Art Lovers discussion

Question: Would this be considered a 'Movement' in art? What do you think about it?

I actually wrote my Masters thesis on this very topic. Not to nitpick, but do you mean art movement or art category? Movements in art history occur rarely, and imply a collective sense of self-identification or will (excepting the few instances when art historians amass together disparate, unassociated artists because they fall into a certain historical context, e.g. post-impressionism.) Abstract Expressionism is a movement (although even that's disputable), but abstract art certainly is not. It is, however, still a category. I will caveat that one might find common threads, influences, practices, and disciplines in a number of artists that tie them together in a manner similar to that of a movement but without that sense of collectivity, e.g. Photorealism in painting. I would call these "genres," not movements.

Some would consider abstract digital art to be a proper art category, but I personally think this is a misapplication of the term, a sort of catchall categorization applying old paradigms to new media for ease of consumption. To understand what we mean by "abstract digital art," we first have to understand what we mean by "abstract," which is already a pretty difficult undertaking (i.e. art critic Rosalind Krauss offered a semiotic conception of abstract art, while Clement Greenberg had a more medium-centered definition.) Even the notion of "digital" art is riddled with contradictions. Glitch art and generative art are certain threads of digital media that many would consider "abstract." Casey Reas, Joan Heemskerk & Dirk Paesmans (Jodi), and Cory Arcangel all use digital technology to produce a work that some may argue has an "abstract" quality, but their media are vastly different. Then there are digital photographers like Andreas Gursky. Then there are artists like Matthew Ritchie, Robert Lazzarini, Jennifer Bartlett, or Bridget Riley who work in the traditional media of sculpture and drawing, but have a digital "approach" to their practice, and/or use digital technology to get there, and/or have had tremendous influence on artists who work in solely in more pixel-confined digital media.

As you can see, the answer to your question is far from simple.

Enough of the analysis, get on with the work. Back to the studio.

Quote from my book Modern Art a Portrait of Mediocrity

Babblism to the present
“Art can be just about anything you can get away with.” Marshall McLuhan.
Those who can't draw and paint and have no ideas turn to eccentricity.
Some years ago, a few especially sensitive purists must have noticed that MAA critics possessed an absolute monopoly on the creation, manufacture, and distribution of Artspeak. Concluding that critics were trespassing on their artistic domain, artists decided to do the talking themselves and gave birth to “Conceptual Art.” During early Conceptual Art shows, the subject became strictly words. Some just typed their stuff while others used tape players for their exhibitions, letting these do the yacking for them.
At a Conceptual Art show, the gallery an empty-walled showroom was inhabited by large oblong tables topped with loose leaf binders for perusal. This trend didn't last that long because neither the gallery nor the artist could glean much of a reward for that. Things couldn't get much purer than this short stint into formal Babble-ism. The Conceptual Artist of this sort now reached the farthest end of the Avant-garde. The purity pendulum just had to evolve into a more profitable brand of nothingness.

I hope the spelling error didn't make it into the book. Self-published , I assume?

Heather wrote: "Question: Would this be considered a 'Movement' in art? What do you think about it?"

I wouldn't think so. As Philip explained so well, this doesn't fit the definition of a movement. Leaving aside the problematic definition of "abstract," the computer is no more than a tool. You can make almost any kind of art with it, even sculpture if you have a 3D printer.