The Energy of Art
One interesting theory from "Thieves & Kings" cartoonist Mark Oakley:
From A Chat with Mark Oakley, Part 3, from SR Bissette's blog. If you don't know Bissette by name, he worked on some of the highly acclaimed "Swamp Thing" issues that Alan Moore wrote in the 80's, and is one of the bigger names from the self-publishing comics movement in the 90's. Oakley is also a product of that same movement. Bissette's blog has been ridiculously interesting lately, between his public discussion with Oakley (and his preceding public discussion with Dave Sim). Check it out when you've got a couple of hours to burn.So one time we were looking through a stack of Thieves & Kings comics I'd brought with me. He was able to spot instantly the issue where I'd begun using Photoshop. Where I'd first started sending disks to the printing company rather than a FedEx box filled with artwork.Turns out, when you draw or paint something, you leave a powerful energy imprint behind with it. He described it as an intricate energy pattern which contains the intent of the creator. He said they could be quite beautiful. A printed copy, shot in analog from film, comes off the press with a paler version of the same energy pattern, which, over time, eventually fades away. The original piece of artwork, however, never loses this energetic glow; it stays forever.But a comic printed using digital technology loses that pattern immediately. The scanning process simply doesn't capture it.And, well.., that sucks.
I find Oakley's theory interesting. I mean, I'm rarely impressed by art or artists that I see online. Believe me, I keep looking, but it's just not the same thing as seeing an actual, physical piece of artwork. It's not even close. But then again, I'm not sure you should expect a different answer from an artist who insists on working in a medium that may have peaked 300 or 400 years ago with Goya or Rembrandt.
c.
I like the concept of an energy imprint residing in original art. There is no question that some work moves me far beyond the choice of subject matter or medium. I can't comment too much on digital art but there is a subtle difference between digital photography and good old 35 mm that is difficult to express or measure. This debate reminds me of the conversation around the arrival of CDs long ago and whether the album was reproduced in its original complexity... something to ponder.
I think there's a certain amount of "old fogey-ness" to the debate, but it's clear that digital doesn't accurately reproduce an actual piece of artwork. I think it goes beyond resolution and becomes a matter of the medium itself: it's an actual, physical item getting turned into nothing more than content for whatever device you're using. That's an act of reduction, of demeaning the original piece of artwork.