Patrick Miller 08 Jan 2005

You are abolutely right to a point Mark. But there is also a sensitivity to comments too. I could say for instance..."I normally don't critique abstracts, but...." with no slight intended...and probably none inferred. Understandable, alot of the art community is just waking up to digital work, and digital artists feel that hey have to push for total acceptance, maybe they do. It is just a matter of time before a digital piece is hanging next to a Van Gogh....maybe not today...but someday. I personally find alot of digital work and methods fascinating and have no problem accepting those artists into the fold. I could actually see myself saying something like that..."I don't normaly rate digitals, but...". So maybe half of the issue is how the words are interpreted and not what they say?

RQ Trietsch 08 Jan 2005

I started dabbling in digital years ago, just like abstracts. I have really learned to appreciate them both. There are some really fantastic digital artist in AW, and I look forwared to seeing the ones who really know how to create good works with their different programs.

sher richardson 08 Jan 2005

Hello Mark...

I think digital people are on the cutting edge of some new directions in art. There may be some comments that will be downplaying the importance of the newest artform. As a 'tryer' of everything, each art realm is unique and worthy of accolades and recognition.

It's very hard for those who have no clue 'how its done'(digital work), to think you simply click up a program and produce a digital piece in a matter of moments... sometimes that can be done, but it shows on the piece, i feel.. : )

I know the digital images i have made in the abstract play, helped me in actual brushwork to try and get the same results on board and canvas....i have wanted a smoother more translucent painting technique due to digital images. Seeing brush and colours under other colours..so digital made me think deeper for traditional work... all the arts walk hand in hand : )

Happy creating mark : )

Jude 08 Jan 2005

Mark you have made a lot of good points. I prefer to use Oil and acrylic as Watercolor. I have seen wonderful watercolors& and I am one who has never cared much for abstract no mater what the medium is, unless it absolully speaks to me. I have to want to look at it and look at it because it strikes me.

I have not problem with Digital art I enjoy it as much as any other medium and respectfully call it art.

I also would call the guys that work in the metal shop artists they are putting out their work, be a car or motorcycle or an abstract made of items from the dump. I love to watch American Hotrod and American Chopper build their creations. That is the art that I dream of some day buying. An OCC and a Baforie... LOL. The artistic work is to be admired and desired.

Then there is the graffiti on the sides of trains, buildings or bridges, or do we call it art? The engineers and their Draftsmen created things that we drive on live in and ride on. Most use the computer to create.

I have a degree in Electro Mechanical Drafting, The shop I started working in the Patterns used were cut out sheet metal hanging on the walls traced on every piece of sheet metal to make their product.

Everything made was from that pattern then they hired some one to draw blue prints. I was taught drawing on the board then along came computer CADD and 3D and all the ideas turned to faster Drawing on the computer, out went the file draws.

Not only did the computer change the blue print it also changed the way sheet metal was tooled. CNC. Tooling faster and creating more. Handy work required. This is all good. But all that said I think that there is still the man who would rather work and build with his hands and then he steps back and thinks, I created it all of it.

Cartoons created, and the computer generated movies such as Spiderman, Toy Story even Nemo. The money we spend on video games. Even pin ball is computerized. Is the one armed bandit at a casino? Do they exist anymore?

The entertainment industry has made big bucks from the talents of graphic artist. The advertisements that we see on TV and in Magazines.

Digital I have a few unused rolls of film in my refrigerator that I bought before digital. And now I dont have to make the trip that used to be a drop off at the drug store turned into one hour photo and now I have the capability to do it right her on my computer. Its Amazing.

Now that I have rambled on I dont mind digital at all. There is a lot of digital art out there. Some that speaks to me and makes me react to it. Then there is graffiti. Or maybe its Personal Preferences! JMO

Terrell Smith-Dorfeo 08 Jan 2005

I like many digital works. I admit, I wish I could do more with that kind of art, but unfortunately, I have a "block" and get frustrated easily when I try creating with this medium.

I admire those of you who can...takes a lot of patience and skill

Gayla Drummond 08 Jan 2005

As a strictly digital artist, perhaps I am a bit spoiled. Until I joined here, I hadn't really ever seen any "digital isn't real art" type stuff....and actually, I've only seen that once or twice here, lol.

Believe me, you people don't want to see my stick figure drawings, or my fingerpaintings (er, not that I actually do either, lol). Once upon a time, I drew, and didn't completely suck, but that was a loooong time ago.

Digital is pretty much all I know how to do, and I love it. I don't particularly care if it's considered a 'real' art form, or not. It works for me! =)

On the other hand, I find it very cool that so many of you who do more traditional mediums jump to the defense of digital so quickly, or experiment with it yourself. Very cool.

Mark Peterson 08 Jan 2005

I agree Gayla....Very Cool! And I thank all of you who have responded so far, Im hearing some good stuff.

And Sher, Nice to hear digital is an effective tool for you. I appreciate all your responses. I wanted to hear alittle more about this....rather than just a few words in a comment on someones work.

