Digital Art frowned upon?? - Page 6
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 186

Thread: Digital Art frowned upon??

  1. #151
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vritra View Post
    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.
    No, the pixels aren't real. The code is what is real. The code always produces a similar arrangement of pixels. But the actual "real" pixels change. The pixels change as you zoom in, or move the image side to side. If you view the image on another computer, the pixel arrangement is manifested through a totally different set of lights. It is only the code that is real. It is only the code that is constant. What is being created in digital art is the code that arranges the pixels on the scrreen to give the illusion of a real work of art in front of your eyes.

    Plato's complaints about mimesis are well founded, but have nothing to do with this question. Furthermore, painting was not well developed in Plato's time. Only in the last several hundred years has the aesthetics really advanced, and they have advanced quite far indeed.

    Last edited by kev ferrara; April 2nd, 2012 at 06:01 PM.
    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
     

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  3. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    803
    Thanks
    703
    Thanked 460 Times in 368 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mr. Ferrara, sir, I was anticipating a reply of this sort. Let me make clear my position a little. But first, let me state that I have no intention of inducing the ire of an artist of your stature, espeicall one I respect so much, so this will be my last post in this thread.

    I never claimed, in as much as it was not my intention to claim, that digital art is 'real' by any standard of 'real' that you might employ. There is a distinction to be made here - namely, that the world is 'out there', but human appropriations of it are not. That is to say, what is 'real' is not decided by the very existence of the world itself, but by humans. The 'real' has to be opposed to 'fake' or 'virtual', and this becomes part of an internal, human, debate. The fact that pixels are not 'real', but codes are, is decided by people, not the pixels or codes themselves.

    Also, all such appropriations are necessarily historically contingent, that is to say, the different beliefes or understandings of 'real' do not refer back to something beyond the reach of time. The examply of Plato is relevant here precisely because he conceived of a different notion of 'real'.

    The understanding of 'real' as an empirically tangible object (basically, an empiricist world view), is as historically contingent as Plato's own view that only ideas are 'real'. They are both historically contingent and 'contructed', that is to say, they are not assumptions that have existed since time immemorial.

    Thus, your arguments that digital art is not 'real' or that it does not have an 'orginal' or lacks tactile value is not 'wrong'. That is to say, of course you are 'right', but only in as much as this rightness is also contingent. The authority of an original piece of work, or the tactile quality of a painting are not properties that inherently make it 'real', but the values that are assigned to these properties - human values - make it so.

    A clue lies in your own admission that in Plato's time painting was not well developed, and that it has only developed in the last several hundred years. That is to say, the values that Plato assigns to constitute what is 'real' is not applicable to painting as understood by the current mainstream. Similarly, the values that the current mainstream applies to the 'real' cannot apply to, or rather, will always deride, that status of digital art as 'real'.

    What has been attempted in this thread is to prove or disprove the value of the digital as 'real' under the assumptions of 'real' that is already prominent, but this can never be done. Simply put, new answers to old questions won't do, but new questions must be asked.

    Sketchbooks
     

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


  5. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Deland Florida
    Posts
    666
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked 210 Times in 167 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Let's just be clear, Vritra just took you to school.

    The Sketchbook of Naj and Stu!:
    SKETCHBOOK

    And of course go check out the SB of DefiledVisions
     

  6. #154
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    3,766
    Thanked 1,050 Times in 586 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Vritra View Post
    There is a distinction to be made here - namely, that the world is 'out there', but human appropriations of it are not. That is to say, what is 'real' is not decided by the very existence of the world itself, but by humans. The 'real' has to be opposed to 'fake' or 'virtual', and this becomes part of an internal, human, debate. The fact that pixels are not 'real', but codes are, is decided by people, not the pixels or codes themselves

    ......

