Regine March 21, 2007 art in Berlin

A conversation about exhibiting and selling digital fine art

A couple of weeks ago i was gallery hopping with Reto Wettach in and around Auguststrasse. Among the art spaces we visited was [DAM], a gallery dedicated to digital art. On the walls were some really nice prints and animations by Holger Lippmann.

The pieces (which the artist calls “computed aided visual art works”) were exploring various sequences of explosion. We see them every day on TV but does it mean that we have become used to them?

Reto and i stepped out of the gallery and wondered whether a space that focuses on digital art was viable. Does it follow the same economical model as any other gallery? Does it have a market? A future? [DAM] is a bit isolated in the art gallery landscape (at least in Europe as New York, for example, has Bitforms and the Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery) so how does it work? I then decided to contact Wolf Lieser, the gallery owner and curator, and asked him if he’d find some time to answer my questions. I’ll never thank him enough for his enthusiasm, the way he supports and promotes digital artists and for reminding me that the discipline is already some 40 years old. Here’s an overview of our conversation:

Lieser started working on the concept back in 1998. The first step was to set up an online museum of digital art. The aim is to build up a resource for the history and practice of digital fine art, going back to its origins in 1956. There are biographies of the pioneers, essays on the disciplines, a bibliography and a list of some fascinating interviews.

Lippmann,-tower02,-2006.jpg Holger Lippmann – a work from Meta Refresh

A few years ago, Lieser had two art galleries, one in Frankfurt and the other one in London. Both cities proved to be fantastic places to make money selling art work but not the digital kind. Either because the art scene there was too conservative or because rents were way too high. Lieser looked around and figured out that the best place to physically ground his project was Berlin. The German public is generally more willing to get into new movements but what makes a real difference is that the city attracts collectors from all over the world. They come for the edginess of the capital, knowing that new tendencies often emerge in Berlin… at reasonable prices.

Of course none of the above means that selling digital art is an easy task. Most people in the general art world do not have much idea about digital art, a lot has to be explained about the impact of computer in our culture and the way that the medium is changing the whole art world.

Unsurprisingly younger generations are more ready to engage with digital art. They are familiar with its aesthetics and perceive the amount of work involved in the creation of a 3D scenery for example.

The curator had a nice anecdote about people coming up to him at a Miami art fair. They looked genuinely interested in what they believed was either photography or painting but as soon as Lieser explained that it was in fact a work made using a computer, they felt “cheated” and withdrew.

The works exhibited at the gallery (mostly screen-based: animations, software art, projections, etc.) have to answer to a series of qualities: their authors -whether they are pioneers or new comers- should demonstrate a real mastering of the technique and an aesthetic point of view, use the medium in an innovative way and the medium itself ought to be kept in the background, forgotten. What matters is the fine art quality of the pieces not the technology itself.

Holger Lippmann – run into flowers, 2004

Lieser sees [DAM] as a long-term project. He had to build everything from scratch, every profit he makes is invested in the next exhibition and the support of artists and he foresees that there might be 5 years of hard work ahead before the value of digital fine art is more broadly recognized.

In order to help gaining a broader understanding and acceptance of digital media, Lieser has launched the d.velop digital art award. Initiated in 2005, the [ddaa] honours significant life-time achievements in digital art with a prize of 20,000 euros. Included in the award is also a retrospective exhibition at Kunsthalle Bremen and a catalogue.

Wilson,Skew-R34_1983.jpg Mark Wilson, Skew H36

The current exhibition, The Algorists Plottersketches from 1971 to 2006, features pieces by Jean-Pierre Hébert, Roman Verostko, Mark Wilson, Manfred Mohr, and Hans Dehlinger.

On view through May 19, 2007. Until April 14, visits are made by appointment due the works involved in the re-designing of the gallery space.

The [DAM] gallery is located on Tucholskystr. 37, Mitte, Berlin. Images courtesy of the gallery.

