Digital Art frowned upon?? - Page 5
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 186
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Seems to work fine on my Cintiq.

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

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Painting can only be learned with paint. Digital image making isn't painting. In a place called conceptart.org I expect that the majority of people here are interested in a "character" design more than in the way it's painted, the look and characteristics of the depicted things and how they fit within their game world more than the media in which they are depicted. "Digital painting" isn't easier than actual painting because it doesn't exist, and design doesn't change regardless of whether you do it in real media or on a computer. Making a digital image simulate an actual painting is actually harder than making the painting for real because all the accidents that happen in reality don't happen automatically on a computer, they have to be designed. The reality is that the best painters don't make the best designers, and annoyance comes from designers being told that they have to be painters first.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
     

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:


  4. #123
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    Making a digital image simulate an actual painting is actually harder than making the painting for real because all the accidents that happen in reality don't happen automatically on a computer, they have to be designed.
    First part of that is true (imo). Second part though I agree with if you are trying to "simulate" natural media...at the same time I stumble across all kinds of interesting "accidents" when working digitally that I could not have planned, designed or predicted. Oddly enough, in my working approach I find digital more creative by far than traditional. With traditional media I have a pretty good idea where I'm heading and what I need to do to get there...with digital it meanders and leads me into all kinds of undiscovered country. But that's just me, and we already know I'm weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    The reality is that the best painters don't make the best designers, and annoyance comes from designers being told that they have to be painters first.
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  5. #124
    Arshes Nei's Avatar
    Arshes Nei is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.
    Does it matter if I use rotate within the program? Alt drag works fine on Open Canvas, E drag also works great in Painter, Home and iirc End do just fine in Easy Paint tool Sai.

    Then again if it has to be the object that moves, the Motion computing LE1700 also does this physically, not just a cintiq. (Tablet PC)

     

  6. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    Not sure I follow the second part of that? Could you elaborate?
    I should have written "concept artist" instead of "designer". Then just look at the statements:
    All concept artists are painters.
    All painters are concept artists.
    Each artist-type has a primary set of skills that they need to learn. It makes more sense to spend the most time on the most relevant information. For example dpaint brought up perspective, I think it's better to learn perspective with sketchup, the effect is like tetris where the game continues to play in your mind even after you put it down, you wind up doing way more geometrical manipulations than you could on paper.


    Another thing I felt like bringing up is the overratedness of the materiality of paint. Paint is basically dirt. If you see a wet paint sign you don't run over to the wall in the hopes of smearing your shirt to raise it's value. The value in paint doesn't come automatically in it's physical existence but in the way it's used. From the point of view of a designer the most important thing about making an image is that it should look interesting. No one watches a blank screen, it takes a skilled designer to get people to look at what's showing on it.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
     

  7. #126
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Sure - totally agree there, with the slight exception that we are talking about the material nature of paint...at least as opposed to the virtual nature of pixels.

    On the designer point...that was a little why I was confused...I don't think anyone is saying a designer or concept person needs to be a painter...or vice-versa. Where I think those of us engaged in both both get annoyed, and try to make some distinction, is when the designer also wants to be considered a painter...not the other way around.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

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


  9. #127
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,658
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked 5,887 Times in 2,359 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    Another thing I felt like bringing up is the overratedness of the materiality of paint. Paint is basically dirt. If you see a wet paint sign you don't run over to the wall in the hopes of smearing your shirt to raise it's value. The value in paint doesn't come automatically in it's physical existence but in the way it's used. From the point of view of a designer the most important thing about making an image is that it should look interesting. No one watches a blank screen, it takes a skilled designer to get people to look at what's showing on it.
    I'm talking about creating a physical object, with skill, gives you the image and the ability to make prints and the actual object; digital can't do that yet and that is a huge stumbling block for the Op in fine art.

     

  10. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "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."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
     

  11. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "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."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    I don't paint en plein air so that is not my argument. My argument is quite simple: one will never be the other and really doesn't need to. Some were making the argument of value which I agree with to a point.

    But making that statement about the materiality of paint with your experience actually stuns me. Materiality only begins with material. The end product introduces to levels of sensory perception that a digital print can't. I am a surface junkie. And you well know that something can be painted with no discernible brushstrokes and still have a quality of surface that makes you want to bite or lick it. Have never gotten that with print on image on the screen. Am I misunderstanding you?

