WACOM, Real ART??

[RETEP]

i was talknig to my art teacher the other day when we got on the subject of wacom tablets. I was very interested in getting one of them, after seeing what they can do through this forum. but she was not interested, she told me she did not look at it as REAL art, cause she could not touch it or feel it, it just wan't the same to her. she sayed it was a tool, but not an art tool. and said its not REAL art.
-i was just wondering about wha your opinions on this subject????

[dfacto]

:bs:

I'm sure that upon closer inspection your teacher will turn out to be a crock of shit disguised as a human.

OK, thats too harsh, she is a purist, and she is entitled to her opinion, but if you tell me that what the guys on this forum turn out isn't art, you are loony.:crosseyed:

Oh yeah, there's a post on this page about whether digital art is real. You should read that.

[otis]

I don't think she has ever used one, and probably doesn't even know how to paint digitaly..thus she is AFRAID of what she does not understand. It is a tool, but so is a brush, palet knife,..etc.

I sell digital paintings on giclee prints all the time. In fact most illustrators and fine artists are using these tools.

But, you will always have people who want "originals" and in that case, a good ol' canvas and paint would suffice.

Digital painting is a great way to figure out you colors and composition, and then paint it on canvas later. Your creative process is not hindered with cleaning brushes, waiting for paint to dry, or ever running out of paint!!!

[Neil]

Sounds like your teacher isnt a REAL art teacher. Print something out for her and tell her to touch it.

[STiCKy]

i think otis hit it on the head with the fear thing, most people just shun that which they havent done.

you can print a photograph and its considiered art, but its not art if you print a digital painting on that same piece of material that the photograph was printed on? i dont buy it.

slap that teacher

[endregan]

i did a seminar on this topic. Perhaps you would like to read it ?

Email me if interested :)

[st_sleek]

I think you're teacher is an arrogant "artsie-fartsie"... am I right? They tend to put down anything that's not in a gallery, or museum. ... stuff like comic art, graffiti, and digital works, just to name a few...

... and yet these are the people who would buy a signature on a canvas for $1200. ... or think that a painted urinal is "art".

... i hate those kinds of people, just as much as I hate arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like michael moore.

[jrr]

wannaabee.

[AnarchyAo2]

I think that urinals are a piece of art. its an ingenius idea! Peeing on the wall! You can't tell me that peeing on the wall is less fun then peeing in the toilet. Though peeing in the snow is more fun. You can make pictures. Peeing + drawing = fun

[JoshuaTheJames]

Is it fun? Do you have fun when you do it? Can you do digital and traditional art?...Yes!

What else matters.

I have tons of fun with my wacom , I also go through mounds of sketchbooks and I also have large oil paint/canvas's around my place.

I definitely don't want all my work to be in the computer when I die. That's why I'm so in love with the Golden Age Illustrators. Check This Link. http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=19

Art is dope in general. There is no need to limit yourself to one medium.

-Joshua




...I also do my Colour Studies for my large oil paintings on the computer. It's fun, quick and efficient.

[AnarchyAo2]

You just need to take a wacom and kick it up his ass. Then ask him if its real.

[al-x]

WARNING!!!
Written when I was very drunk!


Hey... Micheal Moore actually has a point with his movies, and they're pretty good.

...But yeah, there is a lot of hypocrites. They will always be there, the people who doesn't look to the future, just to the past. But thats the nature of the human being.

In some levels artists are more than the ordinary human, and tend to see over barriers created by the mind. Someone who can't see over these barriers just don't see the future. There is stuff that should be taken more seriously than digital art, that the plain human don't seem to understand (or lack the knowledge about), but it is a pretty good example. Just because it doesn't exist in an analog world it doesn't exist. Thats just a stupid thought!

Just because you can touch an oilpainting does it make more real than a digital painting? I don't think so. There's really no diffrence between an oilpainting or a digitalpainting. As soon you see that there's actually no really diffrence between the digital world or the analog world you will understand that. In a near future we will be able to recreate a Mona lisa as easily as we copy a digital painting. It is just that the digital science has gone much further than the analog. The only reason that it is so is because you can apply all analog science to the digital world and progress beyond that, without the limitations of the mind.

