PDA

View Full Version : Digital vs Analogue art


Alice
08-07-2005, 04:34 PM
Well, this one started off couple of days ago when I realized I wanted to paint and had no canvas, nore any money for one. I started to translate my analogue paintingtools to digital in order to be able to paint more and to understand how I should mix colours in photoshop.

When I posted about it on a swedish forum, I suddenly had "traditional painters" going all rabid saying it was stupid to leave the analogue painting. Yet noone reacts when someone goes all analogue and stop using or never learn how to use the computer when painting.

So I guess my question is, what can we do to make digital art a tool and an artform just like anyone else? What does it have to take to make people think that digital paintings are as valid as any other art?

mrtristan
08-07-2005, 06:16 PM
Well, digital art seems to have a kind of stigma to it. People just think you're probably "cheating" if it's digital. Usually this means leveraging photography too much. In general, digital work seems to have this stigma of not requiring the skill of analog work.

There was another thread somewhere in this forum where a couple of digital artists mentioned that they do some work in traditional media, like portraits, and other work (usually commercially based) in digital, primarily because of this stigma.

Showing the process is a great way to get past the stigma. Interestingly, this is actually very cheap to do - it's just a lot of .jpg snapshots, really. (It's a lot of fun to do as well, and it's great to see the decisions made in the latest calamity.)

But ultimately, I don't think digital work will compete with the same market as "traditional fine art". If I ever "get good", I think I'd aim for low-cost reproductions. Keep the margins thin and aim for quantity. This is also much easier to do with digital work. Wharehousing the content is cheap, and the cost of making prints continues to lower (as well as get better).

I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually succeeded at being a low-cost print-maker, or as a "digital fine art gallery artist". It seems like most digital folk are working for production companies.

LoTekK
08-08-2005, 02:48 AM
I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually succeeded at being a low-cost print-maker, or as a "digital fine art gallery artist". It seems like most digital folk are working for production companies.
I don't know if this qualifies, but Phillip Williams aka Eyewoo (http://www.eyewoo.com) has done a fair number of commissioned portraits in photoshop. From what I remember, he did high-resolution prints on some kind of high-quality archival ink and paper. I think he charged something like 8 grand for a base portrait, plus another couple grand per additional person in the portrait (I think pets cost more).

Lunatique
08-08-2005, 02:49 AM
This is one of the most discussed topics among digital artists, and it happens in every single digital art forum on the planet, and there is never a solution or any real answers. For me personally, I think the following:

1) Digital won't be accepted in the fine arts world for a while, so don't hold your breath. The extremely rare few that have made it are novelties.

2) Digital art collectively needs to grow up. Just as sci-fi/fantasy illustrations are not accepted in the fine arts world, digital art is mostly sci-fi/fantasy/cartoony, so it won't be accepted either. But in the illustration field, digital has already been accepted, as some well-known sci-fi/fantasy painters have switched to digital either partially or completely (Todd Lockwood, Jon Foster, Justin Sweet, Jean Pierre Targete, Robh Ruppel, Masamune Shirow..etc).

3) There is no reason why you have to abandon one for the other. Most professional concept artists/matte painters I know work digitally, but for their personal enjoyment, they still paint traditional.

4) If you want to be a fine artist who has showing in galleries and attracts collectors, your best chance is to keep on painting traditionally. If you want to be a commercial artist, people don't really mind what you use, as long as you get it done on time, and it looks great.

5) Some artists do a hybrid of both--they paint certain effects that can't be achieved digitally, then scan it in and finish the rest (Rick Berry, Jon Foster..etc)

6) Craig Mullins is still trying to get people to accept his digital works. He had a one-person art show not too long ago in Hawaii, where his digital paintings were printed out as high quality giclee prints. He's one of the most talented and respect digital artists on this planet, yet he didn't sell a single piece during the show. If a master painter like him can't get accepted, what does that say about the rest of us? I don't think he's ready to give up though--we shall see what happens next. Craig can paint very well tradtitionally too, but for his own reasons, he chose to present himself to the world as a digital artist. He could just show his traditional paintings and make a name for himself that way, but he chose digital. So in the end, do what makes you happy.

Lunatique
08-08-2005, 02:52 AM
I don't know if this qualifies, but Phillip Williams aka Eyewoo (http://www.eyewoo.com) has done a fair number of commissioned portraits in photoshop. From what I remember, he did high-resolution prints on some kind of high-quality archival ink and paper. I think he charged something like 8 grand for a base portrait, plus another couple grand per additional person in the portrait (I think pets cost more).

Phil's been quite frustrated to the reactions he's gotten with his digital fine art too. He got a lot of rejections simply because he worked digitally. I think he's making progress, but it's been an uphill battle for him as well.

mangual
08-08-2005, 02:56 AM
This is one of the most discussed topics among digital artists, and it happens in every single digital art forum on the planet, and there is never a solution or any real answers. For me personally, I think the following:

1) Digital won't be accepted in the fine arts world for a while, so don't hold your breath. The extremely rare few that have made it are novelties.

2) Digital art collectively needs to grow up. Just as sci-fi/fantasy illustrations are not accepted in the fine arts world, digital art is mostly sci-fi/fantasy/cartoony, so it won't be accepted either. But in the illustration field, digital has already been accepted, as some well-known sci-fi/fantasy painters have switched to digital either partially or completely (Todd Lockwood, Jon Foster, Justin Sweet, Jean Pierre Targete, Robh Ruppel, Masamune Shirow..etc).

3) There is no reason why you have to abandon one for the other. Most professional concept artists/matte painters I know work digitally, but for their personal enjoyment, they still paint traditional.

4) If you want to be a fine artist who has showing in galleries and attracts collectors, your best chance is to keep on painting traditionally. If you want to be a commercial artist, people don't really mind what you use, as long as you get it done on time, and it looks great.

5) Some artists do a hybrid of both--they paint certain effects that can't be achieved digitally, then scan it in and finish the rest (Rick Berry, Jon Foster..etc)

6) Craig Mullins is still trying to get people to accept his digital works. He had a one-person art show not too long ago in Hawaii, where his digital paintings were printed out as high quality giclee prints. He's one of the most talented and respect digital artists on this planet, yet he didn't sell a single piece during the show. If a master painter like him can't get accepted, what does that say about the rest of us? I don't think he's ready to give up though--we shall see what happens next. Craig can paint very well tradtitionally too, but for his own reasons, he chose to present himself to the world as a digital artist. He could just show his traditional paintings and make a name for himself that way, but he chose digital. So in the end, do what makes you happy.

I agreed with every single point that you made. Excellent post.

LoTekK
08-08-2005, 04:38 AM
Phil's been quite frustrated to the reactions he's gotten with his digital fine art too. He got a lot of rejections simply because he worked digitally. I think he's making progress, but it's been an uphill battle for him as well.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. That's rather unfortunate. :hmm:

Russo
08-08-2005, 05:10 AM
I agree.. another point to notice is that practicing traditional will without doubt improve the digital skill also.. ;)

Guy In Rubber Suit
08-08-2005, 06:51 AM
Maybe what they should do is do side by side comparisons of digital and traditional art...though you really can't show the original piece of the traditional art as the layers and subtle depth would give it away. Just reproductions I suppose. It is a shame that digital art isn't being accepted, though one thing is for certain, traditional art will never be replaced. I still find it much more satisfying to draw with a pencil and paper than on the computer.

Dr. Ira Kane
08-08-2005, 10:41 AM
This is sad how most people look at digital art ( painted or 3d ) they just think that it's the computer not the person working. On the other hand I find digital painting much easier and fun than traditional, but I just started and hope to learn more traditional art techniques ( there are 5 years of studies waiting for me to begin in october so there's a big chance I will learn something :))

Alice
08-08-2005, 11:21 AM
3) There is no reason why you have to abandon one for the other. Most professional concept artists/matte painters I know work digitally, but for their personal enjoyment, they still paint traditional.

