[LuCiD]

As a traditional artist and aquired my MA at glasgow school of arts i find it quite disapointing how unrecognised talent is in the digital art field. Backwards looking critics dispense digital art as effortless work that is more about technical ability than style and creativity. I heavily dispute this, although it could be argued that 3d graphics is weighed more to the technical side than art, i do however belive computer illustrations and graphical designs contain as much artistic ability as any other art form. Gradualy art has become a more accesible form, with a wide range of tecniques being accepted, i dont think it will be long until computer art is givin the credit it deserves, What do you lot think?



------------------
"yellow mellow custard dripping from a dead dog's eye, climbing up the eiffel tower- John Lennon

[Affected]

Well, there's only one thing to do about it, get out there and kick ass! (Graphically, that is)

------------------
Affected
http://affected.cjb.net

[Muzman]

It'll take a while
like you said, at present show anyone anything done on a computer (music, graphics) and they shrug and say "yeah, computers can do anything these days"

[LuCiD]

i think we will have to wait for the general public to understand the basics of how a compute works before digital art will be accepted

[Joachim]

I agree with you....
But, don't you think that it is the same problem as with all other sorts of mediums ?
ex:Art on paper....usually people don't accept commercial work as "art", just because it's a job that pays money. For example classic animation or comic book artwork, that will never be looked upon as "art" aswell.

I think that is as relevant as how much digital art is an artform.

Joachim

------------------
DonBarrum ;)
web: http://home.sol.no/~jbarrum/

[Muzman]

yeah I know what you mean.
You won't find Frank Frazetta in many fine art books becasue he's a "fantasy artist" or a "comic cover artist"
But the computer puts another gap between an artist and any technical appreciation they might get. ie, I think if you use traditional methods you are still going to get a degree of cred thanks to the way the general public understands a bit about traditional methods. "Oh that's beautiful. Ive always wanted to be able to paint/draw/play the saxophone"
But use a computer and suddenly everyone is a lot less impressed (particularly your traditional artist peers).
it's as if "done on a computer"="took no skill or imagination".
In a way it seems to be because people think that doing it on a computer means anyone can do it.

[Lemur-X]

In my opinion, this is an unfortunate case simply because very few know how difficult it is to do *decent* let alone *great* digital art until they slaver over a monitor for several hours at a time......Something that for some reason a lot of people have much more trouble with than working with a physical medium.

And I know that the greater majority of critics out there don't have a lick of talent in their collective systems. And most won't attempt to do what people here do simply because they look like asses if they fail.

As for people in general, give them time. Or maybe not. Most still have no taccepted cartooning as a form of art or expression.

-- Lemur-X

*Webpage still *#@$(*&SKing down.*

[Dhabih]

I think that people who don't know need to first find out exactly what digital art is before they can begin to accept it as an art form. In university, my art teacher when looking at a drawing, kept asking, "So is there a program that you tell it to draw a face and it does that for you?" And he really meant it. He was a good teacher, but i think a lot of other traditional artists don't accept it as "art" because they think its real easy to do. I've heard a lot of classmates say how they thought it was "cheating". This notion is brought about i think by seeing some people who just load up kai power tools, let it create some funky texture and add a lens flare to it.

Anyway, basically i think it will be more widely accepted as an art form (though it's anyones guess how widely), once people begin to see that it takes just as much skill to create a good oil painting as it does a good computer illustration.

-dhab

------------------
http://www.sijun.com/

[Affected]

Hm. I've never gotten any comments like that... Maybe the people over here know a bit more, somehow. Overall, though, I can't be bothered to care too much if someone thinks digital equals cheap. Not my problem.

------------------
Affected
http://affected.cjb.net

[Tabun]

My sister makes abstract paintings and worries about her work being appreciated too.
Almost the same arguments here. Some people seem to think that because it doesn't precisely resemble anything they can imagine, anyone can make it. Or computers calculate imagination for you..
IMHO, people who have these opinions, based almost entirely on ignorance and quickly drawn conclusions should try to make something themselves, before they flame.

