This is what we need, if not for the public, for the artists themselves. I have taken part in many competitions with my work, winning some and not placing in others. When I look at the ones that I do not do well in, I find that all the winners seem to have been created all digitally. By created all digitally, I am saying that they may draw, or paint using the mouse or a pen tool and create images imitating traditional methods. This is a wonderful form of art, and I do not think that it should be roped into the type of digital art that I, or others with a similar style, produce. Without this clarification, I have spent hundreds of dollars competing in contests that I would never win because my style of art does not adhere to the styles of the other artists. The judging criteria does not speak of the style or method of artwork that will be judged, even though the judges themselves do not look upon Photoshop work as 'digital art'.

Is Photoshop 'digital art'? Yes. What I and others do in photoshop cannot be duplicated in any other medium other than on the computer. Even in the dark room. The very nature of the assemblage of pieces into my work is artistic. The knowledge I have of color and composition is evident in each piece after it's completed. The layers upon layers have a method to the madness; all layers piled one on top of the other all share in the visual effect of the image. The knowledge of the program is akin to the knowledge of the paintbrush. Different brushes, strokes and layering of color have an effect on canvas, and the same is for that which is done on the computer. So what if they use photographic images? There is artistic instincs involved in taking photos and doing work in the darkroom, as any photographer will tell you. Photoshop is a valid digital art medium, and should be given the respect that it deserves, along with creating images in Poser, Painter or Canvas.

This question has always lurked underneath the question of 'Is digital art really art?'. While focusing on whether painting on a computer is like painting on a canvas, Photoshoppers, experts and amatuers alike, have sat on the sidelines while people call our work 'Montages'. By definition, a Montage is a composite picture made up of several separate pictures.

This artwork is not a 'montage' and it's insulting to an artist when it is referred to in that fashion. The word itself conjurs up images in our minds of slapping magazine clippings onto construction paper with gobs of glue splattered about. Our work has been reduced to one word, simply because it originated from a photograph. To illustrate how ludicrous this notion is, let's say that I take 'Destiny and Eternity' and put a paintbrush filter on it. Okay, so now it looks like a painting, is it still a 'montage'? If it is, then wouldn't Salvidor Dali's paintings be classified as a 'montage'? They would both be paintings. They would both have multiple images in them.

They would not be a 'montage' because they are paintings. That is the magic word. PAINTINGS. This is why Photoshop users get a bad rap, because there is no CLASSIFICATION to what we do in Photoshop. I have always referred to my work as Digital Fine Art. It's digital, and fine art rolled into one. I don't create cheeseball graphics, I create works of art that are interwoven down to the last of the 80 layers that comprise it. And until we can get critics and judges to acknowledge our medium as truly artistic, we are stuck defending our style at every turn.

So what do we do about it? Well, one solution is to get a group of stereotypical art-world debutantes that give those pretentious blowhard speeches about how great this artist is because he paints with his ears. We take those pinheads and tell them to support and glorify our style of work in the papers and at social events. BAM! Were in! That is a little unrealistic. The social art world is not filled with skilled masters of mediums, but with gimmicky quasi-artists that have managed to develop something cheesy to bilk rich people out of their money. I mean, come on. Andy Warhol's soupcan, The Blue Dog Man and the idiot that smeared elephant dung on the Virgin Mary? These are merely exercises in human manipulation and marketing. There is no 'talent' there, per se, just an understanding of how people's minds work.

Why are all the masters famous when they are dead? Because when people realize what 'good' art is, it's too late. So, while the Masters of Photoshop struggle for recognition in the background, the marketers and manipulators of the public work their magic using shoddy artwork as potion to entrance the rich and influencial. It's very sad, but also a required part of our social and artistic advancement.

So, the only way to regain our integrity among the naysayers, is at how it always was. Through education. We need to educate the public, artist or non, about how digital art is created. This is why I speak about about my work in public, at seminars, in schools, it's why these messages appear on the board from time to time, it's why I teach students at MSU and it's why I conduct interviews. I am dedicated to helping this medium get recognition where it is due. It's like a life's calling. I urge all of you Photoshoppers to do the same. If speaking out isn't your bag, send them my way. I can write, I can talk in public, I can write press releases. I am willing to help all of us get the respect that we deserve. We are artists, and we should not be short-changed because of misconceptions about our preferred mediums.

Article Source: http://digitalart.org/