I had an interesting discussion with my great uncle who must be around 90. He has a pretty solid collection of expensive art from oils to crystal sculptures, and he frequently buys and sells, sometimes at auction.
I showed him Expose 2 and D’artiste and wanted to know his opinion. He thought “it was nice”. I asked him if he thought it would be considered art and he said absolutely not. His reason was you couldn’t sell CG stuff for the same prices you can sell “normal art.” Nobody would buy it, because there is no such thing as an original digital. You can print as many copies as you want. There is no texture of the paint. It wasn’t created by hand, it was created by computer.
So, when he said that last line, I whipped out my palm pilot, and drew a little cartoon on the screen. I asked him if he could do that. He admitted, no. I asked him if he thought it was any less of a drawing since it was on computer and not on a piece of paper. He admitted no, but he insisted dealers and collectors would not buy CG since reproduction would be too easy. They would make great wall decorations, but you could never get someone to pay the same prices as “normal art.” (I hated every time he used that expression…)
(My grandmother disagreed with her brother about it not being art, but she didn’t know what to say about it actually selling at auctions or in galleries.)
Do you guys think CG can crack into the Art Market, fetching thousands? Or are we confined to produce all our works on commission or for regular commercial uses only?
(I’m aware of Ray Caesar selling prints of his works in the traditional art market, but I don’t know what the prices are. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66966,00.html )