 |
Digital art discussion |
tikiskip
Grand Member (6 years) 
Joined: Nov 26, 2005
Posts: 2092 |  Posted: 2011-07-03 9:52 pm Permalink
You would think with all of our new tools, technology and computers
we would have better everything.
But I would say that cars are not better, maybe better gas mileage but
not cooler or more stylish.
Same thing with architecture and many new things of this era.
It looks like the new tools we have are used mostly for making things
faster and to help the bottom line, make more money.
It's sad that we are looking so much to the bottom line and not more
quality based, more artistic.
But then with the wages that are paid today you could not afford to
put these time cosuming touches in.
Could you get digital art on a chapel ceiling?
[ This Message was edited by: tikiskip 2011-07-03 21:53 ]
|
Chuck Tatum is Tiki
Tiki Socialite
Joined: May 12, 2011
Posts: 1674
From: Southern Cailifornia
| Posted: 2011-07-03 10:23 pm Permalink
tikiskip, The tools are not to blame, Society finds ways to abuse many things
that were intended for better purposes, There was a time in this country when we
wanted to make the best things, but now it's the cheapest things at the most profit.
It's about greed pure and simple.
The Internet is a pretty cool tool, but look what most people do with it
this is just a testimony to the nature of society today.
So no I am not happy about it either, but you have to blame "people" for it.
|
little lost tiki
Tiki Socialite
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 7460
From: Orange,CA-right near the Circle!
| Posted: 2011-07-03 11:15 pm Permalink
the robots are winning!
Quick! Grab the brushes and easels and head for the HUT!
|
Zeta
Grand Member (2 years) 
Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Posts: 2030
From: Atlantis/Basque Country/Spain/Mexico
| Posted: 2011-07-04 12:09 pm Permalink
I think the less tools you use for your art, other than your skills, talent and raw materials, the better. If you need some super advance microprocessor owned by a Multinational corporation to create a tiki or a punker, you have a problem and all around just don't get it. Art is supposed to be messy, savage, REAL!!!
ART = FREEDOM
Unless you are into some futuristic, PoMo (Post Modern) contemporary apocalyptic super complex stuff, which is fine too, but it's a completly different beast. That belongs to some other hipster forum. Like RobotCentral.com
Or unless you want to make a comment / statement using plastic, foam, recycling industrial materials (like picasso or woofmutt)
I dunno...
One more example... I like a tiki sculpture better if it's done with hammer and sharp metal thing (I don't remember the word in English, sorry) than one made with a chainsaw... It's cooler to think that it took days and lots of complications to create perfection, HUMAN perfection, better than just press a button et voila!
I think it's obvious...
Keep TIKI free of digital! (Except for internet for Tiki Central)
_________________
  ˇViva Tiki! Ambassador of Tiki in Mexico. Zeta is specialized in the research, study and preservation of Tiki culture in Latin countries.
|
MadDogMike
Grand Member (3 years) 
Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Posts: 6412
From: The Anvil of the Sun
| Posted: 2011-07-04 3:14 pm Permalink
Zeta, if you follow that line of thinking to it's logical end, a tiki carved with a sharp piece of flint and smoothed with a rock is better than one made with a chisel and sandpaper - but I don't see anyone doing them that way. Using feather quill instead of a pen doesn't make it better, it's about how the artist uses the tools that he chooses.
There's an old adage that says "It's not what you've got but how you use it". That line is most frequently uttered by men who got the short end of the stick, so to speak  However "It's not what you've got but how you use it" is very true when it comes to art.
