As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Let's have tea at my [Chat]eau

1235731

Posts

  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Personally speaking (as someone who does most of his work digitally), it's easier to shit something out digitally, but it's harder to think in it. At the end of the day, if you can't run your hand across it, I don't think it's satisfying, so I think there's more to traditional.

    Jake! on
  • NappuccinoNappuccino Surveyor of Things and Stuff Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I have to agree with Grenn- I'm always much more "wowed" by traditional work. There's an x-factor about it that I can't quite place my thumb on... perhaps the irregularities that can't be controlled nearly as easily as in digital. Now... i wouldn't say one is always better than another (not to mention that other people might be looking for things in art that I personally don't) but I think the idea that you only have one copy of something (as in traditional art) really lends it a sense of importance where as digital you can print it out 100's of times, and then go back later and change your own copy.

    ... I'm not really sure what I've said makes sense....

    So... I'll just say that, neither is "better" but tradional art carries with it a few aspects that digital meduims just can't attain imo.

    Nappuccino on
    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm sure as the medium evolves, it'll gain its own peculiarities that can't be reproduced off-screen. It has some thousands of years of catching up to do. :)

    MKR on
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sorry MKR, but traditional painting is a 'higher art', in my opinion, than digital. Even when I was a digital painter I still held it in that regard.

    There is a certain romance/magic to traditional painting that I really love. And to be honest I resent digital because of what it is doing to traditional painters (putting them out of work) because they can't usually compete in speed or the ability to make changes on the fly. Traditional media illustration dies even as representational fine art is on the rise.

    But when it comes to photo-manip or paint-over...I hesitate to even label it art. Stephen Martiniere being the only reason I hesitate.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • no_toastno_toast Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I just read a recent study that had an interesting conclusion. Apparently in some FPS games, killing an opponent creates a less positive emotion than killing your own character :D

    Edit: And why I brought this up is that they tested this on some Bond game.

    no_toast on
  • GrennGrenn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's no more "computer assisted" than traditional painting is "mass produced paint assisted."

    Digital art is computer assisted for many, many reasons. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

    MKR don't get me wrong, I am totally a fan of digital art and in no way do I believe that it's "better" nor do I believe that 'time spent' directly correlates to 'value'.

    I'm simply saying there is a real difference between the wow factor of looking at a digital piece and wondering how they did that; and then looking at a 6 foot high oil painting done 200 years ago and wondering how the hell they did that. That's mind blowing, at least to me.
    MKR wrote: »
    I'm sure as the medium evolves, it'll gain its own peculiarities that can't be reproduced off-screen. It has some thousands of years of catching up to do. :)

    To a certain extent this is already happening in the means by which digital art is displayed -- i.e. on screen. The values used in digital painting are not easily reproducible via traditional means.

    Digital painting allows an artist to literally paint with light i.e. pixels not paint, and their work is displayed by the viewer from their very own 'light box', i.e. monitor.

    Grenn on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It keeps sounding like you're presenting opinions as fact, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there's some epic misunderstanding going on.

    edit: I think we're generally in agreement though.

    MKR on
  • ScosglenScosglen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    That's some real impressive backpedaling to go from calling all digital painting "throwaway" and "fake" (not "the real thing"), to saying it has its own unique merits.

    Scosglen on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Either he made a mindbogglingly poor word choice, or changed his mind after deliberation. Either way, let's go with the newer version of things.

    MKR on
  • GrifterGrifter BermudaModerator mod
    edited December 2008
    This will not end well.

    MKR, that's a pretty bold statement. Personally both mediums are amazing to me and I respect them both (a shitton if you will). But, just a few things that set traditional apart from digital: A. there's no ctrl-z in real life, which leads to B. it takes a hell of a lot longer (am I wrong here?)

    There are numerous ways to undo a mistake in traditional mediums, as well. It all depends on what traditional medium you are using. Using the keyboard command in a piece of software is much quicker, you are correct but some of those guys out there doing digital work are using very traditional techniques to accomplish some extremely impressive work.

    The whole point is that just because it's digital doesn't mean that it's "throwaway."

    Grifter on
  • srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I love you all! Let's eat cupcakes!

    Just kidding. You don't get any cupcakes.

    Man, the amount of times this topic has been discussed on these forums alone is probably what's mind-boggling.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots perth, ausRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I thought the dadaists put a full stop on the 'this isn't real art' conversation. I agree with Grenn in the sense that I'll always be more impressed with a painting than a print of a digital painting because, for me, it will always feel like a digital artist starts with innate advantages - ctrl-z, layers, masks, etc - which, even if not employed by the artist in their final work, were always there to be played with and used if they wanted to and I would never know if the artist used them or not.

