View Full Version : When people say painting here...

02 February 2002, 06:44 AM
Do they mean painting as in "made my hand" or made in something like photoshop? Only one is a true painting.

02 February 2002, 08:07 AM
both can be posted here and both can be refered to as painting grab a copy of websters and find painting it says " 1 a (1) : to apply color, pigment, or paint to " so by that photoshop, painter, oil, pastel, corel all would be painting i only post my digital work online because my work that is produced in a nondigital form is best displayed in a non digital form and the same is true in reverse. i must say im sorry if i sound harsh but i hear time and time again that digital art is not true art and that is just not the case art as defined in websters is " a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced " that includes digital works as well as physical works. ok now im done and i hope i dont stumble as i get down from this soap box

02 February 2002, 11:57 AM
I agree with you, I was just asking.

One thing I think differs is what art is..

If you are talking about an "art" where you are fully in control of a raw pigment or line (which the line - raw in form- is regarded as the closest we can get to seeing human thought) compared to a cpu/gpu which substitutes for human thought in raw form, then I think you should reconsider the relation between the two.....

....a composition by hand requires a greater degree if thought, that's why you can never compare Michelangelo
to any of the worlds best cg modelers/artists. The outcome is a common form, but the paths each takes are far different.

But thats my opinion, not nessecarily fact

02 February 2002, 05:47 PM
i concider my computer as just another more complicated brush with it I can turn my idea using my hand to an image... if needed then to a image on paper...
no one can know exactly how every hair of the brush moves leaving mark on the paper... the same you don't have to know what kind of process is going on in the computer while you're drawing... art is about the image to tell the idea to the viewer no matter how it is done... photography or sculpture or cg

maybe painting isn't the right word for it because there's no paint involved in creating the image but as result and process of creating are visually close to natural medium paintings then it's the most close word for that.
And as far as digital paintings are not taken seriously by critics, collectors, museums and artlovers... there's noone yet who have figured out any better words.

sorry for my bad english
i hope you got what i was trying to say

02 February 2002, 07:13 PM
Thats because "craft" will always outweigh "art".

In a true sense the masters of the arts were really great craftsmen of an artform. There can be no comparison. What the hand weilds will always be harder to create, and considered superior. Why?

1. Try to paint a Mona Lisa with the craftsmanship that Davinci had. There are probably less than a handful of people who could even attempt it. Why? Because it is hard, plain and simple.

2. Computers can basicly do all the work. In the end it is all design on the users part. There are too many tools/filters that do all the work, so in the end the "tool weilder" is nothing more than a designer telling the computer to do the work. Now that is not a bad thing. I love design and animation. Animators - geez i regard them very highly even though what they do is digital, because motion, gestures, etc etc are so very hard to portray, but again - apples and oranges when you compare it to a Rembrant portrait.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that can compare. I love my Photoshop and Illustrator. I love using Lightwave, they are all tools, but again I will say, they can not compare to the "craft" - that power of making something by hand. That is true power. Thats why most people who are great animators or 3d artists were fine artists or illustrators first. The power of simply drawing with a pen/pencil or whatever is actually the power of creating. This is a thought process. A development process.

02 February 2002, 07:18 PM
One more thing....

When you say that people dont know the must not have studied too deep into painting. A master knows his brush. I know in my study of Shodo, people actually try to feel the brush as if it were their finger. It is an awesome thing to fathom.

They try to master complete control of the bristles so that it becomes them, and they discipline their mind, heart, and hand into creating their great works. Some of the simpliest works of Shodo have just totally amazed me at the degree of mastery that the craftman had......

02 February 2002, 07:59 PM
OK, hot topic...
I do NOT agree with 'forsh'! To become a skilled CG-artist, you first have to learn how to draw with a pencil, and paint with a brush. Then you also need to master the tools in the program. My computer is nothing more than a set of tools.
I could use all the filters in the world, but still, if I did not know how to draw, it would look just as bad.

From featherpen to fountainpen and all the way to a computer, it is still my hand that create the drawing.

02 February 2002, 12:08 AM
From featherpen to fountainpen and all the way to a computer, it is still my hand that create the drawing.


art is not defined in the process of creation, it is defined in the process of observation

hmmm, i might have that as my sig...

Joel Hooks
02 February 2002, 03:29 AM
Your arguments are flawed. It is like saying unless you are firing sculpure in a wood burning oven instead of an electric kiln, you are no longer creating art or performing a craft.

By the definitions of the terms Art, Paint, and Craft - the digital medium most certainly qualifies for each. You can not create new definitions to suit your beliefs :rolleyes:

02 February 2002, 03:43 AM
Thats why a digital painting will never sell for millions. It speaks for itself. It is nothing revolutionary, any anyone can do it. Plus it becomes a crutch, heck you might as well sign the computers name next to yours, because the computer does most of the work.

02 February 2002, 04:06 AM
forsh: i'm having an exchibition this week... printouts...
aw comeone... check out my latest post "another sunloving creature". Can you please do the same creature just in another pose... not agonic but pleased... and in slightly different light situation. It's easy...."computer will do most of the work" and then put your name there...
if you're not an artist if you cannot draw then computer WILL NOT do anything for you... aswell as any brush or pencil wouldn't

02 February 2002, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by forsh
It is nothing revolutionary, any anyone can do it. Plus it becomes a crutch, heck you might as well sign the computers name next to yours, because the computer does most of the work. . Are you sure about what you are saying?What you are saying is that everyone's work here is the same thing.My belelief is that your work is not the same as mine,beter or worse,but not the same.I know Wiro and Blanchi for example are great modelers and i'm not that great.They also don't have the same way of modeling as each other.Well...if anyone can do it can we see your work?:) Here is a tip.Go to
Can you draw like that?:rolleyes:

Joel Hooks
02 February 2002, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by forsh
Thats why a digital painting will never sell for millions. It speaks for itself. It is nothing revolutionary, any anyone can do it. Plus it becomes a crutch, heck you might as well sign the computers name next to yours, because the computer does most of the work.

Hmmm, I wonder how much DNA just made on Jimmy Neutron at the box office.

I am sure every penny was charity and nothing more. After all, anybody can do it... no?


02 February 2002, 05:06 AM
So now art is about "drawing good", you seem a little confused. Thats like saying, "hey my dad can beat up your dad." Stop being so childish, I am stating my opinion on the matter, and my opinion is not truth, but how I feel, so try to keep your response a bit more thoughtful please - as I do enjoy discussing the issue. It is a subject that will be in great debate as tools on the computer because more "self sufficent" in their ability to create.

Traditionally you had to think fully about so many concepts, which are now lost on a digital platform. The computer remembers things, calculates things, etc etc - All which had to be done ywith your own mind before. That is a major reason I believe the digital platform becomes a cruth, a way of easyness, not a craft. have any of you ever walked up to see an M.C. Eshier (sp?) exhibit? THis mans lines almost make me want to cry. To think he drew those lines by hand with such thought, and is awe-inspiring to say the least. I felt like an ant, a nothing.

02 February 2002, 05:08 AM
"lowdown", that is animation and is apples and oranges compared to drawings and paintings. You cannot compare what a team of well funded people animate - to the personal endeavors of an artist from the 1500's. Though I love animation, and consider it an artform in itself for other aesthetic reasons.

Apples and Oranges.

02 February 2002, 05:18 AM
Right on forsh.

Stop being childish.

Art is another word for expressing yourself, no mather wath tool you're using.

02 February 2002, 05:24 AM
no hope... forget about it
what's the difference... expression is the key... i can do it with a pencil or with computer program... as far as i make my point clear or at least visualized then it's art...
you know forch beating you up would be a masterpiece of perfomance art... though critics would say that it's too obvious and it was just a matter of time and place when that masterpiece would be done and by whom

eh whatever i'm out of that discussion

02 February 2002, 05:25 AM
Well we all have different opinions on that, and I welcome the opinions of others in this discussion.

02 February 2002, 05:28 AM
"you know forch beating you up would be a masterpiece of perfomance art"

Why do you resort to violence? Again, people are turning to childish responses, lets entertain the debate of the issue, which is a very important issue in the arts in this day and age. Again, I welcome all opinions, and will surely speak my own.

02 February 2002, 05:38 AM
why you think that you're the one who knows what is childish and what is not.
I think not reading others' arguments and calling everyone childish who clearly shows you your mistake.
i mean saying that computer does most of the work and anything drawn on computer has no esthetic value has no sense.
maybe you'd say that photography is not art?
anyhow... there's no point in argueing with you 'couse you not thinking... just talking

02 February 2002, 05:42 AM
ime be calm, you threaten that beating me up would be good. That is very childish.

My opinion on the matter stands. You hink one way, I think another, and we are both allowed to be passionate about our beliefs. Lets entertain a discussion/debate without threats of beating people up is all I am saying.

02 February 2002, 05:48 AM
i'm not threatening...
again you're not listening :)
i'm just showing you how different ways there are to create art...

all i'm saying that electronic music is also music... aswell as classical music

good night... gotta sleep also
it's 2:45 at night here in Estonia

02 February 2002, 05:51 AM
But thats a bad analogy, because what is better - a "trumpet" playing jazz live, or a simulation? Live is/will always be better, because it is an unfiltered form or art. The computer will just be as good secondary form.

02 February 2002, 01:12 PM
art is not any particular thing, and anyone who says so is closing their mind to many possibilites...

there is art in the way stars twinkle at night, in the way someone can pull off a perfect dive, in the way certain pigments are daubed on canvas and even in the way electrons hit a screen and show you 'fity percent grey' and the like...

the only thing common to all these things is you... and the way photons hit the retina in your eyes... as i said before :

02 February 2002, 01:21 PM
Exactly what calculations will my computer do for me???

It will not determine what colors I will use, where I will put my shadows, my light, my anatomy, the folds of cloth, or facial expressions, and so on....

have any of you ever walked up to see an M.C. Eshier (sp?) exhibit?

You seem to think "we" have something against traditional artist. I value their work just as high as the work of skilled CG-artists.

You are the prejudiced one.

02 February 2002, 03:45 PM
Ah, more name calling and such, pointing and calling me prejeduce, it would be so easy for me to repsond and attack you right you names, or jump to a fudgement, Although many here seem to do just that, i shall not.

About the computer, yes it may not do "all" the work, but it does a large majority of the work. And in my opinion, it is enough to say you should probably sign your computers name along with yours, because you didnt do everything, it did alot of things you couldnt.

Once a brush can paint for you, it is no longer a tool, but an entity which is a contributing creator.

02 February 2002, 04:23 PM
This arguement is idiotic. It will result in no clear answer and shouldn't either.

Why digital painting was compared to analogue in the first place is beyond me.

I think forsh knows a computer cannot create anything without a human... it doesn't even have the ability to sign its name without me telling it to. So why do you persist down this line of argument?

02 February 2002, 07:06 PM
I think computer is just a tool for us artists,, no matter if it done with mud , pigment or digital will stay art . and I agree that painting on canvas have longer life than digital painting. I start painting with acrylic and oils but I switch to cg because for me I can get the result I want mess with color tubes and cleaning the brush after I finished painting. :D

Jean Eric
02 February 2002, 07:23 PM
I think many people have forgotten the true meaning of art. Art has nothing to do with 'technique' or 'craft' per say. Art is about creativity first, a research of plastic aesthetics and beauty. Beauty exists in many many forms. Architecture is a form of art, and yet buildings are not designed to resemble anything. They are designed to be functional and yet aesthetic (most of the time). So is abstract art where the objective is not necessarily to represent life but rather interpret it or simply create something new and beautiful.

And since beauty itself is up to interpretation, you really have to open your minds to the different styles and art forms out there if not to be trapped in a Ďmoldí that can impair oneís creativity.

Comparing Digital Artists to artists of the Renaissance is unfair I believe. The tools are different, but as difficult, if not harder to master. I believe that many frames in a film such as Star Wars for example will probably involve more artistry or even technique than DaVinci in his famous Mona Lisa. Itís not because something is old that itís always better.

True creativity is about breaking away from stereotypes.

The Media or tools used are irrelevant and computers don't create art. They just render what they were told to. It takes talent and technique to create something really outstanding because no software or commputer alone will create the next Star Wars or Mona Lisa.

No art, is not about pigment, brushes or anything like that. Art is about music, it's about the environment that surrounds us, it's about every day object we use that were designed through a process, it's in the magazines we read, on the internet and into art galleries. It's in our living rooms and it's even in nature. We just have to look for it and learn to appreciate it in its different forms and shapes.

02 February 2002, 12:30 AM
my point exactly, and better worded no less... nice one jean eric

02 February 2002, 02:09 AM
I have to respectfully disagree on some points Jean. I think it is also unfair for you to compare one man, to an entire team. Starwars, and architecture requires massive teams of people. And these forms of art are filtered by nature. They can never be a truely pure form of expression because of all the variables out of the "visionaries" control. This is not pure, this is not pure.

But even if you seek to compare that one man, he stands still above them in genius as many of his contemporaries. He, in his design genius, invented helicopters and tanks -as seen in his drawings- hundreds of years before they were built. That cannot be compared to Starwars, starwars is nothing compared to this mans creative genius.

I also think "art" is not about brushes like yourself. Yet, the modern world art has become corrupted into believing "if you can shit it" then it can be art. Art used to be about so many things, passion, lifelong work and vision, HARD WORK. None of this self proclaimed artist crap that tears things apart.

Throw shit at a wall - its art today

Shit on the sidewalk - its art

Pour Koolaid on the floor - its art.

Scientists agree, the line is the purest form of raw thought, the purest form of expression. So it is my opinion, without this fundamental understanding and control, you cannot truely understand expression as someone who does.

That is what the modern world has done, corrupted the world into thinking art isnt a lifelong self discovery so that your expression is true and sincere. So if you define art that way, you can have your corrupt government of art.

02 February 2002, 03:00 AM
Okay, i think i see where you are coming from. I think we must succinctly define the point of argument before continuing:

If an artist does not have total, utter and complete control over every facet of his work, then it is a lesser work compared to the artist that does.

Please make changes necessary.

02 February 2002, 03:52 AM
Just wanted to warn you guys. You're getting into the territory best left untouched. Forsh recently brought up the long-fought-over topic of what art is, and what makes art worthwhile. Just warning you all; you're getting into the bear's trap with that one.

My own theory? If it looks nice and serves a purpose, I say bravo.

Jean Eric
02 February 2002, 04:05 AM
One thing is for sure. The word 'art' still defies accurate definition. We all know what it is, at least we think we do. Nobody knows what art really is because it is subjective. It is something to one and something else to someone else.

If you only pay attention to the technique involved in a production, then, you only see half of what art is about. Art is about expression with a plastic medium. It's about communicating emotions.

But also, art can serve a function through a form we call design. The research of an beauty and function. Design is an artform of its own and has been turned into almost a science in the 20th century.

I think the 20th century was great for art in general because it exploded the whole notion of what art really is.

In the late 19th Century, photography exploded all notions of art. In a fraction of a second, a simple black box could do what an artist, after years of learning and experience used to do in days if not weeks. This is where modern painting, abstract and many other art forms really came from. Beyond realism and into sur-realism.

I think the same thing will happen in our industry. One day, re-creating reality will become futile. We will explore new styles. Just like cartoons are not designed to represent reality. They are an expression, or an exageration of the real world.

02 February 2002, 05:28 AM
bravo, jean eric... once again... :eek:

in my mind, at least, digital art is very similar to graffiti art... theres lots of crap out there, but every so often there's something that makes you sit back and go 'wow' - the same can be said for any type of art, it just that most of the crap is lost over time... i'll bet there was loads of cave art that was total bollocks... (or even that the stuff we see today is the crap stuff... shocking thought, eh?)

Jean Eric
02 February 2002, 06:11 AM
And my reply to this is... You think there was no crap art in the days of Da Vinci or the Renaissance?

Only superior artistry and talent survived the ages.

02 February 2002, 07:59 AM
Thats because creating art back then had some strong forces pushing it along.

One of the major forces was "Discipline". People would apprentice many many years of their life, dreaming that one day they could master their technique. But there were some who went a step further, Hokusai, who forever sought growth, never ever seeing themselves as complete, never seeing themselves as an artist, never seeing themselves as a master - they were true to the spirit of art, being boundless by terms.

Why is it so amazing to watch someone draw? Why does that fascinate everyone? Because it is an un-natural act, just as watching a great athlete defy the limits of his sport. But in the case of the person sketching, he is a creator, a revolutionary. Laying down the line on paper represents a power that has propelled humankind, because creating is the power of gods. To create without aid, is to empower yourself. If all the computers were gone tomorrow, if we stripped you down to who your truely are, could you do the same without the "crutch" you use to create? Do your hands have the dexterity to create boundlessly? Can your hands communicate to the world your dreams? Or must you have that "one tool that makes it all possible"? If so, then you are bound by that tool, and not the artist you think you are.

Most people I know pictures an "artist" as this guy with a beret who spouts poetry and splashes paint around and sells that work for millions. They dont even take the arts seriously. And the sad part is that this "new image" of art created by the modern "politicaly correct" world paints that picture, stereotyping the arts. There are no fundamental "definers" of art anymore. If you can shit it, its art in the modern world.

02 February 2002, 08:06 AM
Most CG artists draw their ideas on paper first before attempting it on the computer. It is a highly valued skill and considered an integral part of being a CG artist.

So yes, i'd say most can do without the crutch of a computer.

Jean Eric
02 February 2002, 08:10 AM
Art is relative. Art cannot be defined in simple terms.

I find your vision of art very bleak Forsh. This reminds me the debate we had in Canada regarding a work of Modern art called 'Voice of Fire' from American artist Barnett Newman. .

That painting called 'Voice of Fire' was acquired for $1.76 million. For most of the public, it was an outrage.

And yet, the painting is beautiful and even spectacular by its simplicity, its's dimensions and its boldness.

I just love modern art.

Art is so subjective. As my mother used to tell me. It's not because you don't like something that it's not good. And vice-versa.

02 February 2002, 12:54 PM
Ah Jean, your mother didnt lie to you, she was correct. And most would agree with you too.

I still hold fast to the idea that an artist, such as Hokusai, who works, meditates, and disciplines his entire life to being able to covey the life of a bird - knowing that he may never achieve his goal, is far more important to the arts, than a man who makes squares and sells it for millions. Art isnt about money. Art isnt about being "trendy", as you will see alot of artists tend to be.

Hokusai's struggle, like many visionaries, is something deeper than seeling art or being displayed in a gallery - his is one of seeking for something insubstantial - something within - something supernatural. It is in the insubstantial, the unseen, the lifelong journey, the decades of practicing a craft, that the truth of something really comes out.

Not in the "fad" of the times. Sure that makes people rich, and keeps the "community" intact, but it is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

02 February 2002, 01:01 PM
You also say - "Art is relative. Art cannot be defined in simple terms."

I agree, but ones art is something earned by hard work. By actually thinking, studying and doing. Again, society - with its "Politicly correct" view, defines anything as art, and for many this is just a scapegoat to be part of something, to feel original, to not have to work hard.

In todays world I guess it is all to easy to be a "self proclaimed" master at any age....there is no devotion or respect to the arts. It is a self centered world moreso each day.

02 February 2002, 01:16 PM
oh, yes, i wouldn't mind seeing that...

one of the best pieces of modern art that i've seen is in the tate modern in london, its a hollow cube without a top, formed from inch thick polished copper and the bottom is painted a deep red... the reflections are mesmerising and the simplicity is awe inspiring... pity i haven't a pic, but it is something to be seen for its self.

by modern art i mean somthing created since 1900 but i dislike labels - as they allow people to this sort of art is better that that sort... art is always a function of the current society and so always changing, in a few hundred years cg art will be held in siilar regard to what some hold renassance art today... and dispargae what ever the then current artists produce...

one more thing... anyone saying 'oh, but anyone could do that' is an idiot... the fact remains you did not and probably could not either.

02 February 2002, 01:45 PM
God you waffle on Forsh :D

I can see this thread going on for eternity and in the mean time you wouldn't have accomplished anything.

As for me, I might just concentrate on my CG rather than read this.

*signing out*

oops *edit

I think Dragonius hit the nail on the head... its exactly what we are seeing in this thread now... history repeats.

, in a few hundred years cg art will be held in siilar regard to what some hold renassance art today... and dispargae what ever the then current artists produce...

02 February 2002, 12:45 AM
Comparing the Renaissance to today is simply unfair. Society has changed. A lot. There are no more guild systems (albeit, some groups may call themselves "guilds"), no more apprentices, journeymen, masters. So how can you compare the work of someone 450 years ago to someone today--when art itself is a reflection of society? Art to me means purpose. If it serves a purpose, and does it well, then good job--no matter what turns out. If the purpose is to not serve a purpose, then so be it. It is simply the execution of an idea. People may execute this in several different ways--putting less effort into something, or making something not as detailed and drawn out does not make it the lesser. It makes it different. I actually think my art is hindered by Photoshop. It just doesn't give me the control I have with a paintbrush. Nor does it have the same energy. But that's just me. To someone else, filters and motion blurs may be exactly what they want. And I hope they are successful in executing an idea with such tools.

Tracing is seen by many as a crutch. But if it gets the job done, and the artist is happy with it, where's the dismal part? It serves a purpose, and only the artist, the one who created all of it, is able to judge it without any bias. Only he or she can determine if skill is being hindered, and only he or she can change such if he or she wishes to. So the entire discussion of painting by computer being a crutch of any sort is insignificant--when the real focus should be put on what is created from the tools a person uses; not the tools used.

02 February 2002, 03:20 AM
And one day the tools will be very smart, so that they do the work themselves. And then people will say, "We are great, look at our art."
Become dependant on the machine, and one day there will be no other way for you to create, then you are a slave - not an artist.

It surely will reflect upon society, and what they have become......gluttons of the corrupt art society.....

02 February 2002, 03:13 PM
by smart tools you mean computers?

the day a computer makes a piece of art is the day a computer can be fully sentient (like us) and then it's just another artist expressing itself... this has been covered in many sf books, i'm sure.

anyone laying claim to the art could rightly be seen as a thief...

02 February 2002, 03:38 PM
We are not slave of the computer to produce art... hey, most of us can draw! I think we couldn't tell us master in drawing because we didn't want to be master too.
Tool are just here to help us out, no? I'm more a traditionnal artist since I'm studying illustration and comics, but I found really usefull the computer for some thing, like working faster :)
Of course I can do the same with my paper... but it's only faster with my computer. Tool aren't perfect for now(I don't understand how the aerograph work under painter, or the marker but it's improving)
We must not confuse what we do and with what we do it... Why couldn't we have a master like Michelangelo on computer? The computer are not going to draw without you, nor put the color, nor correcting your anatomy nor you composition...
The only difference is that we can allways print out more and more pic of this piece of art! It's an old dream... maybe everybody can have a pic of a master in his room! Not many of us can bought(if any) a Vincent Van Gogh since it exist only ONE piece of it... and it's not really cheap for that reason :)

02 February 2002, 04:53 AM
Guys, stop replying to this troll. He's just trying to make excuses for the fact that his art sucks . . . he's looking for a scape goat . . . wants to knock someone else down a peg so he feels better about his shit. Tools don't matter. All any artist ever does is arrange colors in a rectangle. Whether its painted, pixeled, or photographed, its all colors in a rectangle.

It doesn't matter how they get there, all that matters is the thought behind the image.

He talks about Michelangelo like he was a fine artist . . . Michelangelo worked almost exclusively on comission. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is commerical art . . . its an exquisite example of billboard painting. And if you're going to rag on computers for somehow helping me lay down strokes (I'm still not clear on what the hell you're talking about there), why not rag on Michelangelo for employing a team of assistants to help him paint?

Take a hike Forsh, or post some of your art for critique.

02 February 2002, 10:06 AM
Ah balistic you talk as if you know the "true" answer to this discussion, as if , in some way, you were divinely endowed with the answer for all to know. Your comments seem a bit harsh, you know the part where you say, "show your work for critique". What does that have to do with anything?

And no, computers and fine arts are 2 different world, in my humble opinion. But that doesnt matter to you does it? You are divinely inspired with the answer eh?

I think I will just refrain from responding to your "trollish" attacks balistic, as I feel that it is not your intention to debate/discuss this issue, but rather try and discredit someone. Tisk, tisk.

02 February 2002, 11:58 AM
"Ah balistic you talk as if you know the "true" answer to this discussion, as if , in some way, you were divinely endowed with the answer for all to know."

Nope, I'm an atheist, nothing divine about it. But I've been making art on computers for ten years, and I've received training in both traditional media and academic art. I've seen both sides of the fence, and I've realized that there /is/ no fence.

The same principles of color, composition, content, rhythm, form, contrast, line, and concept apply to any canvas . . . even ones that you plug into the wall.

"And no, computers and fine arts are 2 different world, in my humble opinion."

I've started selling editioned prints of my work, and Jeremy Engleman ( has been making fine art on computers for years. I plan to ditch the day job and be a full-time digital fine artist in less than ten years.

"You are divinely inspired with the answer eh?"

Nope, but an opinion with a public body of work behind it is a hell of a lot more substantial than one from an anonymous wallflower.

So pardon me for not seriously considering a smug, faceless git who thinks that the brand of canvas determines the worth of a painting.

Yeah, computers have enabled a lot of stupid people to make a lot of stupid pictures . . . and they've enabled even more stupid people to sit on the sidelines and screech about how shitty all the stupid computer pictures are . . . but the ones making 98% of the noise are making 0% of the art that's going to change the world. This is a pivotal time in the history of visual expression . . . me, Jeremy, and a handful of other guys are fighting for the future with our pictures . . . while all the howler monkeys do is pollute the present with their screams.

So do you not read books that were written on typewriters?

02 February 2002, 02:54 PM
"So pardon me for not seriously considering a smug, faceless git who thinks that the brand of canvas determines the worth of a painting. "

Ah, again, why should I believe you when you are putting words in my mouth? Please do not label me by words you make up or interpret based off your bias.

Let me say something - I love digital art. I do 3d/graphic design for a multimillion dollar company. I love what I do, and have worked for my degree in this also. I love it. It is awesome to have the tools at hand to create. These tools used to be available to only the rich and/or large companies, but are now available for us to create. The average person has no excuse for not making his dreams of creation a reality, the digital medium has made that possible. We can all now tell our stories and share them with the world. And I, like many artists who use these tools, am in progress creating my story to share also.

I like debating/discussing the digital creation aspect versus the traditional creation aspect. There is no harm in discussing it, and we can all learn in the process. I have learned alot by reading through the opinions on this thread, and examining the many points-of-view. I am learning, and I hope it is more than just I learning from discussing. It is good to see people passionate about what they do and stand for. So dont be angry if I take a bold stance on my opinion, and please refrain with the name calling and labeling. I am here to learn and contribute. I wouldnt give up my Lightwave/Photoshop/Freehand for anything. These are my virtual tools of choice, the tools I use to create from my vision.

My stance on the digital vs. fine art goes deeper, having struggled many years studying painting, drawing, and other aspects of the arts as it pertains to non-computer work. And I take my strong stance that there is no comparision due to the humanistic nature of creating with crude instruments. I think that it is a pure form of art as compared with art that is not 100% controlled by the mind. An ink-stick requires alot of discipline to use. There are no second chances with it, the line is permanant, and every wavering movement can be seen. Its the quality of discipline involved, the human nature controlling an unintelligible thing, that I believe sets it so far apart from a "digital brush".

02 February 2002, 10:31 PM
I apologize for the name calling, but you should understand that what you're saying is going to make people angry.

You've consistently placed more value on process than on product . . . but when I present my art to someone, they don't see the process, its something that only I experience. I can draw with a pencil, and I can paint with a brush, but I choose digital because I don't think that art needs to be tedious. Its like for this piece:

I did it in 40 minutes while I waited for my clothes to dry. To do it as a "real" painting would mean I'd have to prime a canvas, fill a palette, lay down a drop cloth, and hope I didn't get any phone calls . . . I don't think I deprived myself of anything by avoiding that. I mean, if you want to live dangerously, there's always the possibility that your paint app is going to crash or the power will go out :)

02 February 2002, 03:17 AM
Nice lighting contrast on that piece.

I believe the world is will sooner than later be mostly digital. Its very plain to see. I also know its safer for peoples health to not use....


I am a very health concious person.
I had a very bad experience involving chest pain (non heart related) due to painting. Very painful, though not harmful or life-threatening at all. Using a computer is just easier, and yes, living dangerous involves nothing more than a hard drive crash or something of that nature, and that is a big benefit to working on the computer.

02 February 2002, 02:33 PM's a nice picture. Cool colors and composition and all. However, digital painting cannot be compared to any means of traditional painting. They are both solid forms of expressing ones self. However, a quality which a digital picture doesn't have is texture. There's no 'tactility' to's a physically flat assortment of CMYK, or RGB. Even if you were to print it out, it would still be a flat shiny peice of paper.

I'm not knocking it, I'm just citing a major difference.

The definition of art is different for everyone. To me, if the method suits the means to which it portrays a message, it is good art.
Whether it's a crap on a canvas, a computer rendering, a cool movie, a great song, a beautiful poem, etc...etc...

Comparing CG art to more traditional art is like comparing a red pencil to a blue pencil (and this is coming from a VERY classicaly trained artist..see trompe l'oeil painting in the 2d section). If you're going to make a red dot, you need a red pencil...if you're going to make a blue square, you need a blue pencil. If you're going to make an oil painting, you need more traditional means (canvas, paints, etc..)..if you're going to make a CG short, you need a computer and the appropriate software.

One could never say the red pencil is better than the blue...someone might happen to like the red over the blue, but that's just their opinion. The neccesity of one or the other just depends on the message you're trying to get across...

02 February 2002, 02:09 AM
What i have to say in response to this totally useless discussion is,
Art=personal experience. tools mean jack-didly-shit.
Forsch, although its your opinion and it is to be "respected", i think your arguments are flawed, and contradicting. You keep on rambling on about the art AFTER ie. DaVinci. So what about the art created before his period? it sure was technically "inferior". And i'm not even talking about cave-art. Does that make it less art?
As a matter of fact, when lineair perspective was first introduced, you would use a wooden frame with a grid, to "trace" a subject to get proper perspective. This was a technological breaktrough.
Also, around 1500, the use of lenses became more common, as the glass-making industry progressed.
These instruments were all aids to making painting easier, and more "real". Add to that, as stated before, the fact that many of the renaissance painters were commisioned (remember De Medici), making michelangelo a very succesfull entrepreneur.
Also "the scientist agree" does not hold for one second.
for every "scientific" fact, there is one disproving it.
"(church)Scientists" also thought the earth was flat.
Then your stating you work for a multimillion dollar company('proving' you work in the field), and in the same paragraph you say that the tools used to be only available to the rich, and now for everybody to use.
I do agree on the part that digital art is likely to be 'destroyed' easier.
Well, we'll have to do something to preserve it then, dont we?

02 February 2002, 04:12 AM
Parallax you didn't have to point out that my arguement was flawed, I obviously knew it was, as are most arguements here. If mine wasn't, then it would be truth, and not an opinion.

Comparing perspective grids (a tool incapable of intelligent thought, and/or calculating) to computers (a tool capable of intelligible thought and/or calculating) is not a very good comparison in my opinion. One is a dead tool STILL REQUIRING YOU TO DO ALL THE THINKING - compared to a tool that offloads some of that thinking, doing it for you. Thus, a shared creation.

The human line could be a whole other discussion in itself. yes, what scientists think, does matter to me. The world is built apon the discoveries of science. It is something you may want to get used to. Plus, I woild love to hear your example of what you think is superior compared to the "line" then?

And the only reason I point out that I work for a well established, successful company, is because people here keep challenging me. Not suprising you attack me also, as many already have.

However, I would like to hear more about your opinion on the "line" vs. what you consider a more advanced way to "see" unfiltered human thought.

02 February 2002, 04:30 AM
A a clip from a good reading.

First and foremost, shodo, or the way of writing is a genuine path toward inner understanding, study of self and life, and, indeed, a way to enlightenment, the supreme goal of a living person. So are its companion arts, kado, or flower arrangement, chado, or tea ceremony, and budo, the martial arts. Throughout Asia writing is held to be a gift from a divine source. No one knows when writing in Asia originated. There are Chinese oracle bones and turtle shells with characters carved on them that have been excavated from the thirteenth century B.C. near the city of Anyang. These carvings were used for divination, and over four thousand different characters were found. In Japan, some of the earliest written fragments are from Buddhist sutras brought into the country through Korea in the fifth century A.D. The compelling need to set down in written symbols, emotions, and eventually ideas has been a characteristic of human beings for millennia.

The written Japanese language as it is known today is composed of characters of Chinese origin as well as phonetic symbols also derived from Chinese characters. There is a definite way to write each character or symbol. This is called the stroke order of the character. Stroke order is very important in calligraphy. Just as children in France are still carefully trained in penmanship, so in Japan all elementary students learn the proper way to form the 881 basic Japanese Educational Characters, or kyoiku kanji. These are the building blocks of language, mind and culture of the Japanese people.

Calligraphy, according to the late teacher of Chinese, scholar of Chinese calligraphy, and calligraphy master himself, Professor Wang Fangyu of Seton Hall University, means "artistic writing." In East Asia, calligraphy is regarded as one of the highest expressions by man in the arts. Calligraphy is definitely as much an art as painting. The person behind the writing is revealed in Asian calligraphy when he or she places ink to paper, silk, or wood. The state of mind of the creator of the writing is immediately apparent to the viewer as troubled or calm, in agitation or in a state of enlightenment. Ideally, one should prepare to write calligraphy by way of clearing the mind of all extraneous thought through meditation. By emptying the mind one can begin to write with concentrated thought and pure energy. The writing of characters, thus, is as important as the Japanese practice of sitting meditation known as zazen.

There are many methods to write with the brush. One can copy great masters or one can rely on an innocent and naive mind to achieve freshness. In the Zen school of calligraphy, one of the great achievements of Japanese art, there is no one true method, actually a "no-method." The person writing must think of each stroke of the brush or pen as his or her last one ever and thus the most important effort ever made. It must convey all the power and emotion one possesses. The raku-shitsu, or the moment when the brush first touches the paper, reveals the state of mind of the calligrapher.

One of the most difficult characters to draw well is the simple, fundamental horizontal stroke signifying the number one. According to John Stevens, an American Buddhist priest, Aikido teacher, and scholar of sacred calligraphy who lives in Japan, beginners should spend three years concentrating on this stroke.

Brush, paper, inkstick, and inkstone are the four elements of calligraphy. Brushes are flexible, rounded, and conical, and come in many sizes. Paper, inksticks, and inkstones also vary greatly. All four elements are prized by collectors and practitioners in Asia and have been highly valued for hundreds of years.

It takes much control and practice to produce a good stroke. Preparation is essential. An old-fashioned method is the grinding of the inkstone with water to produce the ink. This is a repetitive, time-consuming process until the pool in the bottom of the inkstone becomes jet-black and appropriate to use in writing. This is a time when the person to write focuses his or her mind and banishes such thoughts as trying to produce a good character.

When I was a teacher in the Yamagata Prefecture junior high school system of Tsuruoka City, I would watch Japanese school children practice calligraphy. At some point in the year contests are held among the forty or so members of each class to determine who wins the highest prize for the best work. All work of the class is then displayed in school rooms or hallways, forming a veritable corridor of written characters on rice paper. The best in the school is frequently hung in the visitor's or principal's room as an honor. In some cases, students who excel or who are able at calligraphy in school do not pursue the art any further. The freshness, vigor, and idealness of the writing of a twelve or fifteen year old may thus represent the peak of his of her calligraphic ability in life. Only a few continue in this life-long discipline. Distractions such as television or attractions of computers and computer games or other concerns beyond the classroom take precedence.

I remember one Japanese man in Tsuruoka, a well-known architect, who had a hanging scroll of calligraphy from high school displayed in his house. He was very much a modern person, had designed many Western-style buildings and had sent his daughter to the United States to study, but he told me he could never again equal the vigor and purity of the characters he had brushed at age seventeen, and kept them hanging for inspiration. This attitude shows how much calligraphy can mean even to a Japanese businessman familiar with rough and tumble transactions and the latest technological advances.

Japanese students know that how the brush is held, how the ink flows via the artist's heart, body, hand and brush onto the paper, and the overall impression of the finished product (its continuity, proper composition, and integrity) are all essential to appreciation and understanding. When a student writes a piece of calligraphy, perhaps with advice of the teacher, he or she chooses the word or words to be written, such as "world peace," "study of the stars," "clear voice," or "the heart of nature is in rivers and mountains." Then the student attempts to write accurately, and with his or her feeling, the appropriate words.

As simple a word as "rice," or "persimmon," "fishing," "dream," or even just "morning is appropriate for young children or skilled masters both to attempt. Calligraphy can be complex, swift, and vigorous, showing sophistication, talent, and energy, or, on the other hand a skilled master calligrapher may aim to create off-center, seemingly childlike characters that have a naivete and innocence. "Unbalanced balance" is a term that the calligraphy master Wang Fangyu liked to use to describe his own work.

One can learn more about calligraphy at all levels by studying the quality and diversity of examples in exhibitions in major cities in Japan or in the United States. In these exhibitions one frequently comes across not only Zen Buddhist arts but also those of Taoism, the Chinese conception where the realm of the spirit is one with the realm of matter. One can also see how rhythm and relationship, two of the fundamental concepts of painting, come together in writing characters. Good calligraphy should possess a life-force, or ki in Japanese. Ki is the universal energy that flows everywhere and is evident in flowers, rivers, birds, and ourselves.

Finally, the beginner in calligraphy should not be put off by talk of meditation, stroke order, Zen, Taoism, of any other ideas, but should simply try brushing a character. Nothing can be more difficult, or easier, than the first step. A popular saying in Japan is "Never forget the beginnerís mind." This reveals the essence of calligraphy: the brushing of ink to paper in a particular sequence to represent, as if for the first time, an animal, a plant, a tool, a place, or a thought.

02 February 2002, 04:58 AM
Forsh, a Wacom tablet, an Athlon, and a copy of Photo-Paint is no different from a Brush, some ink, and some rice paper. You keep trying to make some kind of point about digital art being different from traditional media but ITS NOT . . . I use the exact same painting methods on the computer that I use on a canvas . . . all the same color theory applies . . . if you want to talk about intimacy with one's materials, I can see in my head exactly how my stylus angle is going to affect my stroke in Photo-Paint, or how the placement of a light in A:M is going to express a form.

2D can be just like painting, and 3D can be just like sculpture and photography . . . you're grasping at straws trying to find some critical distinction between paint and pixels that doesn't exist . . . so pixels don't drip and my monitor doesn't have texture . . . big sodding deal! I can't control a drip, and I can't control the texture of a canvas, so they aren't part of the art . . . I can fake them if I want to . . . I can print on canvas, or use brush textures in Photo-Paint:

but those are aesthetic choices, not conceptual ones . . . that shit is all a textural wrapper, its not the guts of art.

I think you need to spend some time exploring your own creativity before expounding on what real art is . . . working at a major company doesn't say anything about what kind of artist you are . . . I work at an animation studio, and I get job offers from major houses all the time . . . but that doesn't mean I'm a good artist, it means that I can make pictures to please a client. "Art" is something I do at home, when I have an image in my head . . . you know all that zen bullshit? What do you think goes on in my head while I'm laying down brush strokes like the ones in "Sun Tower", or while I'm position a light in 3D so it illuminates a form just-so? Its no different.

Ink. Pixels. They're only the messenger, not the artwork.

02 February 2002, 06:29 AM
I think it's very insipring that people train years to be able to truely master a "line", and aren't interested in "art", but rather a mastery of ones self.

Kinda ironic that those who don't consider themselves artists, always appear to be the strongest "creators" of art.

I am grasping at nothing. Virtual tools will never = a "pure art" in my opinion. Your art is filtered. I assume you know all about rgb and cmyk values and their limits right? Virtual art is filtered in so many ways. You are bound by rules and limits of technology.

And besides, art is not about the product, but the path. Your "virtual" creation yeilds a lesser "humanistic" creation. Seeing a large rock that has been pounded away with the sweat, and metal of their creator to create a form, will always be greater than a 3d model. Just the majesty, the grandiour(sp?) of standing in the presence of this large piece of iron or rock.......sometimes can be breathtaking. Almost as if gods had reached out of the heavens and carved the stones themselves.

02 February 2002, 06:33 AM
One more thing. Have you EVER touched rice paper? You could almost breate and permanantly damage it. (depending on the quality you get) Have you ever tried to ink on it? That is a whole nother world.

You have many ways to undo, but there is no turning back the ink once it is on the paper. It is a true representation of ability, and dexterity, and understanding.

02 February 2002, 07:49 AM
"I think it's very insipring that people train years to be able to truely master a "line", and aren't interested in "art", but rather a mastery of ones self. "

That's called craft. You go on and on about pure art, but you keep holding up examples of technical skill . . . that's craft, it doesn't take creativity or vision . . . its good to have, but it doesn't make a very deep picture.

"Your art is filtered. I assume you know all about rgb and cmyk values and their limits right? Virtual art is filtered in so many ways. You are bound by rules and limits of technology. "

A paintbrush is technology mate. ****ing PAPER is technology. "The limites of RGB" my ass . . . how many colors can you reproduce with natural pigments? Not a lot before you get into stuff that costs more than my painting software per tube. And how about the fact that with a computer, I can select EXACTLY the color I want . . . a painter is limited by the range and purity of his palette. Humans don't see in paint, so its just as "filtered" as computers are. Everything I do has to pass through my body as a filter . . . how about an artist who's paralyzed in his limbs? What if he could use speech recognition software to build models in 3D? Wouldn't that be far less "filtered" than anything he could do with his hands?

You have yet to provide ANY example of how a computer removes me from my work any more than a brush removes a painter from his.

I personally object to you coming in here, not showing your work, and deriding the toil of artists like myself. This isn't a discussion forum Forsh, its for critiques. You came in here to intentionally start shit, and even though you've had your ass handed to you by people who have proven themselves to be experts, you persist in preaching your tune. What do you think you're going to do? Make converts?

"And besides, art is not about the product, but the path."

Says you. And that's not saying much, since you've yet to enlighten us with your undoubtedly superb rendering skills and zen-like control of sumi brushes.

"You have many ways to undo, but there is no turning back the ink once it is on the paper. It is a true representation of ability, and dexterity, and understanding."

Damn, that is some tasty word salad you've got there. Its missing something though . . . I like some protein in my salad. Let me just saw these legs off your high horse . . .

You're making no sense, you've presented no evidence, and you've yet to concede anything. You're a troll. You'll get no more replies from me, zen master of tossed salad.

I've got painting to do and an EP of songs to remaster.

Hope the 17th century works out for you.

02 February 2002, 08:53 AM
Whoa whoa, now we're back to attacking me as a person. Your weak argument shows when you have to resort to doing that.

As for the "experts" you say that have "told" me.....well, thats all on how you define expert, but if it is anything in how you define art then, I guess you are nothing more than a "guy of the latest art fad" to be coming here declaring that there could be any "experts" in art. It pains me to see that the extent of your vision is just a few inches out from your nose. Your "digital" art is nothing more than the "NYSNC" and "Brittney Spears" artwork of the industry. I bet you even listen to her CD's because naked tenny bopper dancers are real artists too, and contribute to the glory of the art of music.

I never declared myself to be a master of Sumi-e or anything else, I dont know where you keep getting those things. You need to learn to read, or ask for clarifacation if something written confuses you. There is no harm in asking, I will clarify what you can not comprehend.

Hey, Photoshop 7 was introduced, that will make all your "art" easier to produce now because it makes "creating" even more easy, you know - like the McDonalds syndrome.....

02 February 2002, 09:37 AM this thing still going on?
who's ahead, the artists or the guy with the french tickler on his home page?
I'm going back to my drawings........

02 February 2002, 09:46 AM
You mean your photoshop?

02 February 2002, 10:05 AM
Hey, does anyone else know the dinosaur game? Just use your favorite search engine and match the color or the species. I'll go first:

Green Stegosaurus

02 February 2002, 11:08 AM
Purple Elephants

02 February 2002, 02:21 PM
Good stuff Balistic :)

Personally I prefer the the A-Z animal game. Its not so time intensive.

Anyway, Forsh... when are you going to show us some of your work? I'm really curious.

02 February 2002, 02:39 PM
Why would I?

02 February 2002, 02:55 PM
Why would you?

Well, you might be proud of something you've created and want to show the world in the hope that someone else shares your excitment or vision. Alternatively you might want some suggestions on how to further improve your work. And then again you may just be after praise. Or you may just want to prove your artistic merit to others that you wish to impress. And there are those that post work to prove a point.

I think those are 90% of the reasons people post work around here.

Its fine if you don't want to. No pressure. I was just hoping my curiosity would be satiated.

02 February 2002, 02:57 PM
ok, I will upload something, gimmie few min

02 February 2002, 03:12 PM

A sketches I made recently.

02 February 2002, 03:21 PM
That pretty cool.

Curiousity partially satisfied :)

02 February 2002, 03:35 PM
what is virtual art?
The light hitting my retina is pretty physical to me.
that said, nice sketches.

02 February 2002, 04:54 PM
pretty good...

now, why should I accept this as a piece of art?
to me its just another digital file off the net...

02 February 2002, 11:31 PM
Whew, I haven't even read all this crap and I feel exhausted.

Forsh- dude, I think you are missing the point. you're getting cought up in this nostalgic wishywashy sentimental stuff. which is cool.
but I honestly doubt that you understand the issues involved in creating art. if you say that stuff about photoshop, it doing the work etc. you do not understand what goes into making a picture. a good artist will create something fantastic with a burnt stick and a brown paper bag. all the stuff you are saying that makes traditional mediums better than digital is technical stuff. I think those people who mastered the sumi brush did have an undo. it's called a new piece of paper! those guys would go though lots of practice paintings before they got it right. the end result was about technique in a lot of ways. a very skilled applicatiion of a few brush strokes. but practiced ones.
Seargent would redo his pantings a lot to get it right. what is different about an undo. the differences in traditional mediums are not to do with the creation but the end result. the stuff an artist does is pretty much the same. you will never get the kind of effect on a screen that you can get with a painting in a sense. but that's becuase you can have things like multiple coats of paint and varnish creating an almost three dimensional colour mixing. the colour will feel alive in a way not possible in another medium.

