Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Damn Technology
August 30th, 2005 #1
SO ive noticed that digital stuff is super popular these days. Now, i dont know what your preferences are, but im not a huge fan of this stuff. I mean, it looks nice and everything, but it just feels like theres something missing from a lot of digi work. Theres something way different and nicer about seeing a piece of hand made (yeh so-to-speak) artwork that digis can hardly ever capture. Is the traditional way of art losing out? Are inkers, pencilists, painters all a dying breed to be replaced by an artist in his room coloring something on a computer screen? Is this the death of art? Or an evolution? Your thoughts?
Hide this ad by registering as a memberAugust 30th, 2005 #2
An Evolution...everyone has different opinions about digital verses tradishional. Thats what makes us human. from a concept artists point of view...i will say digital is much better....gives you more freedom.
August 30th, 2005 #3Originally Posted by Hayabusa
This is not an evolution or a death, imo its an expansion of art, the computer and digital useage replaces some archaic methods of working, but opens many new avenues for creativity.
You also have to look at it in context, you have to know if you're talking about fine art or illustration/art for the commercial field, whether it be advertising, cover art, concept design, whatever. In the commercial field, we simply don't have the time to wait for oils to dry, brushes to be cleaned and paint supply stores to open on monday, deadlines dont wait for these things - digital at least gives as least some respite from the trappings inherent with traditional medium while still allowing those with a firm backing in it to create works that are often very comparable to what they would have done physically in a fraction of the time. In that sense, digital medium has helped enormously.
In fine art, its impossible that digital will ever match it on its own terms, why? One of the very reasons digital art is great for the commercial industry, it is simply too reproduceable and there is no tangible original.
Art, no matter what medium still requires the practitioner to have good foundation to make anything noteworthy, the reason why digital attracts lazy excuses for an artist like shit to flies is because it seems like something cool and you need little technical skill in putting stylus to wacom - no needed to learn how to get the most out of your scribe, no need to learn how to size and prime a canvas, no need to learn how to properly clean brushes.
I think all mediums have their places, digital is simply another tool in the toolkit to be used at appropriate times.
August 30th, 2005 #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Los Angeles
- Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Hayabusa
Not this discussion again.
But I can't resist the temptation!
I am not a luddite or a technophobe. I LUV technology and the way it makes life easier. Sometimes there are negative consequences, yes I know, but humans should try to live as comfortable as possible because life's hard enough as is.
Yet, I agree with Hayabusa's statement. When you do an oil painting, you've actually created something that exist in the physical world, an actual object. A digital painting only exists in the cyber world, and it's only an image.
There's also something more magical about art that was hand painting. We know that a human being took decades of training to learn how to handle the oils. There's something more rewarding to it than a picture painting digitally, with mechanical assistance.
But I still love technology and digital paintings.
August 31st, 2005 #5
I did my first truly digital painting in 1948. Of course, I only used one hand...I needed the other one clean to hold the paper still...
August 31st, 2005 #6