Before I begin, I'd like to say that this is not a jab at any digital artist nor is it an attempt to demean digital art as a whole, but rather, an observation on the perception of traditional art with the advent of digital art.

I think we can all agree that digital art has made it very easy for your average Joe to come up with a drawing. Heck, on my first usage of Photoshop, I managed to come up with something rather decent (if i do say so myself) [link] . The hair isn't very well done for digital art standard but for traditional art, that would have taken me 20+ hours (and it may not even be as good). When I first began digital art, I pondered upon the focus of digital art, vs that of traditional. To me, digital art is more inclined towards mastering the power of the software and to make use of the resources available (like brushes and texture), while traditional art, it's really about breaking down and analysing your reference, then manipulating your medium to manually replicate what you see. Of course, each of these have its own comparable challenges so neither is really easier than the other, when looked upon with relative standard (i.e. "adjusted to inflation"), that is. Let me explain.

If one was to draw a black and white photo with pencil and another, using Photoshop, I'm certain the latter is gonna be finished in a much shorter time, smoother finish, more realistic and less mistake (thanks to the many tools available). Traditional medium then become this old-fashion, obsolete medium, especially to new comers. The problem doesn't lie with either medium themselves, but rather, the misguided standard on which we judge the works.

Based on what I've been seeing, it seems that digital and traditional art get almost the same treatment, forgetting the fact that the process to create each work is vastly different. Take for example, doing highlight. In digital art, one can add highlight easily due to the opacity of the brush, but for traditional art, it involves either careful planning of the work, like leaving out white areas while shading or to erase certain areas after completion (which is actually a lot harder than it sounds). Dont get me wrong, I know digital art has its fair share of challenges, but I'm more familiar with traditional art so my examples are mainly that. That said, we have to acknowledge the undeniable edge that digital art gives to its users, and thus, up the standard that we  look at digital art with.

So what does this mean? Well, I guess the obvious implication would be the value that people place on each kind of medium, and also the recognition given to the artists. In this age of digitalisation, with more people experimenting with digital art, will people understand the true significance of traditional art? And to look further into the future, as well as getting a little paranoid, will traditional art still be thing to be treasured? "That's crazy to be speculating this", one may say, and perhaps that's true, for digital art is barely an infant compared to traditional art. But for the same reason, and the fact that there are observable trends, I'd think it's not THAT crazy.
What do you think?