Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 186
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    476
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    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.
    Going the other way, few people would suggest that all artists doing oil paintings should take advantage of things being physical and glue some stuff to the surface as a mixed media approach. That's not the kind of work they're doing because that's not the kind of work they're interested in making. On a similar note, photography contributed to the rise of things like cubism and abstract art. While this kind of work is easier to do in painting over photography, not everyone want to work abstractly.

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


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JJacks View Post
    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.
    I linked to that thread because I believed it to be a better discussion also. And if you read what I said carefully you'd see that I am supporting the digital medium as its own very important thing so it doesn't need to be compared to painting.

    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.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  5. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,911 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JJacks View Post
    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.
    Thanks JJacks - but that was actually Bill with that link . Easy to confuse us I know....he's a lot cuter, but he's quirky.

    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
    Attachment 1447386

    Edgar Payne in studio (Paris)
    Attachment 1447388

    Mucha, one of the "Slavic Epic" paintings (and not me in front)
    Attachment 1447379

    Hugh Ferriss in studio...those are charcoal drawings
    Attachment 1447392

    Joaquin Sorolla out painting "The Horse's Bath" on the beach
    Attachment 1447393
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

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


  7. #49
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,178
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,359 Times in 1,212 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aly Fell View Post
    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.
    Yeah but what artist doesn't have problems convincing their family that what they do is "real"? It ain't much better if you're an oil painter or a comic artist.
    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

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

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vineris For This Useful Post:


  9. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    737
    Thanks
    477
    Thanked 497 Times in 270 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SmallPoly View Post
    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.
    The Cow, by Aleksandr Petrov is an animated film using oil paints. (the technique is often referred to as "paint on glass", as the artist paints an image on a sheet of glass and for each successive frame changes the painting.)



    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.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Alice Herring For This Useful Post:


  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,084
    Thanks
    506
    Thanked 631 Times in 355 Posts
    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.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JJacks For This Useful Post:


  13. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,028
    Thanks
    1,349
    Thanked 1,950 Times in 776 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by hitnrun View Post
    Also, and lastly, Ctrl+Z.. I don't see any traditional artists who can simply go a step backward as if their last flawed brush stroke *never* happened. We can go back and manipulate it, but in the end, that mistake still occurred and can still have a bearing on the final work.
    The 'undo' mode appears to be your friend... But it can quickly become Beelzebub incarnate, resulting in an addiction to indecision and distrust of anything that temporarily takes your picture a step back... And in so doing, the ground is never prepared for the conditions in which two steps are taken forward into the unexpected.

    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
    http://www.chrisbennettartist.co.uk/

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris Bennett For This Useful Post:


  15. #53
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ORL, Florida
    Posts
    1,077
    Thanks
    565
    Thanked 390 Times in 268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    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.

    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

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


  17. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,271 Times in 737 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vineris View Post
    Yeah but what artist doesn't have problems convincing their family that what they do is "real"? It ain't much better if you're an oil painter or a comic artist.
    I think you're missing my point Vineris.

  18. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    967
    Thanks
    656
    Thanked 481 Times in 315 Posts
    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.

  19. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    161
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 64 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadlyhazard View Post
    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.
    This is NOT a knock against digital, but I do truly believe it's easier to make pretty pictures with digital than traditional. You have so many elements going on with traditional- the brushes, the surface, the physical pigments, hell even weather can play a part. All of these things have unique properties that aren't simply static- they can vary session by session. So I do believe traditional painting has a higher learning curve. But again that's in no way saying it's better or worse than digital...just different...

  20. #57
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York, NY, USA 10002
    Posts
    882
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 306 Times in 212 Posts
    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.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Vay For This Useful Post:


  22. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,142
    Thanks
    2,953
    Thanked 6,244 Times in 2,572 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadlyhazard View Post
    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.
    So if it wasn't Bill and Jeff you are talking about J, that leaves me... I look good in black anyway. Maybe I'll grow a 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.

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


  24. #59
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ORL, Florida
    Posts
    1,077
    Thanks
    565
    Thanked 390 Times in 268 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    So if it wasn't Bill and Jeff you are talking about J, that leaves me... I look good in black anyway. Maybe I'll grow a 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.
    Oh sure, I agree with 80% of what you said there (especially on your traditional training first, nothing better than learning from life with traditional materials -- I don't think anyone is arguing that), but the perspective grid doesn't make sense nor does the paint-over anatomy thing, since you can apply those things in traditional art. You can trace. You can set up a perspective grid using a ruler to replace lack of skill for creating straighter lines.

    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

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Deadlyhazard For This Useful Post:


  26. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,004
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    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.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to JFierce For This Useful Post:


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

Similar Threads

  1. 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 LOOKING 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 vBSocial.com