[aphelionart]

just wondering people's opinion on the validity of digital art... a lot of people in my school tell me they don't consider photoshop art *real* art because it's not something material that you're physically interacting with... IMHO, you're only taking all the mess and wasted time out of the game, and the more technology grows, the more integrated/"natural" digital painting will become..

also, i'm curious about everyone's opinion on using things like filters, color balance, levels, sharpening, etc. to adjust the final image ... they can certainly make a big difference, but it also feels like they take some meaning away from the rest of the process... i mean that the final image doesnt feel like the thing you were creating during the previous 95% of the process.

but, it also seems like these are things that are here to stay, and whether you feel just using them or not, they are tools available and the finished project will always speak for itself...but that's my stand... and i know this has been brought up before, but i couldnt find any threads.. so, anyone else care to comment?

-matt

[Al Ian]

I dont think in the near future digital art will be recognized as "real" art. However I cant say it will never be. As you stated Digital Art is taking over! For me I preffer it due to the low cost. How it dosent take me 30min to prepair to paint, I just sit down, paint for 20 minutes, and come back later when I have more time.

When it comes to filters, ikky! I use the brush almost soley. I have used things like gradient blur on some works. I try to stay away from filters 100% of the time.

Course thats unless your talking about the lense flair filter, that ROCKORZ!! (kidding)
_________________

http://jmarkey77.home.bresnan.net/

[Impaler]

I prefer to work with fresco. TO HELL WITH INNOVATION.

Anyways, how one uses digital is purely a matter of preference. Some strive for the natural feel, while others work with filters and histogram adjustment to achieve the desired image.

It's impossible to say which is correct. Illustration is more grounded in real artistic technique and expression, but design and graphic art is more marketable.

As for validity, conservative traditionalists are always apprehensive of what's new and cool.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Tinusch]

The masses will never recognize digital art as a valid medium simply because they don't understand it, and will probably never take the time to explore it. They think it's "click here, type this, click that," and boom, you have "art." In a sense I can understand that point of view, because to the uninitiated, it may seem like you're hardly interacting at all, you're just using the tools they give you to piece the artwork together. No problem solving involved. But I don't agree. Maybe it's cleaner and faster than 20 tubes of oil paint and a bucket of thinner, but does it have to be messy to be art? I'm definitely not as impressed by a good digital piece than I am by a good real-life painting, but I definitely see them both as valid art (with the exception of filters or simple photo-raping experiments). To anyone who says digital art is cheating or oversimplifying the process, I'd like to see them create something worth looking at with PS or Painter. If they can't do it on paper/canvas/whatever, then they definitely won't be able to do it with a computer. In fact, the huge selection of tools might end up making their work even more of an eyesore, because knowing which tools to use, which settings to use, and having the control to master them is a challenge pretty much exclusive to digital art. It has its advantages, no question there, but it also has its own challenges. The only way to validate digital art to the rest of mankind is to show each and every one of them that it isn't just point-and-click. And I don't see people having the desire to explore a medium they have no respect for.

[Mice]

i think that a big part of making *real* art has to do with having a creative and original idea executed with thought and feeling. And i think that does not necessarily have to be shown with the amount of paint you get on your hands (or the canvas). For me digital art is just as real as traditional.
_________________
My Deviantart site

[ColdKodiak]

If it's art it's art.

Some elitist groups will tell you what are is and what it is not... but in the end it's all subjective.

If "artist" artists were to come over to computers, they probably would produce just as much innovative art as they do on canvas. Then their followers would have nothing to do but accept that digital art is just another means to the same end.

I think what a lot of art critics see of digital art are the concept artists and illustrator's work. Or in other words the art that is more for a means to an end on something else. Mainly because for illustrators, the computer is the best tool to dishing out high quality ideas rapidly.
As it is critics would call the Lord of the Rings movies art... but generally they wouldn't call the concept and designs that go into the film art.
It's all wishy washy pointless bickering to me.
If it's art it's art, you're making it for yourself generally... not for someone else.
_________________
http://kontinue.com/coldkodiak/

[Ren]

Art:

1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

2. The study of these activities.

3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.


