The thing that remains a question mark to me is, how surprisingly (instinctively) closed my brain remains to less-adept digital art relative to the greater ease I experience when teaching myself to tolerate less-adept traditional-media art.
For instance, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone when I say that Major Tom's tarot deck, Shining Tribe tarot deck, and, let's say, the Granny Jones Tarot (all published in modern times, over the last 20 years) are not very 'polished' pieces of art. Yet, I don't feel the same instinctive dissonance with them as I do with the "less polished" digital art of the Witches' Tarot, Wizards' Tarot, and Steampunk tarots. I am able to even use such decks with fondness, knowing that they are not 'well-drawn' but not feeling instinctively put off by them.
I can only wonder if it has something to do with that "Uncanny Valley" theory--and that *is* something unique to digital art, because, at least for the sort of digital art used in tarot decks and book covers, it comes closer to human representation/photo-realism than the aforementioned crudely-painted tarot art.
Perhaps this is the unique burden of digital artists when compared to artists working in traditional media: that, by their medium's very capacity for "realism" (there's that word again), digital artists' "bad art" alienates people more consistently and instinctively than the 'bad art" of their traditional-media counterparts.
Anyway, thanks for engaging with us on this issue, Ciro. By the way, are you the artist behind the three examples you posted?