I haven't done one of these Photoshop improvisations for a long time, and I had a moment, so here's one. This is in a somewhat neglected series of mine called the "K-series," digital abstractions inspired by "K" Kandinsky. I also get to figure out some visual problems on these digital pieces before I commit to acrylic solidity.
Which is more permanent, pixels or acrylic? I just saw a video of a new exhibit of David Hockney's work, in which a large room is filled with his paintings on his iPad. Some of them are projected on iPad screens mounted on the wall, but most of them are printed onto paper. Is this iPad art taken seriously as art only because a famous artist did it? Or can my Photoshop and iPad efforts be Serious Fine Art too?
You know those geometric abstractions that I crank out every so often? My educated, sophisticated fans love 'em. But they are a real pain to paint in acrylic, especially when I want a smooth blend. But if I used Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator, I could produce 'em in almost no time at all. Since no one buys these, (ok, very few people) I could do what I wanted without spending weeks pushing sticky paint around and filling my cluttered space with even more unsold painting clutter. If I were David Hockney, collectors would line up to buy prints of my digital work. Instead, I get lectured on how the Collector must have a Real Painted Piece to go up on the wall, and how the Collector hates digital art anyway. I am not referring to any specific Collector here. All I have to say regarding this is, if the Collector wants a Real Painted Piece, he has to pay a whole lot more for it because I will be spending much more time on it.
Nevertheless I firmly believe that digital art is here to stay, at least until some apocalyptic event demolishes the Internet, fries all our computers, and erases every digital file.
"K-10 Bronze Sun" is Photoshop, about 10" x 7" if you printed it out, April 22, 2012.