_________________
Clay, the oldest and most divine art media;
"And now, from the clay of the ground, the Lord God formed man" Genesis 2:7
Pirate Ship Tree House
|
Paipo
Tiki Socialite
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Posts: 1886
From: Aotearoa / NZ
| Posted: 2011-07-04 4:16 pm Permalink
Quote:
|
On 2011-07-03 20:54, MadDogMike wrote:
No matter how pure you think your art is, technology has crept in. So maybe ceramics is still a pure art, safe from technology?
|
|
Check out this mug-making process....
http://cunicode.com/one-coffee-cup-a-day/
Like others who've posted , I learnt to do things the old way in terms of graphic art and illustration in the 80s. I must admit I have gotten lazy with age and nowadays do virtually nothing on paper except design sketches for my carvings. I love some of the tools available today like CNC mills and 3D printers as they allow the impossible to be made, and also allow artists to realise complex ideas without having to outlay huge sums for technology...but much of the work as noted, seem artificial, soulless and lacking the hand of the artist in many (not all!) cases - which after all is what we buy art for. I love the physical act cutting and shaping stone with diamonds - the balance between brain, eye and hand and the feeling of joy when it all comes together. Somehow the thought of waiting for a piece to be spit out the orifice of a machine doesn't quite hold the same excitement. Maybe in a another couple of generations it'll be a moot point.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Paipo 2011-07-04 16:48 ]
|
Zeta
Grand Member (2 years)
Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Posts: 2030
From: Atlantis/Basque Country/Spain/Mexico
| Posted: 2011-07-04 4:43 pm Permalink
Digital art is like virtual sex.
|
MadDogMike
Grand Member (3 years)
Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Posts: 6412
From: The Anvil of the Sun
| Posted: 2011-07-04 5:18 pm Permalink
 OK, I concede defeat
_________________
Clay, the oldest and most divine art media;
"And now, from the clay of the ground, the Lord God formed man" Genesis 2:7
Pirate Ship Tree House
|
Chuck Tatum is Tiki
Tiki Socialite
Joined: May 12, 2011
Posts: 1674
From: Southern Cailifornia
| Posted: 2011-07-04 5:23 pm Permalink
Quote:
|
On 2011-07-04 16:43, Zeta wrote:
Digital art is like virtual sex.
|
|
I think MadDogMike is right on the mark, Zeta you are entitled to do Art anyway you see fit
but it seems that you would prefer to limit others to your ideas also, which I find very
counter productive to the creation of "Art" in general.
So I respectfully disagree
|
teaKEY
Tiki Socialite
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Posts: 3663
From: The thumb !
| Posted: 2011-07-04 5:28 pm Permalink
The Original Mona Lisa painting price would be like 500 Million dollars
A digital copy of Mona LIsa is 5 dollars.
An orignal where the artist touched it during the making aspects of it is what its all about.
_________________
 20+10 =30yo
|
Tobor64
Grand Member (first year) 
Joined: Jul 13, 2009
Posts: 401
From: Burbank, CA.
| Posted: 2011-07-04 9:59 pm Permalink
I've actually had this discussion before and can unequivocally say that digital art is every bit as "legit" as art created traditionally. It's more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary. I've been drawing and painting for as long as I can remember and have worked in many media from oil paints to airbrush acrylics, and at this time in my life my computer is the instrument of choice for me. And I will be the first to admit that working on the computer does indeed have advantages over working with traditional media; I spend a lot of time composing my pieces and the computer allows me to adjust my sketches and create color comps quickly. However, for me, working on the computer is no great time saver because it still takes me just as long to create a painting digitally as it would traditionally. For example, my "AstroTiki!" painting took me six weeks to complete, "Rebirth" took me six months to complete (I was also working full time during its creation), "Castaway Comics" & "Future Bob" each took over two weeks. The reason for these long work periods is because I utilize the same methods I would for a traditional painting, from underpainting to blocking in colors & values to blending and detailing. I strive to make a point of not using any pre-programmed filters or shortcuts because I, too, have seen way too much digital art that has the cold, artificial look others here have mentioned. I'm always pleased when people viewing my work are surprised to hear it was created digitally...that's always a big compliment for me.
When I create a digital painting, although there is no real physical brush dipping into a puddle of real physical pigment, I am still interacting with the computer in a very real, tangible way. My personal set up allows me to draw and paint directly on the computer screen with a stylus that reacts to my gestures and movements very much like a traditional pen or brush. For me, there is no disconnect with my media as if I were using a mouse. What I draw is what I get. When I am in the midst of creating my work I'm concerned with how to render this area convincingly or wondering if I should add a cool complimentary color to that area to make another area pop forward or any other myriad decisions that are made in creating the piece. For me, there are no shortcuts. The painting will only be created if I'm there creating it, digitally or not.
