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 Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2005   #31
Haha, well, I know how much of a CG devotee you are Steven, and believe me, I don't enjoy all the aspects of traditional painting. My two main motivation for going back to traditional were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Lunatique : 05 May 2005 at 01:42 PM.
Old 05 May 2005   #32
Originally Posted by Lunatique: Well, I've had fastfood that tastes better than gourmet food too. I don't think her remark has anything to do with quality of finished work; it was about the actual execution of the painting--the level of virtuosity required to do traditional painting is on a much higher level than digital painting. Anyone that's painted traditionally in a serious manner will probably agree with this--the complex chemical properties of real paint and paint mediums, the physical dynamics of brushes, and uncompromising punishment one receives from making a mistake without undo buttons, layers, and other tools of convenience..etc are all what makes traditional painting a whole different experience from digital painting.

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

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

I don't really want to get mixed up with the technical side of any painting, be it oils, watercolour or pixals. I don't find that to be as relevant as the vision and creativity of the artist.
As you have said yourself to people who ask for artists brushes, the tool is not really important to the final image.
Bath House
Old 05 May 2005   #33
Now, i'm curious... what happened to this chap who tried to sell prints of his digital art?

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

Still, I think digital-art could do very well in the form of posters and the like, for a demographic that is far less up thier own arse. Give it time.... it's early days, movies and photography went through it.
Bath House
Old 05 May 2005   #34
Well, I'd like to say that I've made uhm...2 paintings in traditional media. And I could overpaaint a misstake without many problems I'm betting if you have a palet knife, you can do the same with oils. It doesn't require more skill, it's just below the performance level of digital basically. Above all, I tend to make a mess with it, the stuff is even on the outside of our house for pete's sake. That can't be useful.
modelling practice #1
Old 05 May 2005   #35
Originally Posted by JMcWilliams: Now, i'm curious... what happened to this chap who tried to sell prints of his digital art?

That chap is none other than one of the greatest master digital painters alive on the planet--Craig Mullins. He basically paid for the space and had a show of his digital paintings printed as high quality giclee prints. No a single piece was sold.
Old 05 May 2005   #36
Was there ever a follow up done on that, I can imagine a lot of companies hoping to reproduce artwork of such quality and sell it en masse. Why not research it?
modelling practice #1
Old 05 May 2005   #37
Originally Posted by Lunatique: That chap is none other than one of the greatest master digital painters alive on the planet--Craig Mullins. He basically paid for the space and had a show of his digital paintings printed as high quality giclee prints. No a single piece was sold.

Damn, I didn't know about that. Thats horrible for sure.
Bath House
Old 05 May 2005   #38
I don't think it was ONLY because it was digital, because being digital they were a lot cheaper than traditional originals by him would have been, I'm sure... another contributing factor was, only local yocels, about 60 or so people from around the neighborhood, came to the exhibition. What does the average person know from such excellence? They didn't know his name, and couldn't see the genius... sad.

The avatar, well it's a thing some of us are doing, started May 9, until the premier on the 19th. Look around, you'll see other 'changed' avatars. I like Kirts a lot.
Old 05 May 2005   #39
I am also disappointed that the majority(audience and collectors) still value traditional more...believe me digital is just as hard, maybe harder when it comes to flow colour and detail...I mean how many times an artist spent hours on colour, contrast, hue, saturation, and brightness adjustments...and the result is: Stahlberg, Chang, Bergkvist, Blanche, Mullins...
Originally Posted by urg
Didn't I tell you? I'm rowing over to save money. Wish me luck!

Latest Work
Old 05 May 2005   #40
yeah, for me traditional painting and drawing is WAAAAAAY easier...
Somehow I don't get that intuos pen to act like pencil or whatever... or it takes me ages till the line comes out like I wanted...
And 3d is just extremely timeconsuming....

I'd not say digital painting is better than traditional or vice verca, it's just different. And which one to chose depends on what it is you want to do...
but to this time that would probably mostly be digital, and in the future it'll probably be almost always digital.
Old 05 May 2005   #41
Could it be that somehow rtaditional media have an extra edge on thier colour reproduction, it is often said that a painting isn't done justice by a photo allthough most photo's I see in threads about art here in general are pretty good I think. It's still beautiful.
modelling practice #1
Old 05 May 2005   #42
A painting is something 3 dimensional, at least I see it that way. When I make oil-paintings I like to use a lot of color on some areas so the color there really pops out of the painting.
Each traditional painting has such a structure to it, while a photo is perfectly flat...
Old 05 May 2005   #43
personally i tried to draw, my ideas better spent digitally then poorly rendered penning. BUT point being the medium suits me more, and i have friends who just draw its harldly a dying art...hardly
Old 05 May 2005   #44
oh man, I posted and got it lost...
okay as a response for why a painting looks better than a photo...I wanted to add that a painting allows for the constantly varying natural light to adjust the colours; however, the photo only captures the colours when the light is at a single moment...
Originally Posted by urg
Didn't I tell you? I'm rowing over to save money. Wish me luck!

Latest Work
Old 05 May 2005   #45
I saw some paintings by Van Gogh and Picasso once but I was fairly young. I noticed however that the paint was often put in in thick dabs, laeving quite a pronounced relief. Is this intentionally done for the purpose of reflecting light in all directions. Or is it a sside effect of the viscous nature of the paint. Sinca a flat surface would reflect all the colours in all directions, but a thick dab might add something?
modelling practice #1
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
Society of Digital Artists

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 PM.

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