[Masaccio]

i dont know if its true but i think usually if u go into an art comp the judges are usually very biased against digital art cause they think it involves no skill. i find this very frustrating.
anyone else have any experience?

[Anthony]

That's natural.

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[chumps]

I think a reason might be that a lot of current digital art tools are a lot like the airbrush, which doesn't seem to be a very respected medium. You can make cool stuff, but it's all very... I can't think of the word, static? processed?

With a single charcoal pencil you can do things that are simply impossible in the digital realm, but then again there's a lot of things you can do with painter/photoshop that you can't do anywhere else.

it's like if you commissioned someone to do a portrait, would you want him to make a digital painting or a traditional one? I don't know about you but I'd opt for the latter. Oils or charcoal thank ya very much.

But i'm sure as tools get better things will change. Soon a tablet will have all the nuance of a fine brush or pencil, that would be nice eh?

[::Dino::]

This one's simple to answer--There's no undo in traditional paintings It's as simple as that. Two paintings of the same quality--One's digital and the other analog(?)...It's much more difficult and takes more skill to be produced traditionally
than it does digitally. The digital artist has many advantages over the traditional artist, but of course the biggest advantage(the undo) puts the traditional artist at a huge handicap, it almost seems unfair for the traditional artist.

------------------
O..O

[egerie]

Dino: well depends what medium you take. You can quickly 'fix a mistake' to an oil painting or come back on an acrylic artwork with relative ease.. Watercolors and inking are out of the question tho You miss, you lose. Nerve wrecking

Chumps: I find it difficult as well to 'reproduce' the sensitivity of traditional medium in the digital realm. I have to fight with the pen/software I'm painting with to make something that would take me a fraction of a second on a real canvas. It's like complicating things and thinking about a result that would take us a flick of the wrist in RL.

Reminds me of another struggle.. 3D ! I'm really impressed by people who can handle a modeling software.. I was introduced to 3dmax but give me a pile of clay over it any day and I can sculpt anything realistic in a few hours.
damn computers are enslaving us please someone invent the mind camera that we could plug directly from computer to a socket in the forehead. A bit unesthetic (sp?) tho.

The morale is ? Digital artists that can make a picture look like it's been done with traditional mediums should be proud of themselves.. And I *think* art critiques know about that... Of course there are only very few of those artists (you all know who they/you are). As for the others, eh, we learn and experiment.
But maybe the ultimate goal of digital art isn't to reproduce classic mediums but push boundaries of art in a different direction ..? Open debate.

ege, who can't shut up

[Moose]

I think one of the problems is that the computer isn't widly accepted as an art tool. Well, really the computer is a general purpose tool, it just matters on how the user uses that computer.

I am a computer art major in college as well as a drawing major. Personally, i would rather draw on a 30" x 24" piece of Lenox paper with charcoal for 4 hours and get all dirty than sit at my computer for 4 hours and squint my eyes. But i do, because i love it. I look at my computer and my WACOM as a tool to produce art that will somehow in someway impact someone.

I have friends here at school who detest computer art. I tell them everytime that i dont use it as a crutch, i use it the same way that they use a paintbrush. I get snide remarks all the time, but hell I am doing what i love just as they are.

One of my proffessors (of computer art) is the head of the Jury for SIGGRAPH 2001. She told me that she cannot stand some stuff simply because she has seen it so many times. an example of this is lens flares, star fields, robots, and various filters passed off as art (the make art buttons) such as distorto (Painter 6) and other filters. Filters themselves are a debateable topic... but hell all they are (filters) is math that make a pixel change. That could be a reason why people seem to look down on computer art, because that it is available to so many people. the truth is that not everyone can be a computer artist; just because you can throw a filter on a duotoned image and put a lens flare on the light source does not make somene an artist. It is the essence of art and the feeling of art. Not just a "make art button."

Sometimes i think i have gotten to reliant on computers, just the other day in my figuredrawing class i layed down a nice line with my charcoal, but it was too damn dark and i caught my self trying to undo (haha). I may just be insane but i found it rather disturbing.

Im not exacly sure i am even talking about the same thing that this topic was started on, but it is what i gathered from the other posts in here.

moose

------------------
Moose Skins

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited September 29, 2000).]

[chumps]

Egerie I completely agree with you. I love well done 3d art but to me the tools are just far too tedious, it seemed more like work than play .

Computer software are tools, and pretty crude in many respects, but dang I can't WAIT when they are as easy and as powerful as a pencil and a piece of paper. It makes me all giddy and stuff :P.

------------------
Stroke my ego.

[Speve-o-matic]

I also had the strange experience of trying to 'undo' while I was doing a charcoal figure drawing . . . hehe. Quite strange.

- Steve