Is It Photography?

Personally, I don't see a problem at all with digital work, whether it is an image of a 3D model or whether it is artwork created using digital means. As long as you are the creator of such work. Photography is an art form. Digital art is an art form. Painting is an art form. Using old textiles to make something new and exciting is an art form. Whether or not certain art forms, such as photography, are deemed 'worthy' of being included in an art show seems to me to be looking backward rather than embracing the future of art. It troubles me when I see photography or digital art excluded from any art show/group.

Patricia
Pacific Northwest Artists group

Did they understand what you do is digital art?

Patricia: I actually had a friend who believed anything made with a computer cannot be art :O

Isabella: Yes, I explained in my proposal but it is an opinion I have seen from many people before.

You create digital images using computer software. If there is no camera involved in your efforts - if you're not pointing a lens at some object - then I don't understand how anyone can consider what you do as photography.

Is it possible that the gallery only accepts traditional art and that they lump any non-traditional art into the "photography" category simply for their convenience?

Oh I hadn't thought of that, but it is certainly possible :(
I think they somehow think that since I am capturing images of a 3-dimensional thing that somehow that is the same thing as taking a picture with a camera? It is encouraging to see people on here defending digital art as its own independent form of art though!

It was probably a gallery for traditional art only. Digital art, it seems, is slowly being accepted more and more by galleries. But it would appear that that one isn't.

Gallery owners aren't automatically knowlegeable about all art, they only really know what they're familiar with. If they wanted to be a photography or even photography cross painting gallery they'd probably do a bit of research into other mediums.

Around here most painting galleries sell frames and art supplies as well, but not cameras or special printing paper.

And the photographic galleries don't sell them either.

They just don't seem to know about anything outside of their focus

Not sure it matters one way or the other. If the gallery owner decides he does not want it in his gallery, arguing semantics with him or her is not going to get you anywhere. Just move on would be my recommendation.

I agree that not all gallery owners can be expected to know or care about what every kind of art there is out their, digital or otherwise.

One of the few remaining freedoms of owning your own business is having the right to make decisions for yourself, even if they are wrong ones. Make enough of them and you are out of business.

Most gallery owners know what they like and what they can sell and usually it it the same thing, but no always.

It totally looks like Digital Art to me. I have encountered times when contests specify no photographs and my 100% digital art that did not even use any photographs was rejected and when called out on the removal, the hostess admitted that she meant drawings and paintings with traditional mediums only but was unable to articulate that when posting the rules.

No idea as to what gallery you are dealing with but they might think the work has no limit.

We have come upon this subject in our Art Association shows. I must be from the old school because I do not believe 2D and 3D Digital Art should be included in our Art Contests. The talents of years of training and work when submitting original paintings cannot compare to someone taking a picture or spending time on their computer and submitting it to be judged against original paintings. One man took a photo, sent it in and had it printed on a 24x36 canvas and won the show against 136 original artist paintings. What's going on? And how would you feel if you had entered an original oil that took hours to do?

I have been trained in chalk pastels for seven years and making digital art for six. Each one of my pieces takes nearly forty hours of work alone before I move on to the final render which then takes about twenty if they are 3D. I have a few that I am still working on after four years. So if I entered my art in a contest against an original oil that also took hours and won I would feel proud.
That guy must have had a really well composed photo that he put a lot of effort into, and he probably felt pretty validated after winning, just as anyone would have. But I didn't see the other entries so I can't really judge

In the context of being accepted in a show or a gallery, should how much time you put into a piece really even be considered?

If a bad artist spends 100 hours to create a bad piece, should that piece be given more consideration then a good artist that creates a good piece but only took 50 hours?

I don't think photographs and paintings belong in the same category. And I don't think prints should be allowed in any catagory with originals.

Digital art absolutely should be considered and recognized. But I think some traditional structure should be preserved.

" The talents of years of training and work when submitting original paintings cannot compare to someone taking a picture or spending time on their computer and submitting it to be judged against original paintings. One man took a photo, sent it in and had it printed on a 24x36 canvas and won the show against 136 original artist paintings. What's going on? And how would you feel if you had entered an original oil that took hours to do?"

That is a very elitist and biased statement. Photographers spend just as much time, have just as much talent as anyone else in any particular medium. You don't know what kind of training that man had or how much time he spent perfecting that image. I have spent up to 10 hours being out shooting, come home, spend a few days culling and editing before even beginning to make a finished image worthy of printing. Out of maybe 100 to 200 shots, if I get half that are good, it was a good full day. Sure, some might get "lucky" and nail a shot with little to no knowledge, but the vast majority of us work just as hard, have spent just as much time and money to hone our craft and deserve more than a shrug off from someone who doesn't know what it entails.

Please don't knock a medium you don't know about.

As for digital art-same thing. I have spent up to 80 hours on a single project.

In all of the gallery shows both national and regional I have been in, digital art and photography are most often grouped together. The main reason for this is that you are selling (or showing) a print and not a 1up original. So, although technically it is not photography, it is not considered traditional art. This is not a question of the efficacy of digital art over traditional art. Any gallery or show has the right to include or exclude genre, style, or method. There are so many shows for digital art now that the issue is superfluous.

It's not photography in any way.

I find the dividing line with galleries is whether they sell prints or originals. Galleries that offer prints are usually very open to looking at digital artwork, especially if it fits with their style. As the artist, it's up to you to shop around for a gallery that has work that is similar to yours in style, or mood, or content. Gallery owners (like all collectors) want thier shop and space to feel cohesive.

So choose carefully - approach galleries that sell prints and that maybe have some modern abstracts or work that compliments yours. You'll have much better luck. :)

The gallery I was specifying didn't explicity state the mediums they do and don't accept until after I contacted them. Unfortunately right now I live in an area that doesn't have many options for digital artists in terms of gallery availability. But I will keep looking! ^^
And I definitely disagree with the sentiment that someone painting a piece with oil somehow makes it more valid artistically than someone using a computer.

As to your secondary questions:

……" Would you consider 3D digital models to be photography, and does that also apply to 2D digital art? If so would it be fair for me to classify them as such on this website? "

I work with 3d digital models every day and they are in no way photography. They are created not captured. (Think plains of the Serengeti). 2D digital art are also not photography unless the base image was a photograph that was manipulated.

I would not recommend you classify them as photography. Again, caveat, altered image.

Funny, Cynthia and I said the same thing at the same time!