Funny thing here is that some people on that forum where offended almost by the thought of someone abandon analogue painting. For me its easy, I dont have the money or space to paint as much as I want.
Converting all the analogue workmethods to digital have learned me so much.
Also, if I would like to print out my digital art now, and continue to work on it on the canvas, then that should work aswell, since Its the same colours.

paperclip
08-08-2005, 10:56 PM
Is there any way to reliably equate F numbers to pigments?

Lunatique
08-09-2005, 02:54 AM
Yes, you can probably make a digital palette that matches traditional paints in proximity, but there's almost no point in doing it because digital colors don't mix the way traditional colors do. Try this experiment:

- Take a few different real paint colors and mix them, then paint little swatches with the results. Duplicate the same colors you used for mixing digitally, and mix them in the same combinations--the results will not look anything alike.

- Use the same paints you used originally and then paint swatches straight out of the tube, then upload it into the computer (either take a photo of it or scan it in). Tweak the scan to look as closely to the actual swatches, then digitally mix those colors in the same combinations. They will still look nothing like the original results.

Traditional painting palettes take a lot of things into considerations--from tinting strength, lightfastness, opacity, drying speed, to whether it's prone to cracking--and none of them are a concern in digital painting, which is one of the best things about digital painting.

ChrisMann
08-09-2005, 08:39 AM
Wow. That really is sad that he did not sell a single painting. As you say Lunatique, he is an artist graced with acres of skill. I was not aware of the exhibition he had, but I imagine and theorize :), that the lack of response has to do with the particular crowd this event was marketed to. Market Craig Mullins to the right crowd, and he will sell paintings like hotcakes. Stick him in a room with hardcore trad. theorists/conservatives and he will have a hard time.

Oh well, he is still an inspiration to me.

Just give it time. Dedicated and heartfelt work from talented artists will turn the masses.:D

Peace out.

Slux
08-09-2005, 05:11 PM
Wow. That really is sad that he did not sell a single painting. As you say Lunatique, he is an artist graced with acres of skill. I was not aware of the exhibition he had, but I imagine and theorize :), that the lack of response has to do with the particular crowd this event was marketed to. Market Craig Mullins to the right crowd, and he will sell paintings like hotcakes. Stick him in a room with hardcore trad. theorists/conservatives and he will have a hard time.

Yes its really sad he is such a talented artist. You can read whole discussion about this action here. There are even some photos from the gallery.

Craig Mullins gallery (http://forums.sijun.com/viewtopic.php?t=38551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=d31d741cd9b37446cc03714be05819c6)

- Slux

Adriana
08-09-2005, 05:38 PM
Yes its really sad he is such a talented artist. You can read whole discussion about this action here. There are even some photos from the gallery.

Craig Mullins gallery (http://forums.sijun.com/viewtopic.php?t=38551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=d31d741cd9b37446cc03714be05819c6)

- Slux
It's an art world snob thing really -----

John Keates
08-09-2005, 06:10 PM
It is possoble to not sell a single work at a gallery and then have another exhibition and sell the lot. This happened to my friends uncle. It takes a lot of determination to carry on though.

I am a painter who has got sucked into digital stuff but I fully intend to get back into painting again. I think that the main thing holding me back from selling many of my paintings is the fact that I don't show them to anyone. Plus, if you want to sell paintings then you have to have the words "would people want this on thier wall?" going through your head. It is quite different making cool images one the one hand, and expensive wall paper on the other.

There is a real difference between digital and "analogue" which is that painting has a real size. A small painting is a very different thing to a large painting.