     

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  13. #130
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "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."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    Hmmmm...no, you're misreading or attributing many things to me here I'm not saying at all. And I don't buy that painting is inferior to sculpture...again, different things. It is because (representational) painting is an illusion that it requires a different approach than sculpture. The advantage of sculpture is the very fact that it exists in three dimensions...you don't have to understand illusion to make it work (and yes I know classical, large scale sculpture often takes into account viewer's perspective and so builds in distortion so it looks correct).

    You also don't have to go outside to paint from life.

    I've also mentioned many times that my experience with digital, even in the fine art gallery realm, has been positive and has never been frowned upon. But I'm not trying to say it's painting.

    On the "tradition" thing...absolutely not saying it isn't respected because it doesn't have tradition behind it...in fact I'm not even saying it isn't respected...just not as painting. And no one has made the case that it is the same as painting...just a lot of wishing.

    Again, the synthesizer guys aren't respected as violin players...not because they don't understand music...but because they aren't playing a violin. You'll never hear them bitch about it because they go "Fuck yeah... listen to this stuff I can do...".

    All I'm saying is they're different and trying to make them the same is absurd.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  14. #131
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,658
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked 5,887 Times in 2,359 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    You're saying a lot of things:
    "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."

    Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception... The argument of the physicality of paint was probably invented in response to Plato's assertions. For a while painting was less respected than sculpture.
    Digital image making will never be painting, as painting will never be sculpture. The whole conflict that's happening here is really about painting en plein air "Go outside and paint somethig from life"., and there are unspoken feelings about the importance of tradition, what it means to be an artist, and however many other things.
    I've never made the argument painting is sculpture. I've made the argument that most painting and oil painting in particular, is three dimensional and sculptural. Not the same thing as sculpture.

    People on here are making the argument digital creation is the same as traditional painting which it's not, except in a most superficial way. I've pointed out all the ways they are not the same but people just want something that has no basis in reality yet. My arguments about painting from life still stand; your ability to paint anything is shown in your ability to paint from life, or lack there of. The more tools you need to acomplish something the more it lessens your ability. The reason what I do traditionally is so respected is because it requires more skill than gadgets. Even with in the fine art world, that is true for representational painting. Portrait painters who work from life are more respected than ones who project or work from photos. Same for figure painters. It is reflected in the prices paid for their work.

     

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


  16. #132
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I was specifially responding to
    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.
    .
    and his emphasis on
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    the actual object.
    "Painting is inferior to sculpture because in sculpture you actually build something up in space whereas in painting you are only creating the illusion of it. Sculpture is more truthful than painting, painting is a kind of deception. " Was a lame summary of what Plato would say about painting, I was trying to say that the argument of paint vs digital mirrored the old argument about sculpture versus paint. Dpaint has specifally said that painting digitally take less skill, that is a direct quote. If this assertion is true then he, and everyone else, should be able to easily mimic Craig Mullins's or Android's style.

    The different artistic mediums that exist aren't automatially important to me, it's the artists who cause the existance of the artworks that is important to me. To me the efficient cause is more important than the material cause, and I respect a great artist working digitally as much as I would a great writer, neither of them creates a material work. When I talk about digital work I mean it in all of it's possiblities not just the ability to make an image sort of like a painting, personally I'm interested in interactive media - video games more than painting. I believe that digital work ultimately takes more skill than painting, since it includes music, acting, game design, programming... it's possiblities are really only limited by the person doing it.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
     

  17. #133
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I too care much more about the execution and statement made by the artist...within their unique spheres. I like Sargent equally as much as I like Syd Mead, Android Jones, Frank Lloyd Wright, Andy Goldsworthy and Moebius. In addition, just so no one is confused by my violin analogies...give me a great synth guy any day over a great violinist.

    I do think dpaint makes a good point though...heirarchies do exist in art...fine art, commercial, production, doesn't matter...those heirarchies owe their very existence to the skill, training and experience required. I just try to keep them separate and in their own context - apples to apples.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  18. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    T.O via Newfoundland
    Posts
    1,379
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 569 Times in 464 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    I've had people admire some of my work until they found out it was painted in photoshop.
    Their head automatically dials to "photo put through cheesy filters."
    I used to try to explain to them - no - I use this mystical creature called a "tablet" and draw it from scratch - blah blah blah.
    Now I just paint and let the rest of the world do as they please.

    having said that, I learned oils in school, and gouache and I think they both taught me miles of things I probably wouldn't know if I had studied digital alone.
    Even the first "colour mixing" class taught me things about colours I never knew- warms vs cool- and how red + blue can equal a billion different things based on the type of red, and type of blue.

