Conflict Amongst Colleagues: Traditional Facing Digital

I find myself subconsciously categorizing artists and their work as our local art scene becomes more and more saturated. In regards to the visual form, what is art? And what is required to be deemed "good" in one particular medium? On the internet, we sometimes see instances where traditional artists subliminally express their aversion towards digital artists. 

Some traditional artists feel, with programs such as Illustrator, you don't have to use your hands as much as a painter or sculptor. There are tools allowing you to trace images & create with, what seems, little to no "real" effort. One could argue the standards of artistic accreditation have been lowered over time with none other to blame than the good ol' Internet.

We live in a world driven by technology, comfort, and convenience. Viewers can appreciate graphic art on their electronic devices in a way which can't be done for paintings and sculptures. In the same way an audience can appreciate a painting in real life but remain unimpressed by the digital print of a graphic design.

Although being able to observe art via phone is cool and convenient, it strips us of the motivation to go out and expand our horizons. We've become so accustomed to absorbing media content through our electronics and are less inclined to get up, view, and invest in larger, more awe inspiring work. Thus hindering the growth of the traditional artist. 

Be that as it may, art is an expression, of which can only be judged subjectively and, naturally, we as people cannot place objective parameters around human creativity; the vast dreamland is the imagination.