RootsBooster Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I dont mean to be disrespectful to anybody, I can appreciate digital art when its done well; but you have to admit that in a way digital artists have it easy. How so ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birds Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 How so ? I almost dont know where to start, many a time I have got midway through a fairly lengthy picture before realising that I should have positioned it differently on the paper, whatever it is I'm drawing could do with being a little more to the left, or a bit lower etc; with digital art, that, and any other mistake, or a change of mind of colour etc etc, can be rectified quickly and easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 How so ? The undo button is a favourite of mine:hihi: You also have backup copies and raw data files I think these are the reasons I am quite good with a computer. I am far too intimidated by dirtying a real blank piece of paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't appreciate any digital art really (except photography). I think things that are digitally made just never look as interesting. As a really basic example look at southpark before and after, and wallace and gromit vs toy story. I think the fact that it is never going to be a one off also makes it less interesting. With an oil painting it can never be recreated! Well they can and some of them have been passed over and sold as originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Well they can and some of them have been passed over and sold as originals. no they aren't it's just that the person buying could not tell it wasn't by the named artist. The copy is also an original by a different artist. Its not like pressing print again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 no they aren't it's just that the person buying could not tell it wasn't by the named artist. The copy is also an original by a different artist. Its not like pressing print again. If it can be sold as a painting by the original artist then it's a believable recreation. The failure to recognise it as a forgery is a separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 If it can be sold as a painting by the original artist then it's a believable recreation. The failure to recognise it as a forgery is a separate issue. Im not denying that but most people will appreciate a forgery as much as an original in an oil painting. The technical skill to make it would be the same. In digital art recreating it takes no skill. To put it another way if I liked some digital art I could recreate it myself for free. That fact alone cheapens the art to me. With an oil painting all I can do is wonder at the skill of the artist whether they copied it or not. Maybe people that are really good at painting and rubbish with computers feel the opposite! Consider music as well, auto tuning means voices on cd are always in tune but no-one prefers the auto tuned version to a band singing live. Its just not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I dont mean to be disrespectful to anybody, I can appreciate digital art when its done well; but you have to admit that in a way digital artists have it easy. OK - just to open it up a bit, I have a question! Surely the 'real artists' (apologies for the term) here are those designers and programmers that create the digital software enabling less talented individuals to use their programs to good effect. These people need to be aware of all the techniques required by the 'artist' and deliver them in a useable form. OK, I accept that software tends to be written by a group of people rather than an individual 'artist', and so are probably not comparable. It would be interesting to know though if an 'artist' themselves sees the software they are using as 'art' itself or merely a tool, such as a paintbrush. (I'll take cover behind my easel!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't appreciate any digital art really (except photography). I think things that are digitally made just never look as interesting. As a really basic example look at southpark before and after, and wallace and gromit vs toy story.That's not digital art (as such or, well, within the meaning of the thread). This is (a better, but by no means exhaustive, example. IMHO). As an occasional painter (paint + brush) and digital 'meddler' (Blender), and with significant professional experience in the field of top-end movie effects/post-processing/professional mocap-animation software development (Discreet, Alias, Autodesk, etc.) I have appreciated both for a long time, on their respective merits (unsurprisingly). At the risk of wasting bandwidth with a cliché: a non-trivial amount of either type is rubbish, some of either type is breathtaking, with vast amounts 'somewhere in-between'. Software is no different from drawing, painting etc. implements: it's a tool. The difference between mediocre and breathtaking output is down to talent, and neither a computer nor a paintbrush has any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 'Art' is the generic word for expression in many different mediums, not just painting. This encompasses painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, music, dance, writing, cooking etc. It would be silly (and naive) to compare digital art to 'traditional' methods of painting. Digital art's comparatively new but this doesn't make it any less important than anything before it. Similar comparisons were made with photography after it was invented, only for it to now be one of the most popular forms of art there is. Don't forget artists such as Warhol who popularised photo-silkscreening, thereby combining paint and photography, to manipulate images onto canvas ... anyone who bought one of these prints owned an 'original' ... genius! At the moment, David Hockney's exhibiting , whereby he 'paints' directly onto a computer screen ... which can then be downloded (at a price, I guess) so that you have an 'original'. Digital 'art is an exciting new invention (relatively speaking) ... I'm pretty certain that digital sculpture's just round the corner (if not already), and the invention of 3D-printing, (although still in its infancy) is next in a natural progression. As with any 'art', there's good and there's bad ... digital and traditional art aren't mutually exclusive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.