Many people are led to believe that it's easy and that the computer and technology does all the work for you, therefore deeming it as not 'real' or 'true' art. I chose this issue to discuss for Unit 1: Part D because I have been a huge fan of digital art since the start of secondary school and it irritates me whenever people offhandedly say it's not 'real' art, without knowing the amount of skill and dedication it takes to become proficient at it. It truly irritates me, as I have started taking up the art form myself.
Through practising digital art in my spare time, I've come to understand that it's not inherently easier than traditional art. Like many people who are starting out with the digital medium, I believed that just having the technology (a Wacom drawing tablet) would make my art look better than my traditional work. I very quickly learnt that I was wrong; yes, creating art digitally can make certain things more convenient, like erasing marks you've made with the 'undo' button, or sampling colours directly from another image. However, without any proficient knowledge of the fundamentals of art, such as perspective, anatomy and colour theory, I don't think your digital art would necessarily look any better than your traditional work. While technology can be a big help, it doesn't automatically make you a better artist. Just like with the traditional medium, I think that the digital medium is an art form that takes years of practice, as it comes with its own unique set of challenges.
An article I found online by Monika Zagrobelna, supports my view. As she is a digital artist herself she defends it as real art, and gives clear points to erase some of the misconceptions about it. In her article, she states that, 'a computer isn't an art tool. It's not a substitute for a brush, or canvas' and goes on to say that it makes the creation process more convenient but doesn't make it any easier. She also illustrates artwork with the same subject matter, made in traditional and digital mediums, highlighting her view that the two can't be compared since'the techniques of sculpting, drawing and painting are the same between traditional and digital media'.
For further research, I asked my mum about her views on digital art. She said that 'the way you feel when you look at something that's done by a computer is completely different from when you understand that a piece of work was done by a human, especially portraits'. She feels that when someone creates a portrait traditionally, and it looks exactly like the subject, you would appreciate that much more than a digital piece. Her argument completely opposes my view as she goes on to say that since it's 'done by a computer', you can't appreciate it as much as when a person creates art traditionally, since the computer is supposed to get it perfect.
In summary, Monika's article heavily influenced my views on the topic, as she highlighted the similarities between digital and traditional art that I had never noticed before (like the similar techniques), making my defence for digital art as 'real' art much stronger. I found my mum's views to be very insightful because while I completely disagree with her view that the computer does all the work, I can definitely understand the feeling of appreciating traditional art slightly more, especially in terms of portraits. Being able to accurately copy someone's likeness, without the conveniences and shortcuts of digital art, is a huge feat, so I can agree with that point she makes.