I have been painting now for 5.5 years, which actually means that I have been painting and drawing on canvas, panels, paper, and whatever else happened along, in addition to some sculpture projects, and some photography work, for that length of time. About a year and a half ago, I began using the computer as well, but as far as imaging was concerned, only in conjunction with my digital camera.
Just within the past few months, I have begun exploring the world of digital imaging more thoroughly, through programs like Microsoft Paint, Paintshop Pro, and GIMP, a full-featured graphics program for Unix and Linux. I noticed a considerable and immediate difference in how I react to the two approaches; working on the one hand with wet paints or dry media at an easel, and on the other hand working with pixels and bits, using a keyboard, mouse and monitor. It seems to me that the subject deserves investigation. I can only assume that each individual will experience their own unique reactions to and preferences for these different classes of tools, in the same way that has been the case in the past; some people preferring watercolour, others oil paints, etc. Therefore, I can only offer my own point of view, which may also very possibly be subject to change, as I learn more about art that is generated using a computer, which I will for the sake of brevity, here in this article, refer to as computer art, as opposed to easel art.
First, I want to say that computer art is here to stay. It isn't going to go away. Second, easel art isn't going anywhere, either. I have seen numerous comments on-line, supporting the opposite of both these opinions, but consider such opinions to be wrong. Easel art does one thing that distinguishes it from computer art so thoroughly, that one will never be in a position to replace or eradicate the other, and that is, that easel art brings into existence, through the hand of a human being, a single, unique, physical object. Computer art is incapable of this. While the printing process may be capable of lending some form of uniqueness to the individual object, that is a matter of the printing process, not the computing process. While a case can be made for the uniqueness of fractal programs, etc., whatever randomness they possess is lost in the production of a single unique, physical object. The computer is well capable of creating uniqueness within its sphere, and outputting the results to a screen. Easel art is equally capable of creating uniqueness everywhere else, except on the screen. This difference alone is enough to keep both areas of pursuit seperate, viable, and incapable of overwhelming one another.
There is another, much more significant difference, however, that is the real point of this article. The easiest way to describe this difference is to start with oil paint.
When I paint in oil, it is like driving a car, only a lot slower. What I mean here, is that I do not paint with the kind of conscious mental concentration that is the hallmark of intellectual activity. I paint, but I do not use my conscious mind to focus on what I am doing, and in fact, my consciousness fills up with all sorts of other, unrelated thoughts, while my hands are doing the painting, just as happens when I am driving a car. There are moments in both driving a car, and painting, when my mind is called back into the present to deal with a particular problem, but most of the time, it is free to amuse itself with other things, unrelated to the task at hand. I also do not spend much in terms of preliminary thought, when it comes to painting in oil. Since oil is erasable with a rag dipped in mineral spirits, until it has had time to set, and even then, it is the easiest of the paints to overpaint with, to cover up errors and false starts, it requires less planning than, say watercolour, or egg tempera, and for that reason, I tend to do most of my subject and composition development on the fly, depending on how things 'look', or 'seem'.
Watercolour has a different feel to it. The planning stage is a lot more important, because cleaning up errors and changing your mind is much more difficult, if not often impossible, on absorbent paper, working with transparent colour. On the other hand, one's mindset cannot be totally fixed, either, because watercolour is a very 'out of control' medium, especially when used very wet. The paper forms ridges and valley where it wants, and the water runs and splashes at or even beyond the edge of control. It is akin to driving a car with very loose steering. A great deal of concentration is necessary, and yet, when the inevitable 'accidents' that are a part of watercolour occur, the often brilliantly clever 'saves' that appear in the painter's mind, virtually unbidden, are the difference between a brilliant piece of work, and a failed effort. Consciousness is running the show, but there is still critical input from the 'unconscious' or better yet, the 'un-consciousness' parts of the mind.
Photography would be a fitting subject to cover next. It requires that a mechanical device be interposed during the creative act, and while there is a certain amount of technical-type concentration on the part of the artist, there is also an element of 'mindlessness', while shooting the film, and an element of chance, in both the shooting and the developing process, although there is less an element of chance in the 'developing' process, once the camera itself moves from the film into the digital category. When I use a digital camera, the element of mindlessness and chance increases greatly in the shooting phase, in comparison to film, because of the cost involved in the film process. To a person with an unlimited supply of money, this might not be the case, but I definitely stopped staging and framing my shots as carefully, once I had a digital, and the cost element of film disappeared from the equation.
Moving now to the 'digital easel' of the computer, there are several variables to consider. First, either the camera can still be involved in the process, or not, as the artist decides. There are drawing, painting, and other programs available, plus the artist has the freedom to devise a program of his or her own, like a fractal program, for example, if they take the time to develop such skills. The possibilities of how the computer, and its digital tools, of both the hard and soft variety can be applied to the making of art is as broad as the artist's mind is flexible.
For the moment, at least, I think that computer art will always engage the mind in a manner that is more slanted towards the consciousness inherent in, say, watercolour, than in the 'mindlessness' inherent in oil paint. This is a personal assessment, and may be as much a reflection of my inexperience with computer art, as it is anything else. Learning to drive a car is, after all, a much more consciousness driven experience than driving the same car, ten years later. Still, for myself, I cannot imagine ever being able to sit down at a computer terminal with the same mental abandon that possesses me when I stand in front of my easel.
One thing is for sure: The work I produce at the computer is very different from the work I produce at the easel, due, I suspect, to the conscious vs. unconscious input that is allowed to enter into the work, because of the differing ways that each form engages the mind. Both of them are 'really me', but they are different facets of self, with computer art being a more tightly controlled presentation of who I am, while the oil paintings... the easel art, allows all sorts of strangeness to leak into my work... no less the 'real me', for its being much more the 'me' that I in all probability keep under wraps when writing, or computing, or being sociable.
I fully intend to pursue both... but if I had to let one go, it would be the computer art, not the easel, and oil paint. I am, however, a 21st century painter, and to pursue my work without availing myself of 21st century tools, would be silly. If van Riijn were alive today, I would bet on him doing digital art, in addition to everything else he could get his hands on... and when the software wouldn't give him what he wanted, I would bet on him digging up the source code for something like GIMP, and hacking it to work the way he wanted.