    Getting your hands dirty is a great learning tool and I think everyone should spend time working traditionally in their art journey.

    I agree with the people that say digital is easier because it has major tools that save headaches and time.
    but there is a stigma on it that I think is greatly undeserved.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitnrun View Post
    So, based off my small amount of experience, and the replies I've received from those Digital folks brave enough tell me how they do it (which I can count on one hand btw), it seems as if Photoshop is doing the majority of the work, and making all the real decisions.
    Photoshop cannot make decisions. it is a program. It does exactly how much or little that you tell it to.

    Instead of using thinners and oils, you're using a layer in which a slider adjusts the opacity. In this example, don't tell me the digital folks have to work as hard to get the opacity just right.
    This is true - and it's awesome. lol - but we still have to "choose" an opacity- photoshop doesn't say - hey 43 % would be swell- go with that!

    Instead of having to decide which paint brush to use (synthetic or something nice like red sable), digital folks have only to hit [ and ] OR Shift+[ or Shift +] to adjust brush size and softness. Traditional artists have to select the brush (storage and maintenance of the brush is also something digital users do not have to worry about), and decide if the softness/hardness of the bristles is adequate for their painting. Digital folks make that same decision here, however this task is not as difficult for them in my opinion.
    It's just as difficult- but much less expensive. I've painted traditionally and there's brushes for purposes. I know which brush I like for filling- I know which one I like for detailing- In total I only own a dozen and I've never missed any I don't have.

    With photoshop I have way way more to choose from- they can be any hardness and opacity - that I Choose - there's options for scattering, texture, dynamics, and dynamic colour.
    Photoshop also allows you to create your own brush shapes.
    12 options vs infinite options...


    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.
    This one's true for sure! I love undo. But pencil's have erasers... just sayin'.

    This is why I feel as if Digital folks don't have half the work traditional artists do - at least not in technique.
    Photoshop doesn't eliminate the need for knowledge. If you don't know how light works your paintings will still look like junk - if you don't know perspective- if you don't know colour theory, or anatomy.
    How are you defining work? Many digital paintings take weeks to do.
    is 50 hours of digital work less work than 50 hours of traditional work? It's less frustrating, and you've probably gone much farther in your piece but 50 = 50.

    I choose to work digitally because it's cheap, clean, and attains a level of esthetic that satisfies my personal needs.
    I have a tonne of respect for anyone with the patience to work traditionally
    but I have no time for people that think digital work takes no skill or effort
    and even less time for anyone who thinks they're better then me for any reason.

    When your in school or at work, you have to bite the bullet and do what the teacher / boss asks you to do. But what every you choose to do outside of that only has to satisfy you.

    / end rant lol

     

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rhubix For This Useful Post:


  20. #135
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    I've had people admire some of my work until they found out it was painted in photoshop.
    Their head automatically dials to "photo put through cheesy filters."
    I used to try to explain to them - no - I use this mystical creature called a "tablet" and draw it from scratch - blah blah blah.
    Now I just paint and let the rest of the world do as they please.
    And here's the problem I have...disdain for the viewer, be it a peer, teacher or anyone who doesn't buy into the idea that a digital painting is the same as painting. Heck, not even worth the effort to explain it because they just don't know what they're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    I agree with the people that say digital is easier because it has major tools that save headaches and time.
    but there is a stigma on it that I think is greatly undeserved.
    OK...so make the case that it doesn't deserve the "stigma" you think exists.
    Please discuss artifact, scale, surface, longevity, evidence of the artist's hand, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    With photoshop I have way way more to choose from- they can be any hardness and opacity - that I Choose - there's options for scattering, texture, dynamics, and dynamic colour.
    Photoshop also allows you to create your own brush shapes.
    12 options vs infinite options...
    Not using your brushes right. Cracks me up...I have far more options for scattering, texture, dynamics and color in one brush than all of the brushes in PS. I "choose" the hardness, opacity, edge quality and any other "brush dynamic" all fairly subconciously at this point...though I do really think about marks, texture and other aspects of brush calligraphy as a painting comes to finish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    ...but I have no time for people that think digital work takes no skill or effort
    and even less time for anyone who thinks they're better then me for any reason.
    Did you miss this?:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flake View Post
    Nobody is frowning upon digital art. Most of the grumpy old dinosaurs use PS daily.
    I only frown on the idea that they're the same thing.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  21. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    676
    Thanked 239 Times in 136 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I do realize that I'm walking into a lion's den here, and I'm sorry that I don't have close to 30 years of industry experience to back up my claims, but anyhow... I humbly join the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Using a computer is easier and takes less skill.
    I don't think that digital and traditional even require the same skillset, and so a comparison like that falls kind of flat. If what you're saying is true, then wouldn't your digital work be superior to your traditional stuff?
    Although both your digital and traditional work are in a different league than many artists on this site, including myself, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that your traditional stuff is way better than your digital.

