[aphelionart]

i think this has probably been asked before, ...i wonder if i even asked this before... but i just had a conversation with one of my teachers, and his opinion is that digital art is a novelty at best and will probably disappear within a decade or so at most. also that it offers no benefits that can't be achieved from any other "traditional" (non-digital) media. he concedes that it does make some concept work a little faster, but also that it's only taking much of the real challenge of art out and allowing just about anyone to make a cheap eye-catching picture.

i've got my own thoughts, but any opinions on this on-going debate? thanks!

-matt

[ChenZan]

its true, at my school, teachers frown upon digital. i find myself doing assignments digitally for deadline sake. i'm okay at traditional, i would like more practice, but i know that its just too time consuming. I look at doug chiangs paintings when i do acrylics and frazetta when i do oils. I think if i practice enough that i will get faster at my traditional methods. One of my friends who already graduated always preaches to do things traditonal first cuz if you know how to do it traditionally, then doing it digitally comes with ease. like many students in my class, who dont ever do it traditionally, i think they would hurt themselves if they had to actually "paint" Thats just my two cents.

[Impaler]

Permit me to break down the entire fucking art world into two polar factions for you.

First, there is the artist (I'm putting him in the masculine for succinctity, not phallicentric preconceptions). This kind soul sees the inherent beauty in life itself and desires to share it with his fellow man. Art is less of an end than it is a means to something transcendentally great. He speaks humbly about his own technique and praises the notable aspects of less-skilled pieces attempted by the common noob. To him, art is universal.

Then, there is the artiste. He desires to set himself apart from the common man through his art. He dwells on either the execution of formal technique or of some hifalutin grandeur visible only to the gnostics of art. He has distinct opinions about what good art and bad art is, and he'll defend them until his goatee falls out. He bashes the noob and the adventurous, and praises those who mirror his own dogmatic biases in their art. To him, art is an exlusive theology.

Your teacher sounds like the latter. The bottom line is, art is self-expression. It doesn't matter how difficult or unobtainable a technique is.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[jfrancis]

Word processors are a novelty at best and will probably disappear within a decade or so at most. They offer no benefits that can't be achieved from any other "traditional" (non-digital) writing implements such as pencils. I concede that they do make some concept work a little faster, but that it's only taking much of the real challenge of writing out and allowing just about anyone to make cheap eye-catching verbiage... and DON'T get me STARTED about how the FOOD PROCESSING fad is RUINING LUNCH!

---

Okay, here's what I really think: If you goal is learning painting technique, you should have the traditional arrow in your quiver as well as the digital one. Knowing both can only help, not hurt. If your goal is making images, then use the tool that suits you best.

[CoreyArt]

Man I have a teacher who doesn't beleive digital art is the way for a true artist either. To me it's ridiculous that people who absolutly love art and painting can bash digital media so much yet truely don't even understand enough about it . To tell you the truth I myself started painting digitaly before I learned how to paint in real life. Personaly I think the long hours trying to learn digital painting have helped me alot in real painting. I learned alot about picking colors and such without having to go through the messy process of squeezing color out of a tub. But something about the way your teacher thinks digital art will die in the future irritates me so much. I admit that I probably love painting in real life, just as equally if not more than digitaly, but I can't see how digital media could ever so suddenly just "die out" anytime in the near future.
_________________
Hey I'm Corey. I'm a 22 year old artist living in Illinois and always trying to improve. Drop by my site sometimes.

[jfrancis]

CoreyArt -- that's a good point: when the work is more convenient, and less messy to do, you probably actually do it more often.

[Drew]

If this arguement was about a new kind of paint it would be seen as a complete and absolutely retarded waste of time.

And that's exactly what it is.

[aphelionart]

mm... i agree, good points all... i think the powers of digital media will only increase as well with technology.. my fault for choosing a prominently *fine arts* school that doesn't really even have many classes dealing with computers, and most of the students follow my teacher's view at least i can still love it for everything else it teaches!

-matt

[Heysoos]

I was a fine art major in school and worked primarily in oil painting, on the side I also took classes in illustration and digital art. Each has its own strengths and I often tried to combine a mix of the two. The problem, for me, in digitital art is that it often looked to plastic and artificial, a bit too obviously "computery". The solution I found for this was to take super close up pictures of my oil paintings, which used very thick and textured paint and then put it into photoshop and mixed the textures of real paint with the image. The coolest thing about digital work for me is that you can seemlessly mix all sorts of different medias into a single image where it is all compressed into a single medium but retains the effects only possible in others.

One digital artist I really enjoy is Dave Mckean who destroys the borders of digital and hands-on artwork in his illustrations.

And another thing. Don't let teachers or anyone else tell you what is acceptable forms of art. Your the artist, you show them that what you do is important.

[Sumaleth]

Anyone who puts medium in front of the art is a bit soft in the head.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[eyewoo]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... I'd love to have a wee talk with your "teacher"
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Impaler]

Wow, heysoos is from New Mexico, which amounts to a grand sum of THREE sijun members with a tenacious love for chile, sunsets and 6 inches of rain a year.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Heysoos]

heh, actually I live in albuquerque too, who would a' thunk

[Matt Elder]

I think one of my 'traditional' art teachers said it best:

1st figure out what you want to say.... then do it in any medium you feel is appropriate.

Every medium has its advantages and disadvantages. Digital is obviously quick, relatively clean, allows for multiple undos. Actually viewing quality oil paintings with the way the light shimmers off the surface just can't be matched from a digital point of view (I know there are techniques to replicate this feel but with oil painting, you know it is going to last for around 500 years. Do we know that about digital)

The other thing is the wider community thinks of 'digital art' as these weird abstract things. Naturally they are going to think it is going to die. Its like most people today, they think the extent of art is alot of this 20th century abstract garbage. So if you try to work in a tradition like Michangelo, Rubens etc, its hard.

You need to appreciate that there is a distinction between fine art (like the old masters of centuries gone past) and 'illustration' (art usually for more commerical purposes - concept design, storyboarding, comics, animation etc). Some times you get guys who blur that distinction ie doug chiang but they would appear to be more of the exception than the rule (from what I've read, for some works it will take him days to do small works. The old masters took a long time and put alot of work into their paintings, accounting for assistants, oil paint drying and working on several projects at once).

I have a foot in both camps, fine art and illustration. For mine, illustration is just a subset of fine art. It uses all the concepts of fine art but within a particular set of 'rules'. When I was younger I use to think Jim Lee's stuff was amazing and pushed the envelope. Recently I saw some of Rubens drawings and Jim Lee's style is remarkably close.

Point being, figure out which camp you want to be in. The 'gallery' system of creating works for exhibtion or illustration and creating works for commercial interests. Projects will then dictate what is more 'acceptable'. People are highly unlikely to pay thousands of dollars for a digital print when for the same they can get an original oil painting. That is an oversimplification I know but hopefully it gives you an idea of where you might 'fit' in the greater art tradition.
_________________
See ya on da flip side
Matt
http://www.mattelder.com

[aphelionart]

thanks guys... this and some more consideration helped me put everything into perspective... I'm still upset because I feel that some artists are limiting themselves at least in some way only because of a superficial conservative belief, or simply because the large majority of people still probably don't use computers for much of anything. Even picasso, a painter primarily, delved into sculpture, photography, and mixed media to conceptualize his final paintings.

With time, I personally think technology will develop computers and bring them closer to the forefront of contemporary art... just look what pen tablets did and then brushes... and now you can actually draw on a screen... now we just need to figure out how to tell little nanobots to create surface texture (wouldn't it be cool?).

-matt

[DJorgensen]

unhhhhh....

[Godwin]

[aphelionart]

he's fairly old.. probably in his later 30's? he's in the age group of people who really don't use computers unless they feel it's an absolute necessity. this is the only way i can really understand his arguments..

basically, he probably understands there's a challenge to digital work but that it's only in vain because you can already achieve the same effects with anything else. which.. is probably like saying you could achieve the effects of oil paint with acrylic, or vice versa. but Heysoos mentioned dave mckean.. and I just so happen to have one of his books, so we'll see what my teacher thinks of that on monday

-matt

[fae]

can't offer the same type comment as many of you all did --- but ya know... sometimes people like me DO start out learning a lot more w/ digital (as was previously mentioned) because our wallets don't allow for much learning traditionally yet... i plan on going through and learning to use all the traditional media the way any traditional artist would as well... but sometimes the resources are limited, and if it weren't for my getting into the digital realm of art, i would have been much further behind than i am now.

i can't help being really appreciative towards digital art, even though i've run across the same situation about painting teachers who think digital is bad.

nice to hear all you guys' opinions... in fact, i'm writing my research paper for english on this topic. hehe.
_________________
~a shadow, a moment, a memory-- a monument, a legend, a legacy~

[jfrancis]

[Jin]

Hey darlin'

If you think later 30's is "fairly old" and in the age group of people who really don't use computers unless they feel it's an absolute necessity...

You don't really know what's going on, and what has been going on for many years.

I'm going to be 68 in September and in my rounds of the Painter community and beyond, daily, I see people of all ages, many (actually most) of whom are well beyond "later 30's" and many of whom are older than I am.

These folks are heavy software users and often have a large number of graphics programs all of which they use regularly. Many of them have their own websites which they created typing HTML code in a text editor. Many of them know far more about graphics programs than a lot of members here at Sijun and on other graphics related message boards.

Believe it or not, the "old folks" are pretty darned knowledgeable and very active on the Internet.

I've been using computers for my work since the '80s and began with AutoCAD in DOS of all things, working on deadlines while learning the program and still not missing a beat (a few tears of frustration, maybe, but ontime delivery of jobs). Now I teach software, run two websites one of which is a message board which I set up by myself (again, near tears with frustration.. but I did it.. too cheap to pay InfoPop to do it for me).

Don't underestimate what people over 40 are doing. You'd be surprised. Even I am surprised when I find myself teaching a 78 year old and she's the best student in the class, sharp, quick, and turning in great assignments. The young guys just didn't keep up with her, and that's a fact!


Jinny Brown
Painter Classes at TutorAlley Forums
(new registrations and Painter Classes on hold due to family medical emergency)
Tutorials and Painter Info at PixelAlley

[Drew]

[Jin]

Drew,

You've said the perfect thing. I needed that a lot. It's been a very rough day and it's nice to know I'm ten times cooler than before.



I am sooooo cool!

Thank you dear Drew (even if you were kidding).


Jinny Brown
Painter Classes at TutorAlley Forums
(new registrations and Painter Classes on hold due to family medical emergency)
Tutorials and Painter Info at PixelAlley

[Cyanide]

I just got into digital art with the purchase of my Wacom table a week or so ago. All I can say is that your teacher is pretty ignorant. Art isn't about how you do it, it's about what you say with it. It's about creating an image to convey something. Who cares how the image was created. The only thing that matters is that the images conveys the message you want it to.

Personally, I enjoy digital art much more than traditional. I only do art as a hobby, and for me, it's the greatest thing in the world to not have to deal with the pains of traditional art. I love not having to keep my pencil sharp. I love not having to worry about accidently making a line too dark to be erased. I love being able to paint, where as my budget does not allow for me to explore painting in the traditional form. Yes, it does make it easier to do the art I want to do. So what? If there is something that can make my art better at conveying what I want it to convey, then I will use it and there is no logical reason not to.

In the business world digital art is fast replacing traditional methods. I think traditional art is more likely to disappear in the next decade than digital art (not that either one actually will).

You should ask your teacher if he was one of those people who said the personal computer was just a fad and would be gone in about a decade. There were a lot of people saying that about 10 - 15 years ago. People said the same thing about the car, and the airplane. Heck, there was probably a cave man who once said that the wheel was a passing fad and that it would be gone in a decade. In general, saying that any new technology is a passing fad is a good way to make yourself look like an idiot in about 10 years.
_________________
---
"Write a funny quote and your name lives on forever"
-Anonymous