I agree with your points, but I should add a little something to one of the things you said...
Gerald King wrote:
On the question, is digital art, fine art? I would first try to define "digital art." Brian correctly references the computer which is the "tool" used to produce "digital images" As a "tool" the computer is more flexible than photography which is often the basis for a primal image.
On the question, is digital art, fine art? I would first try to define "digital art." Brian correctly references the computer which is the "tool" used to produce "digital images" As a "tool" the computer is more flexible than photography which is often the basis for a primal image.
Computers can certainly be used to create images that are completely created in the mind of the user without any use of photography at all. Computers can be used are a medium for drawing with a tablet and a variety of "tools" that make different kinds of lines with a broad variety of characteristics. Computers can also be given abstract directions to draw patterns like a kaleidoscope might, mostly out of the control of the user. They can also be told to "imagine" and "render" complete scenes based on dizzyingly complex detailed descriptions of the scene. They can also be used to create random or pointless images much as modernists create with paint too.
This question is a lot like "Is painting fine art?" The answer is "It entirely depends on how you use it." If you use it ineptly you get weak or flawed art. If you use it in a non-artistic way (say, randomly flinging the paint at a canvas) then you end up with non- art. If you selectively recreate some aspect of reality to express an idea with your medium then you do create art, and if you do it particularly effectively then it is great art. In all of these respects it is exactly like painting, drawing, sculpture, music, or literature.
--Brian