     

  22. #137
    Ilaekae's Avatar
    Ilaekae is offline P.O.W.! Leader, Complete Idiot, Super Moderator Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,580 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I had to go potty real bad 'round the end of December, and just got back about a week ago. To catch up, I have to read ALL--EVERY SINGLE WORD--of this stuff, so let me be a bit abrupt here...

    PUH-leeeeeze.... Don't make me smack you people....

    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
     

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:


  24. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    T.O via Newfoundland
    Posts
    1,379
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 569 Times in 464 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    And here's the problem I have...disdain for the viewer, be it a peer, teacher or anyone who doesn't buy into the idea that a digital painting is the same as painting. Heck, not even worth the effort to explain it because they just don't know what they're talking about.
    It's not that I want people to think it's the same- it's not. I just don't want people to treat it like it's junk that took no effort or skill.

    OK...so make the case that it doesn't deserve the "stigma" you think exists.
    Please discuss artifact, scale, surface, longevity, evidence of the artist's hand, etc.
    This sounds like a gay marriage argument- Gay people can't get married but they can have a civic union ceremony that holds the same rights, bells and whistles - but is definitely not a marriage.
    I digitally create images that represent assorted images, thoughts or ideas. - it's like a painting - but not.... because it's digital.
    As soon as they invent a world for digital painting that doesn't use the precious world "painting" I will use it. I promise.

    When I was in animation school (an industry saturated with digital art) I had professors who would disregard any digital work offered to them as non-art.
    I think the galleries full of incredible digital art on this site alone speaks to it's validity.
    It's a valid art form- that happened to borrow the term "Painting" to define it. Sorry.

    Not using your brushes right. Cracks me up...I have far more options for scattering, texture, dynamics and color in one brush than all of the brushes in PS. I "choose" the hardness, opacity, edge quality and any other "brush dynamic" all fairly subconciously at this point...though I do really think about marks, texture and other aspects of brush calligraphy as a painting comes to finish.
    I was just trying to elaborate that the brush sets in digital painting aren't magic. there isn't a single tool that provides every desirable effect. I wasn't trying to start an argument over which is more elaborate or special - I apologize if it came off that way.
    Did you miss this?:
    I think so?

    I only frown on the idea that they're the same thing.
    People who paint in oils don't belittle people who sculpt- but both of them will snub their noses at a digital...medium user.
    Currently I'm employed animating special effects for a kids tv show. I draw every frame by hand, sometimes over a hundred - but when people hear I used a tablet, instead of a pencil - it's "Digital junk".

     

  25. #139
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Great - we agree then that they aren't the same thing, so it is then valid for a painting instructor to be dismissive of the student when they try to make the case that they are the same.

    I completely agree that digital is a valid art form...particularly when used to express and explore artistic directions not open to more traditional media. I also have mentioned I think the term "digital painting" is as valid a descriptor as any. And certainly in illustration, production, design settings it is an excellent tool, workflow or medium.

    What I think you're running into when people are dismissive of a "digital work" or process only tends to occur when it is being used as a substitute for a real world or traditional counterpart. It is a bit difficult to defend an animation instructor, or say an industrial design teacher, who may frown on a digital process (unless of course the assignment was to work traditionally, with markers, pencil tests, whatever). It is important to understand the reasons behind this attitude ...because I think the reasons are valid (in context of course). It isn't that the individual is prejudiced or simply doesn't get it...it's actually because they do get it...and are aware of the differences.

    Oh, BTW...I certainly don't snub my nose at digital artists...far from it. I really don't think most people snub their nose at digital art...wherever my work has been shown I've had nothing but interest, sales and a few awards.

    Last edited by JeffX99; April 1st, 2012 at 08:32 PM.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  26. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The magical Kingdom.... of Fife
    Posts
    4,460
    Thanks
    1,133
    Thanked 1,584 Times in 1,007 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Okay. I'm by no means an expert but it seems to me that digital is a brilliant medium for print work but there is a "remove" of immediency from the artist's hand. I don't see why people should get sniffy about digital art in print, and I don't understand why people should think using digital less of an "art form". Horses for courses.

    On the other hand, print doesn't have the delicacy or brutality that a brushstroke can produce in real life. Why is all this hair-splicing going on? Digital art can be beautiful, but if it doesn't demonstrate a solid knowledge of the basics of art or design it will burn and crash.

    It would be wonderful if we could produce the same effects by hand that digital can as quickly, but we can't. Traditional art, however is more physical, tactile and sensual than digital will or can ever be.

    Why can't we appreciate the differences and just enjoy the art? Doesn't need to start a war...

     

  27. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    786
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 153 Times in 137 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'd offer some rebuttals, but I'm not sure how to do the multi-quote thing that Rhubix and Jeff have done.

    so, anyone able to offer insight on how to do that? I would certainly appreciate it!

    Doctors heal you, Artists immortalize you.

    "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach" - bullshit.

    The usual staples for anatomy:
    George Bridgman
    Joseph Sheppard
    Andrew Loomis
     

  28. #142
    Arshes Nei's Avatar
    Arshes Nei is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hitnrun View Post
    I'd offer some rebuttals, but I'm not sure how to do the multi-quote thing that Rhubix and Jeff have done.

    so, anyone able to offer insight on how to do that? I would certainly appreciate it!
    Yes, you have to use the button that is the + sign after "quote" each one is highlighted then you hit Post reply instead of using the Quick reply.

     

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arshes Nei For This Useful Post:


  30. #143
    JeffX99's Avatar
    JeffX99 is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,896 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    When you click the "quote" button it sets up the entire post you're quoting. It will start with a snip of code in brackets {QUOTE= poster name; numbers} (only use real brackets) and ends with [/QUOTE]. I just cut and paste the snippet identifying the poster and follow it with the end quote...then insert my pithy remarks. I'm not fully checked out yet to use the fancy plus thing.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

  31. #144
    Arshes Nei's Avatar
    Arshes Nei is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post

    I agree with the people that say digital is easier because it has major tools that save headaches and time.
    but there is a stigma on it that I think is greatly undeserved.
    I just want to say digital saves you time only in certain circumstances. It does not save me time when a sketchbook and pencil will do.

    I wouldn't say it's easier either. It's kinda like how we have major appliances for household chores actually. It actually didn't make everything easier because it opened up to more things we had to do.

    Do you think that laundry is "quicker"...maybe drying is certain kinds of washing is, but then you have more clothes and loads. Do you think sweeping is more time consuming than vacuuming?

    That's kind of what happens with digital and traditional to be honest. You got more things to do but I don't think it made it easier overall.

     

  32. #145
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,060
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,151 Times in 1,701 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Armando,

    Here we go again...

    If you are not able to demonstrate that you can oil paint as well as you paint on computer, why would anybody listen to your opinion about the relation of one to the other in terms of difficulty? Dpaint did not say that doing twenty different things on a computer is easier than painting. He said that painting on computer is easier than painting in real life. Don’t switch the argument. Aristotle’s four causes compound on one another, so they are all important. (You ignore that media alters design possibilites, for instance.) Saying one cause is more important than another is unsound both as an opinion in the context of this discussion and as a philosophical statement. (Did you just introduce the causes to name-drop Aristotle?) Your statement about the inferiority of paint to sculpture has no merit on any ground that I can think of. It’s merely opinion. And you defend it with another opinion. (I can’t image why you brought Plato into it.) Your comparison of digital art to writing is aesthetically unsound. (You’re a few insights away from understanding the problem.) Your statement that “If digital painting is easier than real painting, then we all should be able to paint like Craig Mullins” is a fallacious argument, because easier does not mean easy.

    Bad chess only impresses people who don't know how to play at all.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
     

  33. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhubix View Post
    It's not that I want people to think it's the same- it's not. I just don't want people to treat it like it's junk that took no effort or skill.
    People put a lot of hard work into things so they consider what they do to be valid. When someone questions the validity of those things we put so much work into, we get defensive. I think this is where most digital enthusiasts zone out. The justification of the investment of time overrides critical thinking. It becomes an emotional argument, more than an argument based on solid premises.

