I ran into an interresting piece of thought this morning. Or rather, one of the people I follow on twitter
pointed me in the right direction. One half of the dynamic duo that is Penn & Teller pointed me to
a youtube video, here is the actual tweet:
Tweet from Teller





And me being the youtube junkie that I am, of course followed the link and was instantly awarded
with someone creating a stunning piece of art, inspired by Penn & Teller’s trick “Shadows”.
Now, I generally like to read the posters intentions for a video, because that can make the video
worth more and most of all, mean more then simply taking up some of my time. I think it is called
“Food for thought” and this video actually had a couple of thoughts that I couldnt help think about.

First off, here is the video:


And here is the posters cause and thoughts about the video:

I was reading through an Art discussion forum a couple of days ago, and came across the usual “Digital Art vs Traditional Art” topic. And while both sides had good arguments, one point really grabbed my attention and made me think:

“Traditional Art will always have more value over Digital because it is a one-of-a-kind piece. A digital piece can be easily reproduced and printed hundreds of times and used for anything (T-shirts, signs, posters etc.). It’s just data and pixels on a screen.”

I agree with the statement that a traditional piece is a truly one of a kind item. You can scan it and photograph it all you want, but It’s real. It exists in a solid form, It can also be destroyed and lost forever, whether it’s by a house fire, or a glass of water accidentally being spilled over it. But so can digital art. If not handled correctly, the document can become corrupt or lost in a hard drive crash.

I wondered, how could I make a digital painting (that is data and pixels on a screen) truly a “one of a kind”?

I’ll paint a digital picture, print one single copy, then erase it completely off my hard drive!

So this film and the one print sitting on my desk is all that remains of the painting. No pixels, no data. Just a single hard-copy of the painting.

The image no longer exists, so I suppose the entire video is the art piece now. It hurt me a little to destroy it, but do you think the (physical copy) painting has more value and artistic merit now that it is truly a “one of a kind”?

Peace out.

Adobe Photoshop CS5
Real time; 3-4 hours
Download https://rapidshare.com/files/3080279057/SHADOWS_by_Teller_-_SheridanJ.wmv
Based off and a tribute to Teller’s (of “Penn & Teller”) signature magic trick “Shadows”

(To the author of the video, please note that I retained all your links as a small token to show my respect)

My thoughts in the matter really isn’t rocket science. The value of art, regardless of form for me is the effort
that the creator actually put into the art. Art in itself is supposed to touch you and stir thoughts and emotions
and regardless of form, or way of distribution, should be appreciated. But this also leads us into a speculation
on how to assess value on our own thoughts, because well, paint, canvas, painbrushes and such do cost money
but so do software licenses, wich albeit reusable, has a higher purchasing cost.

The creator of the Teller portrait has also the single existing copy of this image, since the file is deleted
and the only copies that remains are worse quality snapshots like mine. So how is the original valued?
Is it valued the same as a traditional artwork? Most likely not yet, but how about in a few years? Probably
still not as much. It is, as you may surmise, a paper with ink or laser toner spewed out over it. But the
effort remains the same, wouldn’t you agree?

And as an afterthought. First off to Mr Penn Jillet and Mr Teller. Whatever you guys do, you will have me
as a fan, ever since the day you ran over Teller with a truck and showed how it was done.

To the creator of the video: Wouldnt Blue Man Group’s “Shadows part II” work wonders with this vid?