What I would give to be able to make a living making huge paintings!!! If you get a chance then try it. I have made a few that were about seven or eight feet wide and it was a great experience. Try finding somewhere to put them though!! And who is going to buy it?

For the mean-time, whilst it is so much faster and cheaper to rattle off digital images, that is what I will do... until I make something and think "I really HAVE to paint this thing". Real paintings are so much more.... real

danielh68
08-09-2005, 06:40 PM
I’m most likely in the minority, because I will always value a traditional painting over a digital printout. If I was a wealthy patron, why would I want to purchase a printout of a file that could be reproduced numerous times? Sure, they could be numbered, but what are my insurances? A traditional painting is one of a kind and its identity needs no comparison; as opposed to digital art. How many times has one heard the phrase “what kind of brushes do you use?” or “What software?” These types of questions are generally aimed at pieces that have an organic property and bare a striking resemblance to a traditional painting. Many digital artists want to achieve the look and experience a traditional painting evokes. So, why not just paint traditionally? Because it’s a pain in the ass. There’s many more variables to consider, plus the huge investment in time and resources. I could spend days on an oil painting that would take me an hour to render digitally. And, that’s part of the appeal of a traditional painting; patrons appreciate the process, as well as, the final product.

MadSamoan
08-09-2005, 07:12 PM
You know, the few times I've been in Gallery Nucleus in Alhambra, I've thought to myself that I could easily see Craig having a show there and it being wildly successful. He just needs to be a little more in his element.

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/

John Keates
08-09-2005, 07:30 PM
Well I am kinda the opposite to you in that I paint with oils the same way that I paint digitally because I am aiming for realism in both counts.

Actually, I prefer oil painting because I feel I can achieve more realism. With a larger painting, you can paint as if you are making a window into the world. You can paint a full size figure as if they are stood behind a frame (as if the frame of the painting is a frame with no canvas in it). You can also paint things to look like they are stuck on the canvas or poking through the picture plane a little.

Also, you get more control over the colour as you don't have to worry about other peoples monitors or how it will print out. You do have to worry about the lighting conditions though.

Certainly original paintings will tend to sell for more than printouts but for reasons which are (in my view) not related to art.

I can see how "painterly" can equal "expressive" but I tend to find the painterly style limiting and for my perposes this makes it less expressive.

mrtristan
08-09-2005, 07:54 PM
Yes its really sad he is such a talented artist. You can read whole discussion about this action here. There are even some photos from the gallery.

Craig Mullins gallery (http://forums.sijun.com/viewtopic.php?t=38551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=d31d741cd9b37446cc03714be05819c6)

- Slux

There was a really interesting comment late in that thread about giclee prints by emarts. To summarize: traditional artists use giclee prints to provide a low-cost alternative to their work. (His example: a $4K painting will have limited edition prints in the $400-800 range.) But for digital folk creating hard copies, you don't have the "original".

To generate value, he recommended making prints of "published" work. This enables the whole "well, it was paid for by a publisher so it must have value" sort of logic.

I wonder if there's another way for digital work to gain value. It seems like most artists follow the field of dreams logic: "if you make it for a long enough time, they will come". But it seems like you need to follow the "field of popularity" logic: "the artist has been featured by *insert big name here*, so the art must be good."

Some ideas: big name websites, fancy people blogs, in general, things that are associated with "class" and "sophistication" (*ugh*). Big name companies do this sort of thing all the time. It's called "public relations". It's not about lying, but providing a truth tinted in your favor. :)

I wonder if there are people who specialize in artist PR. It seems like most artists rely on galleries to do this kind of work. In fact, most seem to find it rather disgusting. :P

Alice
08-10-2005, 12:32 AM
A traditional painting is one of a kind and its identity needs no comparison; as opposed to digital art..

The traditional world is full with people who can reproduce the same motive exactly the same over and over again. The medium does not guarantee quality nore originality.

mangual
08-10-2005, 01:08 AM
I think that the main thing holding me back from selling many of my paintings is the fact that I don't show them to anyone.

You're not the only one with that problem. At some point you just have to decide to not care what anyone else thinks and just paint what you want and let the chips fall where they may. Don't let fear hold you back!

sfriedman
11-15-2005, 01:24 AM
I think that much of digital art has the stigma it does because of the perception that it is all fantasy stuff or crudely altered photos. This is partly because these images seem to be most visible to the public. Ironically many of us who are able to create digital works in the manner of traditional artists are not accepted in the digital world becuase they are not digital enough. I happen to one of these artists and strive to get my artwork looking exactly like it was done with traditional art mediums.
Some of my criticism of other digital artists is that they don't really percieve what real artistic mediums look like. Simply smuding and blurring a photo is not the same as creating the subtle nuances and texutes of a painting, or pastel. It can be done digitally but you're going to have to go outside the box sometimes and experiment with other software programs and techniques to get there, and you're going to have to look closely at real oil painting and other mediums to get a sense of the nuances of that medium.

kraal
11-15-2005, 02:18 AM
i laugh at this conversation cause it is so pointless. No one acepts digital art yada yada yada. I have plenty of shows her in cincinnati from coffee house to art museums to house shows... all digital. And have never had any problems with it. Just get out and do it. even the artist and graphic market book has places that buy and sell digital prints. ok i am done continue with you talk of what is and isnt possible or accepted. I will continue not to listen to limits and explore possibilities

Sanne-chan
11-15-2005, 06:41 AM
I think digital art also has a bad image because some people cheat a lot. They paint over photo's, for example. Of course there are people that trace someone elses drawing but it's not the same. I think digital will be used for commercial stuff for a long while, but the experience you get from working digitally can also come in handy when you try analogue. I had no idea how to use oilpaint, but since i started messing around in painter, I can actually make simple paintings in real life. I just have to remember that I can't make layers, or use ctrl+Z when I accidentally spill some on the carpet :p

Alice
11-15-2005, 01:54 PM
i laugh at this conversation cause it is so pointless. No one acepts digital art yada yada yada. I have plenty of shows her in cincinnati from coffee house to art museums to house shows... all digital. And have never had any problems with it. Just get out and do it. even the artist and graphic market book has places that buy and sell digital prints. ok i am done continue with you talk of what is and isnt possible or accepted. I will continue not to listen to limits and explore possibilities

wow... my intentions was never to tell anyone that they can't i was more aiming for a "how do we do it easier"
If you can live on digital painting, great! :)

kraal
11-15-2005, 02:59 PM
no way was a refering to you original post... just the direction the conversation was traveling. it seems that people put a lot of ephesis on digital painting ( not being accepted period deal with it) than just doing it.

Nazirull
11-16-2005, 01:31 PM
I dont know if this has been said already...

Digital or analogue, both media (if you can categorise it as that) requires same principles; form, color, composition, theory, stroke (maybe). So IMHO there shouldnt be any comparison. I think its just that it is still the dawn of digital art and like anything else in life (mostly) we got people going against something new. But as time goes, people can assimilate it as a norm. (i guess:hmm:)

Sanne-chan
11-16-2005, 01:38 PM
assimilate...

*looks at both our avatar texts and my siggy*

:applause::applause::applause:

sorry, couldn't help myself :p, resistance was futile *snickers*

Anyway, you forget that you can't use things like REAL texture in a digital piece, so it's not entirely the same principle ;)

phlewp
11-25-2005, 06:55 PM
One thing that I've noticed among friends and family is that they are just as impressed and intrigued by digital work as traditional art. They all have little or no art training, experience, etc. However, a lot of artists who use solely traditional techniques tend to frown upon digital. This isn't to say all of them are though, I was fortunate enough to have teachers in high school who embraced (even though they weren't too good at it in all honesty) digital art and encouraged anyone who was interested in it to try it out.

