I think the reason some traditional artists frown upon digital art is that the computer has become the middle man and it interprets your actions. The experiences are quite different and there seems to be greater satisfaction from actually painting rather than doing one digitally.
Its kinda like being at a football game versus watching it at home on your TV.
my 2 cents
No man who values originality will ever be original. But try to tell the truth as you see it, try to do any bit of work as well as it can be done for the work's sake, and what men call originality will come unsought." - C.S. Lewis
To the topic of which holds more power or "soul" standing in front of a physical painting or a printout of a digital one. That depends a lot on the painting, the imagery, the artist, and the person viewing.
To the average viewer there is little distinction imo. A good image is a good image to them.
Though, this dives into the purpose of the art itself.
If it's fine art someone wants, they want fine art and a physical painting, often they want an original work that no one else has. However, if someone likes an image I know plenty of people and even businesses like restaurants that frame up a high quality print of the art they like. (kinda know more people with prints than paintings nowadays personally). There's obvious difference in value, one you get an original which is hard or impossible to reproduce or even scan depending on the images source the other can be copied infinitely.
If someone wants concept art though, I'm not in the industry at all but I imagine most couldn't give 2 shits whether you give them a painting, print or pdf since the main purpose is the imagery and design used to create something else (2D drawing to help create a 3D model etc). Since many of the Concept artists around here I've subscribed to on different sites often do more digital than traditional both professionally and in practice (though most do both regardless for practice). If someones freelancing to game company I doubt anyones going to pay something like 10,000 for a single fine art painting (insert link showing the salaries of freelance Concept artists proving me wrong, thats not a challenge btw. Just have a feeling someone was going to lol).
It's a different purpose entirely with different value, for different price ranges and audiences. Though either way the actual image is all that matters. (or historical value in many cases)
Last edited by JFierce; March 25th, 2012 at 11:28 PM.
lol well don't want to play the 'explain it to me' card. But in all reality explain it a bit?
Because every single person I know that has no art experience at all, doesn't distinguish based on anything more than if they like it. Unless it has some historical value, or their buying it as some sort of investment I don't know anyone that buys or displays something they don't like. No one puts up a painting they hate in their house opposed to a print they love.
(Also should just throw out there my mom loves to go to auctions and buy random art for cheap, has no idea what she's doing. But their are a lot of decent quality prints in the mix that have been in their house where people have no idea on the difference. To this day there have been barely anyone I've seen that even says it's a print. Heard many times "Oh that's a nice painting on the wall who did it?")
Last edited by JFierce; March 26th, 2012 at 01:08 AM.
Judging art on the basis of whether we "like" it is the best litmus test imo as well, though sometimes a deeper searching for context can help us "like" something that may seem challenging at first blush. Or as you pointed out we may also "like" something simply because it is interesting historically.
If someone can't tell the difference between a print an original work so be it, that is a reflection of their limited awareness, not a conclusion that the things are the same.
The world is bigger than a 22" monitor...and so is art.
(btw - I appreciate the fact that many times I see you take a jab well and in the humor it is intended - gold star my friend!)
Oh no, I was by no means saying a print is the same, the two are very very different. (Although I hate to admit I've been fooled a few times without the use of a magnifying glass. Used to have no idea about prints at all)
I was just trying to attempt throwing out the view of those non artists in the mix as they view the art too, same as everyone and are often the ones that 'consume' it the most. Experience as you said has a big impact on connection.
Kind of like how I remember back before I learned anything at all about anatomy, I wasn't bothered half as much by wonky broken arms and things that make no sense lol. Now I see drawings and paintings I remember liking years ago and thinking '....wow.... that was not how I remembered it'.
I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art). Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).
I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another. Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus. Now, I am an artist who started out with digital and transitioned to traditional materials (though I still use digital as well) and I certainly agree with much of what has been expressed here - I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium. Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both. OK... digital is a medium more tempting to "cheat" with and that is a pity, but the cheaters will never become professional artists because they lack the artistic skill to create sophisticated work and a real artist who is serious about learning techniques and theory will do so and produce great work whatever they are using. Because I went about it backwards from most people, I'm using techniques I learned in digital painting in my traditional work - because they are universal art techniques, not digital tricks. Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.
But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.
After all that's been said you can't seriously believe this?Originally Posted by Birkeley
Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.
Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast