Computers are being used frequently in many different areas of life. In the art world, the use of computers to create images seems to have been a fairly recent development as technology has developed to allow artists more creative possibilities. In fact, artists have been experimenting with computer art since 1965 with works like A. Michael Nolles Gaussian Quadratic. These early works simulated existing media art, in most cases drawing, or were used as a starting point for a piece that was hand manipulated after it was done on the computer. In this sense, digital art was easily categorized according to the existing criteria used to judge other art media. There were also very few artists using computers to create their art as accessibility was also limited. Therefore, the effect of digital art on the art world could be ignored due to the small quantity of work that was produced. Now, with accessibility of computers and the range of programs that are available specifically for image creation/manipulation, artists have plenty of opportunity to experiment with digital imaging. With more digital works being made, the impact of this media on the direction of art is gaining importance and bring up serious debate about digital art as a valid art form. It also raises questions about the nature of art itself and the accepted conventions governing what art is as well as the direction in which art is headed.

Computers, by their nature, are able to simulate various other tools and media very efficiently and effectively. In this capacity, computers can be regarded using most of the same criteria as the media it is simulating. Although an oil painting and a digital painting can be judged by many of the same criteria aesthetically, the digital painting causes more debate about the merit of the art on more than one front. First of all is the idea of the original. In the case of the oil painting, the painting itself is the original artwork. But in the case of the digital image, the concept of the original is clouded. Depending on how the image is displayed, the original could be what is on the computer screen ot the printout of the image. Prints of the image also cause the added problem of creating a marketable item. Computer files are so easily copied and distributed that a digital image can be quite difficult to price and edition in a number that would be profitable in the art market. In a worse case scenario, a digital painting could become worthless because it was over copied. Multiples of the image also bring up the question of whether the digital painting is still a painting at all or if it has now become a print.

A computer can simulate sculpture as well. A three dimensional object created in a virtual space can be seen from various angles by rotating the object on the screen or using a virtual reality headset that would rotate the object accordong to head movement. The textures on the piece could be felt with gloves that simulate the sensations of actually touching the object (although this may be limited by the available technology). Can a rendering done on a computer that appears two dimensional on a screen be considered a sculpture because it can be seen and interacted with as if it were a three dimensional object? This obviously contradicts the notion of what basically constitutes a sculpture.

The most common place where a computer is used as another medium is with photography. A photograph can easily be scanned into a computer and touched up. A digital photograph can be created without the use of outside source material. Actual photos must refer to something in the real world whereas digital photos can be made with no reference to anyhting real. Computers can also alter a scanned photo to the point that it becomes a "false" image. The changes would be undetectable unless the image was carefully examined with the right computer program.

"False" images confuse the idea of truth in art. In all its various forms, art is the artist's way to explore the world and make a commentary on what is going on. Essentially the artist is looking for the truth, both individually and universally. It can be argued that these "false" images corrupt art truth. This is possible if someone wanted to use the images in that way. I think that used responsibly this sort of image can actually be used to reveal truth more clearly by illustrating what is false to such an extreme that the characteristics of "true" images would be easily recognized.

Using a computer to simulate media questions the definition of the medium it is trying to simulate. For example, the mention of the word painting brings to mind images of an artist using brushes and paint on a surface to create an image. Photography is generally thought of as using a camera to take pictures of subjects and developing these images in a darkroom. Sculpture also has a specific definition associated with it; the creation of three dimensional objects using various materials. In each case, the idea of art is based on using hand skills to physically manipulate materials to create the piece. In a digital piece, nothing is physically manipulated. Instead, the computer deals with abstractions to create a simulation of the artist's instructions. It contradicts the definition of what the media is trying to be. The total acceptance of computer simulated art would require rethinking and redefining what makes each media an art form. People would have to stop thinking in physical terms and accept the abstract nature of the computer.

Perhaps one of the most exciting and artistically valid use of the computer is in the area of conceptual art. Since a conputer has been designed to augment mental processes, it seems logical that it would be one of the best options available to artists who want to create conceptual art. With computer technology, an artist can make a complete enviroment and submerge the viewer in it. In this sort of situation, the artist should be able to clearly communicate his concepts with the viewer.

Another advantage of using a computer in this way is that it allows the viewers to interact with the piece in a way that is not possible in any other media. In its most limited capacity, the viewer would be totally exposed to that artist's view. On the other hand, an interactive piece could also involve the viewer so deeply that the viewer ends up helping to shape the creation of the piece with their experience of it, thereby creating their own meaning from the work.

This sort of interactivity is illustrated in three different works at various levels that use the computer as a conceptual platform rather than a simulator of existing media. The first piece I will discuss is Sara Robets' Margo, a computer designed to interact with the viewer through language. Once the viewer initiates contact with Margo, the computer establishes a maternal relationship with them. Video clips are shown that depend on the input received from the viewer. Margo also has changable moods that depend on viewer interaction or happen at random. Here, Roberts has allowed the viewer to be a part of the work in such a way that each person will get their own meaning from the piece depending upon the context it is viewed in.

A different piece by Lynn Hershman entitled Deep Contact uses a similar sort of interactivity between the viewer and the computer. Hershman uses video of a model named Marion to entice viewers to interact with the piece. Playing off the idea of the female temptress, Marion knocks on the screen and asks people to touch the image of her on the console. Touching different areas of the console brings up different video segments. As with Margo, the input from the viewer changes do that it will be an individual experience for each person. They also get a slightly different meaning from the work.

Both of these works do allow the viewer to manipulate the meaning of the piece, but a change in the order of the video clips does not change the overall meaning of the piece enough so that the viewer will get a totally different meaning with each experience of the piece. It is now like being given a puzzle to solve where there are various choices to be made, but the solution is always the same, no matter what the approach.

The final piece I will discuss is different in how the viewer interacts overall with the piece. Osmose is a virtual reality installation by Char Davies that places the "immersants," as she refers to the participants, in a created world to explore. Navigation through the piece is done with a headset and vest which translate actual movement into virtual movement through the created space. The viewer becomes a part of the piece to the outside world. Their experience of the work is shown on a screen in a darkened gallery for outsiders to watch. The participant is obscured by a scrim that turns their shadowlike figure and their movements become a performance in itself that others can watch.

In the way this piece is set up, it operates differently in how the viewer plays a role on the work. Since the viewer is placed within an enviroment, they are given the freedom to explore it as they wish, so their experience of the space becomes highly individualistic. Unlike the previouly mentioned pieces, the experience changes for that person each time they interact with the space. Although the viewer still operates in an artist-defined space, their part in the creation of the content of the piece is significant enough that it allows each person the opportunity to get the individual meaning from the work. This is the major difference between this work and the previous two examples.

Although each of the works mentioned are different, they all face similar concerns realted to using the computer as a medium for artistic expression. The first problem facing this work is its ability to be exhibited. To be able to show such work, a gallery must have both the funding and technical knowledge to install and maintain the piece. I think that this is a relatively minor concern overall that is easiest to solve. What I feel is the greatest concern for this sort of art is that it will be too easily connected to the visual effects of Hollywood and commercial computer applications.

Most of the general public's exposure to computer generated visual effects originate in the entertainment industry. Unfortunately, many of the fine art computer pieces are compared to the visual "razzle dazzle" of Hollywood because they seem very similar to movies at first glance. Both Deep Contact and Margo can be compared to television in that the viewer is, in a sense, given a remote control which allows them to "change channels" as if they were watching television at home.

Osmose can also be compared to Hollywood in the same manner. A person who is watching an "immersant" on the video screen sees a very high resolution image that immediately reminds one of Hollywood effects. Actually experienceing the piece is an entirely different experience. The video output image on the gallery screen is much sharper than the images that are seen in the headset. Even using the headset and vest moves the piece into the realm of video games, where such technology is used to enhance the entertainment experience. Some elements in the piece pose a concern as well since they appear as if they had been created by a company like Disney.

Connections to commercial computer use discredit the work. People who go to see such pieces have a preconceived notion of what to expect based on the visual effects of the entertainment industry. By comparison, the gallery pieces fall short of that standard. This changes the assessment of the work from judging the artist's concept and communication of the idea to judging how good the effects are compared to Hollywood movies. This can confuse assessment of the work to the point that the whole point of the piece is missed, thereby devaluing the work and hurting the argument that digital art can function as fine art.

Can digital art be considered art? That was the question I started with and tried to answer. There is obviously no straight yes or no answer. It really depends on what an individual calls art and how far they are willing to stretch the definition of what art is. Despite all of the negative aspects that can invalidate art as an art form, I feel that it is art. Like all other media, good and bad art will exist. I think its greatest barrier is that it requires a total redefinition of what makes art, both in the media that are established as art and in its own right as a separate medium. That challenging of the accepted conventions is the greatest barrier against the acceptance of digital art. Until art authorities are willing to rethink and redefine what art is, digital art will remain a fringe art, instead of helping to direct art in a totally new and exciting direction.

Binkley, Thomas. "The quickening of Galatea: Virtual Creation Without Tools or Media." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 233-240.

Gips, Terry. "Computers and Art: Issues of Content." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 228-232.

Goodman, Cynthia. "The Digital Revolution: Art in the Computer Age" Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 248-252.

Legrady, George. "Image, Language, and Belief in Synthesis." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 266-271.

Lovejoy, Margot. "Art, Technology, and Postmodernism: Paradigms, Parallels, and Paradoxes." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 257-265.

Sokolove, Deborah. "The Image in the Magic Box." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 272-277.

Tamblyn, Christine. "Computer Art as Conceptual Art." Art Journal 49 Fall 1990: 253-256