> To me, that definition of "digital art" is too broad to be useful.
> ... Terms of definition such as "digital art" are meant to
> single out certain things at the exclusion of other things for the
> purpose of more precise understanding.
Not a "precise" understanding, but a "deep" understanding. An art
definition should help understand the subtleties and exceptions inherent
in talking about the subject. Is there an art definition you can think
of that is *more precise* than Amoda's page? Certainly not "painting",
"drawing", or "sculpture".
I agree that it seems overly broad (and you know that I am usually among
the first to express skepticism about calling many artworks "digital
art" or "net art" -- including a large percentage of what is currently
in the Artbase, I might add), but I do like the fact that the Amoda page
specifically includes a breakdown of how there *can* be several ways of
talking about and/or making "digital art". I think that the Amoda
"digital art" page is a great example of how it is impossible to make a
succint, strict definition of any art genre, that there are always
exceptions and room for discussion. In art-talk, a "definition" is, at
best, a living, multifaceted conversation - not a strict "rule".
I think the Amoda definition allows artists, audiences, and curators to
forge affinities that a stricter definition might not allow. My
drawings, for example, which are almost all simply pen and paper, are so
wrapped up in the culture of digital art that it would be ludicrous to
not talk about them as such.
> One could argue that almost everything produced today in the first
> world has been "touched" somewhere along the way by the digital
If you stretch it a bit, the Amoda definition can also allow us the
flexibility to *not* talk about certain works of art as digital art,
even if it might technically fit under the initial definition. For
example, artists who use computer graphics software to generate virtual
landscape images generally have more in common with traditional
landscape painters than they do with, say, you or I. Their work should
probably be discussed as part of that tradition. I think the Amoda page
allows us to think that way.
Like porn, digital art is something that I recognize when I see it. The
Amoda page permits this kind of flexibility. That's why I like it.
> would it be helpful to know why?
I dunno, you tell me. Was the above helpful?
> Following this broad definition almost everything that is being done
> in the art scene is digital art (digital as product, as process or as
> subject). And, by the way, is it so important to establish a border
> line betwwen analog and digital art?
Are those two sentences contradictory? One implies that an overly broad
definition is useless, the other implies that precision of definition is
Anyway, as I say above, I think that it's cool to have a definition that
implicitly says that the definition is flexible -- but that there are
also some general concepts that you should bring to the table when
choosing to talk about digital art.
[christopher eli fahey]