------------------
Ciao, Tab

[LuCiD]

im glad to see a lot of you feel the way i do, i think something people need to realise about computer art is it uses all the same elements of creativity that conventional art does, aswell as the need to control the pc and its thousands of variables to create ur intended vision.

[Funfetus]

You could say that learning to control a PC and learning the software is the digital equivalent of learning to use oil paints, for instance.

But I say fuck it anyway. I do my art for me, and I don't care if someone thinks it's not real art because "a computer did it". I'm generally amused by such ignorance.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[F15PenguinCustom]

Hi. I'm new here, but just wanted to give my view of how people perceive computer art.
I feel that general populace doesn't appreciate computer art as a "true" art form for 2 two main reasons:

1) The major instance that people have heard of cging is in terms of magazine photos. Almost everyone these days seems to know that models are not in fact perfect, but their pictures are either airbrushed or are modified with computers. This gives the average joe the impression, "computers=photorealistic=less effort/imagination."

2) Computers are generally thought of as "digital" rather than "analogue." What the hell do I mean? Well... the best way that I can put it is that computers feel like they can only go so far in terms of smoothness, like there's a preset limit of increments. For example, with a single brush stroke, there can literally be an infinite amount of varying shade, whereas with a computer doing the same stroke could only reproduce that same stroke only to a certain degree or it's dpi. (I really hope you all get what I mean ^^;

There is also a third reason for computer art not bein accepted as well but it's related to the second reason and is a personal thought. With a computer, I just don't feel as though that it's an extension of my thoughts or my abilities. If I want a certain shade or stroke, I have to poke around to find the "right" tool on the program. I don't get to "feel" out the shade or stroke. It's too disconnected and unsatisfying for me. However I will admit I am still a novice at cg, so it may just be a matter of me getting adjusted and knowing the program better like Funfetus said.


------------------
The tuxedo jet,

~F15PenguinCustom

[Andromeda]

THAT is one of the hardest questions to answer, ever... "(any question concerning ART is hard to answer) ..

But i guess, i have to lean towards the fine arts(painting) as being a 'better' form of art.(is said better with the '', take note)
In terms of amount of work and skill required.

Take for example a black piece of canvas that has been painted pure red.
you are asked to create a few monochrome tones on that.
On the computer, all you have to do is click on a button, choose a tool like DODGE AND BRRRRN.. and just move your mouse. thats about it.

You cant do the same when you're holding a brush and working with oil paints.

To USE a type of medium properly takes up a whole load of time and effort...

Still... art is still art. On the computer, or on canvas. I guess it all depends on how people sees it...


------------------
Andromeda of clan S.T.A.R
[S]pecial
[T]actical
[A]ssault
[R]egiment
-=[ http://www.htgk.com.sg/star]=-

[Brain]

I found one good thing to do is get that critic, and sit them down next to you and do some art and make them watch, or at least hang around your general area. Do some really good artwork, which'll consume a fair bit of time, and they'll look at it and go "Ahhh" and "Oooo" eventually. Then they'll understand what you're going through. This works, I've done it a few times.

------------------
Brain
http://brain.gamekey.com/

[Funfetus]

Speaking on the relative difficulty of digital art vs. oil paint:

I've always felt that the main advantage of digital art is that you can GET AWAY from the ridiculous restraints of a medium that doesn't want to cooperate, and just concentrate on DOING ART. Does spending hours (exaggeration?) mixing paint make a painting better? I don't think so. I prefer to just pick the color off an HSB color wheel and go to work.
(Okay, sometimes I do actually mix digital "paint" on a digital "canvas", but that's beside the point. )

Summary:

I don't have to mix paint, I don't have to breathe fumes, I don't have to stretch canvas, I don't have to clean brushes. I can just DO ART.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[LuCiD]

yeah i dont feel art has anything to do with the effort or time spent or a particular piece, all that matters is u capture your original idea or whatever ur drawing how u set out to. More than anything art is about being able to express yourself any way u see fit.

[Acryl]

Digital art IS a truly accepted Art form .

Why shouldn�t it be accepted ? Only because some professor is not able to understand the media , it shouldn�t be accepted ( although the profs at the academy i went to were really interested in digital art ) ? Sorry but this question is kinda weird .

acryl http://members.xoom.com/pointnpixel

[Aiko]

Hello everyone I'm new here, but just wanted to voice my opinion about the subject at hand!

I think both abstract and digital art deserves more credit....and being from the other side of art(realism,painting,drawing) all on paper or canvas I find it very hard to switch over to digital art. Next semester I will be taking a digital art class and can't wait!

In a lot of cases digital art is easier, like undo button or the save button. But I find it very difficult to get the same affects you do on canvas, like textures, happy accidents.

I don't know enough about digital art to citisize or praise yet. But so far looking at whats out there, I think there is a lot of fine digital artwork, no matter the means!

[LuCiD]

Soz Acryl
i wasnt saying digital art should not be a recognised art form, for proffesionals it is important. If you are an incredible digital artist but nothing special with traditional materials getting recognition from anywhere but the online or gaming community wont happen. Unless something changes

[LeChuck]

(In response to Dhabih's post)

I understand how frustration it can feel when people dont understand and accuse you of being a cheater. It realy sucks. I get rather upset when Im in this position because I dont know how to change their minds while at the same time I want to punch them out for putting me down only because they are too ignorant to know the truth.
But the cool part is when I finaly show them and then they all gather around thinking "that is so damn cool, I wish I knew how to do that"

BTW, I realy am a nonviolant person and would never punch anyone out.

[This message has been edited by LeChuck (edited January 21, 2000).]

[n8]

oorrrr....ppl might not recognise it as a true form of art because of the fact that once its finished and other people have a copy of it...there no longer is an original copy of it. Where as with say a painting on canvas, you cant just copy it and give it to everyone..???

[LuCiD]

well you could only release a cut down res version , and keep the original full sized version but it doesnt make much difference

[Sumaleth]

Three points to be made on this topic;

. Digital art -is- easier than traditional methods, there's no doubt about that. So, to an extent, there is something behind this wall of disinterest that surrounds digital art. For people to accept the digital form as a worthwhile alternative to traditional art, they need to learn to accept it for what it is.

. There are aspects of mediums, such as oils, acrylics, pen, etc, that people identify with the word "art" (in this sense) that isn't present in the digital side of art. Things like touch, smell, bumpiness, along with one other important thing; digital art is not a "one of a kind" that can be framed and hung on a wall. Reproductions and prints do not have the same meaning.

. The vast magority of digital art seen by the general public is the "design" sub-genre, which is often either photomanipulation or the Illustrator-style images that have more of a Picasso than Rockwell heritage. This sort of stuff is still art, but it's an example of digital art than even -I- find very easy to dismiss.

Given time, the general public will learn that art can be art without having a unqiue feel and smell, and they will learn to see that there are digital artists out there who really deserve the title "artist". I don't expect it will be a fast changeover, however.

I actually have tentative plans to write a bout about the 'representational' side of digital art over the next year or so, the hope being to introduce to the public a little of what is happening in the world of digital art that is mostly unseen by those who aren't specially looking for it.

Rowan.

--
Sumaleth http://impact.frag.com

[Blind]

I agree with Funfetus. It's not so much the methods used that are important, but the end result. Yes, I certainly do appreciate how incredibly tough it must be to work with oils, but that doesn't make the piece any more or less beautiful to me, the viewer.

To me, digital art is just creating with paint that never dries

------------------
- Blind
[email protected]
Clan Shred Company

[Ben]

I just have one thing to add.

For all of those people that tell you digital art is cheating, or it's "not art", I have a good analogy for them:

It's like cave men who only scraped pictured on walls. Then, out of the blue, another cave man comes along, and finds/invents colours. The first cave man says, (assuming he can talk)"Hey, don't use colours, that's cheating! You can't just make your pictures look better with colours, that's too easy. Your just letting the colours do the work for you. I have to make mine look better by only using one colour ... it's harder, you see?"

