Talent vs Technology

[ReNae Stueve]

OK guys, it's been quiet in here. As you know I'm home caring for mother most of the time, so I thought I'd throw out a provocative question.

Is the mastery of technological tools to create an image actually art?

Let me explain why this question pops up for me. I recently attended an arts and crafts fair in Winter Park, Fl. I do every year. The fall show is for locals only and there were some good painters there. One in particular who did plen-air, a Mr. Palmeiero, was excellent.

Then there were a few others, whose work was also in the oil painting class but seemed odd to us. My daughter and I spent a great great deal of time looking at these pieces. They were flat as pancakes without a single visible brush stroke. If you got really close, you could see that these appear to be photos printed onto canvas and then washed over with color. Some had a real "draftsman-like" look that didn't really move me.

On other art focused web sites, I've seen a lot of work that is done completely with a graphic computer programs.

Is this art? It IS creative, to some extent. You have to imagine it before you use the computer tools to create it.

My Webster's II as follows:

ART = Conscious arrangement or production of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a way that affects the aesthetic sense.

Why do I, as an artist who limits herself to the non Frankin-art tools (sticks and hog hair) feel so superior to those who create Mac-Art with intelligent machines?

Feel free to blast my closed minded art snob attitude. I could use a little change now and again.