    The understanding of 'real' as an empirically tangible object (basically, an empiricist world view), is as historically contingent as Plato's own view that only ideas are 'real'. They are both historically contingent and 'contructed', that is to say, they are not assumptions that have existed since time immemorial.
    Vritra... take this with a grain of salt, but that's complete hogwash. The physical world was here and very real long before humans showed up to label it, and it'll be here long after we're gone. To say that empirically tangible reality is on the same level as "ideas are real" doesn't hold water.

    Now, with that in mind... the argument here is that the traditionally painted art object does exist, as a physical artifact with tangible properties, which people react to, as they've evolved to react. In that sense, digital art doesn't physically "exist", and Kev already explained why. That doesn't (to me) take away from the beauty and value of digital art, because I'm not talking about arrangement of pixels or paint into the image. But there is absolutely a difference in how someone reacts to it, versus a real object. Just like there's a colossal difference between looking at a photo of a Rembrandt on your screen, and seeing the real painting on the wall in a museum. This has nothing to do with whether a human being has decided that the painting is "real" or not.

    Last edited by Sidharth Chaturvedi; April 3rd, 2012 at 05:12 AM.
     

  7. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    803
    Thanks
    703
    Thanked 460 Times in 368 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This post is just to make a simple clarification. The questions that Siddharth raised have actually already been discussed in my last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Chaturvedi View Post
    Vritra... take this with a grain of salt, but that's complete hogwash.

    That is an ad hominem attack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Chaturvedi View Post
    The physical world was here and very real long before humans showed up to label it, and it'll be here long after we're gone. To say that empirically tangible reality is on the same level as "ideas are real" doesn't hold water.

    I am not for once denying that the world 'was here' or is 'out there'.

    What I'm saying is, that what is 'real' is human appropriation. That is to say, something can only be 'real' as opposed to 'fake'. The world, by existing, does not decide it is 'real'. We decide this.

    Again, answering old questions cannot, nor will it ever, make digital art 'real'. New questions must be asked. Questions such as - what is the status of the 'original' as a tangible object? What is the status of 'copy-paste' in as far as the 'real' is decided? What is the status of 'smell, feel and texture' in deciding the 'virtual'? And so on and so forth.

    Again, just to be clear, I am not saying that this process can establish a value system which is more 'real' that the current mainstream. I am not debating over the 'degree of real' as it is already understood, but simply saying that the very notion of 'real' is contingent.

    Guys, I am done posting here. Have a good discussion/debate.

    Last edited by Vritra; April 3rd, 2012 at 09:18 AM.
    Sketchbooks
     

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


  9. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mölndal, Sweden
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks
    2,379
    Thanked 1,911 Times in 832 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    What I'm saying is, that what is 'real' is human appropriation. That is to say, something can only be 'real' as opposed to 'fake'. The world, by existing, does not decide it is 'real'. We decide this.
    The world, by existing, is real. Existing = real. Not existing = not real.

    "I've got ham, but I'm not a hamster"

    Sketchy Link

    Portfolio
     

  10. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tobbA View Post
    The world, by existing, is real. Existing = real. Not existing = not real.
    Interesting discussion, but dang--now I'm really confused. What about things that aren't nothing, but that also aren't real? For example, a unicorn--it's not nothing, but it's not real either.

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    No, the pixels aren't real. The code is what is real.
    My brain crashes here.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    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.
    The philosophy is obviously over my head, but this I can understand!

     

  11. #158
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Vritra,

    Sorry that you mistook my last post as aggressive. I was just trying to make my arguments clear. And clarification of any statement makes it more forceful. And thus it seems more aggressive. I was actually pleased by the intelligence of your comment, rather than irritated by it.

    However, intelligence has its perils. And the greatest peril is getting too wrapped up in the symbols we use to manifest and manipulate our thoughts. Some of these symbols are words. And words are tricky. Words trick us.

    And I think you have been tricked into the thinking that our labels for things in the world matter. They don’t. We only label because we want to manipulate in our thoughts the things in the world that matter to us, the things that have significance to us, as concepts.