But what it comes down to is that a digital painting is as real as an analog one, the only thing that makes one seem more real than the other is our mind. (And the only reason to ever think of what the mind says, is when you're trying to make some cash on a painting...)

urk... I know, when I'm drunk I'm pretty cheesy, please forgive me...:beer:

[Locrian]

so i guess music isnt art either then huh? your teacher needs to open her mind a bit.

[Sinix]

Yea, Michael Moore annoys me too.... well, he used to be an alright guy, back when he was more of a consumer watch dog. He kinda went loony somewhere along the line. Anyway... I'll stay on topic. In my opinion, the best way I could describe how I see digital v. analog art is by comparing it to electric and acoustic guitars. You can create alot more interesting effects with an electric guitar, but the sound you hear is digital and processed... it lacks the warmth and living nature you get from playing or being around an acoustic. Obviously, they're both appreciated tho.

[AnarchyAo2]

I guess what you guys are writing isn't real either. Ooo, paradox, eh? .....Sorta

[davi]

Well, Ok i'll finally give my side to this debate.

i'd have to say 95% of people who see art in westernized culture view it in magazines, books, posters, internet and other various places.

Now your teacher says it's not art because you can't touch it. When you open a magazine and you see a painting... you can touch that exactly the same way you can touch your computer screen. Besides the visual aspect of the piece of art what needs to be felt?

I completely understand Sculpture vs 3D Modelling. There's alot that can be experienced by seeing something like that in reality.

I think it's all complete hogwash. Paint on whatever media you choice. There will always be dingleberries out there who don't accept certain things.

Shit painting in generally was looked down upon once, painters had to pretend they were doing mathematicial studies or would be jailed.

[Erik]

3000 years ago she would have been just as afraid of paper and a brush...

[REAU]

I really hope no one is getting to bent out of shape about these arguments on digital art. There is no reason at all to get mad if someone does not understand or believe that digital art is real art. Just like in the other "stupid" thread about this topic "lol", you can't take this too seriously if they don't understand educate them. If they don't believe feel sorry for them because they are the ones that are missing out on something special. And I hope more people can tell the difference between an intelligent conversation about the nature of reality and one about a "stupid" art teacher. Calm down guys its all a game.

[Travis_Bourbeau]

There is a inscription in egypt on one of the tombs that reads the true mesure of art can never be obtained


I love this sain and have to say it to myslelf sometimes , recently i was reading the international artist magazine where they had 4 pages on artist using gunpowder trhowing in on the wall and ligthing it the mark it made on the wall was there art i remember thinking how the hell could these guys get respect and digital artist get snubbed i had to catch myself and remember that no matter what the tool or what someone elses opinion is art can simply be the creativity or toltal lack of creativity put into a project that an Aritst works on


anyway just bring in a few works by mullins or one of andrew jones portraits and tell her those guys are plumbers and you refered them to your school to teach art becasue aparently digitlal requires no talent ;)


that does iratate when people say retarded shit like that how can you ignore the fundemetals an artist uses like compostion value depth etc its like seeing somone at a muesem looking at work on a monitor and saying WOW that is the best composition or use of values etc ive ever seen to bad its not on a piece of canvas i can touch to make it art

[malicious]

art is art, regardless of the medium. quoteth the russian guy on armageddon, 'american parts, russian parts, all made in taiwan!'. same deal. oils? digital? all comes from the same place. head, heart, whatever. art is art, as long as it was created as art to be appreciated as art.

[dfacto]

malicious wins.

[mtw]

Originally posted by davi
Shit painting in generally was looked down upon once, painters had to pretend they were doing mathematicial studies or would be jailed.
When was this? I certainly don't have a thorough knowledge of art history, but I know people have been painting since cavemen times. The only time period I'm not familiar with is after the collapse of Rome till the beginning of early or middle ages. And of course cultures outside of Europe.

[Devilock138]

There are too many definitions of art and artist. An artist has to have skill. An artist has to have imagination.

I know a guy who can look at something and draw it so precise you'd think it was a tracing or a photcopy. I mean to say; its uncanny the way he can do it. But... he can't think of a single thing to draw. He has no imagination.

An artist needs Imagnation.

An artist needs Talent.

An artist needs Drive.

Without drive an artist is just a doodler. Without imagination an artist is just a copier. Without talent an Artist is just a wisher. How does this have a point in regards to a Wacom? If you have talent, Imagination and drive, what difference does it make what medium you use? Some people are reluctant to use new ways.

