Marciofs wrote:
A sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel, if he can't make sculpture from marble he can make from clay. It means he still can make sculpture. Even if he still needs a chisel it is just a peace of metal.

A digital artist with no access a computer is able to learn an other art and make other craft, but no longer digital art.

A sculptor with no access to ZBrush or Mudbox can use clay. He's still a painter.

A painter with no access to Artrage, Corel Painter or Photoshop can still use a canvas and paint. He's still a sculptor.

A photographer with no access to a DSLR can use an SLR. He's still a photographer.

What is a 'digital artist?' I'm not even sure what that means.

Marciofs wrote:
The discussion is about being dependent of a machine to work in order to be able to produce art in such media.

Yes, pretty much all photography and certainly all common types, use machines.

Marciofs wrote:
You may be a digital sculptor or a digital painter but at the end it is all digital art that needs a computer ruing in order to create.

I still don't know exactly what point you are trying to make. I've lost interest in trying to get it, and I'd be surprised if anyone else here gets it.

I do know one thing for sure: any decent digital sculptor is a sculptor first.

Marciofs wrote:
I don't like to spend my time with trolls so I am leaving the topic now.

Have a good weekend.

You should come back just long enough to apologize for this offensive remark.

Marciofs wrote:
"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

Which made me think. How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?

Yes, I've thought about it. Funnily enough, I think of shooting digital as freeing me from some of the constraints I had when shooting film.

When I was shooting film I had to choose the speed and white balance of the film before shooting. Now I can change speed from shot to shot, and I can set the white balance when I'm processing the RAWs.

As for "an artist's tools are created by the hand of the artist" - sorry, but that sounds awfully pretentious. Few painters make their own brushes, for example. Some (few, I suspect) make their own pigments, but they don't weave their own canvas, or carve their own stretchers from a piece of tree. Oh, they could, but that's not essential to the art. 

An artist can work in many media. Some architects are arguably artists, creating their art from the cumulative work of an entire team of builders, using lots of machines and high technology. The architect's hands might not touch the building during construction, yet the finished building can be recognised as his/her artwork.

I have some pieces by an artist (whose name I forget, sadly). These pieces are created using high tech - one is a small metal sculpture created using an early 3D printer, another is a glass cube with an image created inside it using high-intensity lasers. Both are beautiful artworks, and neither could have been created using older technologies.

There is no shame in using the latest technology can offer in creating art. There has been a snobbery about it for a long time, though. Perhaps we are supposed to be impressed by how hard the artist had to work to create the artwork?

Marciofs wrote:
A sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel, if he can't make sculpture from marble he can make from clay. It means he still can make sculpture. Even if he still needs a chisel it is just a peace of metal.

A digital artist with no access a computer is able to learn an other art and make other craft, but no longer digital art.

Your example is again flawed. A marble sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel can no longer make marble sculptures. He may be able to make clay-based sculptures, but it's not a given; the medium is quite different. He might be able to make wood-based sculptures, but that, too, is not the same. Etc.

Yes, a traditional artist, artificially deprived of his tools, may be able to shift to another form of art (e.g. sculptor to painter, watercolorist to oil painter). In exactly the same way, a digital artist, artificially deprived of all his tools, may be able to shift to another form of art. In both cases, however, it's not the same artform.

In any event, since you maintain you're not trying to convince anyone, and it's clear you're not interested in listening to reasons why your stance is flawed, I'll retire.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I have some pieces by an artist (whose name I forget, sadly). These pieces are created using high tech - one is a small metal sculpture created using an early 3D printer, another is a glass cube with an image created inside it using high-intensity lasers. Both are beautiful artworks, and neither could have been created using older technologies.

This is what I am talking about!!! The digital work is limited by the digital technology. There is no way to deny this fact.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
There is no shame in using the latest technology can offer in creating art.

Of course there is no shame using the latest technology. Nobody here is saying the opposite.