a thread questioning the validity of cgi as a medium for art appeared on another forum and got me thinking.
i came to the conclusion that cgi or ‘digital art’ could be considered a new chapter in the history of art and not simply another medium. However it dosnt seem to have penertrated into the conscience of world of serious high art. when was the last time a digital work won the turner prize? and im not talkin about video installations either, they are not recognised as digital but rather as film.
Perhaps its because the self appointed experts are too aloof to notice what is happening right under there upturned noses. Perhaps because of its proliferation its seen as too common?
i think its because digital artists themselves have not understood the uniqueness of their chosen medium and not set out to create or define a movement which promotes it. i also think the type of works created by digital artists does not , generally, make full use of the possibilities of computer generated art. in short, they dont take themselves seriously, so why should the art world at large do so?
There seems to be no one(or collective) championing the cause, yet we are all together…from programmers, those who paint stills in photoshop, 3d artists , cganimators, to website designers. A seemingly disparate bunch yet all our paths cross, we all have many things in common, above all our work is digital, ones and zeros, a sequence of electrical currents stored in tiny transistors.
so can CGI/digital art and all it encompasses been seen as a new and distinct chapter in the history of art?