    We don’t need the word “hunger” to know we are hungry. Being hungry is not contingent on a word. Similarly, that hunger is real requires no justification. Reality justifies itself. Demonstration is the surest proof. Labels justify nothing. They merely refer, hopefully to self-justifying realities.

    These labels are like sandcastles. If some grand wave comes crashing in, wiping out our civilization and our language, some other civilization may crop up and give a different name to reality. Or a different name to hunger. But the reality of hunger will not be affected one bit by the label change.

    When you say that “the world is 'out there', but human appropriations of it are not. That is to say, what is 'real' is not decided by the very existence of the world itself, but by humans. The 'real' has to be opposed to 'fake' or 'virtual', and this becomes part of an internal, human, debate. The fact that pixels are not 'real', but codes are, is decided by people, not the pixels or codes themselves.” you are making the argument that I think reality is defined by the word real, a human creation. But this is not so. The word real is defined by humans to refer to that which is demonstrably real outside us... that which we mutually experience. The word real does not justify the reality of this reality, nor does it demonstrate it. It is because reality demonstrates itself to most of us that we have mutually agreed that the word real may symbolize it for the purposes of thought and discussion.

    The issue then becomes, what are the characteristics of the reality that demonstrates itself to us?

    This set of factors is the real definition of reality. Not what is written in the dictionary or said on some thread in cyberspace. This original understanding of reality, outside of the manipulations of language, is the benchmark for whether some later phenomena is real or not.

    Now you may say that a digital work of art is real in the same sense that a mirage is real. Both are phenomena which we experience. But the heart of the issue is not whether the phenomena we call a mirage is real. But whether the water that appears in the mirage is real.

    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
     

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  13. #159
    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
    Hey, bottom line...real, imaginary, virtual or bullshit...I have a one man show opening this Friday with roughly 60 pieces that people can buy and walk away with and hang on their wall. Some are oils, some is digital and some is very much not traditional. I doubt anyone will wonder if any of it is real though.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
     

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


  15. #160
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,648
    Thanks
    2,622
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,354 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    Hey, bottom line...real, imaginary, virtual or bullshit...I have a one man show opening this Friday with roughly 60 pieces that people can buy and walk away with and hang on their wall. Some are oils, some is digital and some is very much not traditional. I doubt anyone will wonder if any of it is real though.
    Best thread highjacking ever!

     

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


  17. #161
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,002
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,010 Times in 539 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    In the whole pixel and code vs reality I was going to throw out there a movie vs live performance. Buuuut.... ... not quite the same. As you don't view a live performance in the same way you view a movie, static view, no varying angles, you don't go shooting around in your seat like you would have to teleport to keep up in a movie. (As amazing as that would be for live theater)


    But I think the point I was going to try throwing out there before I realized that false comparison was that even a movie is a bunch of pixels on a screen thrown up on a wall in a theater or even on your computer screen with light. People don't view it as real, as in what is on the screen is existing in real life, same as a painting. But they don't view it as just code, or pixels either. It's still a real movie. It exists. Maybe not in any fashion besides light being shown displaying an image but to the average person viewing the movie they couldn't care less, they still get drawn in.

    But once again the huge difference in the art forms and digital painting vs traditional is not as much breaking the mold in the same way. So not the same but that's what I was getting from the whole humans appropriating real or not real. A painting is a real object, the image is not.


    They're still an apple and an orange. Not the same thing at all in terms of physicality, creation, and value though.




    Either way that thought was bugging me. I'm probably misinterpreting things as I often do when Kev and someone gets talking about some complex subject. "Oh they meant this right..... .... oh.... ... ok... nevermind..... completely different....."

     

  18. #162
    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 dpaint View Post
    Best thread highjacking ever!
    Yeah this gives me all kinds of ideas.

