I think you bring up the main problem with digital mark and that's the sacred, how could it be? I tend to think of things being sacred that are earthy, I see a real spirituality in art. In saying this I have no objection to Digital art but as with all mediums it sits in a different box, it will never be sacred. One issue is the ease of reproduction and the manner in which it is viewed by the world. It is hard to connect with something on a screen and print off's also don't seem to live up to the 'original'.

www.twitter.com/nathanchenery

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM, james horn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi all,
This is an area of research I've been looking into recently and I was wondering if any of you have any opinions on this (feel free to mail me personally if you'd like to avoid a discussion with the whole list...)

The immediacy of the drawn, painted or sculpted mark is an act or great power. As an expression of an artists’s intent, it makes real what is until that point a mere concept, an idea, without being. Yet once that mark is placed, the artwork is tangible and holds a meaning to both artist and viewer.

These marks are refined and collected into the final work and this has a value, both artistically and financially. This is the creation of art.

Yet place those marks with a mouse, graphics tablet or touchscreen and their value is degraded. What was a primal, expressive act, becomes a fad, a gimmick, a lesser action. Where is the sacred in the digital mark? What is it's value?
It would be great to hear people's opinions on the matter, both positive and negative.
Kind regards and thanks,

James Horn
Senior Research Artist
FreeStyleGames Ltd