Do you think digital imagery from cameras, photo shop manipulations 3-d rendering and digital prints have increase, decrease or had no effect on the livelihood of professional artist. Please explain your response.
I don't know for sure either way, but you specified "professional artist" in you question. There is definitely no substitute for work done at a professional level. There is nothing anyone can buy that will produce professional work right out of the box. Even if you have the professional tools, you still need to acquire the professional's eye and skills.
Thanks Andrew. Yes I am trying to gage the impact of the digital revolution on those who make a living from art. I believe the digital revolution has open a lot of doors for the hobbyist and the artist who create but don't rely on art for a living wage.
Do you mean does it hurt traditional artists? the ones that paint with oil on canvas? the ones that are only in the finest galleries? First, you need to explain what a "professional" artist is. In my book, it's someone that earns money selling the art they make. Few there be that actually make a good living at it, unless they combine it with teaching. There are many "professional" artists that create on the computer.
You also seem to smack at digital photography versus Ansel Adams film imagery. Do you think he would not have loved a digital camera? The elite artists think you are nothing if you don't use the finest sable brushes, stretch your own canvas, perhaps even mix your own paints. I'm sure that many of the 'old Masters' would give a lot to have 'modern' day tools and paints.
But has it hurt their income - probably not - if anything - being able to reproduce their work in giclee has improved their income as they can reach a larger audience.
No, because there are plenty of examples of people that earn a living with and are professionals with their digital camera art. Wildlife photography, landscape and city scape photographers earn a living with their modern tools of the trade.
i don't see how one can affect the other. it's up the buyer to decide if they like it. and each thing requires a certain level of skill to both make and decide if it's any good. if it was just a machine making the image and there was no user input, it might be different.
as an impact, you can make more with digital. if your an analog person you may be able to do less, you need to keep up. however on the other hand, because there would be less old school people, the buyers who collect things from artists who do it old school will have a higher demand and the prices would go up. like those who still like film, but everyone moved onto digital.
"i don't see how one can affect the other"
lithograph prints and technique I think has nearly diminished
The WOW! effect that digital images have certainly decreased.
But has the pure mass of images affected the market?
Is this an incorrect perception?