Poll: Digital Art or Tradition Art

[andreimg]

I'm currently making an essay on the subject and want to get some statistics.

So what do you think qualifies as better art concerning the artist's involvement and the result? I was tempted to include music, sculpting etc., but I think the biggest debate here is about images, paintings, design in general. What is the better medium?

Digital may provide a better environment if you think about artists making their art with vectors(i.e.Illustrator, CorelDraw), so it is infinitely scalable and doesn't wear out in time. However a real painting can prove the skilled hand and eye of the painter, while making an image in Photoshop or Painter depends on the artist sensibility but mostly on the tools he's lucky to acquire(brushes, actions, textures). To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist, who provided the talent of putting all of those element's together.

 

[teisjm]

Tbh i think on eis as much art as the other, it all comes down to the artist, not the tools he/she uses

 

[fix-the-spade]

You need a neutral option.
I use both media, my favourite creative tools are a biro, paper and my DS, they're not so much better as more convenient than anything else.

To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist.

Oh really, you would be an expert in the matter then?

Digital and organic media are not the end, they're just tools. No digital package can make up for a lack of talent and similarly even the most basic organic media cannot hide it. To say one tool is somehow more valid than the other makes you an idiot.
The only things relevant to the quality of the art is the person behind the tools.


You will also find that in the professional world organic and digital media work off each other. You cannot simply be a digital or not digital artist, you have to be able to mix the two up to achieve the best work flow.

 

[Trace2010]

I prefer traditional art- every time you download the digital picture- it's the same.

I single ray of light can transform a portrait.

 

[Lord_Of_Plum]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter how much work you put into art. All that matters is the result; how much you are touched or moved.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.94856
This thread explains it better.
And on a side note, I prefer traditional art.

 

[fulano]

The problem is not the "work" in itself, but rather the format.

In traditional art, just the mere control and mastering of the needed materials and tools is an artform in itself, independent of the final output which is the "artwork" itself. In digital art, the materials get thrown out of the window in favor of approximations to how the original materials perform and some outright ideal creations.

We are entering an age where the art of painting with actual painting materials has been marked for death, really. Sooner than later, there will be better digital tools that perform better and more ideally in relation with how we want to manipulate color, and gone will be the days of having to think about painting materials, their drying times, their later texture when once dried, etc.

Just like tv killed the radio star, and the internet killed the tv star, digital art will kill the traditional art eventually.

What we will have left will be a mess of a media where art is easily mass produced and loses its traditional uniqueness, and we'll have to sort that out.

And the phenomenon is not entirely constrained to just pictures--it involves the rest of the arts like music, cinema, sculpting, etc.

So, I'm siding with digital.

 

[andreimg]

You need a neutral option.

To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist.
Oh really, you would be an expert in the matter then?

You seem to think that I somehow belittled your talents and so you're itching to suggest I'm an idiot. Read a couple of lines upwards and you can see I said it still depends on the artist's sensibility on whether a digital image will look good or not. I put the word 'bluntly' in there for a reason there too, you see. I didn't expand on tools as I felt I don't need to. In a real environment you use real tools, where as in a digital environment you use metaphors of those tools. The one real tool you use is the computer. You may use digital tablets like wacom, digital pens, but they are faux tools, mimicking the behavior of the stand-alone tools they're based on.

Maybe these metaphors got better and better in time, but that does not hide the fact that there can be a time where the most trivial thing can happen(power shutting down) and it causes all that work, that seem very palpable a minute ago to suddenly disappear. That is why I didn't put a neutral option. You can make your own discussion about how we consider something to be a tool or not and how we blend it together, but i still consider that even if you depend on real tools like a printer, printing paper or tablet pen it's still digital.

 

[Howitzer]

I have no preference either way. I work with both traditional (pencil and paper) and digital (tablet and Photoshop) mediums, and when it comes down to it, either method could very well be considered 'art.' I acquired my tablet because I wanted to jump the process of having to ink and clean up lineart, which I find to be a general pain in the neck.

