-03-18 21:12:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers