PDA

View Full Version : Are we getting too digital?


kromano
05-07-2005, 09:56 PM
Cartoons, comics, and artwork in general seems to be done more and more on computer and less and less on paper. A lot of new and learning artists are using vector based programs where it's easy to turn a sloppy line into a beautiful curve and you can adjust your subject's form until it's exactly what you want it to be with beizers instead of learning how to make the form instinctively.

I have this problem. I've spent more time on my wacom in photoshop where I have endless layers and infinite error correction that I don't teach myself the proper way to draw, I teach myself the lazy way to draw. It's almost as if traditional 2d drawing is becoming a lost art.

How far can a 3d driven community go without substantial 2d skills? What are your opinions, am I way off base here? Perhaps I'm just part of a small, lazy minority of artists who use too much photoshop and not enough paper. I'm curious to see if anybody else has noticed the same thing or not.

jmBoekestein
05-07-2005, 10:19 PM
Well you've sort of answered your own question there. You keep no fiddling endlessly, it probably also happens endlessly that people get discouraged and quit on realliofe drawing. Happens to me all the time, and then when I get back to my wacom I suddenly feel confident enough to try a lot and eventually end up with results ten times as good literally.

As to craft specific issues I think they'd be better exposed in separate threads per craft, as in what should I do to get better at[whatever]? But 2d to 3d, I'd say practice digital stuff foremost, texture painting is quite different in that you can clone photographs. You need a different "viewing state" for that than drawing the right line or stroke.

just my opinion though, don't take my word for it.

JMcWilliams
05-07-2005, 10:30 PM
If you are using a wacom, you are still training up your drawing skills... medium should not matter. I won't ever give up paper 100%, sometimes I just prefer it but that depends on my mood. Vector programs are different I suppose, the end result looks more technical.

But to be honest, even using digital does not always mean that the work will look more polished... I see plenty of very rough linework, shading etc... done in PS. It's down to the artist. :D

kromano
05-07-2005, 10:43 PM
I'm reminded of a discussion my mother had with an art teacher friend of hers. She works at a local college and one thing she's noticed is most students are too focused on one style or method of working. Instead of at least experimenting with other tools like chalks and paints, it seems there's an attitude of "it's too hard" or "boring" and would rather work in a purely digital environment. Perhaps the same theories apply on a computer, but a computer can also help you fake the effect faster and with less effort skipping an entire stage of understanding why.

Again, using myself as an example, I know that light bounces and a computer can fake a lot of that for me without much effort on my part a lot of the time. But I don't really understand WHY it bounces and how it should land. I suppose that's where the difference between me and a real professional comes in. Mine will always look like I'm missing understanding of lighting and shadows but might still look good enough.

I might seem to answer a lot of my own questions when I ask them, but I'm just giving my take on it. I started this to see what other opinions are out there. I don't want to see marble sculptors or painters get replaced with a computer program that etches out the stone based on a 3d rendering or a large printer making a print copy of a digital painting, but maybe that's just the next step in artistic evolution?

JMcWilliams
05-07-2005, 10:52 PM
Well.... light bounces are only going to help you in 3D. If you are drawing digitally then the fundemental skills are the same as traditional. Just because we have a few time saving devices (primarily undo and layers for me) doesn't mean we are losing anything as such. The mistake too many people make is in comparing 3d to 2d drawing, when in reality it is more comparable to stop motion or live action... you don't paint shadows and lighting on your model in a stop motion scene for example, but there is great skill required in lighting a real-life scene. 3D is more comparable as virtual stop motion, rather than being 2D. IMHO

paperclip
05-08-2005, 12:12 AM
It's all art. I've noticed that people who aren't connected with cg in a way rarely notice it in their everyday life, it's just that we are more sensitive to noticing cg-related things, and hence are more likely to think there's a lot more of it than there actually is.


Plus-- It makes sense that art would follow the way of technology. Artists like new things, and technology is new. Perfect marriage?!
We are taking advantage of this new media in order to do things that we might not have been able to before.....
It's all good, believe me.

Gord-MacDonald
05-08-2005, 03:00 AM
I think there are at least three main approaches to CG:
a) use it as a tool to create artwork which resembles "traditional art"
b) use it to "discover new frontiers"
c) a combination of a and b

I think the work in CGTalk falls for the most part into (a) - CGtalk does seem to have a commercial 'bent' to it.
The benifits of cg are obvious in commercial art - highly controlled workflow, seamless integration of project components, and large reusable libraries.

Yes the landscape has changed for artists, as it has for everyone, since the explosion of computer technology in the 1980s' (The point at which 'a computer on every desktop', became as real as a 'chicken in every pot'). From there things grew exponentially - Ugh!

