Saw something at the Denver gallery that made me rethink digital art.

Went to the new digital art show in Denver last weekend. Everyone was raving about the huge animated screens. But I kept looking at the small prints in the corner. They were digital paintings printed on handmade paper. You could see every tiny fiber. It felt real. The texture added a layer you just don't get on a screen. Everyone else was ignoring them for the flashy stuff. I think we focus too much on the tech and forget about the physical object. A file on a drive isn't art until someone experiences it. Those prints made me feel something the animations didn't. Has anyone else found that a simple print can beat a complex animation?

3 comments

3 Comments

cameronjenkins18d ago

Wait, they printed digital art on handmade paper? That's such a smart idea, why isn't that the main event? You're totally right about the texture thing, a screen just feels cold. It's wild that everyone walked past the actual art for the big TV screens.

wadem8918d ago

I saw a piece at a gallery last year that was a digital landscape printed on this thick, rough paper. It had these little flecks in it. On a screen it would have just been another pretty picture, but you could see the brush strokes where the ink sat on the texture. It made the whole thing feel real, like an object. I used to roll my eyes at printing digital stuff, but that one piece completely changed my mind.

eva_adams6817d ago

Totally, a curator friend said the paper choice can make or break digital prints (like, it's half the art now).