Or how about when perspective was introduced during the Renaissance. Or when the camera was introduced, or when the blah, blah, blah!

All these are advances in art. Just like the computer is now. It's like saying, "anyone can pick up a still camera and make a good picture. All you have to do is point and shoot." Or "a Video camera...you just point and shoot and bam, you have a good movie." I DON"T THINK SO.

You can't just make a digital painting by moving a mouse or pen. That's like saying, to draw, all you have to do is move the pencil in the "right direction" on the paper.

Obviously you can see how all of what I wrote ties into this thread. How computers are just another advance.

(The Dennis Miller Line
"But of course, that's just what I think ... I could be wrong!"

-BEN

[AprilYSH]

Good one Ben, I'll have to use that! I hate when I get emails asking if I "painted" a picture - with painted in quotes. I create most of my pictures stroke by stroke just as you would with a real brush loaded with oil (I've done oils too.) The small percentage of an image I create using a shortcut filter such as drop shadow doesn't mean "the computer did it" ALL.

Funfetus' statement, "I don't have to mix paint, I don't have to breathe fumes, I don't have to stretch canvas, I don't have to clean brushes. I can just DO ART." is exactly why I turned to Photoshop.

I'm glad to find this forum, the only other "digital art" forum I know is in Topaz Designs, which Kelly created at a time I was feeling out of place in other graphics forums focusing on web graphics.

I don't think Digital Art will be accepted as part of traditional art anytime soon, short of printing out your pictures on canvas and not telling. I think a sort of Digital Art movement can make it an "art form" on its own. Then we can stop trying to justify our work.

I know I'm still learning and because of it I think I work harder on my pics, so it really gets me... it's one of my pet peeves ... "Did you do that on the computer? *smirk, knowing look, smirk*"


------------------

http://clix.to/vanity

[Darkmoon]

I don't really think digital art is easier than any other type of art, its just a different style.

Sure, we have this handy "undo" tool but that just gives us higher standards to live up to.

I think digital art is just unknown, just like im sure every other form had to make its way into everyones heart give it time and im sure we'll have the people refereing to the "picasso's of the tablet"



------------------
Darkmoon
-Seire Hirez,
-Hirez.org Staff =^..^=

[Pigeon]

I think two issues are on hand here:

1) What is art?
2) Are digital artists lazy bums?

The answer to the second is obviously no, and has been discussed.
The first is hard to answer, but let me point out a few examples. First, Marcel DuChamp made art out of a urinal. Second, Andy Warhol made art by painting (or even having someone else paint!) Campbell soup cans and constructing Brillo soap boxes. Surely we can make art on computers. The question is, what are you doing with the computer? If your goal is to make cool images for shoot 'em up games, then I would call you an artisan or craftsman. But the moment you make a difference in someone's ideas and outlooks with your work, then you are an artist.

Society as a whole doesn't usually understand art anyway. Art's goal is to make them understand. There are those stuffy critics who haven't gotten past the Impressionists' oil paintings, but even if they see your work and think for just an instant "so that's what it's like to be a fifteen-year old kid today" (or whatever), you have subverted their thoughts just as much as any other accepted art.

[Pigeon]

I think two issues are on hand here:

1) What is art?
2) Are digital artists lazy bums?

The answer to the second is obviously no, and has been discussed.
The first is hard to answer, but let me point out a few examples. First, Marcel DuChamp made art out of a urinal. Second, Andy Warhol made art by painting (or even having someone else paint!) Campbell soup cans and constructing Brillo soap boxes. Surely we can make art on computers. The question is, what are you doing with the computer? If your goal is to make cool images for shoot 'em up games, then I would call you an artisan or craftsman. But the moment you make a difference in someone's ideas and outlooks with your work, then you are an artist.

Society as a whole doesn't usually understand art anyway. Art's goal is to make them understand. There are those stuffy critics who haven't gotten past the Impressionists' oil paintings, but even if they see your work and think for just an instant "so that's what it's like to be a fifteen-year old kid today" (or whatever), you have subverted their thoughts just as much as any other accepted art.