PAINTING IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL REVOLUTION

Author: Stephen Achugwo, PhD Painting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, sachugwo@abu.edu.ng
https://www.artisticsplendor.com , +2349092257858, sirsteve17@gmail.com 2017
Journal: Concept in Art, Design and Theatre: An Anthology of current issues, Vol 2, (2), pp 117-123
Publisher: Department of Visual and Performing Arts, University of Maiduguri. ISBN: 9783859072

Abstract
This paper reflects on the impact of the digital revolution on painting. It considers some of the
implications of the recent and continuing advances in digital technologies. The debate on the
future of painting in this era of digital revolution is a daunting challenge among painters, dealers,
sponsors, commentators and art lovers, given the opinion that ‘there is nothing you want to paint
today that has not been painted before’. Considering the role of photography, digital painting and
reproduction, is there any future for painting? Does the investment in these media propel the
growth or the death of painting? These questions would shape, form and inform the focus of this
essay.

Keywords
Painting, Digital Revolution, Photography, Digital Painting, Reproduction, Future

Introduction
At a glance the future of painting seems to be in a terrible shape, but on a close look it appears to
be better, brighter than ever. Farago (2015) observes:
The endless boom of the art market, which privileges painting and especially abstraction,
has given us a new generation of ‘zombie formalists’, churning out safe, easily sellable
pictures that look good in digital reproduction and in the booths of ever-multiplying art
fairs. And yet, beyond the frenzied market scene, the art of painting seems to be thriving.
Biennials that used to contain nothing but video and installations now bulge with not just
abstraction but also figurative painting.
(Source: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150217-is-painting-dead)
The 56th Venice Biennale in Italy, Gwangju Biennale in Korea, other biennials, triennials and art
fiestas across the world have become feasts of works of art, especially painting.
This essay deliberates on the future of painting with the existence of photography, digital painting
and reproduction. These media and painting share certain common creative realities, including
visual, global, digital, entertainment, market-based structures, publicity, production,
postproduction, aesthetics, among others. The essay dwells on visual and digital realities in
painting, comparing painting with photography, reproduction and digital painting. From this
analogy, it is possible to establish points of view, regarding the future of painting in the age of
digital revolution.

1
Development of reproduction, photography and digital painting
It is necessary to trace the advancement of reproduction, photography and digital painting in
order to determine their relationship with painting and possibly predict the future of painting.
According Benjamin (2007), a work of art has always been reproducible. He contends that
manmade artefacts could always be imitated by men but mechanical reproduction of a
work of art advanced intermittently, with only two procedures of technically reproducing
works of art, and could not be copied. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works
which could be produced in large quantity. With the discovery of woodcut, graphic art became
mechanically reproducible. During the Middle Ages, engraving and etching were added to the
woodcut. At the beginning of nineteenth century, lithography was invented. Photography was also
invented around 1836. These inventions were followed by reproduction by print.
Despite these developments in reproduction, Benjamin (2008) insists that even the most perfect
reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique
existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determines
the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. He opined that the authentic
work retains its full authority in the face of a reproduction made by hand, which it brands as a
forgery. Technological reproduction however, is more independent of the original than manual
reproduction. Photography can bring out aspects of the original that are accessible only through
the lens. It can place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain.
(Benjamin, 2008). It is about 80 years since Walter Benjamin made these assertions. During the
time he made them, there was no digital painting in the image world. Digital painting became
popular from 1990s. In less than thirty years of its invention, digital painting has advanced
exponentially. However, many of Benjamin's theories serve as a critical framework in predicting
the future of painting in this age of digital revolution.

Digital revolution
The digital is a code, characteristically complex. Bishop (2012) states “It is, at base, a linguistic
model.” When a digital photograph, like ‘.jpeg file’, is converted to ‘.txt file' (text format), the
subsequent image is “a garbled recipe of numbers and letters, meaningless to the average viewer”.
The term ‘digital revolution’ refers to the radical changes brought about by digital computing and
communication technology from latter half of the 20th century. It is the change from mechanical
and analogue electronic technology to digital electronics, with the adoption and proliferation of
digital computers, digital record, and digital reproduction.
Digital revolution is saturated with the mass production and widespread use of digital logic circuits
and its derived technologies, including the computer, digital cellular phone, digital cameras, the
internet and the World Wide Web (Kertess, 2014; McCormack, et al, 2014 and Moffat, 2005).
While painting attempts to debunk digital revolution, it is increasingly depending on it. Bishop
(2012) wonders “why contemporary art is so reluctant to describe our experience of digitized
life?”, given that photography was embraced rapidly in the 1920s. Despite the rapid technological
advancement resulting from digital revolution, painting reluctantly refuses to address the obvious
situations of living in and through new media.

2
Predicting the future of painting
Painting can be reproduced in three basic techniques of lithography, silk screen and digital. Each
of these techniques is capable of reproducing different things. Reproduction from lithography
comes with fine detail, but the colours are not very good. Silk screen or serigraphy produces bright
colours, great textures and heavy impasto, but is not very good at complex, layered painting.
(Gaugy, 2014). Digital printing can reproduce detailed layered painting and vivid colour. Some
inkjets printers can get impasto effect. Works can be reproduced on demand. The artist produces
one artwork at a time and at a reasonable cost. With lithography and serigraphy, whole editions
can be printed. Today, many artists can afford to have digital reproductions of their works. Artists
can now get a printer and make the prints themselves. This has freed artists from the tyranny of
the publishers as well as flooding the marketplace with digital prints. (Gaugy, 2014)
There is a problem of identifying an original work of art with digital reproduction. All the copies
of paints are identical. Some artists are now licensing their computer paintings as a way of retaining
originality of their works. But that has been difficult to do, because all the pieces of painting are
identical, so the license seems to be meaningless. Probably the artists should relinquish copyright
with the title in order to retain the original status of their works.

