Do you think digital art will ever be taken seriously in the fine art world?
not even fine art is taken seriously in the fine art world
>>2596948
No, because physically owning a unique thing is what makes fine art. You always know that digital art is not "physical" in the sense that traditional art is.
>>2596955
I know your right. It really sucks though because there's all these cool possibilities and new techniques with digital that I want to use but I'm interested in the fine art world not the entertainment industry. Maybe I should switch over to graphic design or something.
what the fuck even is the fine art world
but there are some artists that can live off their digital "art"
>>2596961
I'm genuinely curious why you're interested in the fine art world
>>2597106
I like how it's the intersection of originality and societal relevance. Also I have this longing to be part of something bigger than myself. And I'm a little eccentric so I fit in with the crowd.
It already is. New media and such especially. Artists really eat up pieces that experiment with new technology. More so if it tries to be scientific in some way.
>>2596955
They even sell preformances which are just directions on a piece of paper. Lack of physical original is not really an issue anyomere - they just sell gallery rights.
>>2597513
>gallery rights
this
also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_and_Three_Chairs#The_concept_and_the_theory_of_art
>>2596952
/thread
>>2600676
shit, ignore the "jump to" link i meant to just reference the whole thing as an example of a piece in several museums that doesn't require anything unique beyond adhering to the instructions
>>2596948
No, because the rich want to actually own something, not a printed out piece of paper.
>>2600676
Kosuth's chairs are awesome if you think about what he's trying to say.
