Skip to main content
Is Digital Art a plagiarism of ‘Real Art’?

Is Digital Art a plagiarism of ‘Real Art’?

Fascinating is the only word able to describe the evolution of art, who would imagine that painting on the walls of the caves million years ago would be just the beginning of this transition. It is incredible how human creativity has expanded its horizons to the maximum, developing unique and wonderful ways to express art. A current example is the use of digital devices with artistic purposes, it is just astonishing.

Although Digital art is an obvious branch of art, there are classic art spokespeople who assure that digital art must not be consider real art’. But, isn’t this statement too radical?

 In order to be fair enough we are going to show you the reasons why digital art is not ‘real art’ according to classic defenders, and also the opposing party motives to disagree this allegation. So be the judges!

For classic art lovers, the fact of being too commercial is a strong reason to not consider digital art as ‘real art’ because it demonstrates lack of originality, which means there is not artistic passion just mercantile purposes. Besides, they claim digital art is less original due to there is no certainty when a piece was created by grace and skill, or when it was taken from someone else and modified then, no one can know that. Another reason is the controversial use of Photoshop, they believe it is just a tool for those who can’t draw and it has definitely ruined art, altering natural beauty of everything

On the other hand, supporting digital art Dan Luvisi argues: ‘As the years passed, new art styles changed as well’. He maintains his point of view explaining that art is always in a continuous change, moreover people should be more conscious on the time and effort put in a piece even if it’s digital. Another sources maintains the phrase ‘Art is Art’, not the medium nor the method should be the common factor to define what art is.

We must realize that through the years humanity by nature has judged every single sign of evolution, and if we focus on art we have to remember that prejudices have been part of its history. The transitions from Renaissance to Neo classicism or from Romanticism to Modern art required changes in the way of perceiving art and acceptance of evolution necessity to keep art alive at the rhythm of changing societies.

Now after analyzing these points of view, you should ask yourself: what’s ‘real art’? Is there an exact definition of ‘real art’?  Does not ‘real art’ believe in evolution?

Leave a reply