The sponsorship of photography, digital painting and reproductions

The sponsorship of photography, digital painting and reproductions is now matched toe to toe
by the massive investment in art exhibition, education and training in art, auction,
competition, biennials, triennials and other art fiestas. Many art exhibitions organized today
display more paintings than the viewer could possibly see. According to Bishop (2012), “We
don’t ask how big a show is anymore, but how long. A tiny gallery can contain days of art. The
result is that we filter and graze, skim and forward”

There is nothing you want to paint today that has not been painted before!
The opinion that there is nothing you want to paint today that has not been painted before
is overturned by digital revolution. Painting has advanced with radical ideas,
postmodernism, materials, style and techniques. It has expanded in meaning and scope,
through the digital advancement of photography and reproduction, and through the evolution
of computer painting. Painting has transcended beyond the oblong canvas and two-dimensional
surfaces into painting on three dimensional supports to being streamed in open surface and liquid
environment.

Time will tell

Photography emerged into the image world with the earliest photographs from Daguerre. Daguerre
produced some photographs in 1839 that led some artist to declare painting dead. After seeing a
daguerreotype photographs, according to Farago (2015), the academic painter, Paul
Delaroche declared that from today, painting is dead. Pablo Picasso also declared painting dead at
that period. Another major event that quaked painting almost fatally is Conceptual Art, which
emerged with the acceptance of Installation as a work of art. Despite these major events,
painting continued to thrive. Over the past 150 years, painting has been declared dead so many
3
times that it is hard to keep track with history of art which elevated painting to its definition
today. Farago (2015) says:
Photographs did more than just depict the world better and faster than painting; they also
made entire painterly languages defunct, from military painting to academic portraiture.
Ever since, painting has in some ways functioned in dialogue with the camera. In some
cases, that dialogue takes the form of rejecting photographic realism, such as in the
unnatural colour of Van Gogh. Or the dialogue is between equal partners. That can be via
the use of silkscreened imagery, most famously by Andy Warhol; via a hyperrealism of
Richard Estes or Franz Gertsch, whose paintings are ‘more photographic' than
photographs; or via more painterly effects that nevertheless advertise their photographic
source, as in the art of Gerhard Richter and Chuck Close.
(Source: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150217-is-painting-dead)
He is of the view that painters should acknowledge the challenges of the medium. In this digital
era, painting is capable of manifesting its own signs. Farago (2015) insists that “Painting has
become more, rather than less viable after conceptual art, as an option for giving idea form and
hence for differentiating it from other possibilities”. Painting has also moved off the canvas, and
even off the walls. Market structure of art has now revalidated and reinvigorated painting, as it is
easy to store, transport, and works well with internet and digital reproduction.

Conclusion
Benjamin (2007), in his famous writing, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction’, believes that the art object is imbued with semi religious properties. Such spiritual
configuration, according Davis (1995), consists of “the ritualistic relationships that we establish
and the ‘aura’ that the artwork contains”. This is no longer the situation in painting today. There
are now paintings created as art for art sake. There is also painting for training and educational
purposes. Farago (2015) observes that paintings also now function frequently not as stand-alone
artworks, but as elements of a larger network of artistic procedures,
In this digital age, painting and photography have undergone a paradigm shift; transiting from
personal artefact to social signifier. Confronted by endless assortment of computerized images,
Bishop (2012) opines “the uniqueness of an art object needs to be reasserted in the face of its
infinite, uncontrollable dissemination via Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.” Digital painting has
become so popular. One does not need to have a formal training to create one. With about five
minutes of instruction, anyone who knows how to use a personal computer can produce a computer
painting. One can also make several digital reproduction of the work or send copies to several
friends online. World Wide Web, internet, social media networks and digital spaces are developing
at high paces. Predicting the future of painting is becoming impossible as the image world is being
congested with visual irrelevance. Digital revolution is dragging the world to a point, where all
images will lose their allure. One can foresee a dystopian world, where the abundance of images
would have wrought a terrible effect on humanity’s ability to see. By then what becomes the future
of painting?

4
References
Benjamin, W. (2007). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt
Illuminations: [essays and reflections] (H. Zohn, & L. Wieseltier, Trans.) (pp. 217-251).
(Ed.),
New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility. In M. W.
Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin (Eds.), The work of art in the age of its technological
reproducibility, and other writings on media (E. F. Jephcott, Trans.) (pp. 19-55).
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bishop, C. (2012). Digital divide. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.corner-
college.com/udb/cproob2RNIDigital_Divide.pdf

Davis, D. (1995). The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (An Evolving Thesis:
1991-1995). Leonardo, 28(5), 381. doi:10.2307/1576221

Farago, J. (2015). BBC - Culture - Is painting dead? Retrieved May 11, 2017, from
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150217-is-painting-dead

Gaugy, M. (2014). What are the differences between the work of art in the age of mechanical
reproduction vs digital reproduction? Retrieved May 11, 2017, from
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-work-of-art-in-the-age-
of-mechanical-reproduction-vs-digital-reproduction

Kertess, K. (2014). Painting in the age of digital reproduction. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from
http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/painting-in-the-age-of-
digital-reproduction/

McCormack, J., Bown, O., Dorin, A., McCabe, J., Monro, G., & Whitelaw, M. (2014). Ten
questions concerning generative computer art. Leonardo, 47(2), 135-141.
doi:10.1162/leon_a_00533

Moffat, C. (2005). The work of art in the age of digital reproduction. Retrieved May 11, 2017,
from http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/The-Work-of-Art-in-
the-Age-of-Digital-Reproduction.html