Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 186
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,382
    Thanks
    3,089
    Thanked 6,454 Times in 2,703 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vineris View Post
    This is like saying that speech isn't real because at the end of the day you have nothing unless you got a recording. This argument can be applied to any experience. At the end of the day you can't show off your "original" to anyone. It came, it went, if it wasn't "real" then there's not much left in "reality" to get excited about.
    .
    Your talking about experience I'm talking about the product of the experience.
    The act of of doing anything is not an object. Digital painting when you are finished makes no object, traditional painting does. Those objects are unique, and if created with enough skill, they have vlalue beyond the image, the object itself has value. Thats why an original has more value than a print even in traditional mediums.


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,921 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ameza View Post
    I'm sad to see though that many people here as well don't like digital art, though I respect their opinions. Though I think it's quite crude to say that just because something is digitally made, that it's not real.
    I'm not sure where you got the idea that some of us don't like digital art (or maybe you didn't mean me?). I've been doing art on a computer since about 1985. And like I mentioned, digital art is widely accepted even in the "fine arts", when it is used effectively and not simply as a substitute or simulation of traditional media.

    It is up to the artist to explore and develop a form of expression that is in tune with their vision and media. Android Jones has done that. And just a reminder, none of this applies to illustration, concept art, industrial design, etc.

    So, push the digital envelope, explore the media for it's possibilities, not its limitations. I'm sure if you had this approach your teachers and department would welcome the challenge.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  5. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,422
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Digital art is cheating. So stop it.
    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...

  6. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    212
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 75 Times in 54 Posts
    One thing to be said for traditional over digital is that traditional makes you think harder before you do something - which is both good and bad.

    Digital is a huge advantage to playing around with color schemes, trying different textures, and generally experimenting because the experimentation comes at essentially no cost. On the other hand, that also means that any given digital piece probably teaches less because there's no consequence for failure.

    Digital teaches your procedurally: you know how to achieve an effect in the final painting. Traditional art teaches you the concepts: you have to know what you're doing before you start painting. If you're attempting to paint a scene at night, in digital art there is less onus on understanding what colors do in low light. You can paint them as is, then work with layers to get the proper environment. Therefore you have learned a procedure to achieve a nighttime painting, but may not know all the reasons why it works. In traditional art, you have to understand and apply the concept from the get-go. Each mistake is more costly so it teaches a stronger lesson.

    Digital art isn't lesser than traditional art (a good painting in either is still impressive and sometimes digital is the right medium), but it doesn't force you to confront your problems in the same way. In the educational system a good prof will force you to confront as many problems as you can handle and he wants you to learn the concept, not just be able to achieve the effect.

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


  8. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Its not real, where is the original? There isn't one. Whining about something that is a fact doesn't change the fact. At the end of the day you have nothing to show for what you do unless you print it and a machine print is not an original, it never can be. You can stamp your feet all you want it won't change reality.
    Again, this appears to be a problem with the way we define things. Your definition of painting includes having a physical, tangible painting as the end result. Ours does not. Different words mean different things to different people. We call it painting because you have to call it something if you want to talk about it, and painting is the closest approximation. We generally add in the word "digital" to refer to the specific type of painting.

    Given that our definitions vary, which of us is wrong? I'd say neither. It isn't wrong that the Japanese word 青い (aoi), usually translated to "blue", can sometimes means "green" when referring to the color of plants. It isn't wrong that what a man in London calls a "chip" I call a "french fry", and what I call "chip" is what he calls a "crisp". It isn't wrong that what I call "soda" in California people in Chicago call "pop". Words mean whatever you want them to mean, and for you "digital painting" probably isn't going to seen as just another kind of painting the same way "oil painting", "acrylic painting", and "watercolor painting" is.

    As for the lack of an "original": we don't care for the same reason the violinist doesn't care. When the violinist plays a song, where does the original go? It falls on the ears of whoever is around. You can get an imperfect copy by recording it, but the original is always lost and the music has to be reproduced every time someone wants to hear it. Even though it is reproduced, each reproduction is still considered the same song.

    Paint is nothing but a bunch of tiny dots of pigment suspended in some kind of liquid that tends to look like things when arranged a certain way. A bunch of tiny dots on a screen showing up at a different brightness is no less real to me. Whether anyone can touch it doesn't really matter to me. Ever been to a museum where they let you run your hand over the paintings?
    ~ ~ { My sketchbooK } ~ ~
    Santa Barbara Drawing Group, On Meetup.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to SmallPoly For This Useful Post:


  10. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Digital art is easy. That's why everything on Deviant Art looks fantastic.
    ~ ~ { My sketchbooK } ~ ~
    Santa Barbara Drawing Group, On Meetup.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,178
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,360 Times in 1,213 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Your talking about experience I'm talking about the product of the experience.
    The act of of doing anything is not an object. Digital painting when you are finished makes no object, traditional painting does. Those objects are unique, and if created with enough skill, they have vlalue beyond the image, the object itself has value. Thats why an original has more value than a print even in traditional mediums.
    Of course. What I'm saying is that non-tangible things also have value, so the argument that a digital painting is not valuable because it's not an object is only valid if you limit your scope to objects and collectors of objects. But you don't *have* to. You can probably do wonderfully with digital art in a fine arts department if your vision for digital art is experiential (is that even a word? I don't know.) Judging by what the local gallery puts on, modern art museums love that shit.
    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

