Original Art

This is one of my photos that I put through photoshop filter called "cutout". I have been seeing more and more people who have taken a photograph, put it through "artistic filters" in PhotoShop, and call it original art. I taught PhotoShop and can easily spot the effects. Some will print giclees and call those paintings or trace off the image and then paint it. I feel that this is crossing the line and is dishonest and is mis-representing the work as something it is not.

Observation is probably the most important factor in art. When we look at a subject, we can adjust our vision to see certain things whether it be value, color or texture… or whatever. It’s like when you look into a drawer of junk looking for your keys…you have a certain shape or object in your head and when you spot that shape a light goes off in your brain. I think that PhotoShop is a wonderful tool and I love using it. I fact, it can be a useful tool to show us how to see more abstractly. By taking an image and putting it through certain filters, such as cutout, you can see varying degrees of abstraction and can be a revelation in itself. But to copy the image an call it original art is wrong, and this kind of image must be segregated into it's own category... either photography, or digital imaging?

As a plein air painter, I used to get upset when I saw paintings that were obviously traced from photos or projected on a canvas, something that is very easy to recognize which I have come to accept as another artistic method... but this is worse... This is letting technology replace the creative element in painting. It is what it is, but don't call it ORIGINAL ART! At some point the word “Cheating” needs to be injected into the discussion.