14Comments

Add yours

1

Hans on March 21, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I really enjoyed Lippmanns works, thanks for posting. DAM found in Berlin the right place I hope, they do the important work of archiving Digital art and it is now the right time to attract with Digital art. They will have success.
2

kati on March 21, 2007 at 7:46 pm

“the medium itself ought to be kept in the background, forgotten. What matters is the fine art quality of the pieces not the technology itself”
it is important to remember the value of the medium as well though; why do something on the computer that you could do by hand? and if the piece can not be created by hand than the value of the fact that it was made on a computer should not be overlooked. To me it seems like that is what makes the pieces more sucessfull.
3

Davem on March 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

kati I agree – the process itself is a key part of a lot of computer generated work – especially net art – and is very particular to this medium. I find that once people understand the process, they generally find computer generated work much more interesting.
4

regine on March 21, 2007 at 8:56 pm

now i feel like i didn’t do any justice to Wolf’s point. we all agree that “the process itself is a key part of a lot of computer generated work”, that’s what is meant by “showing a mastering of the technique”. but it’s technology for technology’s sake that should be avoided. an easy example of that are all the “art” projects that used RFID tech because it was kind of new, in the news and had an aura of provocation and subversivity.
5

Hans on March 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm

One of the great things of Digital Art are the transparencies, and the subtle lights, which it gets from behind, the screen. It has also a certain fragility, a tie with water colors, for me.
6

wolf on March 22, 2007 at 10:11 am

Thanks for the article and comments.
I’m planning to begin with talks after the gallery redesign is finished. So, look out.
Of course the medium needs to be an important part, but not alone and that much in the forground, that the aesthetic experinece is overshadowed.
7

Carol on March 23, 2007 at 2:34 am

Great article, thank you for sharing! Pity we do not have a national gallery or museum or even an organization dedicated solely to the administration, exhibition and archiving of digital fine art works here in Canada, as Mr. Lieser’s [DAM] gallery in Berlin!! Until that dream comes through, we continue to exhibit in traditional art venues and promote digital fine art to all who engage with our art and the artists.
Cheers!
8

matt on March 25, 2007 at 7:49 am

it’s probably a pipe dream to think that digital art can compete with high art. that isn’t to say that it’s not high art. but it’s not as tangible as an actual painting or sculpture. digital art that can be saved and stored and reprinted another day is pretty much like a print except every copy is identical and there are no assurances that your copy is the only copy. would i buy digital art? no. the feeling of “cheated” isn’t completely unfathomable. there is a certain skill put into art and digital art, while to achieve it, you do need artistic skill, you need more technical skill than anything else. imagine buying architecture prints. it’s engaging but only to a limited extent.
9

regine on March 25, 2007 at 8:07 am

same goes with photography and video art, doesn’t it? yet they are collected, bought and exhibited. and i’m not sure that some digital art pieces require more technical skills than some sculptures.
10

aph on March 26, 2007 at 6:32 am

by matt’s standard, photography has no place in high art. digital reproducibility amplifies the effects of mechanical reproducibility; copy, copy, copy, paste. this is a feature, not a bug.
strange that phase 3 of the history seems to end in 1996, but not so strange (this history of net.art ends in 2001). as it develops, it will be interesting to see what is included, and what is not, in this project’s historicalization of “digital art”.
11

Wolf on March 30, 2007 at 9:49 am

First of all I have to apologize, that the [DAM] site hasn’t been updated recently. But there are plans in the pipeline for this and then it will be great. We are starting the friends of [DAM], who will help.Regarding Digital Art and it’s value:
of course it can be copied, but what does it matter, good art is not something, which is unique. There is so much bad and boring painting around as there is photography and Digital Art. But Digital Art is the medium of our times, so why not using it!And it’s the ARTIST who makes the difference, whatever medium he or she chooses.
12

Ram on April 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Im curious to know, how is the value kept in digital art prints? is there only one print made and bought by a gallery such as DAM and the file created by the artist destroyed? Can someone clarify the process of this…
13

Chuck on July 7, 2008 at 7:10 am

Interesting discussion. I am a fine artist who prefers to work digitally. I’ve been working digitally since 1990. My style generally mimics the hand-painted look, which makes me question whether I should paint by hand instead. Though, I get much more personal gratification by painting on the computer. But how to present it? With high-quality limited edition prints, in back-lit movie poster boxes or on high-definition displays? I confess I haven’t tried any other methods than prints. And people buy them if they like the images I find. Anyway, my desire to expand my marketing efforts have led me to this site. I thank you all. If interested, you can find some of my work through my music site: http://www.chuckmaiden.com.
14

Joanna on June 17, 2009 at 1:29 am

Thanks for this article… I think that what is difficult in this issue is that we still consider the ‘aura’ in valuing art to be sold. The presence of the thing in physical space, it’s essential originality. I just graduated from art school, from a course specialising in Time Based mediums, none of us expect to make any money from our degree shows unlike the fine art departments, who often sell a lot of work. However I was approached by a gallery who wanted to buy one of my films. What do I do? Give them a DVD for £5? Or surrender the copyright to the gallery for £500 and nullify the point of digital art? hmmm

·Comments are closed.

Share this: