So at this point in 2023, it is fairly well accepted that digital art is in fact art. This article brings up a few arguments about why skeptics think it isn't art, while providing reason to discount these arguments. I'll be giving my thoughts on each argument.
The first argument is that digital art is not done by hand. I would disagree with this because most art isn't truly done by hand; the artist usually has many tools to help them along the process. Painters have brushes, sculpters have chissels, and digital artists have computers. I see that this isn't a 100% fair comparison, but they are both tools.
The second argument is that digital art can be copied, preventing authenticity. The article then talks about how NFTs have solved this issue, but even without NFTs, people have been copying art since the beginning of art, so there's nothing new there.
The third argument is that digital art can be made by anyone with a computer, which means it is not fine art, and rather just a silly little thing anyone can do, devaluing the art. The article goes onto say that digital art still uses the same principles as traditional art forms like color theory and that digital art takes a lot of time, creativity, and practice. I disagree with both of these claims. I do think anyone can make digitally art no matter their background in the art world, skills, or knowledge. But just because anyone can make digital art doesn't mean it isn't art. I don't think anyone needs to be a master of their craft to produce any kind of art. I realize that this is bleeding into the discussion of what art is in the first place, but my argument still applies. I'm not entirely sure what art is, but I think it can be easy.