Reflective Writing: The Authenticity of Digital Art

The Authenticity of Digital art (reflections on Digital Art: The Quest for Presence taken from: Dunking bird productions)

One of the many arguments against digital art, or perhaps the reason why it is sometimes snubbed off, is perhaps the question of whether or not digital art is authentic. I found this article particularly interesting because I have written about chance and authenticity in my research paper and I have quotes Jesse Schell who believes that we are at a time where people are demanding authentic and ‘real’ things rather than being drawn to the digital.

The article refers to German philosopher, Walter Benjamin who questioned the ‘presence’ of mechanical art as well as its ‘historical aura’ which is basically the effect of time of a piece of work. The fading and cracking paint work as work as the general wear and tear of a piece tends to give it a certain value. People tend to be fascinated by these elements and it is obvious in the way they approach vintage and old objects with a certain sense of longing. These effects are of course lost when a piece of work is exhibited on screen, although the nostalgia for 8 bit games is very popular so it is worth considering whether or not digital art has provenance or not even without the tangible qualities.

Of course the author reminds us that digital art cannot have any ‘original’ since it is made up of binary code, which is basically instructions for a construction on a screen. Digital art is in the article, linked to the invention of photography, which was one of the first mechanized ways of making art. The fact that it was so quick to take a picture (when compared to making a painting) the question of whether this should be art or not, often cropped up. If the camera could create an exact reproduction, how did this affect the authenticity of art?

“Perhaps Robert Rauschenburg's description, "the place between art and life", which he used to describe his work, now applies to life itself...the twilight zone of curious invention were such things as "post-modernism" can rise like toadstools from the debris.
In his twilight zone between art and life, Rauschenberg invented his aesthetics off. He got rid of the canvas, splashing paint on stuffed goats, tires, bed blankets. He created sculpture, attached it to a wall and applied paint. He stretched canvas and applied no paint or just one "non-color" of paint. He designed costumes and settings and sounds and let them loose with only slightly programmed or even random activity. Art no longer had to be "object" at all. His work released the first spores of something new, that marks a place in time after "modernism". This place being inhabited by, among other things, computers and digital art.”

The author goes on to say that although people often miss the ‘sensual pleasures’ of traditional art, in the time it takes to prepare to create a traditional piece, and artist can actually create more art. Rather than ‘wasting’ time watching paint dry (literally) and rather than risking to ruin a painting by overdoing it,  a digital artist can afford to keep adding and experimenting with the piece until he/she is happy with it. If it is ruined, taking a step back is of course possible by reverting to previous save points. Of course risk is one of the beautiful features of traditional art; it’s nice to know that a brush stroke has been made right on the first right. There is in fact a certain element of spontaneity and chance in this, which is sometimes hard to spot in digital art pieces.

“Synthesis is the strong suit for digital art. Bringing together old ideas and techniques in radically new ways, never before possible, is what the machine does best. Apply photo-techniques to paint, turn the machine loose, then edit it all back as if on a word processor. Drop shadows onto thin air. Texturize light. Smear pixels. Import the old and spit out the new...synthesize your imagination.”