Is it possible to create art with digital?

MarkoKovacevic said:
Not bashing digital(I use it myself) but I find it difficult to use in an artistic fashion, especially for BW. It feels too clean, too restrictive, too unorganic versus traditional. What's your take?
Click to expand...

Its possible to create art, by going out, picking up some things you find, and arranging them in a fashion that conveys something. If in doubt as to whether you can art can be created with a digital camera, just go and look at plenty of others who are doing just that. That should clear up the issue whether it is a problem with digital, but whether it is the right tool for you to create art with, is another matter, but lets leave the tools out of it, after all, what did they do.. :)
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
Not bashing digital(I use it myself) but I find it difficult to use in an artistic fashion, especially for BW. It feels too clean, too restrictive, too unorganic versus traditional. What's your take?
Click to expand...

Your title question is absurd.
Why should it be any less possible to create art with digital than with say, film or paint & canvas, or marble or wood, or stained glass or yak dung or whatever?
As you stated, you are unable to create artistically with Digital, but there are many, others who seem to have no trouble doing so, and unless you live in a dark cave devoid of internet access I'd guess you've probably seen some of their work.
So why would you even pose such a broad sweeping question to which you already likely know the answer?
 
Does this mean that last week's discussion about whether photography is art has been decided in favor of photography?
 
You can create graphic art with the computer or the pencil, music with keyboard or piano - I can't see any reason why this should not work for photography....
 
so many more folks see my images online now than ever saw my prints...

art, like attitude, is something that either is/you have it, or you don't/isn't.

clear?
 
wallace said:
Have you ever heard of Andreas Gursky? You can easily spend $ 1000 000 and more for one of his prints.....
Click to expand...

"In a feature previewing Andreas Gursky's series of North Korea, Wallpaper magazine explained that Gursky shoots on a 5 x 7 inch large-format camera, before scanning his negatives to work on them digitally"
 
Why not? Y'know , at one point early on in its history, there was a question as to whether photography should be considered art. Obviously, that question has been settled for some time now.
 
of course one can make art from digital ______.

is a digitally illustrated image not art merely because it's digital?
does an artistic photo in the form of a negative stop being art once it's scanned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by efix
Ken Rockwell says only pictures taken with analog cameras can ever be considered art. ... end of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Oh...absolutely. Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
... David Bailey says the same thing ... but then what does he know
 
Sparrow said:
... I bet the modernists would have something to say about that, but which is better? ... there's only one way to find out: FIGHT!
Click to expand...


Indeed. There can only be one thing, and one thing only, that can be absolutely correct. The truth has always been ultimately settled by the victor.
 
thegman said:
I feel that digital lacks a certain authenticity because it copies film. I think you are 100% on the money in saying digital needs to bow to no other medium, the problem is that practically everyone tries to make it emulate film. The camera makers add film modes, people use Silver Efex Pro to make it look like film, they want "grain like" noise at high ISO.

I like the Lytro for one reason, and that's that it is doing something which is very "digital", and not in any way a copy of film.
Click to expand...

Only people that don't understand digital say this sort of stuff in my experience. A digital file (be it raw or jpeg) is a negative. To get the most from digital you have to 'develop' the negatives the same way you would do for a roll of film. You can develop it through the jpeg processer of the camera, which is kind of like giving negatives to a lab or using c41 black and white film - it comes out with a 'default' look and you can leave it at that. Or you can edit it with software, or pick a different JPEG setting in camera to give it a final look that you want - which is EXACTLY the same as developing film - more or less agitation, different developers, toning, different temperatures, etc etc. Digital however allows MUCH more control over the final result, and this is why digital images can look crappy - because people don't know how to work with them and are given too much choice and freedom with editing or 'developing'.

In the end - a good photographer who understands the medium should be able to produce work that you could not tell wether he is using film or digital. In most situations photography shouldn't be reliant on the capture method imparting its 'look' on the product - it should be about the subject, and the 'look' of the photographs should suit the subject. Who the F cares what camera it's been taken with, or what they used to edit or develop the photos. There is no pure, there is no truth in mediums. They're simply that - a medium used to convey a visual point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top