    Working digitally is more convenient. You're using technology to automate the process of image making. You're reducing or eliminating preparation and clean-up. You're condensing tools down to a single input device. Why is that bad though? Lots of good has come from technology. It's the difference between mustang and Mustang.

    A lot of what makes painting, painting is the very things that are made obsolete with a tablet and Photoshop.

    I only work digital. I'm not belittling the time you have invested. The qualities of each are different, and that's also why they're not equal.

    Last edited by s.ketch; April 2nd, 2012 at 02:19 AM.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
     

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  35. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 667 Times in 419 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Armando,

    Here we go again...

    If you are not able to demonstrate that you can oil paint as well as you paint on computer, why would anybody listen to your opinion about the relation of one to the other in terms of difficulty? Dpaint did not say that doing twenty different things on a computer is easier than painting. He said that painting on computer is easier than painting in real life. Don’t switch the argument. Aristotle’s four causes compound on one another, so they are all important. (You ignore that media alters design possibilites, for instance.) Saying one cause is more important than another is unsound both as an opinion in the context of this discussion and as a philosophical statement. (Did you just introduce the causes to name-drop Aristotle?) Your statement about the inferiority of paint to sculpture has no merit on any ground that I can think of. It’s merely opinion. And you defend it with another opinion. (I can’t image why you brought Plato into it.) Your comparison of digital art to writing is aesthetically unsound. (You’re a few insights away from understanding the problem.) Your statement that “If digital painting is easier than real painting, then we all should be able to paint like Craig Mullins” is a fallacious argument, because easier does not mean easy.

    Bad chess only impresses people who don't know how to play at all.
    It's the art discussion forum, I'm just putting up thoughts and then comparing them to other people's. "If you are not able to demonstrate that you can oil paint as well as you paint on computer, why would anybody listen to your opinion about the relation of one to the other in terms of difficulty?" applies to everyone, noone in here is a master of both. I don't claim to be an authority, if I did I would have put up a portrait drawing in this thread: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=175926
    On "digital paint is more difficult than real" I was thinking back to this thread: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=201350

    Quote Originally Posted by scrawnypaws View Post
    CG is quite frustrating, in a way. this could have been done in oils with much less effort and with a higher degree of success... Because what I can do in oils with just one hand movement takes ten in Photoshop. Also, the material does it all by itself.
    I was thinking that the degree of success of a simulation depends on the knowledge of what is being simulated, that a simulation of a painting requires knowledge of painting + skill with a computer program. Plus I'm unable to duplicate the results that he got there, it's hard to do, did you expect me to write the opposite?

    Inferiority of paint to sculpture was not my opinion, I should have put it in quotations. I was thinking back on some bits I had seen from arguments in the renaissance about the superiority of sculpture to painting, Leonardo's opinion vs Michelangelo's, some bits of stuff I had heard about Plato's opinion.

    I didn't compare digital art to writing, I said I respect a good author and not a bad one, and I respect a good digital artist and not a bad one. I don't care that what they produce doesn't physically-exist. Sucky paintings, digital images, and books all exist but I don't respect them or their creators.

    "You ignore that media alters design possibilites, for instance." Isn't a possible thought for anyone. You derived that from "The different artistic mediums that exist aren't automatially important to me", I'm not a writer, I also mispelled "automatically" there.

    "Bad chess only impresses people who don't know how to play at all." Chess is stylized conflict. I'm more interested in learning than fighting with people.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
     

  36. #148
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,658
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked 5,887 Times in 2,359 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The media affects the outcome, you can't separate that no one can. Digital tools were created to allow less skilled people into the pipeline. I've already made this point which people on the other side like to ignore. Digital allows more stuff to be accomplished in the same time frame. More doesn't make it better and this is shown in the amount of utter crap being churned out in games and movies and comics and tv with digital.

    The kind of industries that use digital tend to make disposable art. Art that has no intent of permanence to it. That is not so with most traditional painting although it can be, as now a days even traditional art is being devalued by contests and plein air shows and painting demonstrations to feed the make more free crap for me crowd.

    This affects the creation of the images. If you are working in games or features your work is being thrown out and forgotten even when it was traditionally made it was like that. This is especially true of digital work; it has no value except to satisfy the need of the client or project. When you remove the physicality of it has no use or purpose beyond that need.

