Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 186
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mölndal, Sweden
    Posts
    2,781
    Thanks
    2,383
    Thanked 1,914 Times in 835 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


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tobbA For This Useful Post:


  4. #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?


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


  6. #42
    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 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

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


  8. #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.


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


  10. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,978
    Thanks
    2,826
    Thanked 6,090 Times in 2,481 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!


  11. #45
    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 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.


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


  13. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    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.

  14. #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.


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


  16. #48
    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 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
    Name:  paynecanyondechelley_28x34.jpg
Views: 281
Size:  102.7 KB

    Edgar Payne in studio (Paris)
    Name:  edgar-payne-paris-1925aaa_stenartg_241941.jpg
Views: 279
Size:  220.8 KB

    Mucha, one of the "Slavic Epic" paintings (and not me in front)
    Name:  Scale_s.jpg
Views: 680
Size:  152.6 KB

    Hugh Ferriss in studio...those are charcoal drawings
    Name:  ferriss.jpg
Views: 284
Size:  75.1 KB

    Joaquin Sorolla out painting "The Horse's Bath" on the beach
    Name:  sorolla_29_nov_09001002.jpg
Views: 287
Size:  15.7 KB

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

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


  18. #49
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,178
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 2,356 Times in 1,211 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

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


  20. #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.


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


  22. #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 03:49 PM.

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


  24. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,028
    Thanks
    1,348
    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/

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


Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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