When you get into the realms of things like fractals or other pieces that can only be produced with digital mediums, I think the question of whether it still counts as 'art' remains irrelevant. As long as the artist produced the piece in some fit of inspiration and intended for it to convey a certain meaning or feeling to the viewer, I'd say that it falls well within the bounds of art. At the Art Gallery of Ontario, there is a pile of rocks on top of a layer of Cheesies. Is this inherently any more desirable or acceptable than, say, a bunch of toruses in 3D?

As has been said, the very definition of art is changing to accomodate for digital pieces. Just because it isn't produced traditionally doesn't mean that it should be excluded from consideration as an artistic work.

 

[fulano]

You need a neutral option.

To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist.
Oh really, you would be an expert in the matter then?

You seem to think that I somehow belittled your talents and so you're itching to suggest I'm an idiot. Read a couple of lines upwards and you can see I said it still depends on the artist's sensibility on whether a digital image will look good or not. I put the word 'bluntly' in there for a reason there too, you see. I didn't expand on tools as I felt I don't need to. In a real environment you use real tools, where as in a digital environment you use metaphors of those tools. The one real tool you use is the computer. You may use digital tablets like wacom, digital pens, but they are faux tools, mimicking the behavior of the stand-alone tools they're based on.

Maybe these metaphors got better and better in time, but that does not hide the fact that there can be a time where the most trivial thing can happen(power shutting down) and it causes all that work, that seem very palpable a minute ago to suddenly disappear. That is why I didn't put a neutral option. You can make your own discussion about how we consider something to be a tool or not and how we blend it together, but i still consider that even if you depend on real tools like a printer, printing paper or tablet pen it's still digital.

You seem like a naturalistic person (no, I don't mean that as an offence). As long as humankind does exist there will be art. Do you think that we should stick to the same tools? Always?

Things progress. including the tools we use to create art, whether one likes it or not. In a hundred years it will be better and easier to just use digital than picking up a real pen or a pencil, or real paper(taken from the wood and cellulose[is that the right english word?] of real trees) to make "real art."

Why be constrained by the span of a physical canvas? Why be constrained by actually getting real paint, or real stone, a real instrument to make real sounds(mechanic disturnbances in the air that our brains perceive), or real anything? The problem with art is that as time goes forward it becomes more and more conceptual, and considerably less physical, and I guess that ought to kind of take some people out of their balance.

 

[Galletea]

To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist, who provided the talent of putting all of those element's together.

Me and my tablet disagree with you. It is merely another medium. Both have their methods, but then digital art is a big area. The important thing about art is the intention of the artist, and the medium is not of much importance, it is merely what the artist feels suits the purpose better. I currently do a lot of drawing digitally, but really just because the end result is neater, it is certainly not much quicker or easier, even with the tools available.

 

[fulano]

To put it bluntly the artist didn't make the image. The program did, with some guidance from the artist, who provided the talent of putting all of those element's together.

Me and my tablet disagree with you. It is merely another medium. Both have their methods, but then digital art is a big area. The important thing about art is the intention of the artist, and the medium is not of much importance, it is merely what the artist feels suits the purpose better. I currently do a lot of drawing digitally, but really just because the end result is neater, it is certainly not much quicker or easier, even with the tools available.

That certainly sums it up quite neatly. Digital is merely another medium.

 

[andreimg]

You seem like a naturalistic person (no, I don't mean that as an offence). As long as humankind does exist there will be art. Do you think that we should stick to the same tools? Always?

Things progress. including the tools we use to create art, whether one likes it or not. In a hundred years it will be better and easier to just use digital than picking up a real pen or a pencil, or real paper(taken from the wood and cellulose[is that the right english word?] of real trees) to make "real art."

Why be constrained by the span of a physical canvas? Why be constrained by actually getting real paint, or real stone, a real instrument to make real sounds(mechanic disturnbances in the air that our brains perceive), or real anything? The problem with art is that as time goes forward it becomes more and more conceptual, and considerably less physical, and I guess that ought to kind of take some people out of their balance.

Just some days ago, when asking people related to the subject, I was accused for supporting technology and ignoring the values of traditional art. Now I'm attacked for not respecting the digital process of making art. It just seems to go both ways, whenever I put the topic into discussion.
Personally, I prefer the digital medium to work with images. I also prefer drawing in a real environment and that doesn't have to be avoided because lack of good tools. For instance, my cousin and I were bored on a summer day. He also draws and took some petals from some flowers and grass near him and started drawing with them on tree bark. I did the same and became impressed with the effectiveness of these natural objects and by my cousin who proved to me that he didn't need any kind of special tools to make art. Now you will think that I am definitely a nature person , yet I still prefer the digital format. But in a debate you have to find valid points to support your given topic even if you don't agree with it. You can't always be neutral or totally committed to an idea.

 

[Svizzara]

You're not getting a neutral opinion by asking here. These forums have a population that is biased towards the digital side of things (it is based upon video games, after all).

In my opinion, digital art is better, because you can correct mistakes easily, whereas with traditional art, a mistake is very difficult to get rid of.

 

[andreimg]

You're not getting a neutral opinion by asking here. These forums have a population that is biased towards the digital side of things (it is based upon video games, after all).

In my opinion, digital art is better, because you can correct mistakes easily, whereas with traditional art, a mistake is very difficult to get rid of.

That is a very good point too. I wanted to put that point in the thread. In the same time you have tremendous control over your art and also not be worried if your art is to small or to big. Again all this control seems in vane, when you forget to press the Save button or the program you use decides to have a mind of it's own. You have these controls because the program gives them to you and sometimes it can make all these controls seem a moot point when you realize you are working with something behind a screen and not something that is sitting in your own hands. We seem to forget that extra layer between us and the art sometimes and take it for granted.

 

[fulano]

You seem like a naturalistic person (no, I don't mean that as an offence). As long as humankind does exist there will be art. Do you think that we should stick to the same tools? Always?

Things progress. including the tools we use to create art, whether one likes it or not. In a hundred years it will be better and easier to just use digital than picking up a real pen or a pencil, or real paper(taken from the wood and cellulose[is that the right english word?] of real trees) to make "real art."

Why be constrained by the span of a physical canvas? Why be constrained by actually getting real paint, or real stone, a real instrument to make real sounds(mechanic disturnbances in the air that our brains perceive), or real anything? The problem with art is that as time goes forward it becomes more and more conceptual, and considerably less physical, and I guess that ought to kind of take some people out of their balance.

Just some days ago, when asking people related to the subject, I was accused for supporting technology and ignoring the values of traditional art. Now I'm attacked for not respecting the digital process of making art. It just seems to go both ways, whenever I put the topic into discussion.
Personally, I prefer the digital medium to work with images. I also prefer drawing in a real environment and that doesn't have to be avoided because lack of good tools. For instance, my cousin and I were bored on a summer day. He also draws and took some petals from some flowers and grass near him and started drawing with them on tree bark. I did the same and became impressed with the effectiveness of these natural objects and by my cousin who proved to me that he didn't need any kind of special tools to make art. Now you will think that I am definitely a nature person , yet I still prefer the digital format. But in a debate you have to find valid points to support your given topic even if you don't agree with it. You can't always be neutral or totally committed to an idea.

I for one don't think that you don't respect digital art(as in generally speaking), just that you stick with what decidedly has worked for thousands of years and continues to still do so. It's just that if we make the mental exercise of stretching this thing far enough, using just a little foresight, one can see that that will stop to being so at one point and this very argument will become invalid. And as shitty as that may sound, I thank technology for that.

Also, there's nothing wrong with liking nature. Nature is pretty and green.

 

[forever saturday]

You can't honestly say that a digital piece of art was drawn by the computer and not you. Thats like saying that the hand drawn art was drawn by the pencil, not you. The only way that the computer drew it is if you say "make a picture of an apple" and then you watch as it draws an apple. Now honestly I have never actually used photoshop or any other digital art program that isn't the shit known as MS Paint. But I have watched the videos of Gabe drawing Penny Arcade strips and it looks like hes actually drawing with an invisible pencil (he uses a tablet, I think). So digital art isn't something thats drawn for you.

