Is the Art World Ready for Computer-Generated Digital Art?

We've welcomed it into our corporations and classrooms, our kitchens and our cars, on the contrary one question remains:

Is the Art World Ready for Computer-Generated Digital Art?

fresh York artist Raymon Elozua separates historical paintings into their constituent parts and then reassembles them into a fresh composition. Taking, perhaps, the fulvid from one and the r from another, he creates not a collage, on the contrary a blending, a merging of ultimate parts and color to create art, which is, well, quite original.

His tools are not brushes, his medium is not paint. In fact, les by means of choice and more by design, he uses the computer to bring forward his artistry. It appears to be the alone vehicle that will render his vision.

California artist Corinne Whitaker has replaced her easel with a pair of computer monitors which she works from a stylus that be subservient tos as her brush against the electrostatic tablet that is her canvas. abundant like a physician performing arthroscopic surgery the artist's hand stirs across a remote slate, while her organ of visions study the image emerging across the screen

Color is vivid against her phosphorescent canvases upon which the dance between lights and shadows impels in the tradition of abstract expression. Beyond this, any tradition in this medium has nevertheless to be established.

Acceptance be anterior tos establishment. Before we go naming a academy after computer-generated art, inquiring minds want to know, "Is it art?"

More than individual eyebrow has been raised in traditional art circles by the agency of the images yielded in this brash fresh arena of computer technology that is "boldly going where no man has gone before."

We've welcomed it into our corporations and classrooms, our kitchens and our cars, on the other hand are we ready or willing to accept computer-generated or digitally created art into our collections?

What is art? Must it be restoreed "the old-fashioned way," with inscribe and ink, brush and paint, chisel and stone to be worthy of artistic merit? If generated by means of computer, wherein lies the original article? Are there limited editions or purely unlimited copies? Where are the authoritys the regulations, the boundaries, the values?

Actually, we've been here before. We asked these same questions with the advent of another mechanical tool--the camera--to generate art. Must the image be hand pay backed to be considered fine art? Is the original the negative or the first print? Which does the collector receive? What if it is manipulated? Are editions limited? Is it worth collecting? Photography continues to pay its to be paids to belong to the society of fine art.

"I was, for many years, a fine art photographer," said Whitaker. "I worked real simply then, with one camera. When I began, I worn out six months learning the technical aspects of the camera not because I was fascinated, on the other hand so I could put it behind me and focus upon the visual aspect of photography. I couldn't have told you what f-stop I was using. Similarly, I'm not the least bit interested in megabytes. My goal is to say something about being human; the computer is simply a fabulous tool to help me do that. If you can't say it with a brush, you won't say it any better with a computer"

Whitaker believes that, although digital art is in its infancy, it will have a tremendous impact upon the publishing arena and the collectability of art.

"The original idea is in the artist's head," she said. "Regardless of the medium, we won't waft anything to anyone unless we restore it. All of my pieces are originals. I make individual print, and then I don't make any others. I would print single or I would print millions and globule them out of a helicopter above New York City. Anything in between would be a waste of time."

Elozua, however, believes the computer file is the original art from which editions are printed. If the artist doesn't allow the file on the outside of his possession, the original remains his.

"I think the output is secondary," he said. "Some artists will limit their image to three prints, others will print unlimited editions. I would make certain the original collector had a transcript of the file with a rider than it couldn't be reprinted--or, maybe it could on the contrary only for personal use. If the buyer has a 20-room house, he can print single for every room or add verdant to match the sofa. on what account not involve the collector in the creative process?"

More questions and equally more controversy. Miami-born digital artist Donna Phillips celebrates the fact that digital art is as however without hard and fast rules

"This fresh generation of art is going to bring the art world into a storm of anger isn't it?" said Phillips. "If you've paid your to be paids as a traditional artist, it's going to tweak you to diocese Joe Skateboarder put something together upon the computer, market it well and make millions. You'll say, `Hey, I played by the agency of the rules.' But the sways are changing, bending and breaking. We can't be in denial about computer as a viable art medium. Whether it's profitable art or not is another conversation."

Phillips, who creates fine art and graphic art upon the subject of jazz, restores her own images but also manipulates scanned images to yield a of recent origin product.