No, it won't replace it. And this is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of artists and illustrators with whom I communicated in my podcast.
Just as photography has not replaced painting, modern digital art will not replace it. Classical artists adapt to the current realities and reach a new level. For example, my friend artist Viktor Ponomarenko draws still lifes in the style of the little Dutch, but on modern themes. In his works, you can see food from McDonalds and other modern household items. Most recently, he exhibited a series of works with copies of the famous still lifes of the little Dutch, which he designed for Instagram. For example, on the famous still life with dead birds, marks were made, as we mark friends in the photo. A series of works was sold to a private collection. If you are interested in seeing it, you can go to my group (the link is in the header of my profile), find an entry in the public by last name, there are links to Viktor's social networks.
ps and another guest of my podcast, digital artist Rinat Khabirov, expressed the opinion that digital art should be shown only on the screen, and if it is printed and displayed as a poster, it loses its value.
In my opinion, this issue is not very relevant yet. To my deep regret, artists , writers, sculptors and musicians practically do not use the capabilities of modern digital technologies. There is a simple explanation for this: training in creative specialties does not imply an in-depth acquaintance with digital technologies, and training in the field of digital technologies does not include any acquaintance with art. To put it simply, creative people do not know the possibilities of digital technologies, and “techies”, for the most part, are poorly acquainted with art as such.
So these two worlds live in parallel, without intersecting. And so far there is no Leonardo Da Vinci who would unite these two worlds.
Just think, how many works of “dynamic” painting have you seen in museums? Do you often come across books written for computers that use a non-linear plot, parallel branches, dynamic plot, virtual reality, and so on?
Despite all the possibilities of digital technologies, literature remains one-dimensional, although technology allows it to become multidimensional. And we use the achievements of IT to read scanned paper books. I can't think of a digital book where the illustrations were adapted to a digital format. They still remain the classic “paper ” ones, and this largely devalues them when reading books on gadgets.
This is what I call “dynamic” painting. About 10 years ago, I met this ” painting” in one of the classical museums. The simple design of the monitor framed by a wooden frame hanging on the wall looked very academic. Quiet sound design in the viewing area of the picture. You might call it an animation, but it's not. In those years, this picture made a strong impression on me.
There is no need for this replacement. Digital or traditional tools are not important. This does not make art cease to be what it is in itself.
The artist is free to choose with which opportunities and tools to express his ideas and feelings. Using a computer or ceramic mosaic. Or by using both singly.
This is the beauty of the meta-prefix, which is displayed in the current time. We are operating in the age of metamodernity, and the possibilities of the metaverses are gradually coming.
The prefix meta was suggested by ancient philosophers 400 years before our era. Its meaning is that directly opposite phenomena exist simultaneously and there is no need to choose between them. They are available for use equally, each at its own appropriate time. This is going beyond certain points of view. The optimal movement state is somewhere between the options, without getting hung up on a single one.
Therefore, a modern artist can be called one whose paradigm of thinking includes everything that is and more beyond that. They can use both traditional and digital instruments and mix them. As a result, we will see the specific shape that it has achieved.
Therefore, I would shift the focus of attention from a linear relationship to this topic, where there is a need to choose “or, or”, as well as the sequence “was, became”. All the tools are available at the same time.
It is worth noting that historically, the paradigm of thinking of us as a species has shifted every time with the arrival of new technologies. From the moment when ancient man picked up a stick to the advent of steam engines and electricity. Each time there was a certain mastering of these tools. The person optimized processes and became more efficient in solving problems.
But even after millions of years, we can still use the stick effectively, it's not forbidden right?)
There will be no replacement. There will be an expansion of opportunities. And anyone who is not afraid to learn new tools will always be one step ahead, as they will have access to both traditional and digital tools.
In some areas, of course, it will replace it. Some naive critics understand digital art as meaningless images created by AI algorithms. But algorithms can not only generate images, they can also generate the landscape of an entire planet, and after the landscape, the flora and fauna can be selected for this landscape. As far as I know, such games already exist (No Man's Sky, etc.), it's just a matter of bringing the quality of generation to photorealism.
Also, nothing prevents you from digitally generating historical (ancient, medieval, etc.) cities, and allowing viewers to walk along their streets.
It goes without saying that such artificial worlds are already more expensive than any handmade image, and it is also obvious that as the quality of these worlds increases, interest in them will grow.
As for handmade paintings, I usually advise everyone to look at the souvenir dagger industry. Daggers were once an important weapon and cost a lot of money, but for 300 years daggers are just souvenirs, and a small circle of fans and collectors buy them. No one knows the masters who make daggers outside of a narrow circle of amateurs, and most likely they are not the most educated people of our era, it is unlikely that there is a Leonardo da Vinci or someone like that among them. Similarly, handmade paintings can exist indefinitely on the periphery of culture, no one will ban them, but they will not define the face of the era, as it was in the XVI-XIX centuries.
