“Nowadays creating art via digital technologies is an incredibly popular technique amongst artist, and digital art has proven to be very well received from collectors. However, I find people often tend to class digital art as ‘inferior’ to other artistic movements of the past. Digital artists are seen as people who have ‘smart ideas’ rather than as artists who actually ‘create’ art”
Is this the case everywhere or are you referring to somewhere in particular?
” I think it’s a common misconception of digital art in general. Italy, where I live, is a good example. The belief digital art isn’t as worthy as other kinds of art is made stronger by our significant historical past. For centuries an artist’s worth was evaluated based on their practical skills, with little attention paid to the concept behind the work itself”
How do you think digital art compares to artistic movements of the past?
“I truly believe today the attitude towards art is the same as it was in the past: what has changed is only the medium of communication. There is a continuity with futurism, dadaism, collage art, constructivism, up to artistic movements of the 60s such as kinetic art. It isn’t news that we constantly seek interactions with new mediums, in this case digital ones. Artistic movements of the past already searched for these interactions before our time
The art is not to represent new things, but to represent with novelty.