     

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


  20. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    lol who are you guys to decide what is real and what is not? just cause you can touch it, taste it, smell it, or generally feel it, you think its real? A lot of you here are talking as if you know exactly how the world functions from large down to quantum scale. We, humans, are so ignorant. We think we know it all. But do we really? A dream you see at night might as well be just as real as the cup of coffee you get in the morning. Who defines real? Who defines the fact that if you can feel it physically, then it is real. Our minds are not capable of looking past physical matter in many intances. That does not mean that physical matter is the only one that exists and the only one that should be considered real. Yeah, yeah i know, it is evidence as we can see it. And people's nature is to believe something they see and base everything off of that. Digital art is as real as the painting you create on canvas. It gives you a different sensation that is true but none of that defines one more real than the other. Pixels is information of code that lights up on the monitor. I consider digital art painting with light. Why cant we consider painting with light real? Light is certainly real. We can see it, we can even feel it. So what makes light so different from paint? Just because our senses are not tuned enough to feel the light just as much as we could feel solid objects, or have an awareness of how solid the object is, does not mean that a digital artwork of light is less real than a canvas painting.

    Take a digital work print it. There it just became physical. Is it still not real? Why? Because it wasn't created by a medium that human race is so used to after 1000s of years? I am sure that if digital medium was around for 1000s of years it would be considered just as real. To me, creating art by means of using a computer just means using a different medium and I do not see a reason for it not to be that way. The only reason people prefer so-called "real" art over digital right now is because they can interact with it on a physical level. I hate to break it to those people but real art is not about interacting with it on such low level as physical. A digital work of art can set off a lot more emotions than another physical work of art. So why are we defining real by such shallow measures as it being physical or not? shouldn't we as artists realize already that real art is the art that evokes emotion. I am sure that if something evokes emotion it bears a lot more power and "realness" to it than a mundane physical object. To sum it up physical objects are just a bridge to communicate ideas better and more vividly by relying a lot on our physical senses and our awareness of those physical senses. I would love to see more people learn to get away from that and be able to comprehend the ideas and feel the artwork disregarding that physical bridge. I think all of us could benefit from some spirituality, especially at this time, and especially of who we are or claim to be...

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  21. #164
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,648
    Thanks
    2,622
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,354 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by emerging View Post
    lol who are you guys to decide what is real and what is not? just cause you can touch it, taste it, smell it, or generally feel it, you think its real? A lot of you here are talking as if you know exactly how the world functions from large down to quantum scale. We, humans, are so ignorant. We think we know it all. But do we really? A dream you see at night might as well be just as real as the cup of coffee you get in the morning. Who defines real? Who defines the fact that if you can feel it physically, then it is real. Our minds are not capable of looking past physical matter in many intances. That does not mean that physical matter is the only one that exists and the only one that should be considered real. Yeah, yeah i know, it is evidence as we can see it. And people's nature is to believe something they see and base everything off of that. Digital art is as real as the painting you create on canvas. It gives you a different sensation that is true but none of that defines one more real than the other. Pixels is information of code that lights up on the monitor. I consider digital art painting with light. Why cant we consider painting with light real? Light is certainly real. We can see it, we can even feel it. So what makes light so different from paint? Just because our senses are not tuned enough to feel the light just as much as we could feel solid objects, or have an awareness of how solid the object is, does not mean that a digital artwork of light is less real than a canvas painting.

    Take a digital work print it. There it just became physical. Is it still not real? Why? Because it wasn't created by a medium that human race is so used to after 1000s of years? I am sure that if digital medium was around for 1000s of years it would be considered just as real. To me, creating art by means of using a computer just means using a different medium and I do not see a reason for it not to be that way. The only reason people prefer so-called "real" art over digital right now is because they can interact with it on a physical level. I hate to break it to those people but real art is not about interacting with it on such low level as physical. A digital work of art can set off a lot more emotions than another physical work of art. So why are we defining real by such shallow measures as it being physical or not? shouldn't we as artists realize already that real art is the art that evokes emotion. I am sure that if something evokes emotion it bears a lot more power and "realness" to it than a mundane physical object. To sum it up physical objects are just a bridge to communicate ideas better and more vividly by relying a lot on our physical senses and our awareness of those physical senses. I would love to see more people learn to get away from that and be able to comprehend the ideas and feel the artwork disregarding that physical bridge. I think all of us could benefit from some spirituality, especially at this time, and especially of who we are or claim to be...
    No you're wrong, next.

     

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


  23. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    No you're wrong, next.
    no you're a hopeless troll. next! someone who can put couple intelligent points together plz, thanks.

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  24. #166
    dpaint's Avatar
    dpaint is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,648
    Thanks
    2,622
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,354 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by emerging View Post
    no you're a hopeless troll. next! someone who can put together couple intelligent points together plz, thanks.
    That’s obviously not you . Your ignorant appraisal of reality versus digital reality is sophomoric. It probably stems from the fact the only sex you have is on the internet so you think that it is better than sex with a real woman because, you know, like physical reality, is such a low level of communication. Duhr.

    Last edited by dpaint; April 3rd, 2012 at 03:42 PM.
     

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


  26. #167
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dpaint View Post
    Thats obviously not you . Your ignorant apraisal of reality versus digital reality is sophomoric. It probably stems from the fact the only sex you have is on the internet so you think that it is better than sex with a real woman because, you know, like physical reality, is such a low level of communication. Duhr.
    hahah i'll just keep quiet and bath in the glory of how immature you are sounding to everyone right now

    again, next please..

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  27. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This is ridiculous. Why oh why do people want one to be the other? Why not let something, in its infancy, evolve to becomes something new and maybe even more?

    Whining and repeating but digital is real is such a wasted effort. Take this new medium by its 1100011010 horns and make it its own incredible new thing with its own reality. Its ceiling, for what it can communicate, is potentially limitless.

    Stop trying to be someone or something else.

     

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


  29. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bcarman View Post
    This is ridiculous. Why oh why do people want one to be the other? Why not let something, in its infancy, evolve to becomes something new and maybe even more?

    Whining and repeating but digital is real is such a wasted effort. Take this new medium by its 1100011010 horns and make it its own incredible new thing with its own reality. Its ceiling, for what it can communicate, is potentially limitless.

    Stop trying to be someone or something else.
    you are right. i guess ignorant people like someone overthere want to believe their medium is the best and absolute. I got nothing against physical art. Then why F do people have something against digital art, because quite frankly it is not their business and it is not up to them to decide which is better. And saying that digital art is not real is simply suggesting that in their eyes digital art is somthing less than any other art form that involves physical media. Anyway, it is their opinion, i have my own. People and especially artists are stubborn shitheads so I guess the best thing is not to try to prove anything but suggest your point of view, your opinion.

    But when someone comes in and disrespects me like that, thats just ridiculous.. so d-paint just stop for a second and realize that your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine and jsut because you have a strong believe in what you do doesn't make other people wrong...

    grow up and get out of your shell

    and btw your creative but retarded analogy to having sex on the internet or with a real woman cant even be applied here... talking about art here not primal instincts hello?

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  30. #170
    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 emerging View Post
    you are right. i guess ignorant people like someone overthere want to believe their medium is the best and absolute. I got nothing against physical art. Then why F do people have something against digital art, because quite frankly it is not their business and it is not up to them to decide which is better. And saying that digital art is not real is simply suggesting that in their eyes digital art is somthing less than any other art form that involves physical media. Anyway, it is their opinion, i have my own. People and especially artists are stubborn shitheads so I guess the best thing is not to try to prove anything but suggest your point of view, your opinion.

