Many years ago when I was in university studying painting and sculpture I noticed something... there was computer design studios for graphic design, but they were focused on designing logos/layouts/etc for commercial use. There was no "digital art" class.

And this wasn't just any university. This was the best university in the country for studying art... but apparently not digital art.

Perhaps it was because the faculty/administration thought there was no point in teaching digital art for gallery use. Their perspective seemed to be that any art made on a computer was only good for advertising.

So its good enough for advertising and selling stuff, but not good enough to be shown in art galleries?

Of course, to show digital art you would first have to print it out (preferably on glossy paper) or find some other way of showing it (flat screen TVs or digital projectors).

I think part of it is the issue of the temporary quality of digital art. We can't reach out and touch it and so its "not really real". We can touch a painting. We can touch a photograph. But we can't touch a digital representation on the computer screen, its home turf.

Even though technically there is very little difference between how a photo feels and a digital piece feels after they've been printed. Its the ORIGIN of the work that confuses many a modern person.

Its almost ALIEN.

Some of us embrace that alien quality and live to experience and interact with digital art. Others can't comprehend it in the same way they can't comprehend the purpose of a Jackson Pollock.

It may take another 20 years before digital art becomes accepted by society, by which time digital projectors/flatscreens should be pretty cheap (I hope). In my mind societal acceptance will probably go hand in hand with technological advances.

I'm still theorizing about holographic art in the future... for more details visit this website: [link]