There is no question that cg tools have made many tasks/techniques accessable to people without artistic dispositions or skills - having said that, it always has been, and always will be the ability to distinguish oneself from the 'pack' (a figure/ground relationship if you will) that will ensure that excellence prevails over the mundane.

CG tools don't make artists - the innate artistic disposition, coupled with years of intense effort does.

Artists will recognize this, non-artists will not.

Gord

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 11:32 AM
are we getting too digital

yep.

one small step to being taken over by technology.heh

TheCleaner
05-08-2005, 01:04 PM
technology vs traditional.. the same thing happened many years ago, with the introduction of photography, it put many artists out of business, thing today, still held strong by the photographers, which was previously what the tradition artost would be comissioned for.. apart from things as obvius as fast, accurate recording of something.. think about say, portraits, the family portrait previously would be painted, these days, its photographed..

i know this is slighly differenmt, but its just ive been looking at what sparked some relatively 'diferent' art movements.. photorealist artist would loose work to photographers, but you cant create cubism with a camera, the market still belonged to the artist.

The digital vs traditional is a complex debate... are light wave applications use for 3D stills cheating? has digital photography too the majority over tradition film loaded cameras.. the computer has created many ways of making a job quicker and cleaner, from administrative tasks, to art.. CTRL Z takes less than a second.. undoing a brush stroke in oil on cancvas can take ages !

Stahlberg
05-08-2005, 01:33 PM
Are we getting too digital?

No. Digital is the way forward, denying that is to try to turn back time, to try to crawl back into the womb, to try to reverse evolution.

Using sculpture as an example - imagine sculpting in true 3d, holographic vision, haptic interface, controlling every millimeter of the surface with complete confidence. You can feel it, you can zoom in, you can do anything... Then you output it by having a robot carve it out of real Carrera marble.

How is that not better than the old way, hacking away with a damn hammer until your hand and arm goes numb, with goggles protecting eyes from slivers of stone, your artistic vision limited at every turn by technical concerns - cracks in the marble, chipping away too much and not being able to add it back, sweat blinding your eyes, your arm developing tendonitis, the simplest thing taking weeks and weeks?

Of course it only makes Michelangelo's and others' work all the more impressive, but just because they had no choice, doesn't mean we have to do it the hard way too.

jmBoekestein
05-08-2005, 01:36 PM
Not to mention the multitude of options still left after you think you have finished. And the quantity of reproductions only a click away.

NOOB!
05-08-2005, 01:43 PM
hmm,a lot of u seem to draw it down to the fact that digital is.... easier

i ask,what happens next,a remote control FOR a remote control when u can't be bothered to pick it up.

i think where we are now is pretty fine,i just don't want people to start getting lazy is all.

digital is great,as jm sed u can reproduce allota work,meet deadlines quicker

in a sense,digital is like junk food,and traditonal is like a home made meal.

u can eat all the junk food u want,but at the end of the day,theres nothing like ur mummas home made meal.

i just hope that there will always be the option of both,and one won't take over the other.

rakmaya
05-08-2005, 03:08 PM
Whether you work on paper or on computer, only skills matter. Skills are diverted in many direction. However it all comes to the point how you put your ideas into reality with the tools you have. Whether it is Pencil or Paperl, Tablet or Photoshop, Mouse or Polygons, Hands or Clay does not matter. Everything requires skill that is acieved through dedication. That is where the value is. Whether it is traditional or modern, that factor has not changed. When technology changes, the way we look at traditional art changes. However, it doesn't change one factor that there are only few elites and they always distinguish themselves from the common people.

cha0t1c1
05-08-2005, 03:42 PM
there are many digital pieces that have as much commitment felt in them as traditional ones. the only reason digital is faster is the ability to paint without worrying about oil drying, or getting colours, or getting brushes.

the availability of those items shrink time taken to a tenth. thus u have traditional quality at near speed of thaught.

there will be ways to produce digital unique paintings, and print them on unique paper(the subject has been dicussed in the CGS forums)...

TheCleaner
05-08-2005, 04:29 PM
[bah, i had a good reply and pressed the back button on my mouse... arrrrrgh]

cyartist
05-08-2005, 06:45 PM
Yes as human beings we are getting too digital. Just look at cell phones. If you abuse one technology you will abuse another. The fact is there are very few talented artist in the world. This has always been the case and will always be the case. Only natural talent and those really to work extremely hard at it to become great. If you are one of these you will always make a name for yourself. But computers can not make artist or tell great stories. Art is not just technique but must speak to the viewer and tell a story or truth to engage thought. Technique is not art. Can you press and redo button/undo for talent. No because that is beyond the range of any little computer

kromano
05-08-2005, 11:17 PM
[bah, i had a good reply and pressed the back button on my mouse... arrrrrgh]

Curse the digital age. :p I hope you find time to retype it.


Digital is a mixed bag. It's an additional medium to work in and not so much a replacement for the old. But to a lot of people it really is a replacement, and it's a replacement that reinforces bad habits. There are plenty out there who would learn the fast way instead of the correct way. Take the shortcuts before learning why they're shortcuts. I find it mildly ironic that many digital paintings are praised for being indistinguishable from an oil or water colour painting. Why fake it when you can do the same thing with the real materials? It's because it's faster once you've learned how to do it.

How does that make Digital a mixed bag? It's because there are still those who spend the time to learn the proper way to sketch and paint and shade and express things from cloth folds to fruit decaying with their work. A wacom tablet shouldn't be considered a replacement for paper, but a reasonable alternative, since you're still using the same drawing skills for the end result.

This probably sounds different from my earlier statements, mostly because I was playing an extreme side to spark replies. I've still noticed that many students my age who are taking classes for art, post secondary, seem to really hate the projects designed to enhance fundamentals. They don't want to spend time on "stupid" projects because they could just as easily google image search for what they need and use that instead of instinctively knowing the right way to do it. It's just easier to use a computer.

I imagine that instead of "are we getting too digital" I could have named this thread "are art students getting lazier"

As pointed out by many, there are, fortunately, still artists out there who don't see these fundamentals as stupid but rather important, and those are the people whose works will stand out from the masses.

And forgive me if I've managed to repeat myself, I sometimes tend to do that.

Lunatique
05-09-2005, 04:39 AM
Once, after observing me painting an oil painting for the better part of an hour, my wife suddenly said, "Traditional painting is like gourmet cooking, and digital is like fastfood."

My wife is a clever one.

cha0t1c1
05-09-2005, 04:53 AM
I might disagree, for me digital is the equalizer.

I'm a disabled person so trying to work with oil, water, or other real mediums is outright depressing for me. but with my drawing splint attached to my digipen I can draw without getting someone to prepare my tools, my board, and my colours...

I use photoshop like I use real tools, I save on differnt files so I rarely undo, I rarely adjust colours without using a gradient colour fill...

for evidence look at my M&S entry...

rebuilder
05-09-2005, 11:08 AM
I took a laptop and wacom to life drawing class recently and doing something digitally that I normally do with charcoal or gouache really showed me how sloppily I work in photoshop. I rely too much on being able to paint over anything I do wrong, I just splat colour around without enough care for what my brushstrokes really should be. It's not economical in the same way you have to be with gouches for example. The constrictions of paints force you to develop a good technique much more than the freedom of digital painting. So I guess the path I think I need to pursue is learning painting in the traditional media and then using the skills learned in the digital domain.

Lunatique
05-09-2005, 11:19 AM
rebuilder - For me, it's the total opposite. When I paint traditionally, I can be completely spontaneous with my brushwork, and my stuff is far more expressive than any of my digital stuff. For that reason alone, I've gone back to painting traditionally.

Here's a good example. I did this oil sketch recently, as a warm up to get back into traditional oil painting: http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/paintings_drawings/oils/oil_sketch-01.jpg

There is no way in hell I could get that kind of spontaneous look when I work digitally. Digital "brushes" are far too restricting in their range of dynamics in terms of texture, fluidity, subtlety, happy accidents, control..etc. Anything that looks spontaneous in digital is the result of laboring over ways to mimic and imitate spontaneity that you can get with traditional paint.

Stahlberg
05-09-2005, 11:33 AM
Hehe, but then, Luny, one could argue that it's a cheat for you to use traditional paints in order to look spontaneous. :) Kind of kidding, but it is about as fair as saying digital is cheating because it's "so easy".

coCoKNIght
05-09-2005, 12:27 PM
It is inevitable that paper and stuff will be used less and less. Imagine you had a cintiq tablet when you were a child...
...but paper and stuff will never die out, 'cause it has its own charme.

TheCleaner
05-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Ive been totally traditional up until about 2 months ago when i bought a wacom, and my favorite application is Art Rage.. i suggest everyone get this just to mess about

When you have always worked traditional, you appriciate the time saving things it does, example.. at the end of every oil session at college, i spend 10-15 minutes cleaning my brushes properly, and tidying my work area.. its nice while working digitally to be able to just hit save, and close the app.

Though a wacom and a computer screen, will ever replace the physical interaction you have when oil painting, everything about it is reliant on you.. on the computer, to get a gradient, you just 'apply' it.. in reality, you have to paint it.. to change brush size, you have to physically pick up another brush, you rarely sit when painting in oils... its all these physical interaction which make traditional painting so personal, and comparitively make digital painting 'sterile'

cyartist
05-09-2005, 07:13 PM
If I could develp my images with traditional meduims as fast as I could digitally. I would throw my computers out the window.

JMcWilliams
05-10-2005, 10:27 AM
Once, after observing me painting an oil painting for the better part of an hour, my wife suddenly said, "Traditional painting is like gourmet cooking, and digital is like fastfood."

My wife is a clever one.

It's a good point, and i'd agree to an extent. But you cannot tar an entire medium with the same brush (no pun intended). It depends on the artist... I see plenty of digital paintings that are better than many traditional paintings.

Lunatique
05-10-2005, 11:55 AM
It's a good point, and i'd agree to an extent. But you cannot tar an entire medium with the same brush (no pun intended). It depends on the artist... I see plenty of digital paintings that are better than many traditional paintings.

Well, I've had fastfood that tastes better than gourmet food too. I don't think her remark has anything to do with quality of finished work; it was about the actual execution of the painting--the level of virtuosity required to do traditional painting is on a much higher level than digital painting. Anyone that's painted traditionally in a serious manner will probably agree with this--the complex chemical properties of real paint and paint mediums, the physical dynamics of brushes, and uncompromising punishment one receives from making a mistake without undo buttons, layers, and other tools of convenience..etc are all what makes traditional painting a whole different experience from digital painting.

Aloriael
05-10-2005, 12:20 PM
I know my traditional stuff looks heaps better than my digital stuff, maybe because I spend more time thinking about how to apply my strokes and I have to take more breaks from it so that lets me see the mistakes.

Robert, have you tried painting on wood?
I find it quite interesting because the grain patterns inspires me to paint differently.

Lunatique
05-10-2005, 12:33 PM
Robert, have you tried painting on wood?
I find it quite interesting because the grain patterns inspires me to paint differently.

I almost always paint on wood panels (masonite or others). I just apply a few coats of gesso directly on wood and then paint. Sometimes I mount a canvas onto a wood panel. I hate painting on stretched canvas because of the give--I prefer a solid ground to paint on.

I can't say I like the wood grain too much--I try to fill them in as much as I could when I do the gessoing. In fact, I think the next batch of paintings I'll just mount a fine-weave linen on wood panels. I can easily create texture with my brushwork, so I prefer to not have the ground decide for me.

Stahlberg
05-10-2005, 12:51 PM
Anyone that's painted traditionally in a serious manner will probably agree with this--
Many others might, but I personally don't entirely agree.

the complex chemical properties of real paint and paint mediums,
I used to be all into that, now it just annoys or bores me. Who cares if the varnish I splash on is Damar or whatever? Who cares if I painted fat over thin or not? Who cares if my oil painting is only going to last 50 years instead of 300? In the computer it may well last 100,000 years or more.

the physical dynamics of brushes,
Yes this is the only thing I miss. But give it a few more years, digital will catch up.

and uncompromising punishment one receives from making a mistake without undo buttons, layers, and other tools of convenience..etc
Hehe, yeah... I never was a masochist though... :)

If you want to feel like you're working harder, I could make a case for sticking to digital because a lot of things are easier in traditional media compared to digital.
1. I used to know at least twenty fun and easy ways to do REALLY cool textures in traditional media, ones that are different and unique every time, extremely high resolution, and fire up my imagination to improvise on top of em. (I know because I remember making a long list of them, many years ago.) Nothing like that in digital, yet.
2. The 'serendipity' factor is huge in traditional media.
3. If you're after spontaneity, traditional media makes your life so much easier.

However, for me personally, these three points don't seem very tempting, because at this stage in my artistic development I'm more after control than chaos. And in any case, i'm quite sure that it's only a matter of time before digital can beat traditional on these points as well.

Lunatique
05-10-2005, 01:17 PM
Haha, well, I know how much of a CG devotee you are Steven, and believe me, I don't enjoy all the aspects of traditional painting. My two main motivation for going back to traditional were:

1) Spontaneity. I hate having to fake spontaneity in digital painting. In digital, I can't even get a decent brush scumble, paint drip, paint splash, or the splay of the bristle when I push down hard. I miss those the most when I paint in digital. And oh man, the real life palette knife is pure heaven--no digital version could touch that.

2) Value. I'm working on gallery pieces, and we all know there isn't much of a market for digital originals, or even prints. Look at what happened to Spooge when he tried to do an artshow with digital prints. It pained us all to see him so disappointed and hurt by the experience.

Other than those two reasons, I actually don't mind painting digitally all that much. Well, actually, the restriction of a small monitor/working space and aliasing does annoy the hell out of me though.

I don't like dealing with the chemical properties of paint and mediums at all. I hate feeling like whatever concoction I come up with might be a time bomb waiting to explode in my face years down the line. I've heard horror stories of supposedly archival and safe mediums causing paintings to physically delaminate and SLIDE OFF the friggin' canvas years later (alkyd was the culprit).

And of course, no layers and undo's really suck too.

BTW, I don't think many people on cgtalk have seen your traditional oil paintings. They are quite lovely. If you are feeling generous, maybe take photos and post them? :beer:

What's with your avatar? Is that your way of anticipating Episode III? :D

JMcWilliams
05-10-2005, 01:46 PM
Well, I've had fastfood that tastes better than gourmet food too. I don't think her remark has anything to do with quality of finished work; it was about the actual execution of the painting--the level of virtuosity required to do traditional painting is on a much higher level than digital painting. Anyone that's painted traditionally in a serious manner will probably agree with this--the complex chemical properties of real paint and paint mediums, the physical dynamics of brushes, and uncompromising punishment one receives from making a mistake without undo buttons, layers, and other tools of convenience..etc are all what makes traditional painting a whole different experience from digital painting.

I get you. :D I understand where you are coming from...

Although I think personally, I don't want to dwell to much on the technical side of any art.
So, yes.. traditional painting is sometimes technically harder because you have more tool barriers to overcome (although i'm sure there are many who find computers to be a even harder barrier to overcome). But at the end of the day, I care about the final image... and as long as the person paints it themselves, then the very same principles of painting apply. For me, the real talent and virtuosity is signalled by how well painted something is, regardless of medium.

I don't really want to get mixed up with the technical side of any painting, be it oils, watercolour or pixals. :D I don't find that to be as relevant as the vision and creativity of the artist.
As you have said yourself to people who ask for artists brushes, the tool is not really important to the final image.

JMcWilliams
05-10-2005, 02:03 PM
Now, i'm curious... what happened to this chap who tried to sell prints of his digital art?

I remember a digital-art shop opened up near me a while ago.... it closed down.
It is ignorance of course, many people simply do not understand digital-art, and therefore make the assumption that somehow a computer does the work, or it's easy and therefore worthless. :rolleyes:

Still, I think digital-art could do very well in the form of posters and the like, for a demographic that is far less up thier own arse. Give it time.... it's early days, movies and photography went through it. :D

jmBoekestein
05-10-2005, 02:12 PM
Well, I'd like to say that I've made uhm...2 paintings in traditional media. And I could overpaaint a misstake without many problems I'm betting if you have a palet knife, you can do the same with oils. It doesn't require more skill, it's just below the performance level of digital basically. Above all, I tend to make a mess with it:wise:, the stuff is even on the outside of our house for pete's sake. That can't be useful.

Lunatique
05-10-2005, 02:23 PM
Now, i'm curious... what happened to this chap who tried to sell prints of his digital art?


That chap is none other than one of the greatest master digital painters alive on the planet--Craig Mullins. He basically paid for the space and had a show of his digital paintings printed as high quality giclee prints. No a single piece was sold.

jmBoekestein
05-10-2005, 02:36 PM
Was there ever a follow up done on that, I can imagine a lot of companies hoping to reproduce artwork of such quality and sell it en masse. Why not research it?:)

JMcWilliams
05-10-2005, 02:42 PM
That chap is none other than one of the greatest master digital painters alive on the planet--Craig Mullins. He basically paid for the space and had a show of his digital paintings printed as high quality giclee prints. No a single piece was sold.

Damn, I didn't know about that. Thats horrible for sure.

Stahlberg
05-10-2005, 02:58 PM
I don't think it was ONLY because it was digital, because being digital they were a lot cheaper than traditional originals by him would have been, I'm sure... another contributing factor was, only local yocels, about 60 or so people from around the neighborhood, came to the exhibition. What does the average person know from such excellence? They didn't know his name, and couldn't see the genius... sad.

The avatar, well it's a thing some of us are doing, started May 9, until the premier on the 19th. Look around, you'll see other 'changed' avatars. I like Kirts a lot. :)

cha0t1c1
05-10-2005, 03:00 PM
I am also disappointed that the majority(audience and collectors) still value traditional more...believe me digital is just as hard, maybe harder when it comes to flow colour and detail...I mean how many times an artist spent hours on colour, contrast, hue, saturation, and brightness adjustments...and the result is: Stahlberg, Chang, Bergkvist, Blanche, Mullins...

coCoKNIght
05-10-2005, 03:22 PM
yeah, for me traditional painting and drawing is WAAAAAAY easier...
Somehow I don't get that intuos pen to act like pencil or whatever... or it takes me ages till the line comes out like I wanted...
And 3d is just extremely timeconsuming....

I'd not say digital painting is better than traditional or vice verca, it's just different. And which one to chose depends on what it is you want to do...
but to this time that would probably mostly be digital, and in the future it'll probably be almost always digital.

jmBoekestein
05-10-2005, 03:28 PM
Could it be that somehow rtaditional media have an extra edge on thier colour reproduction, it is often said that a painting isn't done justice by a photo allthough most photo's I see in threads about art here in general are pretty good I think. It's still beautiful.

coCoKNIght
05-10-2005, 03:39 PM
A painting is something 3 dimensional, at least I see it that way. When I make oil-paintings I like to use a lot of color on some areas so the color there really pops out of the painting.
Each traditional painting has such a structure to it, while a photo is perfectly flat...

suspend
05-10-2005, 03:46 PM
personally i tried to draw, my ideas better spent digitally then poorly rendered penning. BUT point being the medium suits me more, and i have friends who just draw its harldly a dying art...hardly

cha0t1c1
05-10-2005, 03:52 PM
oh man, I posted and got it lost...
okay as a response for why a painting looks better than a photo...I wanted to add that a painting allows for the constantly varying natural light to adjust the colours; however, the photo only captures the colours when the light is at a single moment...

jmBoekestein
05-10-2005, 04:28 PM
I saw some paintings by Van Gogh and Picasso once but I was fairly young. I noticed however that the paint was often put in in thick dabs, laeving quite a pronounced relief. Is this intentionally done for the purpose of reflecting light in all directions. Or is it a sside effect of the viscous nature of the paint. Sinca a flat surface would reflect all the colours in all directions, but a thick dab might add something?:shrug:

cyartist
05-10-2005, 04:53 PM
Digital will never replace traditional. Unfortunately alot of digital artist can not see this fact. Digital can be copied an that is not good for art sakes so it will never have value as a Tradtional piece of art. Never. I am glad it will never replace it since I am good at both methods it gives me flexibility in the market. Digital art needs the anchor of Traditional methods.

coop
05-10-2005, 04:58 PM
This is actually pretty fascinating for me to read about because for a long time I was a huge luddite when it came to digital media - I got my MFA in classical, anatomical based painting, had some gallery shows, sold some work for a little while until I needed to make a better living and used my illustration skills to do photoshop art. I think the heart of this discussion involves the differences between fine art and illustration, because, when it comes down to it, we're past the point where the skill level of the fine artist surpasses that of the illustrator, and have been for some time now. I think it more boils down to intent and audience. Digital painting takes on a certain stylization due to the tools, in the same way that traditional painting invariably takes on the qualities of the medium. If I paint in gouache, cumbersome as the stuff is, it gets a beautiful, matte surface with a bit of depth to it. Oil painting is probably the most powerful in terms of the range one can get with the surface and depth of it, and the lasting qualities give the painting some value because the buyer is purchasing something that's been crafted to endure a long time, created in a traditional way that people can appreciate.

So what does that mean? A Bob Ross painting done in :20 is superior to a Craig Mullins because Bob, in choosing his materials is working from a centuries old tradition? That's kinda hard to argue, especially since Craig's work does resonate with a ton of training and classic reference.

I think because paintings are objects, they have a certain value. A digital print doesn't have the same value as an object because it isn't unique, whereas a lithograph might be somewhere in the middle since it's a limited run.

Recently I purchased a tablet PC, which seems like a pretty great step for computers- I'm finding I draw on it all the time. Times where I'd just sketch with pencil, I'm able to quickly do tonal paintings. It doesn't have the same brush quality as my winsor newton series 7 brush, so anything I do on it tends to be clunky in comparison, but hey - it feels like i'm makin' art.

good discussion-

Trower
05-10-2005, 05:14 PM
Erhhm... Well...

This post seems to have given rise to a broad spectrum of opinion...

Is anything lost in the art world when 'everyone' succumbs to the digital path?

Answer... Digital Art will never completely replace traditional methods although it will undoubtedly and does already dominate the majority of modern markets... I started thinking back to social theorists such as Daniel Bell about predictions on modern society... How far we will go... or indeed how far back we will fall...

The only thing that might actually inhibit an artistic pursuit is raw materials and that can even come in the shape of electricity... which would certainly scupper digital art... The fact is that people need all aspects of art... not just one...

Having a 3D hologram or even a machine formed sculpture is fine... but if I'm parting with a few thousand quid, I want something thats going to stand up to times lessons... not melt or malfunction... I'm sure these things will become so advanced they will still make worthy additions to collectors vaults, but people always want everyting.

As regards skills being lost... As long as there is 'life study', who cares whether someone uses a pencil and paper or a digital equivalent... the skill is essentially the same... Wish I could write more on this, but am off to the gym to be a Meat-head...

:)

Miss-Vyv
05-10-2005, 06:05 PM
Hi.
This is my first post here. This is a topic I think about often. I love digital painting/drawing and I love traditional. I really like getting dirty and love to paint and draw large works that get pretty messy. There's just something relaxing and sensual about it. However, I feel like traditional media sort of holds me back creatively. It's hard to follow my feelings and creative whims when I'm fighting with physical materials.

Digital gives me more opportunity to explore the depths of my own creativity. The ability to experiment on the fly and go back to previous verisons for more iterations is really helping me sync my imagination with the rendering skills I am aquiring. When you aren't afraid to mess something up you can take more risks and grow in directions you might not have with charcoal, pastels, paint, etc...

I don't think I will ever completely give up traditional, but it's just so much more liberating to be able to experiment to my hearts content in a timely, more painless way. I think digital is making the frontiers of creative visual arts more accessible for artists of all skill levels.

I look at it like this ( and someone may have said this already). People didn't think photography was an art worthy of exhibitions when it was young. People still draw and paint even though they can take photos. I don't think traditional is going to die. I think that some artists have just found a more agreeable means of communicating their vision.

kromano
05-10-2005, 06:45 PM
In the time between when I went to bed and when I got up, this thread jumped two pages. Either I sleep too long or this topic has sparked some serious interest. We've moved long past my area of expertise in the matter, and I'm glad because it's giving me a lot to think about. And most importantly, it's shown me in great detail what I've already known in that my artistic persuit is too focused on a single style and medium, there is more to art than what I've been practicing. Perhaps in the beginning of an artistic career students are too focused on a single medium or a single subject, but by the time they become absolutely serious about persuing art as a career or a serious passion, they will have moved beyond those limitations and at least tried a bit of every available medium.

Thanks for the great discussion so far.

JMcWilliams
05-10-2005, 07:08 PM
In the time between when I went to bed and when I got up, this thread jumped two pages. Either I sleep too long or this topic has sparked some serious interest. We've moved long past my area of expertise in the matter, and I'm glad because it's giving me a lot to think about. And most importantly, it's shown me in great detail what I've already known in that my artistic persuit is too focused on a single style and medium, there is more to art than what I've been practicing. Perhaps in the beginning of an artistic career students are too focused on a single medium or a single subject, but by the time they become absolutely serious about persuing art as a career or a serious passion, they will have moved beyond those limitations and at least tried a bit of every available medium.

Thanks for the great discussion so far.

Yeh, i agree. When I was younger I was very focused on a particular style. It's only the past couple of years (where i've been working professionally) that I've begun to really appreciate everything around and trying as much as I can. It's a blast! :D

TheCleaner
05-10-2005, 08:03 PM
i believe it largely to do with what you are wanting to get from your work.. are you painting to complete a task, which needs to be efficeint and finished well, or is it for pleasure. To paint for pleasure i would rather use traditional mediums such as oils..

if we'r talking big work.. not sketches..it comes down to.. true physical interaction vs. simulation

whats better, playing GT4 on a PS2 controller, or driving the car for real.. sure this may seem a somewhat overreactive comparison, but think about it... sat at your computer with tablet and pen shaped stylus used with say... ART RAGE (http://www.ambientdesign.com/artragedown.html) vs Being stood at that big ol' newly primed canvas, with your selection of brushes, and pallette of oils with various knives/tools etc


like many things, its preference, so nothing right or wrong here..

Stahlberg
05-11-2005, 01:58 AM
Digital will never replace traditional.
This sounds a lot like what the Swiss watch makers said of the newfangled Japanese digital watches back in the 70's... 30 years later digital watches have replaced mechanical ones in almost every way, except for the very rich and for collectors. Let's wait until 2035, I think you'll find pretty much the same situation for art.

I mean, how many people in the world have ever even seen an original artwork by a great master? I've been to the Louvre and to the Zorn museum, but how often do I get to go back there? And do I own any of these originals? Yeah right... :) And what happens if a fire or terrorist bomb hits the museum? No, digital is obviously the way of the future. You just have to keep in mind the constant slow change in the field. It's like a minute hand on a watch, if you stare at it you won't see it moving, but every time you check back it's moved. I'm sure that one day digital will be able to copy a work of art down to a molecular level, so not even an expert with a microscope will be able to tell the difference.

Trower
05-11-2005, 02:35 AM
I'm going to try and nip this in the bud... so bare with me.

Although this thread has inadvertantly been turned into a:- 'Digital v Traditional' forum... Where... Unless you're very childish, you'll see only one view... this thread was meant to centre more; on how the artistic populations overall skill level is affected by the advent of new software and technology... in corroboration with a waning interetst in the simpler, less forgiving tools, such as paint, pencils, hammer and chisel.

How 'some' of you (not all) have managed to turn this thread into such redundant drivel beats me... but alas... on an earlier page I found myself drawn into this sticky web too. Ashamed... Thats how I feel!

I'm one of you.

I severely digress... So back to the original question.

Civilisation will always advance with technology... but artistic talent is artistic talent. If someone can draw with a Wacom Tablet well, chances are they can be equally good with a traditional pencil... On a 3D front, I have 'Sculptor' friends who work just as well in Maya as they do in bronze resin... Art is ruled by the artist... not by the tools in his hands.

If someone is an artistic ignoramus, then that is simply their lot... The only way of improving a 'test subject' will be nothing less than a frontal lobotomy... No issuing of 'Wacom Tablets' / copies of 'Photoshop CS X', will make an ounce of difference to their overall rating within a world where everyone has access to the same advantages.

'Better' / 'New-er' tools will be handled by both the talented and the untalented... Who do you honestly think is going to produce a better end result?

The work of the 'talentless', will undoubtably improve... Of this I am very certain.

Filters like; 'skin simulation filter', will enter the fray... and laymen will make use of these things, thus improving their work... but give it to the Art-Guru, and you're going to get finer and more finished solutions every time.

Using layers or multi-saves gives you that time machine advantage you need when you make aesthetic errors... but the artist needs to notice that he / she's made them. That takes 'eyes', and that's a miracle invention, we're not close to inventing yet...

A simple metaphor / analogy is this:-

You give an overweight, asthmatic kid a brand new pair of 'Nike (?) Nitrosoxides'... He may get that little bit faster... He might be far faster... but I can guarantee... Stick an Olympian against him, with a pair of those babies (alternatively; Grandma's slippers...), and my moneys still on the sportsman...

This was the first thing that came to mind... I don't often think about dumpy kids in sportswear... erhem!

Every technological leap helps, but it helps the whole (society), not just the individual... Without a master we are left with a simple tool, and due to this, it falls to each persons unique skill level as to how to apply their new advantage. Socialism doesn't even work in regard to wealth and politics... What lunatic thinks that raising the sophistication of everyones tools will help the untalented reach a par with the talented.

The only thing that can match God's gift is discipline and hard work... and maybe quality 'life study'...

Sorry to go on... Crikey! I don't think I've ever repeated 'talent' and 'tool' more often, since luxuriating one evening at 'Stringfellows' two years ago.

Regards. :)

leeyiankun
05-11-2005, 03:20 AM
Just view it as a new medium.
A medium to express your views.

Doesn't matter if it's Digital or not.
As long as you don't copy&paste other ppl's works, it's fine.
You'll gain skills anyway.

At least your eyes and taste will develop.

I know traditional methods has its point.
But you can't argue that it's the Digital that has many novice entering into the field.

And variety is always good.
The More the Merrier then, right?

Lunatique
05-11-2005, 03:41 AM
I saw some paintings by Van Gogh and Picasso once but I was fairly young. I noticed however that the paint was often put in in thick dabs, laeving quite a pronounced relief. Is this intentionally done for the purpose of reflecting light in all directions. Or is it a sside effect of the viscous nature of the paint. Sinca a flat surface would reflect all the colours in all directions, but a thick dab might add something?:shrug:

You have to go to a gallery or a museum one of these days and look at some oil paintings. The impasto marks are part of the magic of traditional painting. How artists use it can be intensional or unintensional--it's up to the individual taste.

Peddy
05-11-2005, 04:29 AM
The Louvre needs to go on tour! I'd see that 'at a town near you'!
because i can't afford to goto europe.

cyartist
05-11-2005, 04:56 AM
2035? Steven what will artist do when the looming worldwide energy crisis comes. If you can not power up a computer/laptop on a constant basis you are going to have pick up a pencil.
Traditional will always be with us it not dependent on anything but a willing artist.
Of course digital will become more advanced but In no way is going to replace Traditional.
Artists today should practice both mediums. Digital has it limits and Traditional has its limits. By practicing both you open your level of expression.

Stahlberg
05-11-2005, 05:48 AM
2035? Steven what will artist do when the looming worldwide energy crisis comes.

They will start burning traditional works of art just to keep warm.

:)

CGTalk Moderation
05-11-2005, 05:48 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.