Digital Painting Discussion: What is allowed.
Though I’m new to this discussion forum and may be opening up a can of worms with this suggestion, I do have a life of painting and various other art methods behind me. I am new to digital, having quit working in traditional methods only at the end of the 90’s. I’ve been working (learning) in strictly digital ever since. I am currently working on a G5 iMac using primarily the program “Painter” from Corel.
Though I, like most artists spend huge amounts of time alone, I’ve recently begun to join and participate in online forums, and I’ve run across a common thread in them. “What is acceptable and what isn’t”.
A requirement on this particular site and others is that each reference used must be given credit and a link to must be posted.
Here I have to say that I’m not accustomed to using references as I’ve always used a painters approach that was primarily intuitive, and imaginative. I do figurative work, and coming from a sculpture background, am not particularly interested in the figure being realistic. It doesn’t help me much to work with references.
I do need help with backgrounds though, and I’ve been having a ball using digitized photo clips from all over the place including my own photo’s. Seems that’s not much appreciated on these sites unless the references are stated!
I’ve been spending a lot of time (too much) looking at the work of other artists online in these groups. In some cases I’m absolutely in awe of the work. What I’ve noticed though, is that there is a lot of shall we say—fibbing?–going on! In many cases the underlying photo cribbing is very obvious even on the low rez stuff visible in a browser, but the artist will claim that none were used. I’ve watched a couple of flame wars on this subject when an artist was accused by other artists (gently of course) or the moderator, of having used references but refusing to admit to such use.
The technology today allows this sort of thing to be done, and who knows where it will lead in the future. New software is always coming along that expands on what we can do. Think of the 3D stuff possible today. This is really technical stuff. Once you build the wireframe you can put skin on it, hair, etc and have a really marvelous result. Is that the artist at work or is it the technology? Does it matter?
In the past the tools available were brushes, paints, inks, paper etc. The artist used the materials to create his/her inner vision. If a person uses a 3D program, or works digitally using a program like Photoshop, Painter, or ArtRage, does it matter which tool is used, or are they simply tools to be used? Isn’t it the creative effort that matters?
I’m getting the impression that to a lot of people, it’s which tools you use that matters.
A few years back there was a big stir in the art world about the recent discovery that some paintings that were done in the Netherlands about 400 years ago had in fact been the result of the use of a recently invented machine that allowed an artist or architect to transfer to his paper the scene in front of him where he could copy over the lines thereby getting the perspective correct. He then was able to paint over this underlying drawing. Previous to this unsettling discovery, the critical art world (museums and such) had considered these paintings to be masterpieces. Suddenly, they were a very upset bunch of people.
So the question must be asked—does it matter? The artist used tools that were available to him and produced work that was admired and loved for hundreds of years afterward (We should be so lucky!)
Should the work be downgraded because a new mechanistic tool had been used? Wasn’t the work superior to similar works done previously? Since these people were interested in realistic and accurate work it would seem logical that they would find such a new device to be a big aid to that end.
So, today we come full circle. We have the computer. A digital device. Bits. Binary code. Now we don’t need real brushes anymore. We can simulate canvas and paper. We suddenly find that our tool chest is overflowing. If anything, we have more tools than a lifetime will allow us to master. But—these are tools! In and of themselves they can’t produce a thing. The computer sits there like a dummy till somebody turns it on, opens the program, and begins to work. Now choices have to be made. What size painting, how detailed, what method: watercolor, oils, pastel, pencil drawing, or a big mix. Collage can be used, imported files of photo’s, other artworks, music, voice over, podcasts, and blogs. The work can be a slide show, a movie, or to the extent possible, simply printed out. It has the advantage of never degrading as prints in the past inevitably did so now we can print the ten thousanth one and it will look as good as the first, and, still be considered to be an original, not a reproduction. Pretty nice eh?
So now to my question and I hope to stir up some interest in this and get some responses.
Is it, or is it not, the end result as art that matters, or, is it how the work is done that matters?
If in the end result it’s apparent that the artist used references and did little with them other than drop them in to the painting, it’s going to be obvious, or at least suspicious. This only affects the viewers attitude toward the artist and they can simply go on, dismissing that work as of no interest. Good work rises to the top, like oil on water, and an artist can’t do a whole lot about others perceptions as it tends to be the art that speaks. (Though here I’d have to add that many artists that are successful seem to have gotten there more on their skill at promoting themselves than on any particular skill).
At this point I’m going to bring in a method I’ve used recently to work that uses references.
The figure I paint, rarely using references. The background textures however, are brought in to the work. They may be clips of textures I find online, photo’s I’ve taken, or take specifically for the work. They are scaled up, copied, flipped, inverted, scaled again, pasted in sometimes several times, overlapped, tinted, and made more to less opaque. Then I work over the top with brushes. There can be 20 layers, dropped as I go, and then more added. There may be half dozen references in all just for the background. When done, there’s usually little to indicate that a reference had been used anywhere. To upload any of these to this site however, I’d be required to show each reference. As I said—awkward!
Since it’s obvious that this “fibbing” is going on all over the place, even here, why even bother? Looks like people can make up their own minds about the work they view, and if the references don’t show, everybody is happy. I know this is going to stir up some feathers as there are definite views about this, but I’d like to see some discussion.
Hope this gets some comments. Have to say here, that I’ve been overwhelmed by some of the work done by you folks. Makes me think I’ll never be an artist.
Ted Johnson
I can’t even trust those anymore.
