Yesterday, I worked a 9-hour co-op shift at Palos Verdes Art Center group called The Artists’ Studio at the gallery. There was the usual down time but occasionally, and sometimes in droves, people will come in and look around. A gentleman came in and asked me what I do. I always respond with “digital painting”. Some eyes glaze over and some nod politely. But, I always ask, “Do you know what that is?” More on that with other posts.

He seemed to know what I meant and asked me how I show and I said that I print on high quality art paper with Giclee or another ink jet printer. I like a place in Culver City called Graphaids. I believe they use an Epson 9900. And then I have a wonderful framer which I compare to my psych-therapist. “You really can’t charge people that much because it’s not an original.”

My pupils dilate, I swallow, and then I proceed on a rant (as pleasant as I can):

1. Crappy art is crappy art, oil, acrylic, watercolor, photo, etc., and well-done art, is, well, well-done. Whether an schooled painter, an elephant, blind person, paraplegic, or flock of birds applies paint onto paper, canvas, wood or whatever, art is art. Art is whatever one considers art for themselves. it’s personal in the largest sense. Therefore, one will pay what one will pay if it has value to them. It’s an artist’s dubious task to figure out what that value is, the pulse of present-day art appreciation, and where the threshold lies. Of course, an artist can also not give a shit and produce art for art’s sake.
2. At one time in the history of people and all their cultures, that photography, etchings, acrylic, tempura, charcoal, ink, yada-yada-yada, were not considered fine art mediums. Let’s take photography since it’s recent, just over 200 years (with camera), and agree that as soon as “it” was “invented” that the artistic ones used this scientific process to create art. But because it was known that with a chemical process and a negative, one could produce multiple, if not endless, numbers of prints—photography was not art… not even considered art. Can we all agree, now, that photography is a respected form of fine art, hanging in galleries all over the world right alongside, oils, and bronze sculptures?
3. Time, as in the passing of years, decades, eras, is known to be a slippery indication of value. Your Great Uncle’s school art project may be of great value to you, but unless his art had been revered in some great galleries, or auctioned off at Sotheby’s, it will hardly be of any value to others. A painting taken a decade to paint by a nobody is nothing compared to Seurat’s drop cloth. Time put into creating something; Time in experience; Time in the care and thought of a piece of art should be weighed in to the value of that art. It isn’t. “Digital” sounds hi-tech, sounds fast, sounds easy, but most of my pieces take 20, 30, 50 times longer than some oil paintings. Not speaking for other digital artists, but at least for me, I do price my pieces for Time I’ve put into it.
4. The last point in is about simple economics. Art in a Beverly Hills gallery are priced higher than in a warehouse show downtown. Art value is up during good economy because people are buying more (demand). Art is priced according to it’s one-of-a-kind-ness.

And so, we come back to the debate on whether digital art can be considered fine art and should I be able to charge “much” because it is digital. If I price something that make me happy and it sells… absolutely.

Is it Fine Art?

Only Time will tell.