What needs to be stressed here is that the image I'm creating springs forth from my imagination, my passions, my warped sense of what I enjoy creating. There is no stock library I can cut and paste onto my canvas other than the one in my own imagination. No computer program can, as of yet, transfer the visions from my head into this physical plane for others to see without me as the conduit. If there is a way to do so with a few keystrokes on a keyboard, someone please tell me because I'm sure my wife is pretty tired of being an artist's widow while I'm cloistered away in my studio for hours on end hunched over my Cintiq painting.
As hackneyed as it may sound, using the computer really is just another tool in the paintbox, no different from pastels or pencils or oils. Ultimately it lies with the viewing individual to decide whether the piece "speaks" to them enough to walk away satisfied with the image presented or want to plunk down their hard earned cash and take it home to enjoy.
|
Chuck Tatum is Tiki
Tiki Socialite
Joined: May 12, 2011
Posts: 1674
From: Southern Cailifornia
| Posted: 2011-07-05 12:00 am Permalink
I really like the no clean up part myself, no cleaning out my airbrush etc.
Like Tobor say's if you don't have the skill or talent in the first place
you won't produce anything worth a damn on the computer.
|
swizzle
Tiki Socialite
Joined: Jun 03, 2007
Posts: 639
From: Melbourne,Australia
| Posted: 2011-07-05 02:58 am Permalink
Quote:
|
On 2011-07-04 21:59, Tobor64 wrote:
I've actually had this discussion before and can unequivocally say that digital art is every bit as "legit" as art created traditionally. It's more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary.
As hackneyed as it may sound, using the computer really is just another tool in the paintbox, no different from pastels or pencils or oils. Ultimately it lies with the viewing individual to decide whether the piece "speaks" to them enough to walk away satisfied with the image presented or want to plunk down their hard earned cash and take it home to enjoy.
|
|
I must say that i agree with both these comments 100%. The media you use is irrelevant if you don't have the skill and talent to get the best out of them. However having said that i will always prefer a print of an original artwork (using a paintbrush and paints-oil, acrylic, whatever) over a computer generated print. Unfortunately i am not in the position financially to buy original paintings so i have to go with prints. I have several prints by Doug Horne, and his computer work is truely amazing, but given the opportunity i would much rather spend X amount of $$$ on ONE of his original pencil drawings than buy several (however many) prints for the same amount.
A good example of this is the work of SHAG. Recently there was an exhibition of his work here at Outré Gallery where i was able to view some original acyrlic paintings. If i liked one of the paintings, the only way that i could afford it would be to buy a numbered print. Now whilst it may be an exact duplication of the original it is in NO WAY the SAME as the real thing. No matter what anyone says you would never be able to convince me otherwise.
Obviously every artist has their own style so it's crazy to try and compare them to one another, yet regardless of how much i like Doug's imagery and the quality of the finished work, the prints that i have that have come from "traditional paintings" for some reason SEEM, to me at least, to have just a little bit more appeal for some reason.
Just my 2 cents/opinion.
_________________
|
Swamp Fire
Tiki Socialite
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Posts: 1020
From: Long Beach, CA
| Posted: 2011-07-07 5:10 pm Permalink
As for actually making artwork, it is surprising how similar digital and traditional art really are.
Both deal with good composition and the elements and principles of design. Both types deal with color
theory, both types are strengthened by creative concepts and both types rely heavily on good hand-eye co-ordination.
I have to say Grog those examples you show look like they were created in a short time. Not sure what your point
is other than, look how easy it is to do digital art, anyone can do this. They were created by your hand, you made
the decisions on how to compose it, you made the decision of what images to use, what filter to use etc. etc. Created
by a human, not a computer. I get sick of people asking, “Is this hand drawn or is it digital?”. Both! It’s
done on the computer and I hand drew it!! All starting with a blank screen. Yes, just running a filter over an
existing photo is very easy and anyone can do it, but I think most people can tell you’ve just run a filter over the photo
and as the non artist gets more visually educated more and more people will be able to tell when that has been done.
Digital art easy? Not really, as you’ll see in some examples below. I challenge anyone to run to their computer and
create these images. Anyone can sling some paint on a canvas for a few minutes and say, hey look how easy it is, anyone
can do this, this is “Real” art. Any good digital artist has the same knowledge of light, shadows, forms, shapes, line
color, anatomy and mediums that traditional art is based on. Without knowing these fundamentals any type of art will
suffer, no matter what medium it is done in. A lot of time and effort can be spent on a digital piece, but is it the
same as the time and effort spent on an oil painting? I can’t say. It is more efficient to duplicate traditional methods
on the computer, but it still takes the knowledge and time. Take fine art Photography for example, something that has
been around for awhile. In photography you have no original, you can’t hang the negative on the wall, you have to do
prints. Is Photogrphy not a lagitamate art form? When it comes to creating art on the computer like Tobar said, “It's
more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary.” I’ve seen some very
passionate art done on the computer and to say it is soulless does not make sense to me. Saying that takes away from
the artists talent of the person that created it. It was created by a human not the computer! Art that just uses a
watercolor filter over a photo is just bad art. Like a bad painting created with real paints. Just because it was
painted on a canvas does not make it good art. I’ve found that people who focus on what medium a piece was done with
are usually other artist. People who by art usually buy it because the image speaks to them in some way, not what
medium it was done in. My belief – art should stand or fall on the merit of it’s content, and not the
choice of art medium.
I completly understand the idea of doing a one off original piece of art. When I started doing art the computer was
not an option and when it did come into existance I embraced it as a tool to create art. As an artist I like to go
back and forth between traditional and digital in fact all of my digital work is started by putting pencil to paper.
With digital you do not get a one of a kind piece, it is what it is. Digital has the advantage of an "undo" button
while traditional has the advantage of being immersive and messy. Sometimes, there is nothing more satisfying than
taking a piece of chalk or crayon and putting a mark RIGHT THERE with your hand. It is infinately more difficult to
place your mark correctly in programs such as Lightwave or Blender. Both forms of art can be highly frustrating and
highly rewarding by turns. It all depends on your mood and the end result you have in mind.
I’ve added some examples of what I consider good, passionate digital art. Found in a book called “Digital Art Masters”.
A great book that gives a step by step on how the image was created by creative talented artists. And if you want to
talk about time to create these images...it took more than a few minutes.
Painted in Photoshop, no photography used.
Pencil drawing outside of the computer, painted in photoshop.
Painted in Photoshop from a blank screen.
Maya, Mental Ray and Photoshop. 150 hours of work on this piece. Easy, I don't think so.
Painted in Photoshop from a blank page. No artistic talent? Yeah right.
Sad to hear that Zerostreet will never create another digital painting again. I think as artists we are always learning and I feel
digital art is a legitimate medium that should be explored. Even if it is just part of your process.
_________________
The Art of Doug Horne
http://www.swampfirelounge.com/
|
zerostreet
Grand Member (first year)
Joined: Feb 06, 2010
Posts: 1690
From: http://www.zerostreet.com
| Posted: 2011-07-07 6:44 pm Permalink
I'm in agreement with your post Doug. As I said in my post I don't think there is anything wrong with any artist creating all his or her work digitally. I enjoyed creating digital paintings and,to your point, all of mine started with a pencil drawing that was scanned in. I don't think someone with no art skills would be able to pull of a body of digital work. The samples you show are awesome, there are tons of amazing digital artists for sure.
I only say that I will not go back to digital because I am so much enjoying acrylic. It's scratching an itch in my brain that digital couldn't I guess...And I realize my statement was not 100% truthful, as a very recent Moai T-shirt I produced was done completely in Adobe Illustrator! 
|
|
