What does it mean to be a digital artist today?
Whatever you want!
Beyond that, I think it also means making work in a time where there is growing engagement with the possibilities of technology as a means of making art. Additionally there is increasing access to technology, especially devices that offer a sort of portable immediacy such as phones, and that can serve both as creative tools as well as platforms. As technology becomes more and more a part of every aspect of daily life, there are more and more chances to muck around and make something interesting or beautiful with it.
When did you start defining yourself as a digital artist?
I think I resisted this term for a while (some days still) as it felt limiting – I also make things that would not be described as digital and I have little experience with so much of what could be called “digital art.” I think now I embrace the term as one classification that covers some of what I do and that can be open ended and not a hard line. I began to see how the vast majority of what I make (digital or not) is filtered through a digital experience. For example, if I’m making a drawing for a manual knitting machine piece, I often find that although the grids relate to stitches* I’m thinking about pixel drawing or including imagery that is pulled directly from computer user experience (pop-up windows appear with some regularity). I use digital means to reinterpret or make sense of the “analog” things I have made. I think I just gave up the idea that this term had to be all encompassing and it began to fit better.
*Computer history and textile history, especially in regard to the “coding” of images, are so tightly entwined that maybe that distinction matters less. (see: Jacquard Loom)
https://www.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/jacquard-loom
Where does digital art start for you?
Personally, it started here:
and perhaps it really blossomed here:
Looking at a less personal and more art historical timeline? Unsure. I find it difficult to isolate the “incident of art” from broader technological developments, but I’m inclined to vaguely point to the development of the Graphical User Interface, the graphic capabilities of early CRT monitors, the animations of John Whitney, ACSII, and much of the work done at Bell Labs: notably anything Lilian Schwartz touched.
The Mother of All Demos, presented by Douglas Engelbart (1968)
Where in practice? I think there are clear moments such as using digital programs that emulate traditional media (paint programs), or making work that fits into clearly established digital sub categories like video and digital photography. I think there are more ambiguous moments that occur when using programs or means that were not intended for art making but nonetheless they can be used to generate something that could be deemed as art and in those the language of the digital, and maybe that which is ubiquitous, can communicate something unique.
Colour-filling spreadsheet squares at your data entry job, text drawings as procrastination when you should be writing an email, an essay.
Why is it important to create a language around digital art?
As it stands, “digital” only (maybe) describes a single aspect of the work. It is such a massive umbrella term and yet it is frequently where the conversation ends. Even if nothing becomes pinned down, it’s fun to grapple with words. Finding language that fits “better” helps people engage, whether that means artists in dialogue with one another or interested members of the general public. As more and more things are being made to exist solely on digital platforms, it would be in our best interest (as makers/consumers of “digital art”) to find a way to talk about it.
How do misconceptions about digital art impact your practice?
I’m not overly concerned with misconceptions around terminology, and I don’t believe that my personal practice is impacted in a significant way by them. It is quite likely that a person would not visualize my art with any accuracy if all I offer is that I am a digital artist. I don’t believe that would be much different than if I said I was a painter though. We each rely on our own reference points and experiences. I think more broadly that there are misconceptions around what is needed to be a *digital artist* and that those may hinder participation and seem discouraging. Specifically, the necessity of having a lot of flashy tech or a super heavy duty computer. A lot can be done with very little.
That being said, I have no interest in NFTs or talking about them. This has seemed lately to be where the conversation pivots to, which makes sense but – no thank you.
WHO/resources:
The Art Happens Here: Net Art Anthology – Edited with text by Michael Connor, Aria Dean, 2019.
Feature image: Alyssa Bornn, summoning a likeness, 2019, Image: courtesy of artist.
Image description: A series of short, colourful, vertical, and angular lines creating patterns in a grid. Areas within the grid that remain white and without lines, create the image of a house and a set of stairs.
Alyssa Bornn lives and works in Winnipeg, MB. Her work is primarily centered around ideas relating to transference, interchangeability, language, failure, and the poetics of technical processes. She makes images and objects informed by an interest in early computing, textile production, play, and in the pursuit of visual joy. [www.alyssabornn.com]
Since you're here
BlackFlash exists thanks to support from its readers. We are a not-for-profit organization. If you value our content, consider supporting BlackFlash by subscribing to the magazine or making a donation. A subscription gets you 3 beautiful issues per year delivered to your door, and any donation over $25 gets a tax receipt. Your support helps compensate our staff and contributors for their hard work.