Hmmmm... don't see anything in there about only having to use canvas... doesn't say digital formats are invalid....

[AliasMoze]

Who cares? If want to make video games, make them. If you want to paint concepts for movies, paint them. If you want to hang your work in a gallery - well, prepare to starve. Look at Walt Disney. What he was doing, at least at the time, was not considered real art, just a bunch of ridiculous talking mice. He did it because he wanted to do it. Art has to do with 'them'. The most important things have to do with 'me' (or you, in this case, you know what I mean).

[cheney]

My art is not valid. I use filters. I often forget how many.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[jpli]

I waver on both sides of this topic.

I want the see the artist's vision come through in the final piece, weather it be digital art, traditional painting, or sculpture.

The computer is just another tool. it definately offers more creativity in terms of not having to mix paints, being able to work with a variety of simulated mediums. I can merge photos, manipulate them, paint a background, give it texture, make it more like water color etc.

that said, though, I still love working with traditional materials. Why work with watercolors when you can paint it on the computer? Well, the way the colors mix, the papers you use, the tactile feeling of the brush on the paper, will be things the computer won't be able to reproduce exactly. It may simulate it, but the process is different.

I enjoy using both. I believe digital artists have to let go of preconcieved notions of what is good art or bad art and just create, just as any traditional painter will do.

it's not that i'm saying go ahead and use all the filters and stuff like that. An artist will explore the computer like traditional materials and find what works and what doesn't. The things he/she likes will be put into their toolbox to be pulled out later.

I used to think that if you used a photoshop filter you were cheating. But now, it's like whatever work's, do it. It's taking the default filters to give you a base to start, and then take it further. If you just applied a filter and didn't do anything with it, it cheapens your work. You didn't do anything thinking.

The computer is an awesome tool that can bring so many options to the user. THe downfall being that there is so many to choose from, that artists get overwhelmed.

I get most excited when I can do something in one program, take it into another and take it further. What really floats my boat is using tools not as the were originally intended.

What I really think the computer offers is a good way to break a lot of rules quickly.

It's not the medium that makes a good artist, it's the artist themselves.

Now, having said that, it's still a great idea if you want to be an artist and solely use the computer to get traditional schooling. Basics never change, only the tools and mediums.

If you want to paint, learn the basics, apply the principles to your digital art. THe computer doesn't make a great piece of art, on the user does.


my two cents

jp

[cheney]

You guys need to stop crying about this. Digital illustrators are the biggest fucking hypocrites on the damn planet. Seriously, you guys bitch about this ALOT on both sides. You guys bitch and cry when traditional painters be little your digital art. Then most of you turn right around and bitch about anybody who makes art in Photoshop without using the paintbrush tool as though they are lesser artists than you who use painterly techniques. Anybody who speaks of filters in a lesser light then turns around and bitchs about painters who speak the same of their art need a huge fucking slap to the face.

In all reality your art will never be valid, because many of you fail to comprehend the validity of art on a basic generic level. Extreme short-sidedness and backwards ethnocentricity plague digital illustrators like a horrible case of airborne genital herpes.

This is also a problem that has plagued artists through out history. Your art is only valid based upon the subjects and styles used to create it. I consider this to be complete bullshit, but the generally ignorant and utterly backwards public still considers this a priority in the quality and validity of art. For instance I know very few people who consider the design quality of foreign currency and MPCs to be any concept of art merely because is not a portrait, pretty kitty, or boring landscape. I also know of many people who see a nude woman and still consider it pornography, and immediately reduce the validity of the art based upon the subject dispite concerns for measuring artistic quality.

