In my current artist statement I emphasize a distinction between what’s perceived as ‘a photograph’ and what is ‘digital art.’ I don’t think many folks get it (yet) but there’s a point when, once you’ve done so much digital work to the original photograph, that that photograph is no longer ‘a photograph.’ Once you cross that line (which is yet undefined) your resultant art may remain ‘photographic’ in look but can no longer be honestly described as a photograph; it’s now ‘digital art.’
I also describe my work as ‘photo-digital’ instead of photography. I believe the viewer has an expectation. If I say, ‘it’s a photograph’ then the viewer has a certain expectation that is violated when they see my imagery, so the word ‘digital’ should tip them off that what they’re seeing is the result of a creative process that includes digital processing as an integral part of the final expression.
In my artist statement I also try to frame my works in a historical context. Digital Art is new; therefore it has a very brief history that’s still being written. We don’t yet have the lexicon –that specialized vocabulary—for digital art and, for now, we’re borrowing from photography. I feel as a first-generation digital artist I should make attempts to clearly define what I do and contribute to the early history of the medium, assuming anyone’s listening –or cares.
Trackback from your site.