Are we getting too digital?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  05 May 2005
Are we getting too digital?

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

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

How far can a 3d driven community go without substantial 2d skills? What are your opinions, am I way off base here? Perhaps I'm just part of a small, lazy minority of artists who use too much photoshop and not enough paper. I'm curious to see if anybody else has noticed the same thing or not.
 
  05 May 2005
Well you've sort of answered your own question there. You keep no fiddling endlessly, it probably also happens endlessly that people get discouraged and quit on realliofe drawing. Happens to me all the time, and then when I get back to my wacom I suddenly feel confident enough to try a lot and eventually end up with results ten times as good literally.

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

just my opinion though, don't take my word for it.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
  05 May 2005
If you are using a wacom, you are still training up your drawing skills... medium should not matter. I won't ever give up paper 100%, sometimes I just prefer it but that depends on my mood. Vector programs are different I suppose, the end result looks more technical.

But to be honest, even using digital does not always mean that the work will look more polished... I see plenty of very rough linework, shading etc... done in PS. It's down to the artist.
__________________
Bath House
 
  05 May 2005
I'm reminded of a discussion my mother had with an art teacher friend of hers. She works at a local college and one thing she's noticed is most students are too focused on one style or method of working. Instead of at least experimenting with other tools like chalks and paints, it seems there's an attitude of "it's too hard" or "boring" and would rather work in a purely digital environment. Perhaps the same theories apply on a computer, but a computer can also help you fake the effect faster and with less effort skipping an entire stage of understanding why.

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

I might seem to answer a lot of my own questions when I ask them, but I'm just giving my take on it. I started this to see what other opinions are out there. I don't want to see marble sculptors or painters get replaced with a computer program that etches out the stone based on a 3d rendering or a large printer making a print copy of a digital painting, but maybe that's just the next step in artistic evolution?
 
  05 May 2005
Well.... light bounces are only going to help you in 3D. If you are drawing digitally then the fundemental skills are the same as traditional. Just because we have a few time saving devices (primarily undo and layers for me) doesn't mean we are losing anything as such. The mistake too many people make is in comparing 3d to 2d drawing, when in reality it is more comparable to stop motion or live action... you don't paint shadows and lighting on your model in a stop motion scene for example, but there is great skill required in lighting a real-life scene. 3D is more comparable as virtual stop motion, rather than being 2D. IMHO
__________________
Bath House
 
  05 May 2005
It's all art. I've noticed that people who aren't connected with cg in a way rarely notice it in their everyday life, it's just that we are more sensitive to noticing cg-related things, and hence are more likely to think there's a lot more of it than there actually is.


Plus-- It makes sense that art would follow the way of technology. Artists like new things, and technology is new. Perfect marriage?!
We are taking advantage of this new media in order to do things that we might not have been able to before.....
It's all good, believe me.
 
  05 May 2005
I think there are at least three main approaches to CG:
a) use it as a tool to create artwork which resembles "traditional art"
b) use it to "discover new frontiers"
c) a combination of a and b

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

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

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

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

Artists will recognize this, non-artists will not.

Gord
__________________
My Studies

My Anatomy Thread

My Website


Good Facial Expressions Resource:

http://www.artnatomia.net/uk/artnatomy.html
 
  05 May 2005
Originally Posted by kromano: are we getting too digital


yep.

one small step to being taken over by technology.heh
 
  05 May 2005
technology vs traditional.. the same thing happened many years ago, with the introduction of photography, it put many artists out of business, thing today, still held strong by the photographers, which was previously what the tradition artost would be comissioned for.. apart from things as obvius as fast, accurate recording of something.. think about say, portraits, the family portrait previously would be painted, these days, its photographed..

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

The digital vs traditional is a complex debate... are light wave applications use for 3D stills cheating? has digital photography too the majority over tradition film loaded cameras.. the computer has created many ways of making a job quicker and cleaner, from administrative tasks, to art.. CTRL Z takes less than a second.. undoing a brush stroke in oil on cancvas can take ages !
__________________
"Are we scared of failure, or other peoples success?"
 
  05 May 2005
Quote: Are we getting too digital?


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

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

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

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

Last edited by Stahlberg : 05 May 2005 at 01:36 PM.
 
  05 May 2005
Not to mention the multitude of options still left after you think you have finished. And the quantity of reproductions only a click away.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
  05 May 2005
hmm,a lot of u seem to draw it down to the fact that digital is.... easier

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

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

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

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

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

i just hope that there will always be the option of both,and one won't take over the other.
 
  05 May 2005
Whether you work on paper or on computer, only skills matter. Skills are diverted in many direction. However it all comes to the point how you put your ideas into reality with the tools you have. Whether it is Pencil or Paperl, Tablet or Photoshop, Mouse or Polygons, Hands or Clay does not matter. Everything requires skill that is acieved through dedication. That is where the value is. Whether it is traditional or modern, that factor has not changed. When technology changes, the way we look at traditional art changes. However, it doesn't change one factor that there are only few elites and they always distinguish themselves from the common people.
__________________
There is only one difference between a long life and a good dinner: that, in the dinner, the sweets come last.
 
  05 May 2005
there are many digital pieces that have as much commitment felt in them as traditional ones. the only reason digital is faster is the ability to paint without worrying about oil drying, or getting colours, or getting brushes.

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

there will be ways to produce digital unique paintings, and print them on unique paper(the subject has been dicussed in the CGS forums)...
__________________
Quote: Originally Posted by urg
Didn't I tell you? I'm rowing over to save money. Wish me luck!


Latest Work
 
  05 May 2005
[bah, i had a good reply and pressed the back button on my mouse... arrrrrgh]
__________________
"Are we scared of failure, or other peoples success?"
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.