Michael Mitchell: Archive

One Reality is an unapologetically digital image about the legitimacy of digital products and their sameness with traditional products. A digital image is not a fake image. A digital image of a beautiful landscape is no less legitimate than a watercolor painting of a beautiful landscape. Both of these products are real; the only difference is the tools used to create them.

This is a popular and controversial issue, but I think it is more important than it seems. Don't misunderstand me, though. This is not about what is or is not art. That's a separate issue. All I'm trying to do is change the minds of those who think anything created by digital means is somehow unreal. And I think even most digital creators are victims of this fallacious viewpoint. They simply do not care if it's considered real or not. They create with their digital tools because it's "convenient" or because they couldn't do it the traditional way, i.e. the "right" way. They rationalize it by saying they enjoy it "right or wrong" and eventually the rest of the world will accept it and it will no longer be an issue.

My problem with this view is it is wrong and leads to psychological self-restraint and artistic repression. When an artist uses computer software such as Corel Painter to create an image, he should not feel like he is a fake artist. A fake painting is not a painting at all. A digital painting is not a painting at all. So what? It's not an airplane either, and no one seems to find any fault in that. The word "fake" means something is not what it appears to be. It doesn't mean something is unreal or the opposite of what it is. And even if it is fake, even if a digital image appears to have been done with a brush, even though it may not use any paint, it is real, it is what it is -- and that is all that matters.

When taken out of the context of the visual arts, the issue becomes very obvious. For example, most writers don't do any actual writing, they use a word processor. But we know a writer isn't merely someone who draws letters. So you'll never hear anyone proclaim a writer who uses Microsoft Word, rather than pencil and paper, is a fake writer. That would be absurd. Plus everyone knows a computer "draws" letters better than a human anyway, which is why we prefer to read our books set in type rather than handwritten. Everyone even knows that computers can't write great novels, but for some reason they think computers can create great paintings. And for the record -- though it is impossible -- even if they could, even if someone wrote the perfect algorithm that could kick out a great novel every ten seconds, they would still be great novels, and the author, whoever wrote the algorithm, would still be a great author.

In my view, digital works are metaphysically superior to traditional works. Traditional works are limited by their means, and the means (brushes, pencils, chisels, etc.) are always visible in the final product. Traditional artists, the better ones, try to hide their seams, to make their brush strokes or pencil marks blend into each other so as to render them invisible. If these traditional artists used computers this would not even be an issue (unless, of course, they are digital imitations of traditional tools, which doesn't make much sense to me). Digital images are created by means of math and pure light, and even the pixels on the screen and the dots on the printed output are invisible to the naked eye at high resolutions. Either way, whether digital or traditional is superior, both are legitimate and real, and the products created by such means all have the same metaphysical status.

This view that digital products are "fake" or unreal has to be obliterated. Traditional artists should not be awarded the title of "real" artists. They should not be granted the moral or esthetic high ground because they do their work without the "help" of a computer. And any digital artists who are victims of this slanderous view should break loose from the psychological restraints, take themselves and their works more seriously, and start working and producing free of any associated guilt. They should not think their works, merely because they are created digitally, are any less than traditional artists' works. They (and everyone else) should see themselves and their works as equals, metaphysically, because they are.