Traditional vs. Digital: the question of necessity

[Serra]

Hey there folks!

So... I would like your opinions. I work with traditional media as opposed to digitally (though to be fair digital is becoming traditional!). I am quite happy this way, but my fellow art students recently have started nagging me to take digital art classes because it's (in their opinions) absolutely necessary. I feel that for what I want to do (book illustration, some gallery work... minor art jobs actually, I don't mind being a waitress too!) that it is ok for me to stick to what I love.

I'm not looking for validation so feel free to disagree! I just wanted more opinions on the matter to see if I am maybe hindering myself by being stubborn.
Thanks!
Serra

[archipelago]

well it couldnt hurt could it? :P

[FlameDragon]

For a long time, I was never a fan of digital art. I felt that it was more impressive to create works with pencil/paintbrush and paper than on the computer, especially since it had a more natural feel. But lately, I've grown to like digital works especially after seeing such works on here. In some instances I am liking it more since you can see alot of cool things done with it. Plus, nowadays it seems that digital art is in higher demand than before (like you said). So I say go for it!

[Arshes Nei]

Learning more ways to produce art is always a good thing.

[otis]

First, nobody's opinion matters more than yours. But if you ever plan on producing alot of work in a timely fashion, or are paid to work as an employee...I'd recommend digital. Especially if every piece you create is no longer yours.

Don't let anyone convince you that "original" (vs digital) work is more valuable. Value is relative in everything.

[Ilaekae]

There are things that the most advanced digital artists are NEVER going to be able to do with a machine and apps, no matter how hard they try, that a "traditional" artist can do literally in seconds or minutes. There are also things that digital art can do in a few minutes that would take months to do, possibly with mediocre results, in traditional manner. If you think about this for a minute, you can find many examples that pop up and smack you right between the eyes. Mucha would have killed for a Mac G5 Quad and the Adobe package, but the drybrush textures of Siqueiros, Degas and Klee really don't yet have a digital equivalent, and neither does the pen work of Searle and Ben Shawn. And let's not even go to the area of Japanese Sumi brush work.

What I'm trying to point out is that each of these approaches compliment and support one another for the modern artist/illustrator. Learn what you can, and use it. Be aware of what you don't have access to and try to keep current with it. The fewer holes in your "education," the fewer mental "holes" in how you mentally approach a piece of art as a problem in search of a solution.

[subversive-imaginati]

There's nothing wrong with sticking to one or the other, but a minimal working knowledge of whichever one you do not consistently use will stand you in good stead in the long run should you find yourself needing to use both at any point.

That said, it is your decision. Ultimately if you want to stick to traditional then go ahead and stick to traditional. You don't have to learn digital working methods.

[Rabid]

I would do it purely based on the knowledge that once you take a couple courses you can form your own opinion on its necessity in your life and not based primarily on your friends ideas....

[ConCrete]

Digital is merely a another media of artwork. It is the same as chalk or airbrush. If you learn art fundamentals, you merely need to learn the technicals. In digital these can be extensive but thats all they are. I have found expanding into a new media results in an overall improvement of my artistic ability. If that applies to you, which may or may not be true, jump on in, you will not lose anything.

[kev ferrara]

Concrete, while digital is certainly an incredible resource for creating art, a case can be made that it isn't a medium at all. It is the illusion of a medium. Remember, there is no original. This must be taken into consideration.

There might come a happy day where we can paint with ultra-sophisticated nano-materials on paper or canvas where each stroke of the brush can be changed on command or undid and the entire work can be digitally sent somewhere and reconstructed note for nano note... but at the moment we are stuck straddling the real and the cyber worlds of art with no synthesis between them. There is either an end state to the work that is an original handcrafted work of art or there is not. (yes, earlier states may be works of original works of art in themselves, but you know what I mean)

kev

[Grief]

this newfangled photographie is going to make painting absolete.

[Chris Bennett]

Digital painting can be a bit like watching a televised version of something that your 'alter-ego' is doing with real paint in some other world. It's very tricky to try and use digital image making at 'face value' - ie. something that is made up of instructions to a computer monitor.
What digital imaging is extremely good at is collage and strangely enough the most 'painterly' results are achieved when thinking in layers.
However, here is something that would have been extremely difficult to do without Photoshop: It is an acrylic painting of mine combined with a photograph I took of my wife brought together to form a sort of dream composition involving a sort of 'cubisty' space - the cubists would have adored the digital revolution.
Like everyone has said here, get to know how to use it and add another string to your bow.
289308

[Chris Bennett]

Aaargh! this is the third time this has happened to me! Does anyone know why my image is appearing only as an attachment? I figured it was to do with the 'things behind the scenes' going on over the weekend, but it's still doing it.

[Serra]

Thank you all so much for your input! Your insights have really helped me out.
I have decided that it is worthwhile to learn the basics of Photoshop's tools and what they can do to enhance my creative process.

However, I am nervous about taking a class only because I do have quite limited knowledge of the program and the professor teaching it said he's not there to teach Photoshop but is there to give projects using it... plus he said the class is structured around his art style...students will learn to work like him. And the way he works, as well as the pieces he puts out, are impressive yet not at all what I am interested in producing. So I don't think that particular digital class is right for me.

...I downloaded some basic tutorials for coloring linework and whatnot since I think that would be the most useful thing for me. That way, even if I stick to traditional mediums, if I need to do a color comp or something I can whip it into the computer and crank one out. I think digital programs would help me with the planning of traditional pieces, or just be fun things to putz around with.

Anyway, this is the long-winded way of saying "thank you" for everyone's input! I am very appreciative!

--Serra