On Digital Art
Thoughts on Art
Now I understand what wise men see:
“ The world of spirits is not closed
Your senses are, your heart is dead!”
Faust, Part I, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, (Translated by A. S. Kline).
In The Unknown Masterpiece1 of Balzac, Frenhofer, an intimidating artist and master, claimed that : “The aim of art is not to copy nature, but to express it. You are not a servile copyist, but a poet!” What is art2, then, if not the discovery of another spirit, another look, another mind? Art as a visible poetry. The artistic work, and painting, in particular, is a window through which we look and contemplate what another being has seen, felt, or desired. By contemplating an artwork, we absorb a delicate transmission. Indeed, the artist is a prophet who wishes to transmit his creation in a universal language. Art is a silent exchange. Art is a tasting of colors and shapes. Art is also a long journey, since it is the transformation of elements and the manipulation of the technique to give shape to an idea and a vision.
An artist is not a technician; nor a theorist of forms and perspectives; he is much more than that. An artist is a creator. He gives life to a white canvas and makes faces speak. He juggles with brushes, he makes the clouds stir, he turns off the lights, he opens the doors, above all, an artist highlights the human condition of his epoch. For this, the artist is obliged to familiarize himself with the objects that form his creation. He must become close with the nature that surrounds him, urban or rural, it does not matter. Moreover, art is not just about being in tune with the surrounding nature, but also with one's own nature. The artist knows the limits of his body through his art. He appreciates the pain when he holds a brush for hours; does not mind when his back hurts from bending, or when his eyes itch after opening a thinner. The artist appreciates the sacrifices he makes to create. Art is not only in the presentation of a creation but also in the experience of creating. It is the gradual elimination of this relationship, of an artist to things, to nature, to objects, to the body, that is disturbing, and unsettling.
Art is appreciated for its beauty and grandeur, and also for the precious time that has been dedicated to it. It is not for nothing that we have exhibitions about the techniques of the Impressionists or the Romantics. The value of artistic creations is not only in their utility, but in the fundamental organic process that creates their utility. The core of authenticity is not the mastery of artistic techniques, but the mastery of one's mind and body when there is a manipulation of the technique. It is only through this that man creates and makes artistic techniques say what he wishes. Art becomes then, the domain par excellence, where man triumphs over technique.
“Digital creations” do not allow such things. The artist, who was appreciated for the authenticity of his work, for his ability to experience the process of creating, for the voluptuous brushstrokes that admirers travel to see, finds himself in competition with the technique. The artist who was once appreciated for his creativity is now perishable and obsolete. The artist becomes, in spite of himself, a servant, because there is nothing left to admire except his imagination to escape a technological grip. Digital creations have their own merits and transversal advantages. They can also be of a certain beauty. But, they are condemned to not belong to the real world. Even when printed one can contemplate until the end of time and never find traces of the artist who made them. Digital creations are not alive, do not give the impression of being alive.
This is the first time in the history of art that we have to face an artistic movement which does not question the aspect, the idea, or the purpose of art, but which deconstructs its very essence. We will soon regret the times when we only had to deal with the ontological issues of the scandalous Fountain of Marcel Duchamp3.
The artist who defied the Gods by displaying his real and visible creations is now devoid of his titanean powers; he is now an ordinary mortal. The muses will be replaced by digitally tailored ones, ready to consume, ready to inspire. The sweet existential crisis when facing a blank canvas can be forgotten. The possibility to create from the metamorphosis of the senses, the combination of touching pigments and seeing them, will become a distant memory of a neolithic past. We are collectively witnessing the evaporation of the spirit of art.
Perhaps, this is the natural evolution of modern art, when nonsensical movements after WWI declared that revolutions will be made through art, this is what they meant. The revolution must continue through the use of the technique, by destroying, by deconstructing, by eliminating, the artist's intimate relationship with his art. In the name of nothing, everything is permitted, even the interference in the elements that constitute art. We will no longer produce Goyas, Poussins, Rubens, or Tiepolos; we will only produce technicians. Art will no longer bring us closer to life.
The Unknown Masterpiece (1845), Honoré De Balzac.
I’m here mainly referring to paintings.
Short biography : https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/marcel-duchamp-1036
This is a fascinating piece that left me with mixed feelings. Not sure where to start. I had to read your piece a few times. I noticed that you are not “woke”; you use “he” a lot as if there were no women. The patriarchs celebrate you. Joke aside, let’s get into it!
The artist as an inspired prophet reminds me of some Romantic era composers, especially Liszt, Schubert and Berlioz. Since you mentioned Goethe; the three composers were fascinated by him and created artworks depicting his works. Berlioz composed “La Damnation de Faust” and Liszt “Faust symphony in three-character sketches.” I ponder them and stand in awe of the greatness of the creative power: how a piece of literature finds a translation as painting and as a musical expression. That cross-fertilization of genius blows my mind. It’s the cultivation of art technique, heart and spirit. More on this later.
“Art is appreciated for its beauty and grandeur”: I find this view a bit narrow because art is also about the grotesque, the outrageous and the mysterious in the same way I don’t listen to music to “relax” or relish “beautiful melodies”; the experience of dissonance of hell in a piece depicting Dante’s hell fascinates me. I digress. Art is also about wonder. Not figuring out what on earth it actually is about is an experience in itself. Art can be purely subjective and idiosyncratic. I personally believed that an artwork exists per se with no message in some cases. I reminisce over some literary critiques who would analyze a detail microscopically as if it meant anything. I always wonder how many artists, in posterity, are trolling us posthumously. Those bastards!
I am of the view that the artist’s creation is a “mise en scène” of his state of mind and his depiction of the real world, especially if we are talking about the Romantics. However, I suspect sometimes that the work of art just “exists” with no real significance. It can be sublime or ridiculous. In our overindulgence, we try to interpret it and derive some meaning from it. Probably, there is a selfish delight in it. An exquisite endeavor of trying to catch “butterflies”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the following statement: “The core of authenticity is not the mastery of artistic techniques, but the mastery of one's mind and body when there is a manipulation of the technique.” Isn’t it the essence of romanticism, though? It reminds me of what Liszt—who was wrongfully perceived as a charlatan and a shallow composer of bombastic music— once told his students when they asked him about his piano technique: “Technique should flow from spirit, not from mechanics.”
Now to digital art, I’m conflicted about your strong opinion about it but I do agree about certain things you put forward. First, allow me to indulge in analogies. I am a very tactile person—right now typing this with a loud mechanical keyboard with Cherry MX blue switched— and the process of touching, hammering, listening to their noisy click-clack makes typing more satisfactory because it registers in my mind. I do not recognize myself when I type on a phone or tablet; it feels like I am a different person. Yet, my favorite activity is to write down what I think with a 1.6-mm gliding ballpoint pen on a buttery smooth paper. I take pride in my imperfect cursive handwriting, and I indulge in pressing down the words—as if to say I f****** mean it— that when I wrote letters time immemorial, I knew my recipient would appreciate the denting feel on their fingertips. It’s far from the perfection of typed words. My personality is washed off despite the perfectly legible words you are reading now. This is the price of convenience. And it’s hard to go back to handwriting exclusively. It’s just the bittersweet nostalgia taking over us.
The problem with digital art is that it is “convenient” and “accessible”, reaching millions of people but in different and various ways but unfortunately, there is no “ritual” attached to it like visiting a museum. The harsh truth is that digital art depends on the medium of consumption: the screen size and resolution, the screen technology (LCD vs OLED), brightness, contrast ratio, the accuracy of color reproduction, the size of the artwork, the compression it goes through when uploaded online. That’s simply the price of convenience. It is also flat, excruciatingly flat. This stands in sharp contrast with perceiving a fabric canvas with little imperfections here and there as if there were footprints of the soul of the artist treading on that surface. It’s an experience of multi-sensory dimensions: the smell of the museum, the lighting, the perception of the three-dimensionality of art, ambient music or just silence. An art savoring experience involves all of the things I just mentioned. There comes a time when we start to loathe our tech gadgets. They have become overly saturated. It robs of that very multi-sensory experience.
Art in the twenty first century drowns in the ocean of exponential abundance. Our tech toys cultivated our short attention span. Digital creations, in general, give us a sense they are “fleeting”.
Now, to talk of the evaporation of the spirit of art is a stretch. Between 2007 and 2013, I used to be active on DeviantArt, the largest community of digital arts, literature and other forms. I remember Ana Fagarazzi, a Croatian visual artist who was a master of photo manipulation. She devised her own technique serving her in the creation of the most mysterious fantasy artworks. The most surreal visual artist I encountered remains by far the Russian Oleg Dou. He combined the art of photography and photo manipulation to achieve “otherwise” impossible outcomes. His artworks really left a deep impression on me. So, sure, I couldn’t experience the multi-sensory but his creations expressed something completely unfamiliar. Fascinating, gripping and mysterious.
From my worldview, I want to experience both despite the limitations, and, of course, nothing comes to close to the multi-sensory experience of art. I disagree with your take that “art will no longer bring us closer to life”; it’s just that our moderns have become boiled down into a few-inches screen. A balance between the digital and the physical is required. You know what’s even better? A reconnection with nature itself because we have often looked at the representations of the real world but spent very little time actually savoring it.
There is more to say on this topic. It has been preoccupying my mind for years!
That was lovely. I appreciate the beautiful way art was described. I'm not sure I understand the importance and relation of technique to the art itself but it is interesting.