I never resent people who feel this way. I accept it. I get it 50/50 from artists. For some, their rabid obsession is part of the way they are. For others change and experimentation is the way they are. Sometimes a reluctance to change is out of fear, sometimes its simply this: a lack of knowledge and experience. Sometimes they *just don't like it*.

This is why I hate abstract art. Oh, I LOVE surreal art... but I HATE abstract. Abstract is an 'artist' with lazy skill and a bad imagination. Spattering red paint on the canvas and making an ink sketching of a guy tied to a chair is not art. Its lazy. A bunch of symmetrical lines going into an almost infinite square? What a crock. I go over blue-prints of 5 million dollar homes that have cathedral cielings and *docks* attached to the rear of the house; wich is elevated above the boat house. That is art. To me, Hot Rodding is art. Its a person with skill and emotion; their canvas just happens to be a 1932 Bugatti or a 1932 Duece Coupe. But abstract artist have nothing. Just a mess and a canvas and a paycheck. 'Passion' is not art.

Digital art is real art. I'm new to it, I'm learning it and hell if its easy. I mean fucking HELL if its easy. Its harder, to me at least, then oils. I started pastels, acrylics and oils when I was about 17 and I just took to 'em. But dammit, digital art is a pain in the ass for me, but I'm intent on making it work for me.

Art:

A well constructed idea from the imagination conveyed either visually or audibly.

Artist:

A poorly constructed human who tries to translate imagination either visually or audibly; either easily or through struggle, but always with skill.

And maybe that's just me. That's definately my opinion though.

[AnarchyAo2]

Are you talking about a certain type of painting? Because, painters were very valuable in history. They had no cameras so painters were the best thing they had. Plus, they provided biblical records without writing, because many people couldn't read back then and told stories by looking at the paintings (same goes for stained glasses in churches).

[Devilock138]

Originally posted by mtw

When was this? I certainly don't have a thorough knowledge of art history, but I know people have been painting since cavemen times.

Just like the Victorian painters who could only paint church-approved pictures. Instead of never painting they just stuck a halo over everyone's head.

[mtw]

Originally posted by Devilock138
This is why I hate abstract art. Oh, I LOVE surreal art... but I HATE abstract. Abstract is an 'artist' with lazy skill and a bad imagination.
That's not being much different from the art teacher being talked about.

[flavorite]

even abstract art is art just like rap is music. i dont like either one, but just because it's bad art in my opinion, that doesnt change the fact that it is art, and even good art to someone else.

digital art is just as real as painted art. when we look at either one, the only thing we actually see is light (the light bouncing off the object and entering our eyes in different colors). the light off of a digital painting is the same kind of light that comes off of "real-life" painting, so the image is just as real. if she wants to touch and feel the art, maybe she should look into sculpting, because obviously visual art is something she knows nothing about.

i've known some stupid art teachers, but man, if i were you i would hate that teacher....

[davi]

Originally posted by mtw

When was this? I certainly don't have a thorough knowledge of art history, but I know people have been painting since cavemen times. The only time period I'm not familiar with is after the collapse of Rome till the beginning of early or middle ages. And of course cultures outside of Europe.



i'm too lazy to dig through my closet to get to my art history book :(

[mtw]

Originally posted by davi
i'm too lazy to dig through my closet to get to my art history book :(
At least you still have yours. :(

[Marie]

I think what is the most disturbing about this, is simply that a " teacher " said this. Someone responsible for teaching us, and for being a part of sculpting the worlds future... :(

I'm sure most of us know better, it just disturbs me sometimes to hear about how some teachers take advantage of their positions to press their obvious opinions on their students as facts. They should know better.

--marie--

[DanSTC]

By your teacher's definition, animation could not be considered "art" since it is essentially intangible in that it is based upon simulated motion that is recorded. In fact, cinema couldn't even be considered art by your teacher's tactile trappings.

Art is art by any other name, regardless of the tools being used. The WACOM tablet is just another tool, like a brush, putty knife, etc. True, it's a different medium, but the basic rules are still the same.