It's rather funny how the art community prides itself on being open minded, yet it quickly rejects digital art. I think part of the problem is they simply don't understand it. They don't know the time and effort that is spent honing digital art skills, and they think digital is a shortcut. I think they also don't understand that to create truly great digital art almost always requires basic or even advanced knowledge and comprehension of basic art skills such as color theory, perspective, etc.

Myself, I appreciate both. Like danielh68 though, I have a bit more appreciation for say an oil painting on canvas. Something about it being a one of a kind (as opposed to multiple prints being available) that appeals to me. When I do paintings for family or friends, I tend to do it traditionally for this very reason. I also sometimes just prefer painting tradtionally, because I like the actual process of mixing paint, the tactile feed back of the brush against canvas, and the general process. Other times though, I just want to paint digitally. No cleaning of brushes, no waiting for the paint to dry, being able to open up a painting and get right into it, quit whenever I feel like it (not having to worry about finishing a certain part while the paint is still wet), that kinda thing.

lxcid
11-26-2005, 06:14 AM
If you let me choose between anologous and digital, I choose digital. One reason is because I love digital. Its a combination of art, science, math, etc. I wouldn't love art without the digital in front. You can say digital bring me into art.

People nowadays appreciate arts more. People began to care about looks. What they wears. Games graphics are heavily focus. People want beautiful websites, signatures, etc. Also, they go ga ga over digital shows and movies. All this lead to people appreciate arts more. It may not be how the traditional art lovers appreciates, but its how the majority public appreciates.

Its just how art have evolves. Its whether you wanna accept the changes. The world always goes round, Its up to you to follow. This is what I learn when I decides to commit myself into digital. And its pretty much the basic.

Without digital, you still stuck with people wearing king kong or gozilla suit, no star war, no incredibles, no world after tomorrow. Without digital, No games, no websites, no today cgtalk. Its not that its taking over analogous, its just evolving.

Mastakojo
11-27-2005, 09:18 PM
Dunno if it has been mentionned, but i see a lot of traditionnal artist incorporating digital tools to help their works. I was watching a documentary called art :21 at school and they were interviewing Kiki Smith while she was drawing on a Cintiq. And i ve seen a few more contemporary artists using digital tools to help them in their art. I think it is a matter of time before digital artist get accepted in the fine art world, but i agree that the digital art world has to grow out of only sci-fi/fantasy/cartoony world.

I'm not expert in digital art nor fine art, but i do paint in both media and i still find painting on a canvas with oil and get yourself dirty is the way to go heheheh. Then again, lately, im trying to incorporate more the both in my works (scan, paint in photoshop, large prints as a base, touch up with acrylics and oils....)

I dont really think we should seperate digital and traditionnal, its just another tools to express your idea into a vision.

Mastakojo
11-27-2005, 09:34 PM
Another question i wanna ask is why people think tracing photo and paint over them is cheating.... for me, nothing is cheating in art as long as ur the one who create it and u r aware and know this is the effect u were aiming for. iI mean, people still trace over drwaing, use projectors for patinings, have assistants mixing the colors for them.... r these cheating? A person can only do so much in that amount of time, its all about efficiency, why commercial art switch to digital is cuz its more efficient, time and money saved. I know some traditionnal artist paint over photos.....dont see a problem with that, i dont see why it should be a problem with digital painting.

sfriedman
11-28-2005, 01:48 PM
An interesting spin off for me has been a new found appreciation of fine arts done with traditional mediums (painting, apstel, etc.). Coming from the photographic side of things I never gave much thought to the nuances of painting. Now I really appreciate and understand what goes into this and have a new found respect. It is very interesting to me to discover that very simple things which would otherwise make very ordinary photographs can make spectacular paintings - digital or otherwise. When I now look at paintings I study each brush stroke and overall look of the painting and in my mind try to translate it into how I would do this digitally.

CGTalk Moderation
11-28-2005, 01:48 PM
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.