Today, we welcome Jessica Maloney as a guest blogger. Jessica Maloney is a professional artist and Professor of Digital Art at Ashland University. She is one of the artists whose work is featured in “Digital Art Revolution, Creating Fine Art with Photoshop”. As stated in “Digital Art Revolution”, and many times on this blog, one of the most significant aspects of digital technology is that it blurs the boundaries between mediums. Artist Jessica Maloney writes about this subject from the perspective of someone who functions as both a photographer and a digital artist. You can get more information about Jessica Maloney at www.jessicamaloney.com.

Having received degrees in both analog photography and digital imaging, I have always been aware of the clear distinction between the two mediums.  Yet at the same time, in my work I have always found ways to dance across the “lines” that separate the two.   When creating my own personal body of work I am completely comfortable in a world of no distinctions, one where mediums are mixed seamlessly.   However, when viewed through the academic and art historical lens perhaps there needs to be more thought put into the distinctions between the two.

The days of analog photography are slipping away, making room for photography in the digital realm.  Back in the day when photography took place in the darkroom it was its own distinct process. Yet now, with vast technical advances in digital cameras and digital technology, many are finding their way out of the darkroom and down the digital path.  Despite the shared digital toolbox, Digital Photography and Digital Art are still two distinct majors in the academic realm.   Yet, as a digital art professor, I find that I am constantly being presented with student work that begs the question - where does one draw the line between the two?

After much contemplation on the subject I believe that in order to receive a degree in one area vs. the other one must at the very least understand and respect the differences between the two.  Otherwise, why do we offer degrees in both?  When does a digital photograph become a digital image?  Should we still offer distinct degrees?  These are questions that roll through my mind when faced with the multitude of approaches cast through student work. 

I hold onto the definition that Digital Photography keeps the integrity of the original photograph intact while using the digital tools reminiscent of the darkroom to enhance the overall appearance.  These digital enhancements would be similar to ones achieved through photo filters, toning, or dodge and burn techniques.   Digital Imaging, on the other hand, can be drawn from a multitude of source materials, ranging from vector lines, photographs, scanned in found objects, to digital paint techniques and more – all the while with the main focus being to take these sources and create something new from them on screen.  When I put it that way it sounds simple to distinguish between the two, but when set into motion in the classroom, simple is never the word of choice.  Digital Photography and Digital Imaging have a funny way of creeping into one another and before you know it you are faced with some interesting questions.

Part of me feels pretty hypocritical for even suggesting that there be a clear line drawn between two mediums.   When discussing creative outlets is it really necessary to define the boundary?  When trying to outline a curriculum for a Digital Art degree this is an issue that needs to be tackled.  When Digital Photography works its way into the Digital Art classroom without utilizing “enough” Digital Art techniques to be called Digital Art or even Digital Art Hybrids, it becomes a problem of distinction between the two.   How can one justify handing out a Digital Art degree when the medium being studied is truly in the Digital Photography realm?

It appears that I am circling the question here, and perhaps I am to some extent, but I find it is in this type of cyclic contemplation that new answers to old questions sometimes arise.  While it may be easier to address this question in extremes, it is when the definition of the two mediums inch closer and closer together in practice, that it become harder and harder to define.   Throughout art history there are numerous examples of work not fitting neatly into one category and with that in mind, let me end this essay with a few examples of photographers, digital photographers, and digital artists that have fallen somewhere within the line of questioning.

“Untitled”, 1975

Jerry Uelsmann

Jerry Uelsmann has been creating photo collages in the darkroom well before the digital revolution and when he began, faced a lot of criticism and questioning in regards to his process.  At first critics were not sure that he should be placed in the same category as true fine art photographers.  Now, Uelsmann finds that the digital revolution has placed his work firmly into the traditional photographic realm since his process involves assembling multiple negatives in the darkroom and in no way involves the computer screen.  He is quoted in an article in Shutterbug magazine as saying, “And young people who are learning digital skills discover that the real challenge is coming up with an image that resonates, first of all, with your self and hopefully, with an audience. They can learn all these new techniques and think that they’re easier to use, but creating great images isn’t about the tools.” 

So  despite where the process sits in regards to its labeling within a medium category, in the end the idea of being an artist and creating work that resonates is all encompassing and shouldn’t necessarily be about one particular medium or another, but more about the image that presents itself in the end.  Where that leaves the idea of separate degrees is still a question left unanswered…but it’s a nice philosophy nonetheless.

“Escaping History”

Angela Bacon-Kidwell, archival pigment print.

Angela Bacon-Kidwell’s work was exhibited in Plates to Pixels 3rd International Juried Exhibition. “Plates to Pixels was formed in 2007 to promote the creation of photography-based fine art and was established by artists, for artists. The name ‘Plates to Pixels’ suggests the evolution of photography from the archaic wet-plate process to the new digital format of pixels and includes everything in between.” Kidwell’s imagery is clearly manipulated on screen yet she is referred to as a fine art photographer rather than a digital artist. 

“Surrounded”

Maggie Taylor, Iris Print

Then there is Maggie Taylor who has her work in over eighty galleries, some of which are exclusively representing photographers.  Verve, a gallery of photography, that represents Taylor, writes an article saying that “By placing objects directly on the glass top of the scanner she is able to create a unique type of digital image…”.   Despite how renowned an artist Taylor may be, if she is a practicing digital artist then why is she represented by a gallery showcasing photography?  This type of cross-category jump leads to many more questions, too many to be answered in this one essay but many that are being asked right now amongst my contemporaries, particularly in the educational field.