    But then, I use the digital format to quickly experiment with colour schemes and lighting before I start painting a lot of the time, so I'm probably something of a hypocrit for holding those views.

    desperaterobots on
  • earthwormadamearthwormadam ancient crust Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Whatever floats yer boat.

    earthwormadam on
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scosglen wrote: »
    That's some real impressive backpedaling to go from calling all digital painting "throwaway" and "fake" (not "the real thing"), to saying it has its own unique merits.

    There's this kid in our class who thinks all photoshop artwork is "technical stuff", and thus not real art, despite the fact that painting on a canvas and in photoshop is very similar in process.

    Complete wacko if you ask me.

    Godfather on
  • GrennGrenn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scosglen wrote: »
    That's some real impressive backpedaling to go from calling all digital painting "throwaway" and "fake" (not "the real thing"), to saying it has its own unique merits.

    I grant you that 'throwaway' was a poor choice of word.

    What I meant by that is that the digital medium lends itself perfectly to the production of quick, throwaway ideas and experiments -- an artist can try different things with pretty much reckless abandon because he can always undo or just start painting over on another layer.

    Commerically, this is great because it allows for the production of lots and lots of ideas which might not actually end up being used for something, i.e. concept work.

    I meant throwaway in these terms and didn't mean to suggest digital work had no value and should actually be thrown away.

    Also, I put "the real thing" in quotation marks in order to imply that I didn't mean to suggest that digital art was fake in any way.

    I've not changed my mind or backpedalled -- now that I've hopefully clarified that I don't believe digital art is worthless (far, far from it), my point is that I personally think that to suggest digital art can be "mind blowing" is rather an over-statement when there are galleries full of work which is just on another level entirely.

    Thank you and goodnight.

    Grenn on
  • DeeLockDeeLock Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I don't really see digital art prints having much merit in the fine art realm, but when it comes to commercial art like concept art, illustration, and stuff like that it makes so much sense to use digital, which has hundreds of shortcuts that are designed cut time and effort. I don't think that anyone has the intention of making digital art for gallery pieces or anything like that.

    DeeLock on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Just to be clear, I didn't call it mind blowing. That's the fault of whoever created the title of that post. :P

    MKR on
  • IrukaIruka Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    I will one day open a gallery with various sizes of the best flat screens and projectors known to man, and have a digital gallery. It'll be awesome.

    Iruka on
  • ScosglenScosglen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Personally, I only read books that have been painstakingly transcribed from original manuscript to hand-bound tomes by a crack team of monks. Anything less just isn't as impressive.

    Scosglen on
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Psh, I only read the original manuscript.

    Virum on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yay, spam threads.

    MKR on
  • ShiboeShiboe Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm still with Cakemikz, pure digital is still a mark against in my eye in a lot of cases. I have a lot more respect for a piece created traditionally, and much less for the eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff that seems to be prevalent. Not that digital can't be pretty, just doesn't hold as much weight for me. Just one opinion though.

    Shiboe on
  • DeeLockDeeLock Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scos: Where have you been? We miss you...

    DeeLock on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    DeeLock wrote: »
    Scos: Where have you been? We miss you...
    i don't miss you scos
    i don't miss you

    beavotron on
  • TamTam Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Shiboe wrote: »
    I'm still with Cakemikz, pure digital is still a mark against in my eye in a lot of cases. I have a lot more respect for a piece created traditionally, and much less for the eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff that seems to be prevalent. Not that digital can't be pretty, just doesn't hold as much weight for me. Just one opinion though.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most professionals in the digital realm don't eyedropper or trace over.

    I think Bacon would have some salient points for this argument, but he dun vanished.

    Tam on
  • ScosglenScosglen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Shiboe wrote: »
    I'm still with Cakemikz, pure digital is still a mark against in my eye in a lot of cases. I have a lot more respect for a piece created traditionally, and much less for the eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff that seems to be prevalent. Not that digital can't be pretty, just doesn't hold as much weight for me. Just one opinion though.

    "eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff", whatever the fuck that really means, represents only a fraction of the approaches possible with digital tools, and to use that as justification to look down on all digital work is ridiculous.


    DL: Working for the man.
    Beavs: :(

    Scosglen on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I made this a while back and it has proven handy in discussions about digital art.

    It doesn't really say anything, but it's easier than mocking creatively.

    MKR on
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scosglen wrote: »
    Shiboe wrote: »
    I'm still with Cakemikz, pure digital is still a mark against in my eye in a lot of cases. I have a lot more respect for a piece created traditionally, and much less for the eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff that seems to be prevalent. Not that digital can't be pretty, just doesn't hold as much weight for me. Just one opinion though.

    "eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff", whatever the fuck that really means, represents only a fraction of the approaches possible with digital tools, and to use that as justification to look down on all digital work is ridiculous.


    DL: Working for the man.
    Beavs: :(

    How's that job goin man? Good I would imaginehope since you seemed excited about it...

    Prospicience on
  • srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Grr bad professors (randomly giving tons of notes to learn for a final in two days). Grr banks (holding all my money from a check deposited a week ago). Grr airlines (increasing plane ticket prices so much when the flight is soon). Grr finals and papers.

    GRR, miright?!

    I complain a lot.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Shiboe wrote: »
    I'm still with Cakemikz, pure digital is still a mark against in my eye in a lot of cases. I have a lot more respect for a piece created traditionally, and much less for the eyedropper trace-over realistic digital stuff that seems to be prevalent. Not that digital can't be pretty, just doesn't hold as much weight for me. Just one opinion though.


    Sure, I have a lot more respect for someone who can create a photorealistic portrait by dipping the tip of a safety pin into dye and applying it onto the fur of a panda's back. I mean shit, that guy has got some serious dedication.

    But I don't grade a mark against traditional paints or pencil work just because it's easier to do than the pandapinpainting. My focus is on the product, not the medium or conveniences thereof.


    Tracing/plagiarism is a seperate issue, and it is not exclusive to digital tools.

    .Tripwire. on
    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    Sure, I have a lot more respect for someone who can create a photorealistic portrait by dipping the tip of a safety pin into dye and applying it onto the fur of a panda's back. I mean shit, that guy has got some serious dedication.

    But I don't grade a mark against traditional paints or pencil work just because it's easier to do than the pandapinpainting. My focus is on the product, not the medium or conveniences thereof.

    *slowclap*

    Well played fur man.

    Prospicience on
  • srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Good job TW.

    I'll also add that the medium used to create an aesthetic work has no influence on its aesthetic value. Trying to say one image is better than another in any capacity other than subjective personal opinion is a waste of time. I might think a photo of a puppy is the best picture that will ever exist out of any painting or other means of capturing an image, simply because I really love that puppy. The method to create the work should not correlate to the content of the work, nor the imagination or aesthetic genius of the creator. In my eyes, if it's a lot easier for someone to create a beautiful image using Photoshop than paint, then they should use photoshop. All that really matters is the aesthetic content in the end product.

    It's like with movies. Is traditional film BETTER because it's more difficult to work with? What if people had to PAINT special effects onto celluloid film? No, why would they do that. It's stupid. If you have a computer that can rig 3D models and you can digitize the film strip, there is no question of which path you should take to create a better movie in a faster amount of time.

    Sure, I respect the hell out of people that spend a lot of time on the work they do. I also love tons of drawings and sketches that took the artists a mere matter of hours that I wouldn't ever be able to even imagine doing myself.

    It's aesthetics. You can't judge aesthetics. Subjectivity, philosophy, psychology, limitations of communication and perception, etc. End.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Tripwire, you say your focus is on the product...but that is the same direction I am coming from. My main issue with digital is that there is no product, it is intangible.

    Digital is an incredible tool, and I wouldn't own a cintiq if I didn't use that tool. And a lot of the shortcuts you can use in digital, you can do in traditional medium as well. Tracing? Tracing has been around a lot longer than digital has. Shit, traditional artists have multiple ways to trace. They can use special tracing paper, which is of course paper that is specially designed for this purpose, or they can even use a projector to project the image onto a piece of paper and then trace it there. I have done both. I have painted over photos digitally.

    There are some incredible digital artists out there, there really are. I love Martiniere, Dociu, Mullins etc. They are all amazing. But I do not respect them as much as Giancola, or Lipking, or Rex.

    But I am also an art collector. So...that may play a part.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    .Tripwire. on
    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Tripwire, you say your focus is on the product...but that is the same direction I am coming from. My main issue with digital is that there is no product, it is intangible.

    What is your definition of product?

    MKR on
  • TamTam Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    but Tripwire music is the highest art form there is

    Tam on
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Another thing to keep in mind is whether something is worth painting traditionally. Some of the illustrators I know only work in traditional media when they believe they will be able to sell the original later on.

    I used Adam Rex as an example earlier. He actually does a digital painting first, then prints it out and mounts it to a board and paints on top of it with oil. I have one hanging on my wall downstairs and I love it. He is combining his tools to create the best painting for him.

    I don't have anything against digital, it just doesn't get the bonus points that real paintings get from me. It doesn't have the same magic. Most digital paintings feel digital. Cases where I can't tell whether a painting was painted digitally or traditionally when looking at them online are rare indeed.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Tam wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    From now on music is not as valid an art form because you can't hold it in your hands.

    but Tripwire music is the highest art form there is

    :winky:

    MKR on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yay, weird subjective metrics.

    MKR on
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Music is another fine example. And some of this has changed because so much of what we hear today is overproduced and prerecorded then blasted through speakers at concerts. But listening to a recording, and listening to someone actually playing an instrument are two very different things.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
This discussion has been closed.