As for me, I love almost all art, even a lot of "bad" art...however, I especially love good art, or art that's so un/intentionally bad that is somehow manages to be good in spite of itself. Anything from abstract to represenational, you name it, I adore it to some degree or another. The same holds true with me across any sort of medium, be it music, comics, cinema, television, literature, etc. etc. etc.
What I don't understand are closed-minded troglodytes who shut themselves out from even *attempting* to appreciate or understand different mediums, genres, styles, etc. It's why I dislike the closed-minded opinions of people like the instructor being described in this thread, as well as the art renewal center boobs who put down abstract art, and the abstract freaks who put down all manner of representational art.
Throughout history, it seems like there's almost always two "sides" of idiots pretending to be polar opposites of one another (but are really the same sort of idiot, just for different reasons) that are locked in a death-struggle...Each one pretending there's no middle ground, while the people like me who genuinely appreciate all of it are caught in the middle or shoved aside as they force their personal agendas down everyone's throats.

[N D Hill]

Sounds to me that she's still in the stoneage. So called purests who believe "real art" can only be found in museums are obsolete and hinder artistic expression more than aid it. Look at all the greats like Michelangelo, Leonardo and the other ninja-turtles (sorry), they all did commissions for money wether it was pope Julius the second or for some banker as the Mona Lisa was for. If she wants to go ahead and fool herself into believing that there's a devine purpose that only artists can grasp, therefore art is only for artists, then she's dead wrong. Art should appeal to the masses in one way or another and it should be accessable. Television, film, even video games are the new form of mass media and reach incredable ammounts of people. They represent an excellent conduit for artistic expression despite those who refuse to acknowledge it. Digital art shouldn't even come into question by my opinion! If you're really devoted to what you're doing and have the proper discapline than you can "feel" it as you could with any other medium. Defining art as something you can physically fondle is just plain idiotic and backwards.

In the end though, that's her problem. One other aspects of artists is that they don't let people hold them back from their passion. If she tells you not to do something because it doesn't fit within the parameters for her ispecific definition of art, you still have every right to explore it and take it where you can. In fact, you're a better artist for doing so.

[Ni*]

ok, 2 points;

1, i think there may well have been a missunderstanding here or just bad communication on the teachers part. after all, teachers are really bad for under estimating the intelligence of thier pupils and this can lead to them saying a statement where they actually intended to give an idea.

what i mean is, if you sat this woman (or man) down in from of the 'best of CA' forum here, i am sure (s)he would not poo poo each piece of art. I have a feeling she was trying to get across the idea that skill is required for any art, and an immediate jump to digital can, sometimes, be a hindrance because it is easy to play about rather than putting in proper practice. the teacher may have just become so used to being the fountain of knowledge that they cannot easily engage in a discussion with a pupil, it happens...

and 2. i think people like this are essential, it certainly makes me want to do better work digitally, to the point where no one can look at it and claim that it isn't art. To these nay sayers and purists, i say 'thank you!'


ok i'm off to curse painter some more for crashing and eating 40 minutes of work.... (dont anyone dare tell me i should have saved it!! :-p )

N

[Tully]

Originally posted by AnarchyAo2
I think that urinals are a piece of art.

Marcell Duchamp (http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/recent_acquisitions/ma_coll_duchamp.html) would agree with you!

Yeah, your teacher doesn't know what she's talking about. I've shown my digital art to most of my studio profs and they really seem interested. None have scoffed, looked down their noses... and all of them are professors secondary to being actual artists. My school is one of the best in the country for fine arts.

Whether it's true fine art is arguable, but anything deemed "fine art" is arguable. I've seen a pile of carpet samples in a gallery... In any case, it's a far more useful and marketable skill than a lot of other forms of art.

[Devilock138]

Originally posted by mtw

That's not being much different from the art teacher being talked about.

Except I didn't say it wasn't art. I think there is such thing as bad art - opinions not withstanding - plain and simple. A person who puts dedicated work into his profession is an artist. I do call bullshit on posers though. As far as I can tell, after having met/known people who love abstract art, its just a matter of nuevo trend hipness they try and pass off. Oh, sure, its art. But it ain't good art.

[dfacto]

Actually it is there Mike. But not unless your computer is working properly. Ehem.

[Wacom Knight]

I just had to jump in to defend this since I do use the handle Wacom Knight (kinda like a Jedi Knight, but I don't have Light saber pen). Every one pretty much said what needed to be said it seems already.

