The Illusion of Ownership: Digital Art's Existential Quandary

 You can't buy my art. It doesn't exist.

In a world where physical ownership is often equated with value, the realm of digital art poses a fascinating paradox—it exists, yet doesn't exist in the traditional sense. Schrödinger's art if you will. Unlike tangible artworks that occupy physical space, digital art challenges our notions of ownership and tangibility.

The essence of art lies in its ability to evoke emotions, provoke thoughts, and challenge perceptions. However, digital art blurs the lines between the tangible and the intangible. It resides in the digital ether, accessible with a click, yet elusive in its formlessness.

While we can admire digital art on screens, share it with others, and even purchase digital copies*, the notion of ownership becomes nebulous. Unlike a physical painting or sculpture that we can possess, display, and pass down through generations, digital art exists in a realm where replication is effortless, and originality is often questioned. This is what I so love about it. Art as a commodity is just bollocks.

The concept of scarcity, which underpins the value of many physical artworks, loses its footing in the digital domain. With the ease of duplication and distribution, the scarcity that drives traditional art markets is diluted, challenging the conventional mechanisms of valuation.

Moreover, the intangible nature of digital art raises questions about authenticity and authorship. In a world where digital manipulation is commonplace, distinguishing between an original work and a reproduction becomes increasingly complex.

Yet, despite these challenges, the allure of digital art persists. Its fluidity allows for experimentation, collaboration, and democratisation of artistic expression. Artists can transcend geographical boundaries, reach global audiences, and engage in dynamic interactions with their viewers.

Ultimately, the paradox of digital art lies in its ephemeral nature—it exists in the digital realm, yet its impact transcends screens and pixels. While we may not be able to possess digital art in the traditional sense, its influence on our culture, creativity, and imagination is undeniable.

In embracing digital art, we confront the evolution of artistic expression and redefine our relationship with the intangible. As we navigate this ever-changing landscape, we are reminded that the true essence of art lies not in its physical form, but in the emotions and ideas it inspires. It is the ultimate art!

I actually like the fact that my art does not exist. I like that it can only ever be printed as a copy if, for some reason, a physical copy needs to be displayed. I gave up trying to sell my art quite a while ago. I found the whole process of trying to hawk my wares to be a pain in the arse. Now I just make my art and if people get something out of it then that's good. If not then it doesn't greatly matter. Not being an artmonger is quite liberating.

*I realise that there'll be some knobhead who will probably mention NFTs and all I would say to that is please do fuck off.

AI ART?

I always think that the idea that art is somehow precious is quite laughable. People treat art with far too much reverence. It's basically what has turned art into a commodity. Creating fictitious standards, competition in the art world and notions of good and bad art has played right into the hands of the money men. It's only art for goodness sake!

Everyone is an artist. You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that you are an artist. You don't need anyone's permission to be an artist. You just need to do it. The only values that art really have are the ones that the artist has in the joy of creating and to those that consider something to be art are the joy of viewing/experiencing a piece. These are the reasons why I hate the concept of NFTs and embrace AI picture generation. Art is in the eye of the beholder as Duchamp illustrated. Art is what you want it to be. All art is collage in one form or another. AI is just an automated way of creating collage. It's here to stay. I suggest you get over it and embrace it. Nobody will die from it. Lighten up folks.

Generated by Dall·E using: Is AI art and what really is art?

Jesus on a unicycle

 As a digital artist I’ve embraced technology where I’ve seen value in it and dismissed it where I can’t. I think some of you will be aware of my contempt and dismissal of the Emperor’s New Clothes that are NFTs. I've also been avoiding AI* in the main because I couldn't quite see how useful it might be. I do have one picture that I created a while back that includes some AI, thanks to my Twitter friend Trundle, but I've never really been tempted to take it any further. Then the other day I read an article in the Guardian about how artists are using AI to create art and I thought, perhaps now the time is right to delve a bit deeper.

My attitude to AI can be summed up as this: You know how natural fabrics breath and synthetics don't. Well the same applies to art and AI. As far as I'm concerned AI will never take the place of humans totally. At best AI is a Bri-Nylon shirt that can only be improved by the addition of human creativity. Add that creativity and you could have the art equivalent of a polyester cotton shirt. It will always need human input. But one thing that is certain is that it's the perfect Dadaist tool.

I've created an account with Dall.E 2, which is some online software that creates pictures based on written instructions that you give it. I plan to use some AI generated pictures in my art where appropriate. I’m still working on a piece that uses the first few images I created with this particular software, but below is an image totally created in AI. As you can see it has limitations. Artists really do not have anything to fear from it. Well certainly not at the moment.

The instruction that I gave it were: “Jesus with a middle eastern complexion riding a unicycle in a supermarket. Father Christmas is being crucified in the background.” This text was inspired by a conversation I had on Twitter with Groggy and Neill where it was suggested that perhaps I create a picture with Jesus on a unicycle. I thought it would be interesting to use AI to generate such a picture. As you can see from the picture, it’s not very good at following orders, and it doesn’t know what a unicycle is. Oh well, early days.

created using Dall·E 2

*AI = Artificial Intelligence. Software that is designed to learn and grow its knowledge derived from the tasks it is asked to perform.

Digital art

One thing that a lot of people can't get their head around with digital art is that there is no such thing as what might be thought of as an original. They seemed to be conditioned to think that visual art has to be a solid thing that you can touch. They also tend to think that if you have that digital art printed out then it's somehow not proper, just a copy. Which in reality it is. Just a copy.

It freaks people out that with something digital you can only print it out and that there is no limit on how often this happens. Art can be mass-produced. Fantastic! Obviously those that have a vested interest in perpetuating the notion that art is an investment commodity wouldn't care for. But bollocks to them.

When I first started advertising/exhibiting my digital art I had the idea that I should only offer it as limited edition fine art prints. I now realise I was probably wrong to do so. It goes a bit against the grain of what I believe. So I've decided to honour the limited edition pictures that I'm already committed to but going forward I intend to put no limit on the number of prints of anything new that I produce. I also plan to offer pictures as cheaply as I can. Watch this space.