No, it won't replace it. And this is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of artists and illustrators with whom I communicated in my podcast.
Just as photography has not replaced painting, modern digital art will not replace it. Classical artists adapt to the current realities and reach a new level. For example, my friend artist Viktor Ponomarenko draws still lifes in the style of the little Dutch, but on modern themes. In his works, you can see food from McDonalds and other modern household items. Most recently, he exhibited a series of works with copies of the famous still lifes of the little Dutch, which he designed for Instagram. For example, on the famous still life with dead birds, marks were made, as we mark friends in the photo. A series of works was sold to a private collection. If you are interested in seeing it, you can go to my group (the link is in the header of my profile), find an entry in the public by last name, there are links to Viktor's social networks.
ps and another guest of my podcast, digital artist Rinat Khabirov, expressed the opinion that digital art should be shown only on the screen, and if it is printed and displayed as a poster, it loses its value.
In my opinion, this issue is not very relevant yet. To my deep regret, artists , writers, sculptors and musicians practically do not use the capabilities of modern digital technologies. There is a simple explanation for this: training in creative specialties does not imply an in-depth acquaintance with digital technologies, and training in the field of digital technologies does not include any acquaintance with art. To put it simply, creative people do not know the possibilities of digital technologies, and “techies”, for the most part, are poorly acquainted with art as such.
So these two worlds live in parallel, without intersecting. And so far there is no Leonardo Da Vinci who would unite these two worlds.
Just think, how many works of “dynamic” painting have you seen in museums? Do you often come across books written for computers that use a non-linear plot, parallel branches, dynamic plot, virtual reality, and so on?
Despite all the possibilities of digital technologies, literature remains one-dimensional, although technology allows it to become multidimensional. And we use the achievements of IT to read scanned paper books. I can't think of a digital book where the illustrations were adapted to a digital format. They still remain the classic “paper ” ones, and this largely devalues them when reading books on gadgets.
This is what I call “dynamic” painting. About 10 years ago, I met this ” painting” in one of the classical museums. The simple design of the monitor framed by a wooden frame hanging on the wall looked very academic. Quiet sound design in the viewing area of the picture. You might call it an animation, but it's not. In those years, this picture made a strong impression on me.
There is no need for this replacement. Digital or traditional tools are not important. This does not make art cease to be what it is in itself.
The artist is free to choose with which opportunities and tools to express his ideas and feelings. Using a computer or ceramic mosaic. Or by using both singly.
This is the beauty of the meta-prefix, which is displayed in the current time. We are operating in the age of metamodernity, and the possibilities of the metaverses are gradually coming.
The prefix meta was suggested by ancient philosophers 400 years before our era. Its meaning is that directly opposite phenomena exist simultaneously and there is no need to choose between them. They are available for use equally, each at its own appropriate time. This is going beyond certain points of view. The optimal movement state is somewhere between the options, without getting hung up on a single one.
Therefore, a modern artist can be called one whose paradigm of thinking includes everything that is and more beyond that. They can use both traditional and digital instruments and mix them. As a result, we will see the specific shape that it has achieved.
Therefore, I would shift the focus of attention from a linear relationship to this topic, where there is a need to choose “or, or”, as well as the sequence “was, became”. All the tools are available at the same time.
It is worth noting that historically, the paradigm of thinking of us as a species has shifted every time with the arrival of new technologies. From the moment when ancient man picked up a stick to the advent of steam engines and electricity. Each time there was a certain mastering of these tools. The person optimized processes and became more efficient in solving problems.
But even after millions of years, we can still use the stick effectively, it's not forbidden right?)
There will be no replacement. There will be an expansion of opportunities. And anyone who is not afraid to learn new tools will always be one step ahead, as they will have access to both traditional and digital tools.
In some areas, of course, it will replace it. Some naive critics understand digital art as meaningless images created by AI algorithms. But algorithms can not only generate images, they can also generate the landscape of an entire planet, and after the landscape, the flora and fauna can be selected for this landscape. As far as I know, such games already exist (No Man's Sky, etc.), it's just a matter of bringing the quality of generation to photorealism.
Also, nothing prevents you from digitally generating historical (ancient, medieval, etc.) cities, and allowing viewers to walk along their streets.
It goes without saying that such artificial worlds are already more expensive than any handmade image, and it is also obvious that as the quality of these worlds increases, interest in them will grow.
As for handmade paintings, I usually advise everyone to look at the souvenir dagger industry. Daggers were once an important weapon and cost a lot of money, but for 300 years daggers are just souvenirs, and a small circle of fans and collectors buy them. No one knows the masters who make daggers outside of a narrow circle of amateurs, and most likely they are not the most educated people of our era, it is unlikely that there is a Leonardo da Vinci or someone like that among them. Similarly, handmade paintings can exist indefinitely on the periphery of culture, no one will ban them, but they will not define the face of the era, as it was in the XVI-XIX centuries.