I have tried using digital art with Photoshop, paint or paint tool sai programs you can download from the internet. I have always had problems using those things and the ending result looks like crap. It is easier to edit and change things around with traditional pencil charcoal or paint mainly watercolors but i feel it is more fun to touch the pencil or charcoal and to know that you're doing it with your own hands, not a mouse or electronic pen.
"Hey, check out my latest masterpiece... Sorry, my computer is being slow." The primary problem with digital art - no original; unless you consider a software file an original. Maybe once the digital art is first printed and signed by the artist you could call that "the original." But it doesn't feel very original, does it? Another issue with digital art is the amount of skill actually being used. Of course, one could create a beautiful image with a tablet starting with a blank screen using tremendous grace and skill, but one could also start with a photograph and basically trace over it with a stylus and pass it off as something that sprung from the imagination. How would the viewer know? To be fair on that point however, at some time in the late 1400's artists began to "cheat" in a similar fashion by using concave mirrors to reflect an image from one room into another and onto a canvas whereby the artist could trace the scene, get the proportions and otherwise impossible spatial relationships fixed in place. I suppose the question is, 'what's the purest form of art?' Is it an image derived strictly from the artist's imagination and reproduced in stone or on canvas? Is it a scene that is produced by nature and then replicated? Is such a scene degraded when it is photographed and then replicated from the photo? Is that image further degraded if it is loaded into Photoshop or Illustrator and then tinkered with? I'd have to say it all comes down to the overall impact the image has on the viewer and how much of said impact can be attributed to the artist's imagination and cleverness. However, when a striking or thought provoking image is rendered in physical form using physical materials, you can feel the impact even more. You have a sense of what the artist had to do to create the image. And most of all, you have the one, the only, the original.
I feel as if the human aspect is lost in digital art. Shure, you can make highly emotional pictures digitally, but that is not what I mean. The small flaws, the brush/pencil strokes, the technique witnessed by viewing a piece closely, the individuality, all of this is lost with digital art.
On a more personal note, I find the act of drawing much more calming than producing pictures via photoshop or a similar program. Physically being in touch with the piece matters to many artists.
For hundreds of years private homes have been decorated entirely with traditional media, whether they be pictures, mosaics, sculptures, or music. But i'll focus on pictures. We all know huge enterprises, corporations, and cartels, prefer digital images for being cheaper to produce, and thus useful for advertisement. But their major shortcomings are when stored; they can be corrupted by outside, invisible forces, and can be copied with ease, drastically reducing their value. There was even a short by Eric Schwartz about it. I have even been told one can "get lost" in traditionally-drawn scenes better.
Digital is better then traditional art in many ways. There is a lot more that you can do with digital art and there is more access to it for more individuals to express themselves. Digital art is also available to be viewed everywhere and can not be lost unlike traditional art.