Results 46 to 60 of 186
Thread: Digital Art frowned upon??
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.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMarch 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 04:49 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:
March 23rd, 2012 #53
I don't understand how exactly using a computer to 'paint' takes less skill than traditional paints. The core of painting derives from knowledge, everything else is muscle memory and knowledge of medium.
Digital art is faster than most traditional art, but that in no way makes it require less skill. It's just potentially speedier, especially for a finished work. I'm curious what you mean by digital taking less skill, I would love a specific example.
Now as for value, yes I can see your point. Traditional paintings will always (I think) have more monetary value and cultural value than digital will, because of the painting actually existing in physical form.BLAHBLAHBLAH
March 23rd, 2012 #54
March 23rd, 2012 #55
On the "ctrl+z" thing- I think if you're painting in PS, one "step backward" is not reversing the changes you have just made.
You make a ridiculous amount of brush strokes on a tablet compared to with a real brush, it's insane - Photoshop only goes back a certain amount of steps and if you have just screwed up painting a mouth, you have made some hundred odd strokes.
March 23rd, 2012 #56Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Thanked 64 Times in 48 Posts
March 23rd, 2012 #57
It has something to do with our intuitions of authenticity and originality. A digital painting file can be copied and pasted many times, but you can't do that with a traditional painting. Thus, the value of traditional paintings are always greater than a digital painting.
Consider this, would the scanned digital copy of a traditional drawing worth more than the real drawing itself, when, let's say, that the scanned copy is hypothetically exactly the same as the real drawing, or is it the other way around? Would Mona Lisa sell for millions if it was a digital painting that could be copy and pasted many times?
Sure you can print a digital copy, but that digital copy will never be the same as the original painting shown on the computer. Plus, printers have their own limits of gamut mappings.
This is the reason why printed books won't die off to ebooks.
There is also the aspect of digital paintings, where the artist works with a medium that is within the confine of technology, rather than within the confine of the "natural" world as traditional paintings might be. Paintings done on the computer are calculated, because computers use algorithms to patternize strokes. In traditional painting, each stroke may never be the same.
One might have a better time at reproducing a digital painting than a traditional painting, because a traditional painting contain intricate and randomness of strokes and textures outside the context of the painting, of which may be reminiscent of individual artistic styles and of which alone can be difficult for a computer to calculate.
Lastly, a traditional artist has more understandings of the process and his mediums, mostly in part due to the simplicity of traditional art. Less so is the digital artist with his or her computer.
Last edited by Vay; March 23rd, 2012 at 06:25 PM.My Sketchbook
Twinkle, twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are
For by spectroscopic ken
I know that you are hydrogen - Ian D.
March 23rd, 2012 #58
Snidley Whiplash mustache to go with it.
As for DH, While digital work can be just as skilled as traditional work artists hobble themselves starting digital before tackling basics in a traditional manner. As proof, how many of you digital only with no traditional practice work professionally as artists? So all the successful traditiionally trained people who work as artists using digital don't know whats going on but all the amateurs do? Yeah right.
Let me suggest that digital only artists lack of skill stems from the use of digital as an attemppt to shortcut what is the daunting task of learning to paint and draw representationally and all of the things that go with it. those shortcuts in discipline have come home to roost denying the artist the thing they seek.
As for the less skill argument. Less planning of an idea before starting necessary (undo, save multiple version of the same image, layers that can be reordered ) less knowledge, of perspective (just bring up your pespective grid), of color mixing (sampling colors is how most people paint digitally) of anatomy (just paint on top of your poser or daz model or photo ref without redrawing it).
Obviously there are artists that have skill as digital artists, but I'll bet most learned the critical process of how to draw and paint traditionally and learned the important steps of organised thinking that goes with that training before moving to digital.
The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:
March 23rd, 2012 #59
Randomly applying a perspective grid to an image won't work; you still have to know exactly where the VPs are to place the grid correctly. Perspective is dynamic. If you're painting an image from life whether it be digital or traditional, you still have to have a commanding knowledge of perspective to use it correctly whether or not you have a template to set up the lines originating from the VP(s).
Shortcuts just make the process faster, you can still 'undo' in traditional media by scraping off paint (say...in oils). Although I will admit -- the paint will eventually build up on the material you're painting on so I imagine you can't undo infinitely.
I'm not saying they're on ENTIRELY equal footing (that would be crazy talk), I tend to respect traditional art more than digital if only because it's so....satisfying and materialistic comparatively. But I definitely think, that since knowledge is really what makes art more than anything physical or digital, that both require very similar amounts of skill to actually produce an effective painting.
And one major thing you pointed out that I feel the need to mention and agree on, is that traditional materials DO require a more careful mastery of planning. I think that is one of the reasons that traditional art is so much more attractive to learning from than digital.BLAHBLAHBLAH
The Following User Says Thank You to Deadlyhazard For This Useful Post:
March 23rd, 2012 #60
As Chris said I believe a page back digital vs traditional is not a distinction of skill.
(My own opinion/take on that from this point on) The limitations of traditional force you to learn the basic foundations. But at least imo things like perspective, color theory and things like that aren't based on the medium it's the same as the music analogies. A guy could take a synth program hundreds of arpeggio's just to create a distinct noise it's most certainly can take just as much skill as knowing how to play a bunch of chords on a piano.
But that doesn't help create your music if you don't know how to compose or have that skill. You can use the neatest sounds (or the neatest brushes/effects for digital painting) and it doesn't mean shit if you don't know anything about music and can't compose.
Last edited by JFierce; March 23rd, 2012 at 06:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to JFierce For This Useful Post:
By ianar in forum ARTISTS LOOKING FOR WORK!Replies: 1Last Post: March 2nd, 2011, 05:49 AM
By anomaly7 in forum ARTISTS LOOKING FOR WORK!Replies: 0Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
By TheXArts in forum ARTISTS LOOKING FOR WORK!Replies: 0Last Post: August 23rd, 2005, 12:19 AM
Tags for this Thread