Anyway, I think that whether something is art depends on what its message is, not what its medium is. You can't say that La Gioconda (what the Mona Lisa is actually called, If you want to be a nerd about it) is art, and then find out that it was drawn in photoshop given to Da Vinci by a time traveler, and decide that it isn't art anymore. similarly, If Penny Arcade was art to you (some people think that comedy isn't art, I disagree but thats not what we're talking about) and you found out that it wasn't compute drawn, would you stop reading it? So I refuse to vote until you provide a third option.

 

[andreimg]

I for one don't think that you don't respect digital art(as in generally speaking), just that you stick with what decidedly has worked for thousands of years and continues to still do so. It's just that if we make the mental exercise of stretching this thing far enough, using just a little foresight, one can see that that will stop to being so at one point and this very argument will become invalid. And as shitty as that may sound, I thank technology for that.

Also, there's nothing wrong with liking nature. Nature is pretty and green.

Now every time I hear "If it isn't broke don't fix it", I tend to find some kind denseness and just plain stubbornness in that phrase. I full heartedly support progress. But maybe there are some things that will not become obsolete and still persist even with the better alternatives sitting right next to it.

Let's say we think of music in this instance and technology evolves so much that any pitch and perfect note can be achieved digitally. We don't need human voice for music anymore because the digital one is miles ahead, and it's just pointless to compete with the age old notion of human song music. Do you think people will stop singing or that we will no longer earn to hear a real human voice sing a song?

What if we expand our imagination to believe that maybe some things or maybe a subconscious drive will persists along with any kind of evolution. Like the instinct of survival or mating.

 

[Plauged1]

True, you do need a both or neither option.
I chose the digital art because it is more easy to come by and see rather than going to alot of picky museums that won't give you more than a glance at a smear of colors. And there are way more pretty colors and bright fixtures in said digital art. I think its time for a new medium of art though.

 

[andreimg]

You can't honestly say that a digital piece of art was drawn by the computer and not you. Thats like saying that the hand drawn art was drawn by the pencil, not you. The only way that the computer drew it is if you say "make a picture of an apple" and then you watch as it draws an apple. Now honestly I have never actually used photoshop or any other digital art program that isn't the shit known as MS Paint. But I have watched the videos of Gabe drawing Penny Arcade strips and it looks like hes actually drawing with an invisible pencil (he uses a tablet, I think). So digital art isn't something thats drawn for you.

Anyway, I think that whether something is art depends on what its message is, not what its medium is. You can't say that La Gioconda (what the Mona Lisa is actually called, If you want to be a nerd about it) is art, and then find out that it was drawn in photoshop given to Da Vinci by a time traveler, and decide that it isn't art anymore. similarly, If Penny Arcade was art to you (some people think that comedy isn't art, I disagree but thats not what we're talking about) and you found out that it wasn't compute drawn, would you stop reading it? So I refuse to vote until you provide a third option.

I understand your reasoning but I'm questioning more of which art would you prefer given you had only one option. I'm not questioning the validity of the format, because I consider both to be art. I just wanted to point out some advantages and disadvantages of both mediums, than just by saying in the thread "Discuss."

When I saw the Mona Lisa, I was taken back by how small it actually was. I thought DaVinci could use some of the stuff we use today like vectors. But would he still make it that size? Again I stress out that I am looking to yes or no in my essay, because on this matter anyone can easily say"Both look good to me.", but when you stop to think about it, which do you most appreciate? I'll think about a third option although.

 

[DannyDamage]

I didn't vote. I'm not a fence sitter all day long or anything, but I disagree with 99.9% of "this OR that?" questions. Nothing is simply black and white, one or the other.

I'm more inclined to vote for traditional art, but some of that is shit. Just like some digital art is.

What I dislike greatly is someone taking a picture of something, slapping it in Photoshop (etc.), applying a filter to it and acting like it's something amazing/original/hard to do.

That's proving good use of a computer, not great talent as an artist. I can produce things with the method above and I'm NOT an artist. Give me a pen and paper and you'd think a drunk 4 year old had tried to draw something with it's breakfast!