Digital art is hindered by the processors on which the creations run. Now digital art is quiet amazing and can produce more colors than we could with an analog equivalent. This wasn't the always the case, we must think back to CRTS and 8 bit processors. The limitation of technology was preventing us from producing truly vivid pictures.
Now we can render any color, from a scale of 0-255 from the R,B,G spectrum in terms of what is put out. This allows us such a greater scale in terms of what we can produce. Last year in my engineering class we had to convert one of these pictures into gray scale for compression of information. It was an eye opening experience in how computers produce images.
I, however, love 8-bit and 16-bit pixel art, it makes me feel nostalgic. There has been a Renaissance in that art form in the last few years. It's almost like the minimalist art movement that started one hundred years ago. Now that people have the technology to make very advanced art, there is a longing for art that reminds us of our childhood. I grew up playing 16 bit pixel art games and sprite based fighting games. I grew up in the arcade playing Street Fighter 3: 3rd strike, so to see a return to that nostalgia makes my heart warm.
I don't think digital art seems any less real, but I could see how that argument could be made. Unlike the author though, I've grown up with digital art. I've seen the progression from CRTS to digital screens. I find digital art endearing.
Binkley, Timothy (1997). The Vitality of Digital Creation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (2). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
I think this summarizes the pros of digital art that the ready was talking about really well. It is a different form, but also very real and important as well!
ReplyDelete