Artists are more and more turning to the computer as a tool in the studio process. Many artists use digital tools as mere processes in the creation of traditional work, while many other artists now produce the entire artwork on the computer. These digital artists are are left with one method of making their art creation into a physical product. This is the use of pigment-based printing technology, which prints out their work as as a digital print. This is sometimes called, Giclee, or Digital Pigment Printing. For these artists, this is a legitimate way of constructing artwork. But, there is a massive prejudice against digital prints by the art gallery community. Many talented artists who use digital technology are excluded from showing with these galleries. In a vast number of open exhibition calls, the requirements specifically exclude digital artists and their work. How can the growing body of artists who produce digital work gain a sense of legitimacy from both their audiences and the galleries who control the purchasing public?
And here we have yet another example of the snobbery of the art community. Digital print has been a legitimate thing since Warhol and the factory days, yet the artistic community still looks down on it. Even specific, more open communities like street artists frown on digital production (I'm thinking of Mr. Brainwash as an example). I think this is a case where the movement will have to start from the ground up and artists, through commercial success will be the ones who legitimize themselves – scyounan7 years ago
It is also worth noting that digital art (like the rest of Western technology) is not readily available in the large majority of the world. Perhaps the topic would be a good gateway to discuss the traditional marginalization of certain cultures/mediums in the western exhibitionary complex. – AnaMRuiz7 years ago