Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 105 to 117 of 186

Thread: Digital Art frowned upon??

  1. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarsson View Post
    Take action painting for example. How well would that stand digitally? (Now that I've run this post through numerous times I remembered, seeing a video with someone doing what looked like live action painting on-stage, but with a tablet and new piece of software which created interesting shapes & forms based on the users input or something... does anyone know what I'm talking about?)
    Sure - Android Jones is the guy you're likely thinking of: Android.

    Edit: Actually I think action painting holds up quite well in the digital realm and is a medium probably better suited to the concepts of action painting than paint and canvas. But interesting to think about what Pollock might have done with Painter...
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  4. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    256
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 82 Times in 65 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarsson View Post

    Take action painting for example. How well would that stand digitally? (Now that I've run this post through numerous times I remembered, seeing a video with someone doing what looked like live action painting on-stage, but with a tablet and new piece of software which created interesting shapes & forms based on the users input or something... does anyone know what I'm talking about?)
    I think this is the video your referring to. He's using an Intuos4 to control the show being projected on the Sydney Opera House.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOFuzE42z58

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to darkmagistric For This Useful Post:


  6. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarsson View Post
    I'm a young art-student with my own perceptions on art and questions on the subject also. I have to try my voice sometimes, and get punched under the belly for doing that a couple of times too.
    Seems fair. I like that you are questioning anything.

    I would suggest you try out actually painting in a physical medium.

    Oil, gouache, acrylic, poster paint mixed with housepaint?

    Not watercolour. Many people think it's ideal for beginners, they are idiots.

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


  8. #108
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilson38115 View Post
    I think the reason some traditional artists frown upon digital art
    Nobody is frowning upon digital art. Most of the grumpy old dinosaurs use PS daily.

    I like digital, it's cool. I wouldn't own a wacom otherwise.

    I DO think it would be a really shitty way to learn the basics of drawing and painting.
    /2p worth

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  11. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,004
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    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.

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


  13. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    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)
    *EEEENNNNHHHH* (giant annoying buzzer sound). Just couldn't be more wrong with those statements JFierce. But thanks for playing! And yeah, we're not talking about concept or production art or what restaurants and hotels feel like decorating with.
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

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


  15. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,008
    Thanks
    2,852
    Thanked 6,104 Times in 2,489 Posts
    Nathan Fowkes is a concept artist god and for a few hundred measely bucks you can own an original sketch...
    feast your eyes on these babies
    http://nathanfowkes.blogspot.com/p/a...originals.html

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


  17. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,004
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    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.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JFierce For This Useful Post:


  19. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    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?")
    It's a difficult thing to explain if there is no awareness or experience on the part of the individual. You're absolutely right that most people probably don't know the difference, don't care and don't miss it. It's hard to miss or care about that which we don't understand. However, that doesn't change the thing itself or the experience, it simply means the individual doesn't have any connection to it.

    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!)
    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals

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


  21. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,004
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    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'.

  22. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffX99 View Post
    Sure - Android Jones is the guy you're likely thinking of: Android.
    Ah yes, exactly! Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by Flake View Post
    Seems fair. I like that you are questioning anything.

    I would suggest you try out actually painting in a physical medium.

    Oil, gouache, acrylic, poster paint mixed with housepaint?

    Not watercolour. Many people think it's ideal for beginners, they are idiots.
    I primarily work traditional and I agree with you on that point, watercolour is a really difficult medium to handle well in my opinion. I like the feeling though. And digital painting is just something I work with a little bit on the side. For now at least.

  23. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 93 Times in 53 Posts
    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.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Birkeley For This Useful Post:


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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2011, 05:49 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
  3. 2D Digital Abstract Artist, Very Dark Digital work 7+ years Experience
    By TheXArts in forum ARTISTS LOOKING FOR WORK!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2005, 12:19 AM

Members who have read this thread: 2

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook