Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 186
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,409
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 378 Times in 297 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ameza View Post
    "this must be some kind of a trick and is cheating"
    They must never have tried it because cheating or easy it damn well isnt.

    Anyway, just my two bob's worth from the point of view of a traditional artist trying to learn how to also paint digitally.



  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,980
    Thanks
    2,826
    Thanked 6,091 Times in 2,481 Posts
    [QUOTE=Ameza;3413407]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.
    QUOTE]

    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.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:

    LAG

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,980
    Thanks
    2,826
    Thanked 6,091 Times in 2,481 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Candra H View Post
    They must never have tried it because cheating or easy it damn well isnt.

    Anyway, just my two bob's worth from the point of view of a traditional artist trying to learn how to also paint digitally.
    I've hired and trained lots of artists in the industry on the computer. The ones with traditional professional skills took about a month to get up to speed with digital. People without traditional skills never could cut it because their work was amateurish at best. The computer made them lazy and conviced them they had a skill when really the computer had the skills and they didn't. Is it possible to achieve the same quality with digital yes it is, but the chances are it won't happen; just like people who can't make change at a grocery store without a computer or can't tell time wihtout a digital clock. They rely on the computer to do all the parts that are too hard for them. Its not something to be proud of. If you know what you are doing, digital is easy.


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  7. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,178
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,356 Times in 1,211 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ameza
    But I prefer painting digitally since I don't have much room to use paint or other more messy mediums.
    My watercolour kit fits in my hand. My acrylic paint kit fits in a backpack. All you need is a couple flat paintbrushes, a plastic container to hold water, 6-8 tubes of paint and a roll of freezer paper. You can use acrylics on a watercolour block (a pad of paper where the sheets are stuck together so they don't warp when you apply wet paint to them) which requires no further prep.

    If you have a kitchen table and some plastic to put on top you're good to go.

    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

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

  8. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,980
    Thanks
    2,826
    Thanked 6,091 Times in 2,481 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.


  9. #32
    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 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

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


  11. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    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...

  12. #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.


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


  14. #35
    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
    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.

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


  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    332
    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.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,178
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,356 Times in 1,211 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

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,084
    Thanks
    506
    Thanked 631 Times in 355 Posts
    This thread is so discouraging.


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


  20. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,485
    Thanks
    2,462
    Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,548 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.


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