Art is traditionally thought of as a creative endeavour. An idea best expressed through the application of paint on canvas.
The dilemma – humans have now found themselves at a significant moment in their technological advance. They are genetically programmed for progression, yet art remains hesitant. The question is who controls the label (the word art), and who decides when it should be applied to an individuals expression? Should all creative expression be accepted as art?
- First came photography – why do we still need to paint if a photograph is an exact replica?
- Then the Photoshop era – photographic reality manipulated in seconds.
- Now we have AI and NFTs – why do we need artwork on our walls? Is it really artwork if its created by or hung inside a computer?
Should we be limited to the tools we initially had?
If society deems the Adobe Creative Suite as harmful to the traditional craftsmanship that we know and love, art may become one of the few subjects left behind, whilst exciting technological advance significantly benefits other facets of society such as medicine, architectural practice, the automotive industry, furniture fabrication, and others.
Are you still reading a book if its digital? Obviously, yes. So why is the art world questioning digital art?
In summary, it seems that art and technology should coexist, but with clearer boundaries. If we more openly discussed their roles, then the grey area between them would narrow. After all, if you bumped into an Ancient Greek, they may argue that discussing the role of art was the foundation upon which our democratic society was first reared.
In contrast, has some of the most progressive and exhilarating art not been about breaking boundaries and ignoring the rules? If so, it might be that we rely on the grey areas that we fail to control, more than we may wish to admit.