I have a very traditional eye when it comes to art. I know a blank canvas with an accidentally-on-purpose paint splatter is art these days but despite the artist’s best intentions and anything can be art viewpoint, I still like art to be something I can understand and relate to. Setting aside a few exceptions where I have been enchanted by colour or texture- I like art that’s nice to look at. By this I don’t mean beautiful- I mean evocative, intriguing, art that draws you into its form, colour and texture. I did this post on art a while back and it pretty much expresses my sentiments on the subject. However, my thoughts are on the digital revolution in art. With software like Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw and particularly Painter we see amazing artwork that cannot be told apart from a traditional oil/watercolour/acrylic counterpart unless it’s closely examined. This tied with amazing photo-manipulation tools like Photoshop, we see some pretty awesome artwork. But, my question is if this a conflict between talent vs. tools?
I agree these Painter/Illustrator artworks take many hours and certainly requires talent yet does the graphics tablet and good software make it any less of a painting in terms of the feel of painting; the paint staining your fingertips, the smell of turpentine in the air, the splatter of paint against your cheek, the feel of texture under your hands, the very fragrance of paint and thinner when you look at it closely, the little imperfections in line, form and colour that make a painting unique. I’m a fan of traditional art where the artist doesn’t create this aesthetic intrigue in front of a computer screen but I also love the works of many new digital artists who have perfected the techniques of the tools of their trade. I’m sure this is true to anyone who browses through Epilogue or DeviantART and is frequently amazed by how “traditional” some of the art work looks despite being done on painting software. Photo manipulation allows for some surprisingly real digital paintings.
As a bit of an artist myself I’m awed by the talent flourishing in the digital art scene but does this imply a change in art? Are we going to be seeing canvas prints of digital imaging in galleries years from now as quintessential art of the period? Does this mean decline to traditional mediums as they are replaced by software counterparts?
True digital art is still kinda done by hand in a sense but does it still hold the same kind of attention that a traditional painting of the same calibre would or would it be considered inferior just because it’s done on a computer? Working in traditional mediums myself and never really venturing out to painting software, I would tend to lean towards mediums I’m familiar with because I appreciate the effort that goes into it and the very delight of the experience that goes into it. But this doesn’t mean I consider the digital alternative any less brilliant.
If you were to buy a piece of art, how much emphasis would you place on if it was digital or traditional? Or would you go by how it looked, above anything else? Would you pay more for a traditional work than a digital work?
Just something to think about…
If I were buying a piece of art, no emphasize would be placed on if it was created digitally or not. I would be more worried about the design and actual image that was displayed. I do not see that much difference in traditional art and digital art, both use the same characteristics and techniques, just displayed on different canvas and created using different mediums
I am an artist/illustrator and began my work in the traditional mediums. I am moving more over to digital work and I have had this same question. Trad vs. digital. I love to paint with oils and acrylics, all smelly and messy. Cat hairs and all. And I love to work digitally. So I asked myself what value do each have from the other?
Digital, it’s great, you can paint in painter and Corel Draw and photoshop. I love the no mess no smell and with a husband with asthma it is a boon for us. But you must have a good output printer or someone to go to that can print a good quality piece if you want it in the real world.
What I found with traditional art it that I can do murals and large paintings that glisten in the light. It has a tactile feel if you paint with heavy stroke or pallet knife.
I think there will be those who buy the image painted directly on a canvas because it is hands on art as they say. They will like the idea it is made with real materials.
The digital crowed will be happy with images because they are images that please them too.
That’s about all I can come up with at this time.
I think that people sometimes forget that art isn’t so much, by definition, about mediums, as it is about self expression of ideas or emotions. art is art no matter how it is produced. i do think i would pay more for an original “traditional” artwork, but that is because it is hard to replicate an exact copy down to the brushstroke of such works. a digital painting will always print the same. but i have equal respect for “traditonal” and digital art.
So, it’s interesting to note what is the mainstay of digital painting? It appears to be by and large pretty adolescent stuff. It’s as though pinup art from the 1940’s meets anime from the 1990’s. As a whole I have found most of it to imitate the pre-digital work of folks whose domain was producing images for Molly Hatchet album covers. In part, the photograph seems to be the desired source and some kind of blend between photo realism and cheap romance book covers. What bothers me is the lack of content and the “technique” over form and content. I know because I teach this stuff. I have seen some work which hints at the realm of contemporary art, but few to say the least. I think I would not value this type of work, mainly because it does not appeal to the senses and lacks the transcendent quality and physical presence of “traditional paintings”. Somehow if Damien Hirst starts making photoshop or painter driven works, I might be persuaded otherwise. A lot of my students emulate the stylings of these digital artists and yet have no clue about Jackson Pollock or even Salvador Dali! By the way , if anyone knows of a good solid art text which focuses on contemporary uses of digital painting, please let me know—I need one.
P.S do you think Picasso would have used Corel Painter?
As an artist for nearly 20 plus years now, I thought I had covered all the bases when it came to working with all mediums and forms. Until graduating from the Art Institute in Pittsburgh and learning the Digital aspect of creating art with computers, I have learned a whole new world. The Traditional way I will always have a great respect for it because it is my foundation as an artist. Painting, drawing, marker rendering, there’s nothing else like them. Now that I have gained the digital skills of creating artwork, I find both skills valuable and profitable in order for any artist to make in today’s forever changing market of buyers.
I am a traditional artist, mainly because I cannot afford the digital art stuff. Then again, when talking about digital v. traditional, you mean digital painting v. traditional painting, right? I hate to be part of the nuisance that debates on this, but I do bear strong feelings. Sometimes, I will admit, I get irritated when I see a digital painting and viewers tell the artist, “Wow, keep it up and ppl will ask you to do a fresco” or something like that. Viewers should treat traditional painting and digital painting as separate things; the mediums, time, cost, and techniques are compiled differently in the final product of a traditional or digital painting. The effort and talent, however, is the same (except how much time to get it done might be different). I don’t mind what the finished piece looks like or where it is used (book cover, printed on canvas, etc.), but personally I would favor a traditional painting for ithe artist approached ts result without Photoshop, or any computer program. Of course, one touch of a magic button does not finish a digital painting. I think it is unfair to compare a digital painting and traditional painting; they are too different despite how similar they look in the finished pieces, and it’s really the artist’s personal choice on what is easier/accessible for them or how they wish to express themselves. BUT, that’s how I feel
Hi,
I´m a brazilian digital artist, and i work specifically with digital pa painting and tradigital art.
What i feel from this period, is that we´re just in a milestone. Just a moment of new proposals. That´s it. For me, is really no big deal. Instead, itis a gourgeous moment, when manking provides art of new and infinite ways of outbraking.
thanks.
I’ve been a traditional art loyalist eversince. Even though i’m seeing digital arts, I always try to make mine in traditional way. Hey and even painting digitally, I try to use the traditional way, I mean I don’t use color balance or any adjustments. I always make them manually since I think that making it manually not only keeps the traditional way but also improves your creativity and ability when it comes to color. Traditional way is a better floor of improvement, as the softwares go more and more powerful, artist’s creativity lessens. We might even see someday, all painting software are too much advanced that even a normal citizen(non artists by nature) can paint like Picasso, Angelo, etc.
it’s barely noticeable that technology rises up fast and science is now affecting art.
For me, I still have a higher respect with traditional. It’s like a treatment between your father and your brother. You love them both but you respect the father more.
Digital art has the advantage of being an electronic file. The original copy will never fade or age, and can still be manipulated and edited with the same technology. But that can also be a disadvantage. If you are not well known, putting digital art on the internet runs with the risk of plagiarism. With a traditional painting, there is only one original, and it could be worth a lot. With digital art, infinite prints can be made for tons of purposes. A single painting could be worth a million dollars, but the sales generated from selling millions of copies of a book with a good cover illustration could be equally as profitable (disclaimer: i don’t know anything about business or economics, I’m just guessing!)
Well, I’m less interested in all this stuff, I just like drawing with pencils. I get a good sense of security out of knowing I can make it look how I want. So far, my experience with digital art has been searching through menus for 10 minutes to figure out how to do one little thing, program crashing, overall clumsy working experience. Wow i can’t believe I honestly think that, I seriously need to get out of my bubble. eh, what am I rambling about?
If you had $10,000 to spend on a work and were confronted with two 50×50 canvases of a waterfall, both beutifully done in impasto…one was an oil on canvas and the other was a print on cavas….which would you buy.
I think we all know the answer to this one.
This is a very interesting subject I admire those who do digital art since I am trained in traditional art. Having shown for years I do know that digital art is placed in national shows, if selected to show at all, in the catagory of craft work along with bead makers and although I have seen beautiful digital work and am amazed people not knowing the difference say in a digital portrait claiming to be an oil portrait for $99.00 and that of skilled artist. But to those turning to digital who were once traditional artist beware. I would doubt a digital artist will go down in history as master artist, or their works make a true difference in the world. Artists are like song writers and poets, we tell a story with our imaginations unlimited, not confind to an already existing program or picture.
I personally believe that art, done on a canvas, or a tablet can be just as equally beautiful. I myself prefer digital art, but I also enjoy doing traditional. You see, art is art; whether created on a computer or painted on a canvas. Those who discriminate against digital art because it does not convay emotion, or it wasn’t worked on for hours and hours are wrong to do so. Both traditional and digital art takes hundreds (or even thousands) of hours to master. I have also viewed digital piecies that have taken monthes to finish.
Take this link to one of Neuroti’s (deviantart member) images.
http://alexiuss.deviantart.com/art/Neurotic-Indisposition-71019219
It is amazing and extremely convaying, and it is one of my all time favorites.
By the way, I do love traditional art, too.
I prefer traditional simply because I am a traditional artist. I think digital and trad art are very different and really can’t be compared. While they may end up looking similar they were each made with completely different mediums. In traditional you use physical colors you can touch and smell, but digital art uses pixels. Tiny, digital unicolor squares. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
And in my opinion, trad art will always be more expensive because digital art is on the rise and is becoming very common.
Still, what is important about art is what it conveys, what message it brings to the viewer, no matter what medium was used to create it.
The most powerful advantages I see in digital painting is the lack of water, cleaning brushes to change colors, water, dry time, but mainly the lack of water. You may just focus on color and structure of the artwork, no hassling thoughts about squirting delicate paints when you desire a change of colors. And I am speaking out to those artists who take digital painting seriously, as their form of expression and even try to make their paintings look traditional. The only disadvantage, however, I see with DP is the dependence on the computer. I prefer traditional painting, nonetheless, mainly because it is accessible; not everyone in the world has a computer yet. (Money, from profit or value of art materials, on the other hand is a different issue I strongly prefer to overlook) =D. Then again, the computer scarily is just beginning its world domination of “easy (occupational) success” for us humans who want to live our lives electronically. =O
Art is what art is, honestly I like tradition works but I’m far from in love with it. I don’t think the digital medium will ever achieve the value of traditional works and my only reason for that is no matter how much time skill or effort you put into it it’s still only a copy. The digital medium deserves just as much respect, it takes just as much skill to work digitally as it does traditionally. Art is not about the medium it’s about the artist and the artists perception. I can’t stand silly titles like contemporary, abstract or surreal; just create that’s what an artist does. Take no regard to the medium and find what you like.
P.S.
Picasso most likely would have use digital, he did some animations.
I’m starting to have those inquiries as well. I don’t want to bias the reader by saying I’ve worked on traditional, and though I don’t reject the possibility of doing digital, I’m not attracted to it either. I think that hand drawn sketches on real surfaces are the essence of art, because you develop a special bonding with the canvas and you. It’s like reading an article from a magazine or reading from an actual book, its smelly dust and sound screeching as you stretch it- although maybe I’m just in love with books and a little screwloose, but I realise I’m not the only one who perceives such bonding.
Another notable comparison is chatting and online meeting to real life conversations. I would never trade the authenticity of sharing with a person life, having visual contact and deeper interaction to typing and substituting emoticons for otherwise real grimaces. And I should say that I have actually made close relationships with people on the net, but I still can’t trade one for the other.