The simple definition of digital art is art created with the use of a computer. A much more complex definition of digital art is art created with some form of technology during any phase of its creation process and/or the final result requiring a form of technology. Since the middle of the twentieth century there have been art movements that have each helped pave the way for digital art. Artists began utilizing technology in the form of computers as early as the 1950s, but without abstract art and conceptual art, digital art may have never had a place in the art world as it does in the twenty first century. The acceptance of digital art as an adequate art form is a topic with much controversy, criticism and fluidity. Many questions arise when digital art is placed under the umbrella of art movements, as many digital artists have little or no formal training in art or its history. What is the difference between the highly skilled computer operator with knowledge of Photoshop and a 19th century German Romantic painter such as Caspar David Friedrich? Aesthetically, digital art, in my opinion, is not held to the same standards as traditional art. Under the umbrella of digital art sits various types of art that is made through the use of some form of technology. If a computer or machine, if you will has some influence or participation in the final result, the art can be placed under the digital art umbrella. Also included in this group is traditional painting that can be viewed in a manner other than viewing the original in its, shall we say, natural state. Does viewing a Caravaggio on a 27” computer monitor compromise or enhance its aesthetic quality? Are the colors Caravaggio painted truly depicted when they are translated to pixels or is the viewer tweaking the colors in order to fit his own aesthetic standard?

The ability for the viewer of digital art to resize the image, adjust the color hue and/or saturation, view on various size and types of computer monitors and tweak the many aspects of the quality of image gives the image the ability to become so far from the original that it is often able to stand on its own as a new image. Does the viewer have the right to adjust Caravaggio’s painting to a point that the viewer, who can now be termed a digital artist, becomes the digital artist/creator of a painting unrecognizable as a Caravaggio, but rather a painting with slight reference to Caravaggio’s subject matter? This begs the question, who deserves to be given the distinction as being a digital artist? Many digital artists in the twenty first century have little or no formal, or otherwise, training as an artist, but rather have the technological skills to operate software used to create digital art. Does their knowledge of technology supersede their ability to make art that lives up to traditional design elements or do they even need to know what such design elements even are? The Internet has allowed digital art to reach a worldwide audience with ease. Even artists such as Jackson Pollock had to rely on word of mouth or magazine articles in order to be discovered. That is no longer the case in the twenty first century, as the method of discovery is worldwide at the click of a mouse. It is commonplace for a completely unknown individual to become recognized immediately because of the power of the Internet.