Results 40 to 52 of 186
Thread: Digital Art frowned upon??
March 23rd, 2012 #40
Hide this ad by registering as a member
March 23rd, 2012 #41
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?
March 23rd, 2012 #42
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?
The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:
March 23rd, 2012 #43
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to JJacks For This Useful Post:
March 23rd, 2012 #44
March 23rd, 2012 #45
March 23rd, 2012 #46
GIFs were shown earlier as an example of something unique to digital media, as compared to traditional painting. To me, it seems gimmicky - I have a hard time believing that the only reason oil painters don't make their paintings animated is because they can't. Not every painting benefits from a lens flair, and not every Powerpoint presentation is improved by the use of animated words and sound effects.
March 23rd, 2012 #47
Some people here seem to be crying out "accept me like you would an oil painting" when they should just say what I do is unique and it doesn't need to have anything to do with traditional painting.
March 23rd, 2012 #48
In bold is pretty much what it sounds like people are saying? IDK?
Anyway, I don't think anyone is hating on digital, I'm certainly not...I love it...I do it...I teach it...I show it...have it published, etc. But I also respect it for what it is...a unique medium which lets me create images and express myself in ways I couldn't in traditional media.
You simply can't ignore the fact that a digital painting is non-material. How is the "application" of "paint" made in a digital painting? Is it with a stylus/pen held in a writing grip and stroked across a plastic surface in 4-6 inches? Or is it with deft strokes of a number six flat one edge and twisted slightly backhand and held at arm's length? With a loaded knife skipped across the surface to lay in impasto notes? A large flat loaded with paint carving out a passage of snow on a mountainside? These things, these notes, this variety of surface, decision making and statement the hand and touch of the artist are all evident in a real painting...and part of its beauty. Show me that in your giclee. [btw...there is an undo in oils as well...called your palette knife]
The other thing people don't acknowledge is scale. At what scale does digital painting take place? A Bamboo? An Intuos 4 large, med or small? A Cintique?
I just went to a major show of Edgar Payne. Very hard to convey on a monitor what it is like to stand in front of a 4' x 5' painting of the high sierras let alone be surrounded by 80-100 of them...all framed in massive, hand carved frames...alive with dynamic brushstrokes, thin, stained passages juxtaposed against rich, juicy layers of paint which seem to capture the essence of the mountain rock itself. Sorry, not the same thing as looking at a little screen.
Go to a museum...go to a show...see paintings in person. That should help.
Thought I'd try to find a few examples to share:
Edgar Payne, Canyon De Chelley, 28x34
Edgar Payne in studio (Paris)
Mucha, one of the "Slavic Epic" paintings (and not me in front)
Hugh Ferriss in studio...those are charcoal drawings
Joaquin Sorolla out painting "The Horse's Bath" on the beach
March 23rd, 2012 #49
March 23rd, 2012 #50
That being said, I think the difference between school and production should be noted - in production it's about getting the job done as quickly as possible. In school, it's about building the skill through experience and understanding.
The Following User Says Thank You to Alice Herring For This Useful Post:
March 23rd, 2012 #51
bcarman Sorry I got you and Jeff mixed up. I get what you're saying and I agree with you and thank you for saying it in this particular thread. I was quoting you because that's how I feel about what I do. I chose to do digital art over painting because it was something very different that I happened to like.
JeffX99 I agree with everything you are saying. Painting and digital art can't be compared. I actually am really glad you brought up scale because that's my biggest beef with digital art. When I was painting, my work was bigger and bigger and the size of a painting is a great artistic element in itself if that makes any sense.
I don't know...maybe because I'm having a bad day but the thread just seemed kind of hostile before and that's what I meant when I said it was discouraging. I felt like the content was poignant and truthful but the delivery was a bit condescending. Meh...just being sensitive I guess.
EDIT - Not saying that either of you two were being jerks or anything. I meant before you two started talking. Ugh...I'll shut up.
Last edited by JJacks; March 23rd, 2012 at 03:49 PM.
March 23rd, 2012 #52
That is to say, the resolution of an image is in its transcendence of the average or mediocre or safe. And the conditions for this to happen lie in the 'mistake'.
From Gegarin's point of view
The Following User Says Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post: