/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4229210
I think the first problem here is that most of digital art is extremely figurative, which is just rarely seen in galeries in general. You don't really see serious exhibitions of glamour photoshoots and there aren't concerts of stock music - I know the comparison might offend many people here but this is how I personally view the great majority of digital art I see on the internet; it looks almost like an advertisement - highly polished with nothing "left for imagination", with characters that are either from a franchise or highly stylized. Do I dislike it or think it's something bad? Not at all, but it just doesnt have a place in a gallery. The only digital pieces that I would actually place in a gallery is stuff like nicponimsky's, which is just rare (at least from what I've seen, if you know more artists like him let me know because I love this stuff).
The second problem is that a loooot of people that dont really know much about digital art still view it as some sort of computer generated pictures, like you do 2 clicks and the image appears there. Vast majority of old people in art world view it like this and its really hard to change their views. I argued for the longest time with my painting prof to let me paint something digitally for the class and he finally agreed, but the pieces really weren't something I'd usually do, picrel (I'm not complaining tho - I liked it and the experience showed me there's more to art than what I used to see).

To sum up: Many (old) people still see digital art as tacky and as some kind of a shtick even, plus a lot of digital artists dont have a very broad array of inspirations and knowledge about art history, which shows in their work in a rather negative way.