    That fact affects its creation. It lessons it in everyone’s mind including the artists creating it. It creates an attitude of junk art that anyone can now come and mess with your creation; digital allows the removal of the single artists vision. This was on purpose by the companies pushing the technology.


    In the old days the AD or Producer would have to go back to the artist who created the work and have them change something. The momentum was against this nd so the art was less prone to outside influence. Things had to be worked out in advance and designed consciously.

    Now digital allows everything to be in play and at the whim of everyone from the director and producer to the marketing department. They can hand it off to anyone else to do it or mess with it themselves as long as its digital. When that happens the original creators learn to anticipate that and it affects the outcome. Anytime you allow art to be designed by committee you lesson its impact when art can be created by committee you've removed the art from it and it becomes no different than a factory line of Nike's.

    If digital rtists are so skillful why is it that most stuff made today digitally sucks in comparison to the stuff made traditionally? Where are your equivalent of the golden age illustrators or comics creators working in digital? Where are the shows and movies? For every lord of the Rings there are 100 John Carters. Show me someone who paints well digitally and I'll show you a better traditional painter Show me someone who draws well digitally and I'll show you someone who draws better traditionally and on and on.

    If digital creatiors want respect they have to earn it by doing something unique with their medium, otherwise it will stay disposable and a cheap imitation of traditional techniques.

     

  37. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


  38. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    If digital rtists are so skillful why is it that most stuff made today digitally sucks in comparison to the stuff made traditionally?
    Some of this can be explained by the following:
    - 90% of everything is crap, but people only remember the very good and very bad. Everyone remembers John Singer Sargent, but no one bothered holding on to the half-assed work his neighbor probably made. People hold onto the good stuff, and the rest is washed away and forgotten. But the problem now is...
    - Lots of amateur digital artists sharing work - A lot of young, inexperienced artists work digitally. It's also common for these same people post their work online, leading to a wealth of amateur work on the internet. CA seems to be an exception though - there are plenty of mediocre artists posting their work using traditional media as well. Seeing every 12-year-old's digital work can lead to the perception that working digital produces terrible artists. Once that opinion is formed, there is the problem of...
    - Confirmation bias - once you've formed an opinion, you see what you want/expect to see. This isn't really a criticism of you: everyone does it. For instance, I see evidence of confirmation bias everywhere.

    Beginner artists produce beginner art, regardless of medium. When all the beginner artists share their work online, it can make it look like there isn't much else out there. Traditional art has to be approved by someone before it gets into a gallery or shown in a magazine. The internet has no such barrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Show me someone who paints well digitally and I'll show you a better traditional painter
    Of course you can. Oil painting has been around since the 12th century, giving you a very long timeline to cherry pick exceptional artists from. Give digital art a few hundred years to mature and ask again. If you restrict that to living artists, I suspect you may have a hard time finding god-tier traditional artists that don't have 30+ more years of experience than most people working digitally.

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

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


  40. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    803
    Thanks
    703
    Thanked 460 Times in 368 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Digital art files only mimic real physical art. The direct hand of the author upon the plastic material is not there because pixels are not plastic material.

    I admit I stopped reading this thread when I read this. Now, to say that I have respect for Mr. Ferrara's artwork is a huge understatement, but this made me smile.

    The ancient Greeks, especially Plato, had very similar things to say about the physical art of painting itself. This somehow seems to me to have a close affinity with Plato's idea of 'mimesis', where he says that (representational) art is a third-order copy, 'mimesis', of the real because it represents, and is not the real.

    That is to say, a painting of a chair is not a chair. And similarly, a chair is not the idea of a chair. There is, at least in as much as Plato would have us believe, a single 'eternal idea' of a chair, on which all tangible reproductions of a chair are based. Art, in representing these corporeal chair, becomes a copy of a copy.

    This kind of argument, of course, cannot be of much credit now. Because the burnt sienna on a canvas representing a chair is as real as the wooden chair itself precisely because it is paint on canvas. That is to say, it is 'real' because it is a 'real' painting.

    Similarly (I think) a digital painting and pixels are real precisely because they are pixels. They are 'real' because they are 'real' pixels.

    This might be a little hard to accept right now, the same way it was difficult for Plato to accept the reality of paintings - the fidelity of the 'original painting' is being opposed to the 'copy-paste nature of a digital', the way Plato opposed the 'eternal idea' to a 'temporal painting' - but I'm sure it will catch on.

    Sketchbooks
     

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vritra For This Useful Post:


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

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
  •