New Delhi: There’s never a shortage of people saying that digital culture is “killing” traditional art. Paintings, sketches, and handmade work that take time, effort, and skill are being overshadowed by filters, AI tools, and quick digital designs.
Today, art isn’t just about expression, but also about visibility. If something is not visually appealing or does not fit current trends, it gets ignored nine times out of 10.
However, I don’t think the main problem is that traditional art is disappearing. The real issue is that we are starting to value effort less.
As part of Generation Alpha, I can see this happening around me all the time. Most of us haven’t even set foot in museums or galleries. Instead, we see art through our phones or devices. We scroll through reels, Pinterest posts, and short YouTube videos as if it’s a contest.
Who’s more chronically online? Who responds the fastest? Who has a better homepage? We don’t really analyse art—we consume it in a matter of seconds. Because of this, we begin to think that “good art” is something that makes an impression instantly, rather than something that takes time to understand.
At the same time, digital culture has clearly changed what gets attention. Content that is fast and eye-catching spreads easily and quickly. A short video can reach thousands of people with just a click of a button, while detailed artwork might go unnoticed. Not just because the video is better, but because it fits how social media algorithms work.
Such platforms are designed to promote engagement so that these algorithms can push content that people click on and consume quickly.
A study by Microsoft in 2015 found that the average human attention span dropped to around eight seconds in a digital environment. Eight seconds. Such has been the damage caused by digital media. We have gone from standing in the same position for an hour just for a picture or a portrait, to just eight seconds of attention.
This explains why slower, more detailed art struggles to hold attention online.
Hybrid creativity
However, it would be unfair to say that digital culture is completely negative. Honestly, it has made art a lot more accessible. Anyone with a phone or an internet connection can share their work with people around the globe.
Students can also learn new techniques through online tutorials and videos, connect with others, and become more aware of what they are doing, which helps them improve their work. Digital tools have also introduced new forms of creativity, such as graphic design or digital illustration, each requiring its own skillset and understanding.
Personally, I am not against graphic design or digital art. I believe both require creativity, technical skill, and a strong visual sense.
However, the issue starts when speed and appearance become more important than actual effort and process. When everything is made to be quick and “aesthetic”, deeper and technical art forms start getting ignored or overlooked.
This shift also affects students directly. Instead of focusing on what they personally like, many start thinking about what others will like. There is constant pressure to make things “post-worthy”.
Even in school projects, students may choose ideas that will look good online instead of ones they actually care about. Over time, this reduces originality because people start following trends instead of experimenting.
Since we are used to fast content, we lose patience for art that takes time to understand, such as movements like surrealism or impressionism.
A detailed painting, a meaningful sketch, or even a well-written piece of music can feel “boring” simply because it does not give us instant results.
Another study from the University of California, Irvine, says that constant interaction with digital media makes it harder for us to focus on a single task, which, in turn, affects how we engage with art.
On the other hand, going digital has some positive effects, like hybrid creativity. Many artists now combine traditional and digital methods: for example, they sketch by hand and then edit digitally. This shows that traditional and digital art do not have to compete for first place, but can coexist.
One example is Kehinde Wiley, an American painter best known for his portraits of Black subjects against vibrant backgrounds, who uses digital photography and editing in his creative process. He plans poses and backgrounds online before turning them into large-scale hand-painted works.
So, back to the big question. Is digital culture replacing traditional art? Honestly, I don’t think so. Traditional art still exists; however, it is often overlooked. I believe the bigger problem is the growing focus on speed, validation, and instant results over effort and process.
Moving forward, I believe that balance is necessary. Schools should focus on the creative process instead of just the end result. Artists should share drafts, time-lapses, and works in progress to make their effort visible and encourage deeper appreciation. This helps us slow down, stimulates our brains, and makes us curious about the final product.
In the end, it is not just about choosing between digital and traditional art—it’s about making sure that we don’t lose the value of effort in between.
Sayuri Sharma is a student of Genesis Global School. Views are personal.