Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I'm beginning to get some real confidence in the realm of digital art. I've come from a physical background, but just don't have the time, space or money anymore. So far its been amazing, just to see my ideas come to life so quickly and messlessly!
However, there seems to be a general feeling of contempt for digital art amongst the traditional media communities. I've heard alot of art tutors almost forbidding the use of digital media, especially in the realms of science fiction and fantasy art (which seems to use digital as a primary media.) There's a lot of people I have talked to who consider it not to be real art, or indeed any form of art at all. I totally dissagree. Last night, a freind of mine dropped by (at 12.30 am incidentally!) and after seeing the piece I was working on she proceded to try to convince me that I was working with an inferior media until 2 am. GAHHH!!!!!
What do you guys think? Is digital art worth any merit? I would be interested to read some other opinions.
The question of "what comprises art" is a very difficult and controversial one. A painting or a sculpture is universally recognised as art but what happens when someone does something "interpretive" but may be nothing more than a bitten apple with a load of symbolism behind it? Is that also considered art? I might not think so, but I certainly don't want to offend the guy by saying that I don't think what he's done is art. Then you get the people who take the mickey out of art by using said apple. Very tricky stuff. Which is why I would say that no one knows what art really is, but they know it when they see it. As far as I'm concerned, digital art is just the same as any painting, just on a different canvas and requiring different techniques to be employed. You may not be doing the physical work, but I do think that you can still produce something of beauty with a computer just as well as with a brush and canvas and ultimately, isn't that what art is all about?
Incidentally, I'm not sure what kind of argument you could use to claim that a computer is an inferior medium. I can't visualise it. Care to enlighten me?
The main point of the anti-computer argument was that the piece can be reproduced as many times as they need. Therefore, there's no "original", and somehow they lose their uniqueness.....
IMHO, the uniqueness is in the idea, so no matter who owns the piece; the idea belongs to the artist.
Digital art is just the next leap in art, tradisional media will always fail to embrase the new art. But art movements happen, this one is just digital. Digital art is art, click here, it speaks for itself.
It just seems to me that they're caught in bitterness. Some artists would probably see it as an insult to their form of art (snobbish) or even a threat to their livelihood as an artist. I don't think there is anything inherently inferior about it.
Now someone taking their bed in the morning and putting it on display... that is inherently inferior in my opinion.
Ask yourself why in the world would you trust a win loss record? Playing them yourself is the only way to tell.
The true joy in the game is playing down to the last model, no matter the odds.
Art is way deeper then the medium. You can make art from sticks or cowdung, you can paint oil on canvas, cameras or you can use a computer.
What really counts is the thought you had while making your piece and how well you made that thought come through presentationwize.
personally I think digital art is perfectly able to be held to the same standards as the more physical mediums. for example some of the work which appears on websites like inner traveller can be beautiful in every right with just as much time and effort put into them.
for example here are some pretty darn good web artists if i do say so my self...
hek i even do some art from time to time....
digital art is if anything easier to learn but just as hard to master the finer points be it through a program like poser or vue (pictures above) or through Photoshop with a tablet there is no reason as to why it can't be held in the same regard as painted or modelled art work. (hek even films are done with computers now and we can't ignore some of those effects can we?)
spambot kill tally: 79
[16:19] <@Alzer> Arky's right though
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> I know he is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> He usually is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> Sometimes it's intentional.
[00:01] <+zubus> i love you, ya skirt wearin nothern monkey! ^_^
I think it's the subject matter as much as the medium itself..
As you've said, a lot of digital art revolves around science fiction and fantasy. It's hard to be taken seriously as an artist in any medium if you only ever produce images of dragons and idealized female figures. There's not a lot of depth to that kind of subject matter.. the purpose is just to create an image of something which isn't real, it doesn't express anything more. Most 'art' patrons want something more.
Look at modern photography, for example.. it's hugely electronic, but can still be taken seriously as an artform because it's percieved to have some kind of meaning to its subject matter.
Naturally, I'm laughing through my teeth here as the idea of art with meaning amuses me greatly, but something about science fiction and fantasy, with it's regressive fixations on a few key subjects, turns most people off.
Actually, its far more popular then any other medium, consider the video game industry does nearly 2 billion dollars worth of art every year.As you've said, a lot of digital art revolves around science fiction and fantasy. It's hard to be taken seriously as an artist in any medium if you only ever produce images of dragons and idealized female figures. There's not a lot of depth to that kind of subject matter.. the purpose is just to create an image of something which isn't real, it doesn't express anything more. Most 'art' patrons want something more.
The movie industry makes billions as well.
Photography, is dominated by digital correction programs like photo shop.
However, anyone who thinks you dont need to know tradisional art skillz to work in digital doesnt work in the industry.
You might have noticed all the boxes GW makes, instead of using a photo of there models, they use a photo + photo shop in their guns firing, building exploding, smoke ect.
I think far to many people think of digital art as what they seem amerature artists doing, such as the big breasted female, or sadly a dragon.
But things like this are very difficult to do with tradisional art media.
This i simply think is great, but probably could have been done with tradisional media:
Works like these might not rival the great masters, but i think they come close, and have their place. These are certianly more powerful works then what tradisional modern artists are comming up with.
I view art, like anything, always concious of what has produced it. Sure digi art is very pretty, and i've been impressed with some of the pictures here but...well let me give you a few examples.
We marvel a savants who can perform extaordinary feats of mental arithmetic, yet a calculator can do the same thing.
It's because a human has done it first hand.
Same goes for art, music, sculptures etc
If you had said a person had hand painted the images in this thread, i would be infinitely more impressed. Because at the moment i'm not really all that fussed about them^_^