These days I often see works of art described as "paintings" which turn out to be entirely digital (created using Adobe Photoshop, say). Doubtless these works require great skill, but I suspect that it is still generally easier to create an image with the aid of a computer than by traditional means. Does that matter to our assessment of such works as art? How far can we push this? Imagine that in the future there is a machine that is able to read your mind and render with perfect accuracy images from your imagination. Could those rendered images be art in the same way as a painting by Picasso? In other words, is it essential to art that the artist require some skill or technique or labor to realize their idea? Or is the idea alone enough?

Read another response about Art