As long as art is designed to appeal to the masses you will always be limited by the judgements of idiots. If you focus on making what you personally consider to be the quality art dispite the opinions of people who are less informed you will produce art that you are more proud of even if its less popular.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Drunken Monkey]

Never heard a traditional illustrator bitch and moan about digital art when it�s done by someone who is obviously not a hack. Quite the opposite. They look at good digital art and wanna try it themselves. There are snobbish exceptions of course, usually young human Xeroxes to whom it�s about paint alchemy not the subject.

So while some of us here try to make our points valid by using smart long words, so we sound as though we have something intelligent to say, others simply study what has been done by accomplished illustrators without any lame half-assed excuses.

Use filters, write your own Photoshop AI scripts; whatever. If in the end your picture looks flat, repetitive, boring and improperly lit and you try to pass it in the same light as generic illustration, you will get laughed at. Yes we are all idiots, but we aren�t hiding our ignorance with what we learned about making chrome buttons in Photoshop books from 1995.

If the picture works, it works. And you obviously know how to make it work. But if it doesn�t whining everyone to death is not gonna help you.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[watmough]

you know...when it really comes down to it...art is self expression... whether you express yourself with a computer,a paintbrush,or a camera ,as long as youre being honest ,thats whats important.this really seems to be a discussion about art being validated by the tools...and that just doesnt make sense to me.is a writer less or more valid because he uses a dictionary?is a photographer less valid because he uses filters?if you are really expressing something fundamental it(hopefully)will show up in the end product,and even if it doesn't,isn't art about the process?

[V Shane]

My view isn't so much validity perspective as it is the desire of creation itself.
When a "true artist" in any form hears the call of the muse, he will follow it, no matter where it leads or where or what he is from. The "Untrue artists" so much so that they fear themselves and the opinions of others around him/her seek to placate the masses, family, fellow associates perhaps.
_________________
Lichen Rice is worse than Licorice

[Tinusch]

Cheney: Art is subjective, it's a matter of perspectives and opinions, not one of intelligence. I really wouldn't go so far as to say that "these people are idiots" and "these people are hypocrites" and "these people are bitches." Just because a certain group doesn't understand your work doesn't make them less intelligent than you, believe it or not. Art is always evolving, and there's always been a fair amount of skepticism from outsiders or diehards when paddling into new artistic territories. Now here we are diving into an entirely new approach to creating art, one that's vastly different from any other medium that's ever been used in the history of art. I would definitely expect to encounter a LOT of bias and skepticism. Why? Because everyone but me is an idiot? No, because it's very new, it's very different, and in many ways, entirely eliminates many of the obstacles that have made traditional art such a challenge throughout history. You have to expect people to be wary.

[eyewoo]

Tinusch... excellent point of view, and one that I'd like to build on... specifically regarding the essence of digital artwork, i.e. the filters and adjustment tools. They are the fundamental tools that give the medium it's character and pizzaz. I smile when a newbie wonders whether it is OK to use a filter, though the same newbie has no problem with using a digital algorithmic brush... I guess because it's called a "brush."

Using filters, using adjustment tools, using those brilliant brushes -- they are all a vital part of the digital medium. Using them intelligently and with integrity makes the difference between the artist and the wannabe.
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[bearsclover]

I'm so out of the loop, I didn't realize that there was some debate over this.

It never occurred to me that someone would consider a digital artwork that showed a lot of understanding of (for instance) drawing, color theory, composition, anatomy, etc., to not be valid. If someone has all this know-how and artistic sensitivity, what does it matter what mediums they use?

Drunken Monkey brings up the "young human Xeroxes," and boy, do I know that type. I also know of the "xerox" types who are only able grid a photo and then do a painstaking pencil copy of it, for instance. I don't wish to discount the hard work they've done and the enjoyment they get out of such an activity, but if any were to "look down" on someone (like I described in the previous paragraph) simply because they used digital tools to create their work, well, I'd think that was a bunch of B.S.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Three]

[Tinusch]

^
Very good point.

