Pick one! If you picked other, tell us what it is.
Exactly why/what/who would ever make it necessary for me to choose only one medium? I can't even conceive of it happening...
To answer your question anyway, it would have to be acrylic. It's the only medium that allows me to "draw" (due to fast drying), use color as either glazes or opaques, on any surface, make some form of prints, and allow me to create sculptural forms (only medium that can be used on both solid and flexible sculpted forms, to create three-dimensional forms using it as both adhesive and color/texture). There is no second place...
Sumi? isn't that ink and watercolours?
For me, anything liquid that is manipulated with a brush.
Hard one, but had to go with good ol' graphite.
Digital because it can imitate the rest, its the fastest, cleanest, easiest, manipulative-st, I've never heard of a pen that can re-size warp erase paint blur colour balance your paintings for you, well except wacom's.
What else can digital do?
the joy of working with traditional mediums... or the convenience of digital? I voted digital mainly because I want to do this for a living, but I wouldn't like to be in such place, its great to experiment with paints, brushes, markers, etc.
"To answer your question anyway, it would have to be acrylic. It's the only medium that allows me to "draw" (due to fast drying), use color as either glazes or opaques, on any surface, make some form of prints, and allow me to create sculptural forms (only ..."
"A cintiq(for the hand eye co-ordination bit) and photoshop, gimp, artrage, painter, sai, can alldo that too,"
...so, basically, you're screwed if you consider "...and allow me to create sculptural forms (only medium that can be used on both solid and flexible sculpted forms, to create three-dimensional forms using it as both adhesive and color/texture)...." is important to you.
Has to be digital for me. Nothing else offers as many options. With technology constantly improving, it just gets better and better at coming close to the look of traditional media.
Discounting digital, it would go to pencil then oil paint.
You can’t make me choose; I keep looking at the choice and remembering a nice piece I did in most of the mediums given. I might disregard a few as I’ve never worked in gouache or tempera, but given a chance before I pop my clogs I might well do. Whatever is in my hand for now will do.
I voted acrylic and Ilaekae has summed up the reasons beautifully.
Digital can certainly ape all the other mediums and is the supreme collaging tool. However, it has one huge drawback: The relationship to what you are doing on it is by proxy and the printed result is by proxy also. To put it another way, there is no metaphoric meaning in the relationship to your tools.
When painting you are arranging coloured mud in such a way that the surface throws back the light in a particular configuration - by putting the paint in certain places I have the physical sensation of 'sculpting in light'. I have my hands quite literally 'on' the light itself as I carve a particular patch of colour thereby controlling how much of that particular wavelength is being bounced off the support. The finished work is thus a sort of light distorter fashioned by my own hands.
With the computer I am pushing arround pixels on the other side of a goldfish bowl. I have no visceral contact. And when I print it out I only have an ink jet version of something I was arranging on a screen.
I certainly use the computer to make images with, but it is for convenience. For communion I need the actual contact of real coloured substance lying on a cool, hard, white surface and that will throw back the sunshine in the way I have specified long after I'm gone.
From Gegarin's point of view
I voted ink, mainly because it is a great drawing medium and I'm quite familiar with it. Though if I were more familiar with acrylic then I'd likely lean that way for the reasons both Chris Bennett and Ilaekae outlined.
-My work can be found at my local directory thread.
Although it's nice to have your artwork be an actual physical thing, being that art is foremost an attempt to communicate, it strikes me as somehow appropriate to reduce it to raw information, freely available in it's intended form to anyone (barring weird monitor settings).
Also, I think it was mentioned that digital is the only medium that will actually change/improve with time, so I think that's the least restrictive choice.
You'd be a bit limited with colour, but the gross-out value would totally make up for that.
I choose digital. It's beacause I would have oil, acrylic, watercolor, gouache, oil pastel, chalk pastel, conté, tempera, ink, graphite, charcoal, marker, sumi and many other mediums in one. Nintendo DS or some other gadget would solve the portability problem.
I do miss the tactile feel of painting with actual paint, but then again when I use real paint I miss a LOT of the things I do with digital (layers, being able to zoom in and out, flipping the image, undo, erasing, etc). I can give up that tactile feel if I'm gaining all of the other advantages digital has to offer.
it's more matter of technique and current trend, that is blurring that edge between digital and traditional
because seriously, I find photoshop 7 much more useful than all the versions after (as a solely digital painter's tool)- you have all the necessary tools in 50 mb of disk space, and it doesn't need amazing 4+ gb machine to work with.
same with painter - the only reason why I do use X is that new brush cursor, as it's giving more natural and comfortable look.
with 6 you have pretty much the same
and you're absolutely right about the tactile feeling.
Developed Actively by vBSocial.com