Basically, art is most anything created with intention that is appreciated by any of the 5 senses, and it only takes one person of appreciation to witness another artists interpretation of what art is to him or her as specified by thier chosen discipline (ie, illustration, abstract, design, 3D, sculpture, welding, native art etc....)

It all falls back into the lap of "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" there can never be any guage for that. Also, if you make a living at what you do, someone out there must think you do good art to pay for it.

[AnarchyAo2]

There is no real definition of art. You can't really describe it accurately. Its like trying to describe what water tastes like. You can put sugar in it, then say it tastes sugar-y. Just like you can have Conceptual Art. The art of making concepts. Heh, sorry if it doesn't make any sense, but I makes sense to me. Maybe I'm just retarded. :ep:

[JoshuaTheJames]

I made art in my toilet...

End of Thread.

[RETEP]

whoa, alot of replies.
its good to here other people think the same way i do, its amazing its like some of you took the words out of my mouth, exactly what i was thinking. i know my teacher has some screwed up way of thinking, but she still is a good teaher and i have learned alot in her class. i am very interested in what everyone thought.

ni*, danSTC, devilock138, cerreto, davi- great points, i loved reading your posts

thanks everyone for replying

-cant wait to get my own WACOM tablet!!!

[The TODDLER]

Wow some of you guys need to write a book.
Im sure the same topic has been disscused since the Neolithic painters criticized each others work.

Those are my humble words.

[Chermilla]

I have just purchased a A4 tablet and I was really excited about it arriving, and then when it did i was like, "what now?" I have photoshop but when I tried it out it was harder to use than i thought. I think scanning in paintings and drawings and then going from there is probably a good idea. I want to get corel painter 8 but its waaaaay to expensive for me to afford!! Oh well.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, I think it IS ART. Its just like another mediium thats all, like oils, pencil, pen and then- tablet. Its bloody hard to master so in that respect it must be art of some sort, just as all things are hard to master perfectly....practice, practice, practice!

:D

[Ni*]

chermilla, I was the same when i got a tablet for the first time, it really made it clear that loads of drawing practice was required... as well as practicing with the tablet.

i'd reccomend painter classic that comes with wacoms, it has an irritating habit of crashing without warning but it is a much more natural feeling piece of software. I've used photoshop for editing and some presentation stuff for years, but drawing with it takes me forever. one tip is, sketch on a layer, refine one one above that then colour or paint on another layer. and use as big a brush as possible with 100% opacity, then drop opacity for blanding tones... it sometimes works for me :-p

to return to topic a little, i think all art has a degree of science to it, or theory (like custructing a human figure out of basic shapes to understand perspective) and once the theory part is second nature, then the person can create art. Basically, you can teach anyone to imitate but the art is the innovation beyond that.

just a thought

N

[blankslatejoe]

Originally posted by mtw

When was this? I certainly don't have a thorough knowledge of art history, but I know people have been painting since cavemen times. The only time period I'm not familiar with is after the collapse of Rome till the beginning of early or middle ages. And of course cultures outside of Europe.

That, I believe is exactly when it was. from like 500-1200 artists were searching for divine porportion in composition and body language.
I took a course on geometry in art, and was shocked to see how many painting in the dark ages relied on math-y theories (the division of four elements, humors, and quadrants of life, isometry, triangles w/ circumscribed circles, "perfect numbers and patterns" and over everything else; the vesicapisces; that vaginal shape that was often seen behind Jesus and other religous figures.)

And this doesn't even begin to touch upon perspective, the golden rectangle/porpotion and the more credible mathematics applied to art during the rennasaince.

Math in art is actually a lot of fun; I wish there were some good books on it.

[blankslatejoe]

Originally posted by Tully
[B]

Marcell Duchamp (http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/recent_acquisitions/ma_coll_duchamp.html) would agree with you!



I always thought Duchamp and the other dadists were trying to create ANTI art, that is, something that undeniable COULDNT be called art so that everyone who tried to explain the piece in the context that it WAS art would just be making a fool of themselves.
And now they're int he art history books because anti-art is an established art form because it comments on contemporary art. weird.

[Sammy]

then, by your teachers defenition the only real artists were early man.

Crushing their beattles and berries from the wild and painting with seashells and not manufacutured tools.

but wait... they used tools as well....

I guess to her there's no such thing as an artist.