Controversy As An Art Form

I personally do not believe that painting has died as an art form, people say that painting is dead because painting as a tradition is a fallacy for whatever other form of art they are promoting instead. In actuality, people will keep painting in addition to, for instance, taking photographs, creating conceptual art, digital art, etc. Art forms only die if people stop doing them.

Though I can offer likely reasons some may be saying this. First though, this has been said before. When photography was being developed, it was thought to be the end of the painter.

It took many decades for photography to evolve, and it is still in process. In the early stages of photography, it was only black and white. Painters and illustrators were still needed. Later, color photography still had a different feel from painting so the latter survived.

Even in the advanced stage in which this art

Now, a more recent threat to traditional painting has arisen. Digital painting with Photoshop and other digital image editors are blurring the lines between computer imaging and traditional painting and illustration.

For the first few years of such programs, it was pretty easy to tell which images were digital and which were traditional painting. Now it is getting more and more difficult.

I have to ask, if we cannot tell whether an image is a digital "painting" or a traditional one, why should we care? If it is an interesting image, the only difference is the device the artist is using. Who cares how they did it?, What many fail to understand is, the computer is merely a tool, it cannot make "instant artists" out of those otherwise unable to draw or paint. So the only difference is the medium. Those wielding these different tools are still artists, and still must have many of the same skills artists have always