Results 118 to 130 of 186
Thread: Digital Art frowned upon??
March 29th, 2012 #118
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMarch 29th, 2012 #119Originally Posted by Birkeley
Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.
March 29th, 2012 #120
March 29th, 2012 #121
March 29th, 2012 #122
Painting can only be learned with paint. Digital image making isn't painting. In a place called conceptart.org I expect that the majority of people here are interested in a "character" design more than in the way it's painted, the look and characteristics of the depicted things and how they fit within their game world more than the media in which they are depicted. "Digital painting" isn't easier than actual painting because it doesn't exist, and design doesn't change regardless of whether you do it in real media or on a computer. Making a digital image simulate an actual painting is actually harder than making the painting for real because all the accidents that happen in reality don't happen automatically on a computer, they have to be designed. The reality is that the best painters don't make the best designers, and annoyance comes from designers being told that they have to be painters first.
The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:
March 29th, 2012 #123
March 29th, 2012 #124
Then again if it has to be the object that moves, the Motion computing LE1700 also does this physically, not just a cintiq. (Tablet PC)
March 30th, 2012 #125
All concept artists are painters.
All painters are concept artists.
Each artist-type has a primary set of skills that they need to learn. It makes more sense to spend the most time on the most relevant information. For example dpaint brought up perspective, I think it's better to learn perspective with sketchup, the effect is like tetris where the game continues to play in your mind even after you put it down, you wind up doing way more geometrical manipulations than you could on paper.
Another thing I felt like bringing up is the overratedness of the materiality of paint. Paint is basically dirt. If you see a wet paint sign you don't run over to the wall in the hopes of smearing your shirt to raise it's value. The value in paint doesn't come automatically in it's physical existence but in the way it's used. From the point of view of a designer the most important thing about making an image is that it should look interesting. No one watches a blank screen, it takes a skilled designer to get people to look at what's showing on it.
March 30th, 2012 #126
Sure - totally agree there, with the slight exception that we are talking about the material nature of paint...at least as opposed to the virtual nature of pixels.
On the designer point...that was a little why I was confused...I don't think anyone is saying a designer or concept person needs to be a painter...or vice-versa. Where I think those of us engaged in both both get annoyed, and try to make some distinction, is when the designer also wants to be considered a painter...not the other way around.
The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:
March 30th, 2012 #127
March 30th, 2012 #128
You're saying a lot of things:
"Go outside and paint somethig from life; that is what your ability as a painter is, with out a computer and undue and all the littlre shortcuts. Using a computer is easier and takes less skill. I should know I do both and have been using computers to draw with since the late 80's. I also paint from life traditionally. Its not respected because it hasn't earned the respect traditional painting has and ther is no physical original something digital will have a hard time overcoming to be taken seriously."
Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
March 30th, 2012 #129
But making that statement about the materiality of paint with your experience actually stuns me. Materiality only begins with material. The end product introduces to levels of sensory perception that a digital print can't. I am a surface junkie. And you well know that something can be painted with no discernible brushstrokes and still have a quality of surface that makes you want to bite or lick it. Have never gotten that with print on image on the screen. Am I misunderstanding you?
The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:
March 30th, 2012 #130
You also don't have to go outside to paint from life.
I've also mentioned many times that my experience with digital, even in the fine art gallery realm, has been positive and has never been frowned upon. But I'm not trying to say it's painting.
On the "tradition" thing...absolutely not saying it isn't respected because it doesn't have tradition behind it...in fact I'm not even saying it isn't respected...just not as painting. And no one has made the case that it is the same as painting...just a lot of wishing.
Again, the synthesizer guys aren't respected as violin players...not because they don't understand music...but because they aren't playing a violin. You'll never hear them bitch about it because they go "Fuck yeah... listen to this stuff I can do...".
All I'm saying is they're different and trying to make them the same is absurd.