    But when someone comes in and disrespects me like that, thats just ridiculous.. so d-paint just stop for a second and realize that your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine and jsut because you have a strong believe in what you do doesn't make other people wrong...

    grow up and get out of your shell
    I'm not sure you are reading all of the comments in their context. The original question for this post had to do with digital in a fine art class setting. People started asking questions why not and the answers were that they were not the same but some argued that they were because painting is painting. But painting is not painting. It is very different.

    So all of these later responses are defense of some of the earlier discussion. The talk kept turning back to digital is just a different form of painting and then there was the response that no it is basically a cheap copy. Because in its current, prevalent form, it is a cheap copy.

    But I happen to believe, since digital is in its infancy and traditional has had a hundreds of years head start, that the potential for digital is much greater because there is really no end to the possibilities under a digital umbrella though there is much better traditional painting right now.

    Having said that right now the prevalent voice in digital painting is a surface copying of traditional. There are of course exceptions and we have applauded those and have great hope for those and even more in the future.

     

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


  32. #171
    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 emerging View Post
    I watched the Matrix five times and once in slow motion
    I'm not going to systematically quote everything you said so we can have a 5 page argument and waste a lot of time.

    You're stating things without thinking about them. Like why you leave through the front door of your home every morning without thinking about it. Or why your computer works. Or how you don't die from taking aspirin. You're also projecting. You accuse everyone here of acting like we have all the answers and then promptly state all the answers. Which are just various tid bits of pop-philosophy and memes.

    We're all thrilled that you're in a state where you're ready to "question everything" and "free your mind" but the next step is to actually do it. Develop a discerning palette for information that informs your opinions.

    And just to get a jab in there, if you print a digital work it's no longer digital.

    "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."
     

  33. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  34. #172
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mölndal, Sweden
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks
    2,379
    Thanked 1,911 Times in 832 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Interesting discussion, but dang--now I'm really confused. What about things that aren't nothing, but that also aren't real? For example, a unicorn--it's not nothing, but it's not real either.
    A unicorn is nothing. It doesn't exist. The idea of a unicorn exists. But the animal itself doesn't.

    Though to be honest I'm not really sure how this applies to digital art... Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, though. The code, as Kev points out, of a digital artwork is real, but the pixels on the screen are also real. The pixels on the screen are just a projection of the actual building blocks of the artwork though.

    The issue then, I suppose, is that that the code is so easy to copy into it's last detail, while we don't have access to the "source code" of a traditional artwork, and therefore we can never make an exact replica of it.

    On the other hand... In an imagined Star Trek future, where we have machines capable of analyzing an object right down to it's sub-atomic particles and also machines that are able to convert energy into matter of our choosing, the difference between digital and traditional media won't be as great anymore.

    "I've got ham, but I'm not a hamster"

    Sketchy Link

    Portfolio
     

  35. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by s.ketch View Post
    I'm not going to systematically quote everything you said so we can have a 5 page argument and waste a lot of time.

    You're stating things without thinking about them. Like why you leave through the front door of your home every morning without thinking about it. Or why your computer works. Or how you don't die from taking aspirin. You're also projecting. You accuse everyone here of acting like we have all the answers and then promptly state all the answers. Which are just various tid bits of pop-philosophy and memes.

    We're all thrilled that you're in a state where you're ready to "question everything" and "free your mind" but the next step is to actually do it. Develop a discerning palette for information that informs your opinions.

    And just to get a jab in there, if you print a digital work it's no longer digital.
    why do you assume what i state thinking and not thinking about it first? Ohh i have a very clear understanding of what I am talking about. Why do you also assume that I am not actually doing it (freeing mind).

    What i said about everyone not knowing is not accusations. I include myself into "everyone" but at least I have a decency and not selfish to understand that. I respect other people's opinions and do have my own as well. That is the reason for me expressing my thoughts on the subject right after saying that we dont really know much. The purpose of saying that in the beginning is to suggest that my points are also just an opinion.

    In any case, agruing about arguing is even more unproductive than arguing.. so you all can either accept my opinion or **&%$#!

    obviosly you dont have to agree with my opinion but dont fkn tell me "YOU ARE WRONG" as bluntly as it comes across from several people here.

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  36. #174
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by emerging View Post
    you are right. i guess ignorant people like someone overthere want to believe their medium is the best and absolute. I got nothing against physical art. Then why F do people have something against digital art, because quite frankly it is not their business and it is not up to them to decide which is better. And saying that digital art is not real is simply suggesting that in their eyes digital art is somthing less than any other art form that involves physical media. Anyway, it is their opinion, i have my own. People and especially artists are stubborn shitheads so I guess the best thing is not to try to prove anything but suggest your point of view, your opinion.

    But when someone comes in and disrespects me like that, thats just ridiculous.. so d-paint just stop for a second and realize that your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine and jsut because you have a strong believe in what you do doesn't make other people wrong...

    grow up and get out of your shell

    and btw your creative but retarded analogy to having sex on the internet or with a real woman cant even be applied here... talking about art here not primal instincts hello?
    I'm very sorry that you've gotten emotional about this discussion. Maybe someday you will be able to control your emotions better and you will be able to think clearer as a result. Then you can read the arguments over and possibly understand them. You still may resent the arguments. But you may come to understand that just because you don't like an argument, that doesn't mean it doesn't hold true. And if an argument holds true, you should accept it, whether it gives you the warm and fuzzies or not.

    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
     

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


  38. #175
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California, United States
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    332
    Thanked 266 Times in 137 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This thread is getting too much like an Intro to Philosophy course. I'm going to take my squirrels and get out of here.

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

  39. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    I'm very sorry that you've gotten emotional about this discussion. Maybe someday you will be able to control your emotions better and you will be able to think clearer as a result. Then you can read the arguments over and possibly understand them. You still may resent the arguments. But you may come to understand that just because you don't like an argument, that doesn't mean it doesn't hold true. And if an argument holds true, you should accept it, whether it gives you the warm and fuzzies or not.
    same goes to you guys not just me
    i have been trying to prove exaclty that to couple other pple here. But i am sorry saying "no, you are wrong. next" is not an argument of any sort. And then assuming things about my sex life out of that? who is that guy lol

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  40. #177
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by emerging View Post
    same goes to you guys not just me
    Again, there is a reality outside your mind.

    In that reality, you have not yet made a single coherent argument to support your position. Nor have you said anything at all that changes the logical force of what I have posted.

    In the reality outside your mind, you are simply reacting emotionally to an argument you don't like.

    Your argument is this: DON'T FUCKING TELL ME YOUR SHIT IS BETTER THAN MY SHIT! BOTH OUR SHITS ARE THE SAME!

    (As you can see, some of the finer distinctions being drawn are lost.)

    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
     

  41. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    800
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 571 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Again, there is a reality outside your mind.

    In that reality, you have not yet made a single coherent argument to support your position. Nor have you said anything at all that changes the reality of what I have posted.

    In the reality outside your mind, you are simply reacting emotionally to an argument you don't like.

    Your argument is this: DON'T FUCKING TELL ME YOUR SHIT IS BETTER THAN MY SHIT! BOTH OUR SHITS ARE THE SAME!

    (As you can see, some of the finer distinctions being drawn are lost.)
    how did i not provide you with argumentative points? maybe you should pay more attention reading my first post...
    i provided logical arguments, i didn't provide you scientific, quoted out of other books with page numbers in the brackets. Can you really say its a weak arguement because it uses a certain logic to prove the points? no i dont htink so, not when talking about a such a phylosophical subject..

    --==== S-K-E-T-C-H-B-O-O-K ====--


    Please take a look!!!
     

  42. #179
    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
    Should I close this thread?

     

  43. #180
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    965
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 478 Times in 314 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arshes Nei View Post
    Should I close this thread?
    Only if you say "lol" to prove your intellectual superiority.

     

Page 6 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
  •