    "There are two kinds of students: the self-taught and the hopeless."
    - Dr. Piotr Rudnicki

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,084
    Thanks
    506
    Thanked 631 Times in 355 Posts
    This thread is so discouraging.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JJacks For This Useful Post:


  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,631
    Thanks
    2,518
    Thanked 2,591 Times in 1,616 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JJacks View Post
    This thread is so discouraging.
    The thread is quickly degenerating into everyone trying to persuade one stubborn person that a digital image is still an image.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mölndal, Sweden
    Posts
    2,788
    Thanks
    2,384
    Thanked 1,922 Times in 838 Posts
    Sooner or later we'll all be plugged into the matrix and experience everything through downloading raw data to our brains anyway...
    "I've got ham, but I'm not a hamster"

    Sketchy Link

    Portfolio

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tobbA For This Useful Post:


  17. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    The reason it is so discouraging is the reason that so many of these threads go astray. People will not read and accept things presented logically from the point of view of experience they just continue to argue because they can.

    This discussion is similar to the art vs. illustration argument. One thing trying to be another when it doesn't need to. When its own thing is perfectly good enough without trying to attach words like painting to 111001001001.

    You can call it digital painting and I don't think anyone will mind (by the way the fries/chip analogy is flawed because we are talking about the same thing in that case). But to try to compare them on a level playing field is ridiculous and completely unnecessary.

    Digital is digital and reality is reality. Both have their places and can be great in given contexts.

    When someone one is trying to teach using traditional material it is about more than image it is about materiality too. You cannot teach materiality with digital which is also a strength of digital in certain situations.

    If you want to redefine painting feel free but why?

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  19. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,921 Times in 2,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vineris View Post
    Of course. What I'm saying is that non-tangible things also have value, so the argument that a digital painting is not valuable because it's not an object is only valid if you limit your scope to objects and collectors of objects. But you don't *have* to. You can probably do wonderfully with digital art in a fine arts department if your vision for digital art is experiential (is that even a word? I don't know.) Judging by what the local gallery puts on, modern art museums love that shit.
    Exactly my point. It is well accepted when it is being used creatively and in tune with itself. It is not when it is being used as a substitute.

    It's popular here to bring up the point that digital art is its own medium and tool. Which it is. The problem only arises when people want it to be oils, watercolor, charcoal or any other traditional media. Which it is not. You can change the terminology and go through all kinds of convolutions to try to justify it as the same thing...but it simply isn't. The various traditional media all have their advantages, disadvantages and interesting, unique qualities. You can't paint impasto with watercolor either.

    What I get tired of hearing (back to my original comment in here) is people whining about digital art not being accepted and assuming it is because someone has a bias or is so behind the times, snobbish or just outright too dim to get how cool it is. When the reality is you're just too lazy to be creative with the tool.

    If you want to paint, paint. If you want to do digital art go for it...just do something interesting with it besides simulate painting.

    Hey JJacks....I thought it was a good discussion? Why discouraging?
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

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


  21. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,084
    Thanks
    506
    Thanked 631 Times in 355 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bcarman View Post
    The reason it is so discouraging is the reason that so many of these threads go astray. People will not read and accept things presented logically from the point of view of experience they just continue to argue because they can.

    This discussion is similar to the art vs. illustration argument. One thing trying to be another when it doesn't need to. When its own thing is perfectly good enough without trying to attach words like painting to 111001001001.

    You can call it digital painting and I don't think anyone will mind (by the way the fries/chip analogy is flawed because we are talking about the same thing in that case). But to try to compare them on a level playing field is ridiculous and completely unnecessary.

    Digital is digital and reality is reality. Both have their places and can be great in given contexts.

    When someone one is trying to teach using traditional material it is about more than image it is about materiality too. You cannot teach materiality with digital which is also a strength of digital in certain situations.

    If you want to redefine painting feel free but why?
    I agree with you but it comes from both sides. As a digital artist I would like my practice to be respected for what it is. I don't think anyone is trying to say they can hang their digital print next to a painting and say "same thing, except I did mine on the computer."

    Sometimes I think traditional artists jump at the opportunity to call someone else's way inferior to their own. That's what is discouraging. It's ok if you don't like digital art but why do you have to tear down the whole practice and make someone feel like ass because they like using a computer to make art?

    I think the discussion was much more productive in the other thread that Jeff linked to.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to JJacks For This Useful Post:


  23. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,382
    Thanks
    3,089
    Thanked 6,454 Times in 2,703 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    The thread is quickly degenerating into everyone trying to persuade one stubborn person that a digital image is still an image.
    Not an image, a physical thing. Pay attention!

  24. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,272 Times in 737 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JJacks View Post
    This thread is so discouraging.
    Indeed... I have an uphill struggle convincing my family that what I do is 'real', and the 'computah doesn't just do it all for me' when I press the 'art' button. Funny to see similar perspectives here, of all places... particularly when you realise so little value is placed upon what one does. Thoroughly depressing.

  25. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aly Fell For This Useful Post:


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

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Colorist/Digital Inker/Vector Artist/Graphic Designer for hire
    By ianar in forum Artists Available for Work!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2011, 05:49 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
  3. 2D Digital Abstract Artist, Very Dark Digital work 7+ years Experience
    By TheXArts in forum Artists Available for Work!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2005, 12:19 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast