Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 118 to 130 of 186
  1. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art).
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).
    Probably. But then: reproduction and print. And what about scale? Try printing those Mucha paintings...or using a 3D printer to print a Frank Stella or a Richard Serra? Why not just paint...or sculpt?


    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another.
    I think you're confusing techniques with principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus.
    ...or a camera? A photo is the same thing as a painting? Neil Peart=drum machine? Same thing...music theory, composition, percussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium.
    Exactly...so...

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.
    Really? Make this case. Make it for color mixing...painting on location...using a brush with a 14" handle and making paint dance from the corner...or a palette knife scraping or applying paint at the touch and whim of the artist...

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.
    I have yet to see a digital artist who doesn't already have their chops down with traditional media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.
    Yep. Again, the thing is, they're just different...let each do what it does best. Trust me...I like my digital giclees just fine too...they're radically different from my oils...why I would want them to be a second rate facsimile of my oils I don't get.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Originally Posted by Birkeley
    Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.
    After all that's been said you can't seriously believe this?


  4. #120
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,983
    Thanks
    2,828
    Thanked 6,091 Times in 2,481 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Birkeley View Post
    I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art). Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).

    I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another. Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus. Now, I am an artist who started out with digital and transitioned to traditional materials (though I still use digital as well) and I certainly agree with much of what has been expressed here - I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium. Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both. OK... digital is a medium more tempting to "cheat" with and that is a pity, but the cheaters will never become professional artists because they lack the artistic skill to create sophisticated work and a real artist who is serious about learning techniques and theory will do so and produce great work whatever they are using. Because I went about it backwards from most people, I'm using techniques I learned in digital painting in my traditional work - because they are universal art techniques, not digital tricks. Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.

    But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.


  5. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Seems to work fine on my Cintiq.

    ~ ~ { My sketchbooK } ~ ~
    Santa Barbara Drawing Group, On Meetup.

  6. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 757 Times in 489 Posts
    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.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:


  8. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    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.
    First part of that is true (imo). Second part though I agree with if you are trying to "simulate" natural media...at the same time I stumble across all kinds of interesting "accidents" when working digitally that I could not have planned, designed or predicted. Oddly enough, in my working approach I find digital more creative by far than traditional. With traditional media I have a pretty good idea where I'm heading and what I need to do to get there...with digital it meanders and leads me into all kinds of undiscovered country. But that's just me, and we already know I'm weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    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.
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  9. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,258 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Does it matter if I use rotate within the program? Alt drag works fine on Open Canvas, E drag also works great in Painter, Home and iirc End do just fine in Easy Paint tool Sai.

    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)


  10. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 757 Times in 489 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?
    I should have written "concept artist" instead of "designer". Then just look at the statements:
    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.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."

  11. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    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.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  13. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,983
    Thanks
    2,828
    Thanked 6,091 Times in 2,481 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    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.
    I'm talking about creating a physical object, with skill, gives you the image and the ability to make prints and the actual object; digital can't do that yet and that is a huge stumbling block for the Op in fine art.


  14. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,794
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 757 Times in 489 Posts
    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.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."

  15. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    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.
    I don't paint en plein air so that is not my argument. My argument is quite simple: one will never be the other and really doesn't need to. Some were making the argument of value which I agree with to a point.

    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?


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  17. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    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.
    Hmmmm...no, you're misreading or attributing many things to me here I'm not saying at all. And I don't buy that painting is inferior to sculpture...again, different things. It is because (representational) painting is an illusion that it requires a different approach than sculpture. The advantage of sculpture is the very fact that it exists in three dimensions...you don't have to understand illusion to make it work (and yes I know classical, large scale sculpture often takes into account viewer's perspective and so builds in distortion so it looks correct).

    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.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 3

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook