5/3 Reading Takeaways

Peppler details a variety of instances indicating the rise of digital painting and drawing. An example was specifically given of a New Yorker cover that was drawn using the brushstroke app on an iPad. This made me think as well about a show I saw of Hockney's at Pace Gallery in 2016. It was comprised entirely of work made on an iPad and blown up to, at times, a huge scale. This rise in the endorsement of digital painting by both established publications and blue chip galleries seems to lend a legitimacy to a medium that I consider to be somewhat ephemeral and casual. However, I have to wonder about the regard cultural institutions would have for artists who have solely worked in digital painting, without a prior established practice, would they be as willing to show that work? I'm curious about whether tides are changing in this regard or if years of prior established practice in more traditional disciplines is necessary for recognition at a large scale. It seems that maybe attitudes are shifting such that it is not as much of a necessity.

In relation to digital painting, I am intrigued by the argument that it affords a degree of accessibility to painting and drawing. However, I would like to point out some flaws in this thinking. The author expresses that digital painting allows for artists to paint without the need to purchase expensive materials like paint, brushes, and paper. That being said, an iPad is a decently expensive material and I would like to suggest that digital painting doesn't really impact access financially, but it does allow for multitudes to access works of art that are made and almost instantaneously shared digitally. This allows for a much more quick and fluid spread of artistic ideas.

In addition, I wonder about the replacement of analog painting with digital painting as time progresses. Digital painting may be a great tool for its ease and accessibility. However, can it be a complete replacement? Would you be able to hand someone a brush and a palette of paint who has only painted digitally and would they be able to execute at the same level as they did digitally? I would argue not as working with a stylus or the tip of a finger on a screen and without the viscosity of paint, moved by a brush onto a surface is a world apart. But, why must we maintain historical traditions of painting, does this matter? I feel it does, but maybe society at large does not feel the same way.