If you use a computer, it’s not real art.

When I was in school at East Carolina in the early 90s, I remember one of my Art History professors mentioning that oil painting, though in widespread usage by the northern European painters of the 15th century (Jan van Eyck in particular), didn’t really catch on in Italy until the 16th century. In Italy, tempera was the preferred medium, and oils were initially considered to be some new-fangled thing. I found this interesting, and my mind went wandering off on its own… making connections to similar instances throughout history.

Photography, for example. The first permanent photograph was produced by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in the early 1800s. Throughout the 19th century, and well into the 20th century, many artists argued that photography was not authentically art—that it was too “mechanical”… it was “science” not “art”. Even today, two hundred years later, there are those that continue this debate, even though photography has been accepted by the art world for some time now.

I think it’s pretty easy to see where I am going with this. Today, in the 21st century, there is debate going on about whether or not the computer is a legitimate art medium. And interestingly enough, the debate often seems the most heated amongst artists themselves (much like photography was a hundred years ago). I attended an art opening last year where there were some very interesting digital mixed media works on display. While viewing them, I overheard a fellow artist say “I’m sorry, but if you use a computer… it’s not real art.”

Although I disagreed, I found the statement interesting because it begs the question, “How do we define what is ‘real’ art?” Take, for example, the Impressionists. They were radicals in their day. They broke the rules. Their work was mocked, ridiculed, and rejected by the art establishment. But who today would even question whether or not a Monet painting is “real” art?

Another example that comes to mind is watercolor—a medium that for years was considered the poor cousin to oil painting. It was considered a “sketch” medium—perfectly fine for mapmakers or science drawings, but not really “art”. Finally, in Victorian times, thanks to the English school and such artists as Turner and Fielding, watercolor began to come into its own as a valid painting medium.

But anyways, back to the statement I overheard at the art opening. I asked the artist who made the statement why she felt that way. She replied that it took didn’t take “real” skill when you used a computer. The computer did all the work for you. It was “cheating”.

I disagree. I do not see it that way at all. The computer is no different than a brush. The brush does what you tell it to do, as does the computer. And anyone who has ever used Photoshop knows that it is most definitely a skill. It has taken me over 15 years to get to my current skill level in Photoshop. Just as it has taken me over 15 years to get to my current skill level in various traditional media.

My current work is digital mixed media. I use both traditional media and the computer. Is it fine art? I think it is. Is it “real” art? It’s real to me… and that’s all I really care about. I created it. It’s a personal statement made by me. Some of the paint is digital, some of it is acrylic (which, of course, is oil’s other poor cousin). Some of the marks are made by Higgins ink… some by Epson. Sometimes I incorporate photographic images I’ve taken, sometimes I scan my own drawings and incorporate those, and sometimes I just draw directly onto the digital image. In the 21st century, it only seems natural to work with digital media. It is new, fresh and has all kinds of undiscovered possibilities. I am not scared by technology; I am fascinated by it.

I think that history has shown that anything new—whether it be oil paint, photography, or digital media—is viewed with suspicion. The same can be said in the music world: is music only “real” music if it is played on instruments invented hundreds of years ago? There are some that feel that way. They don’t think electronic music is legitimate. I, however, enjoy listening to both Mozart and Carbon Based Lifeforms. I am also a huge fan of Suzanne Vega, who blends both traditional and electronic music to create her own unique sound.

To wrap this up… I can’t help but to wonder… in pre-history, did some cave painters feel that it wasn’t “real” art if you used those new-fangled hollow reeds to blow the pigment?