On a slightly related note, I was thinking today, of all the huge advantages offered by digital art, probably the most significant is the ability to zoom and resize. It totally changes the technique, and really eliminates the need for a steady hand and careful, delicate brushwork. You can create a image that's nothing but scribbles and streaks at full-res, but shrink it down and it looks tight and detailed. That's a huge advantage over traditional painting, where if you want detail, you have to either get an inch or so from the canvas with a miniscule brush and painstakingly pick away at the canvas, or know how to simplify and how to create the illusion of detail without actually painting individual strands of hair or fibers of clothing, for example. Paintings that would require immense patience or intense practice and simplification skills can now be easily mimicked with a custom brush and magnifying glass in PS. So I can definitely see where traditionalists would scorn digital art. But I guess that's the flaw, you can't compare them. They're entirely different mediums.

[bearsclover]

They are entirely different mediums, that's for sure.

I have found the opposite situation with my work. I scanned some small pencil sketches (maybe 3" square) to put on my website and in a book I'm working on. In the process, I enlarged and enlarged these drawings in Photoshop. The thing is, they held up to the scrutiny. With just a bit of detail added to the eyes (mostly it's the eyes), there's no way that you can tell that these drawings weren't meant to be 8 1/2 x 11 to begin with. They look pretty decent. More of the cross-hatching shows, but I think it's a nice look.

I don't know what that means, exactly, other than my picky-picky anal-retentive drawing style (okay, it's not that anal) can be exploited more, thanks to Photoshop.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Gort]

[eyewoo]

I think one of the problems that cripple digital art is that many of its practitioners try to mimic traditional art - the brush stroke, the proper value, the proper perspective. And in so doing they build upon and give the real traditionalists fuel for their emotional arguments about what is and what is not art.

I'd like to see more digital artists *really* begin to explore the tool.... not as a means to mimic the history of art, but as a way to make new history and new art. Don't be afraid of those filters and function adjustments. Don't be afraid to sample photos and bring the bits and pieces into your art. Use the digital medium to its full power... it is just about the most extraordinary creative tool that has ever been. Don't let the boundaries of the way things "ought'a look" stifle its power... wuff... think I'll get a drink... think outside the pad...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[ColdKodiak]

eyewoo owns us
_________________
http://kontinue.com/coldkodiak/

[Monteiro]

The point is: To study anatomy, colors, proportion, perspective, etc...
To study always the traditional art, to read good books about art.
After this, not is important the way that you use.
You can use a pen of tablet like a natural brush.
Only be conscious: Don`t to create works with excess of filters and plugins.

[eyewoo]

Monteiro... you make good points. However I would add a strong understanding of anatomy is not prerequiste for all visual art. It certainly can not hurt and, of course, is absolutely necessary if the artist intends to work in the character development part of the game industry... but there are many fine artists who spend more time on form and light than they do on anatomy.

I'd also add that using filters, plugins, adjustment functions, etc. is the spirit of digital artwork... As you point out, the trick is to be able to use those tools effectively and with integrity.

...and, if one thinks one is not using a filter when using one of Painter's prolific brushes, one is kidding oneself...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Monteiro]

Eyewoo, you�re correct. I was rigorous, I said of my kind work and I forgot others techniques. I also work with digital art and I think that the more important is studying and not permit that software realizes the work alone with filters and plugins.

[van]

[V Shane]

I posted this elsewhere, but it bares repeating;
I painted in oils for 14+ years. I ahve been painting digitaly for 4 years.
Traditionaly paintings took over 180 hours for an 18 x 24 (including prepping the masonite). My paintings now take about 80-100 hours. The difference I think is the mess, cleaning, prepping and drying time is missing.
and the smell, and headaches are gone too

Validity, the validity is being able to express myself more efficiently and exponentially in the concept of mixing concepts and mediums (Painter) that are not physically possible (like oil and water color layers with pen and ink).

Its something that would be beyond the intrigue and ingenuity of Leonardo Da Vinci himself. Do what it takes to create, everything is game.
_________________
Lichen Rice is worse than Licorice