I couldn't agree more that there is a fantastic tactile sensation in using a nice pencil on a nice bit of paper. but that's not the artist. that's technology. there are dfferent feels and different mediums for different results. the basics which make a great artist are not dependant on the medium. the kind of zen connection between artist and tools which you are talking about is totaly possible with any medium, and neccesary for best results=)
you can wank on all you want about traditional mediums being superior,
It's not a bloody fight bro, why try and make it one.
stop thinking of all the great masters as awe inspiring creatures of wonder. they were just normal people, they used every technique, crutch, hack, cheat they could get their hands on to create the stuff they did.
they took ages to do it as well. I doubt "M.C. Eshier? did all those lines by himself. he was using a very primitive computer. mathematics, all planed out and thought over using rules and regulations of perspective. drawing aids as well no doubt.

you keep on talking about debate, but you don't really take on other's points. I mean if you're argument is "what I am saying is subjective so you can't touch it" then get stuffed. that's just pointless. why bother trying to get everyone worked up about it?
man I don't even know why I bother to write this.
is this were a true debate you would have lost it. that's right, you can win a debate. based on who can back up their argumets with some substance. you can't confuse subjective opinion with objective fact. spout a pile of arguments that have a little sustance, then get a pile of rebuttles and say "it's my subjective opinion"
I'm not saying you can't hold your view. just saying, that as a matter of fact, it's total rubbish. ;)

I also don't understand how you can tell people not to create an image of you based on their bias. How the hell are we supposed to view you???? that's the image you are creating for yourself. if you don't like it, change your actions. people can and will view you the way you present yourself. that's life.
not to mention that you are doing teh exact same thing. all over the place. sad.

what extra thinking is there between using a perspective grid and say a 3D modeling package? with the ultimate goal being to create a picture.

I'd say maybe form is more "imporatant" than line/ although to say anything is really more imporatant when you need all working together is kinda silly.
(the whole idea of better or worse is a pretty silly idea anyway. especialy when you are talking about subjective opinion)
line suggests form.
what scientific research are you talking about anyway in relation to line being the pure unfiltered human thought? what was the context? and how does that have anything to do with drawing?

the point you make about physical sensation with traditional meduims like sculpture is valid. but if you want that, you can go and do it. a person who can model in 3D package, who understands the issues involved in doing so, should be able to do a rock sculpture. once they learn the medium.

Not to mention that there are things that you can do with digital meduims that you could never in a million years do with pencil and paper. which is both profound and breathtaking and all that good stuff you seem so wraped up in.

Art is about communication, that is so obvious to me. that's how it started and that's the way it has always been. the stuff about personal enlightenent and going into some upper plain of existence or whatever defeats the point, it's a whole 'nother issue, and shouldn't be includes in this "discussion". I think you are reading a lot of stuff into things that simply isn't there. creating a mystic ideal out of ordinary people, doing ordinary things.

as for everyone thinking they know the "right" "answer" to all this. look at what you have written. you are either in denial, or very bad at explaining your intentions. or both.

*end stupid useless rant*

02 February 2002, 03:35 AM
Can't we all just hug.

02 February 2002, 05:51 AM
zen hug to forsh... :D

nice argument there. always good fun these things :D

02 February 2002, 09:58 AM
Nope, you lame git.

ohh well, if ya can't hack the pace, just quit the race bro.

02 February 2002, 10:47 AM
What's a git?
What race?
What pace?

More insults it seems, what time does mommy log you off AOL?

02 February 2002, 09:07 PM
Didn't you forgot to roll 1 D20 for lameness?

Where are the CHEETOS?!

02 February 2002, 10:04 PM
My point exactly!

02 February 2002, 03:27 AM
Balistic if you worked on your "art" as much as you talk crap, you may actually be able to back up your statements. Easier to talk-the-talk than walk-the walk-eh?

02 February 2002, 09:17 AM
Look who's talking.

02 February 2002, 09:43 AM
Hey stay out of this, it's between me and trash talker boy over there.


03 March 2002, 04:20 AM (100% digital), for a contest) from life at age 17, graphite) hour paintchat) in progress) on recycled sketch pad)

No GI. No Radiosity. No filters. No photos.

Roll 2 D90 for damage.

03 March 2002, 07:53 AM
I visited your site, and saw most of these pieces there. But why should I take damage for you posting your work?
I dont get the macho challenge thing going on here.

03 March 2002, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by forsh
Balistic if you worked on your "art" as much as you talk crap, you may actually be able to back up your statements. Easier to talk-the-talk than walk-the walk-eh?

Originally posted by forsh
I dont get the macho challenge thing going on here.

I think this thread should be locked :D

03 March 2002, 08:36 AM
Why should it?

Because you disagree with whats being said? Aw now we have Mr. Censorship speaking his mind, isn't this great.

The posting of pictures was for machoism, hardly negates my statement, especially since a few of those peices are pretty dated eh? When you were 17 huh?

I don't have a problem with it, but it seems Mr. Censorship here does. Besides if you had bothered to actually read the posts, you would see the challenge thing goes way back, but hey I guess I can't count on some of the people here to be able to read, my expectations were too high I guess.

03 March 2002, 09:17 AM
"Aw now we have Mr. Censorship speaking his mind, isn't this great."

The power of the irony in that sentence could keep the Vegas strip alight for six months.

"The posting of pictures was for machoism, hardly negates my statement, especially since a few of those peices are pretty dated eh? When you were 17 huh?"

You're sharp as a bowling ball, aren't you?

I was learning anatomy from a Hungarian medical illustrator when I graduated highschool. So far all you've posted are your lop-sided elves. u d0 teh maths!!!1!

So are you going to partake in the very challenge you've issued, or are you going to keep flapping your gums?

I've got a railgun that's +20 against smug trolls:

What have you got?

I have zero interest in making fun of you forsh . . . had you posted some drawings without being such a viral wart you would've received plenty of helpful critiques on them, from the scores of people here who draw better than you, myself included.

But instead, you walked into a biker bar and called a hellraiser's hog a scooter.

You'd better start dancin' Pee Wee . . .

03 March 2002, 10:17 AM
Again, here is Mr. Macho pulling out his cock. "Hey look guys, mine is bigger than yours."

And making fun of my sketches will hardly cut it. I did those in a few minutes...4-7. I want to compliment you, but I am afraid it would go to your head, and I want to attack your pictures, but again, I didn't come here to brag or boast, comparing pictures.

I came to post an opinion, which in turn I was flamed with death threats, called names, challeneged, etc etc. And you expect me to take you seriously? You must be joking.

So keep rolling your the end you accomplish nothing with witty remarks.

03 March 2002, 10:35 AM

03 March 2002, 10:37 AM
rofl @ balistic.

don't waste to much of your time Brian, we all know this is simply another 15 year old kid with a computer and nothing else to do.

forsh-are you really so stupid that you don't realise you're contradicting and embarasing yourself all over the place, you started the pissing match. everything you so condacendingly accuse other people of doing, you either started doing first, or did so in the same post you accuse them of doing it.
Grow up dude, we have all seen this condacending ("i'm not going to lower myself to that level") rebuttle. it's just a lame way of not actuialy saying anything.
you have no credability whatsoever, have not been able to make any kind of sensible argument, and are just spamming this place up.
I'm quite happy to discuss your original comment, but you don't seem very interested.

the reason why this thread should be closed is that it's getting nowhere, (all threads that reach this stage are closed) you are no longer talking sense, contradicting yourself at every turn. look at what quotes people are posting. instead of attacking the person who made the comments on a personal level, why don't you actuialy answer them.

those sketches weren't done in 4-7 min either. come one, honestly, you're just digging the hole deeper, which company do you work for again?

03 March 2002, 10:50 AM
I tried to keep it on track. I tried many times to tell people to stop flaming me and making threats, re-read, and I could care less if "you" think I am 15 and uncreditable. I was very willing, so dont point your fingers all at me....but by your doing so, you humbly confess your bias in this situation.

As for my inks being done in 4-7 min, trust me, I practice speed, and I can draw that fast with an inkpen alone, not that it is any of your business.

03 March 2002, 10:56 AM
"Again, here is Mr. Macho pulling out his cock."

03 March 2002, 11:01 AM
Or in your case a period would be too big.

03 March 2002, 11:07 AM

Which one?

03 March 2002, 11:34 AM
Periods run horizontally.

03 March 2002, 01:21 PM
"trust me, I practice speed, and I can draw that fast with an inkpen alone"

Trust me, those are not 4-7 min sketches.

*sigh* you're not even good at this spam stuff forsh. try harder. come back when you have an agrument to put foward.

03 March 2002, 02:53 PM
Hey Rinaldo, it is none of your business if I can or can not.

I did do those quick, I come from a caricature background, so don't try to tell me what I can or cannot do with my ability. I have been doing caricatures for years, after awhile, you learn to be swift with your work.

03 March 2002, 04:16 PM
:D :D :D :D :D
I just spent over an hour reading this whole thread. I had to take a Cinnamon Toast Crunch break halfway through. So I am sorry but I couldn't help it. I have to post. I know I am just making this thread longer. Sorry guys. :D :D
I also have to say that I enjoyed reading it all. There were some great arguments going on in the beginning, and some down-right comedy toward the end. We have some damn witty people in this forum. I'm still chuckling. Good stuff.
Balistic, I must say, that is some truly gorgeous work. I was blown away.
Forsh, I have to appluad you. You have posted it seems like every third post since the beginning, and this thread is nearing 100 if it isn't there already. You are one man against an army, and it's cool that you haven't given up. Lets give this guys some credit for that at least. He had some good arguments, and he has taken quite a bit of abuse. It was sad to see such a loaded argument turn into a pissing contest (entertaining, but sad).
Anyway, forsh, you had some good things to say, even if I didn't agree with them. I think it is important to try to see another veiwpoint every once in a while. I think that a lot of counter arguments have been very well articulated, so I don't know if there is much that I can say that hasn't been said before. But....
I liked the ideas about the relationship between an artist and their tool. I think that is where the guts of this whole argument lies, rather than in the definition of art or the measurement of genetalia. I think that the camera is a good comparison to the computer, because it is a machine, and the output of the final image is greatly influenced by it's inner workings, which are controlled by the artist who knows how to use it. Anyone can buy a disposable camera and snap away, and it is getting easier and easier for anyone to do the same with a computer. I like to think that sometimes I am an artist, but I don't want to pretend to understand art. Still, there is a difference between the pictures I snap at a party and a photograph that I see in a gallery. Even if I can't put my finger on what it is, there is a compelling and captivating element that can make a photograph art.
I don't know. Just some thoughts. I am not really challenging anyone, (I hope).
But just to stir things up about the idea of tools, here. (
:) :) :)
Remember, everyone, have fun! And learn!

And floss!

03 March 2002, 05:17 PM
"Gilgamesh extends a long painful death by trying to return the thread to some sort of civility" said the man who read the thread and shook his head.

"We must look down up these little peckers squabbling amongst themselves they offer nothing to anyone... except an inflated opinion of self worth. Lets praise low self-esteem and return to a humble state of mind. Lofty ill-defined arguments are the bread of message boards" - said someone who i don't know because i wrote it.

"When cornered in a corner we don't argue our way out of it, we escape through a trap door only to find another undefinable maze in which we will eventually be cornered... repeat this process until frustration and anger results" - the Forsh book of innocence.

"Claim that my 'opinion' is not factual, yet argue it like it is." - the Forsh book of innocence part II

"A new obessesion with quotations is born on the second day of the month of March. This day will forever be revered among the children of my future wives. Note the usage of the plural. I intend to divorce at least once to maintain statistical probability." - Krugar

03 March 2002, 05:53 PM
forsh-everytime you keep saying you did them that quick I tell myself maybe I've misjudged you, maybe I was wrong. then I go and have another look, and laugh.

they are not quick drawings, seeing them I would also be supprised if you have done any caricature. the strokes are not of the same breed.

forgive me everyone if I'm flogging a dead horse, but I've been on message boards like Sijun where people have just lied and lied, been in the community for ages and then one day you find out that every single pic they posted was somone elses. that they had taken your own pics and put them in their portfolio. they all do this same bullshit lie crap, all try to sweet talk their way out of it. (and eventualy get flamed to hell)
not suggesting that forsh is like that at all. but when you see this kinda thing it makes you wonder what someone is really all about.

feh=/ I just don't get it.

03 March 2002, 02:50 AM
Well, it was worth a try.

03 March 2002, 05:33 AM
Gilgamesh I appreciate your attempts to bring this thread backon track. ABout the article you linked to, I think it interesting. Mainly because I think the Masters were all very smart, and would have used something like this probably. How would this apply to humans, would there be clarity on the projected image?

(And to the guy who doesn't believe I had to slave over caricatures for many years: Who cares, I didn't come to convince you of anything. I know my ability, and I am very well known by my peers for my speed with ink, in fact one of those was sketched on a reciept, and the other on a cardboard box at work while I was waiting for my layout to print. But again-I don't care if you believe me or not, i am not here to convince you.)

03 March 2002, 11:20 PM
I tried to read the entire thread but my eyes got tired so forgive me if someone has already made these comments.

Of course painting in photoshop is different than "traditional painting". Layers and undo are major steps forward in the creation of artwork. When progress like that comes around you would be crazy not to jump on it to create more and better work. I wonder what truely old school painters would say about modern painters not mixing their own pigments or stretching their own canvases.

Let's just use the term "digital painting" and be done with this silly argument.

Get back to work.

03 March 2002, 01:18 AM
(I like food.)

03 March 2002, 01:31 AM
Are you threatening me?!

03 March 2002, 01:50 AM
no more coments

03 March 2002, 03:58 AM
thats awesome!

03 March 2002, 05:26 PM

11 November 2004, 01:58 AM
lol everyone should read this entire thread....
IMO this kind of arguments must have been the same that the nazi used haha...
anyway its very interesting and people should read it.

11 November 2004, 02:59 AM
thesuit: it's generally considered bad form to bump threads that are almost three years old.

That said, I'd forgotten just how completely batty that Forsh idiot was.

I'm a much better painter now, by the way :)

11 November 2004, 03:54 AM
well I do think that forsh-guy had some neat things to say...

Oh look, a pig flew by my window.

11 November 2004, 06:21 AM
thesuit: it's generally considered bad form to bump threads that are almost three years old.

That said, I'd forgotten just how completely batty that Forsh idiot was.

I'm a much better painter now, by the way :)
Point taken balistic. Sometimes I just feel this itchy need to revive old threads. But this one is by far my oldest undertaking.
I did not take part of it all those years ago but I did find the thread by coincidence and read it all this afternoon. I think its a nice thread to keep at hand for noobs to read. I believe that now days mods would not allow it to last 15 min.
That said, Im glad to hear you paint better now, altho IMO you did very well back then. Plus Im amazed at how long can you keep an image on the air!

11 November 2004, 06:40 AM
Partly I'm just embarassed, as I've gradually enacted a policy of not engaging jerks on the internet . . . to see myself again in old flame war form . . . heh, I guess I've mellowed out a bit. I didn't even realize the archives went back that far.

Admittedly, this isn't nearly embarassing as some of the usenet posts I made when I was 13 that Google decided to permanently archive for future generations. Stupid Google.

regarding my image links, chalk it up to not cleaning out my web directory since I registered the domain. I think there's on the order of a 1000 images in their right now, and hell if I'm gonna sort through them.

11 November 2004, 11:42 PM
Are you threatening me?!

Specifically I like the maturity of this post.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 02:00 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.