Thanks

eileen martin 09 Jan 2005

i have seen this issue debated several times on the boards. i guess for those who feel that way, perhaps you will never change thier mind. all i know is if a person likes the artwork they will buy it:)

Sarah-Lynn Brown 09 Jan 2005

I am a whore to digital media. With it I can acheive a level of realism that I can't with painting in oil or acrylic. Also it is handy to be able to zoom in very tightly to the image and see it at the virtual atomic level and make it nearly flawless. Also since I like to make copies of my work, nothing beats making a print of a digital work. It's a case for the whole generations thing, a print of a photo of a painting isn't as good as a print of a digital file.

It may be a digital, 'plastic' art because the painting has no texture to the touch, but it has pure, backlit color when you veiw it on a RGB monitor, making it even better on the Net. In or mass produced world where everything is slapped on the side of a product or made into a tee-shirt the digital is the master of the domain. I do love 'real' Art in galleries and in homes, but how many people can afford it.

Volunteer of America 09 Jan 2005

Mark---I think your opening question says it all:

"So I have a question for all the real artist of the world. What is it about digital work you do not like?"

You imply that digital artists aren't "real" artists.....I don't think it was intentional, however--it does smack of defensiveness.

Hell it's all real.

Sean Lynch 09 Jan 2005

I do it all Mark.My digital is done the exact same ways as my oils.I paint it the same way only one uses a brush for one and a digital brush for the other.I think most people are under the impression that all digital art is done for you by pre made filters and effects.This is quite untrue in my case anyways.I dont use any filters or plugins.I draw and paint by hand using a wacom tablet.I would be very interested in someone explaining to me why this is not art...hehehehe.I guess people are more comfortable with putting a label on something rather than being openminded.I dont think that will ever change Mark,it seems to be human nature...

Rusty Woodward-Gladdish 09 Jan 2005

I agree with all the comments that have been made. The computer has become just another artist's tool to aid and enhance creativity. Fantastic images can be realised by using this tool. I agree with Sean Lynch in this respect.

The Wacom tablet and the graphic pen can be seen as an electronic sketchpad and pencil. The artist/painter still has to work to produce an effective image.

terence ulrich 09 Jan 2005

this is what my wife does digitally...built in Illustrator.

terence ulrich 09 Jan 2005

done in Lightwave 3d...I have no idea how its done but she built something that didn't exist previously. Pretty cool.

Sal Buchanan 11 Jan 2005

Hi all, I posted once, jokingly about digital art being less passionate when compared to the actual act of painting. This is only true for me, that is how I feel personally from my own experience, that's mainly due to the fact that I work on fairly large canvases. I flick paint, I do large sweeping brush strokes and I paint with my fingers. Unfortunately none of these actions transfer very well to digital for me.

I saw Sean's portrait of a woman posted here and it's brilliant, I consider this art. You can see a certain style there because each brush stroke is his own, and he is in control. I do appreciate that it is a passionate art form for a lot of people, for example, Joan Warburton, her work is very passionate, the colours and shapes are all her own creation. I can see and appreciate her work for art also, along with many other digital artists here.

I think that some digital artists however, I would compare to many minimal artists over the last ten years or so. In that there were quite a few minimal painters who jumped on the band wagon of the fashionable minimal art, by doing whole canvases in one colour with a little splash here, a stroke there, then calling it art. I think some digital art has a real sense that the so called artist has just gone and scanned in a few photographs (someone elses art) then used a few tools and effects to busily make it there own. As Sher said, you can usually spot these artworks though.

It's just unfortunate that because digital is so much more accessible as an art tool, the serious digital artists get a lot of flack because there are so many more people fakeing it than with real painting.

These feelings do not come out of total ignorance as I have been a graphic designer and an art director for over 15 years. I have done layered coloured artworks for reproduction on computer, for probably too many years.

When the first programmes came out that allowed you to change a photograph to a digital version of a Van Gough masterpiece by just pressing one button, my first thoughts were 'Oh No, real painting is going to become obsolete and pushed aside for this quicker, easier way of producing art'

Why wouldn't I think that, economics has forced the world to always take the easier road when it comes to making a quick buck. You only have to look at craftsmen through the ages to realise that there crafts are indeed, on thier way to becoming extinct. Cabinetmakers, shoemakers, stone masons, blacksmiths, toymakers the list goes on, it's scarey! (to me)

However, my thoughts have changed since then and I do know now, that there's room for all kinds of art, none being instead of the other. Some people can still afford and prefer to use a cabinet maker instead of a carpenter, and I'm not even one of those people, so there you go.

Jude 11 Jan 2005

Sal, I understand what you are saying.

It made me think of something.

When the power it is impossible to create digital art.

The traditional way to paint/draw/create can be done with candle light.

I do believe that all art can be appreciated and valued especially when the work is original and not a copy of someone elses hard work.

terence ulrich 11 Jan 2005

digital art done by art directors to cut costs in their budgets are called desktop publishers...they have no soul.

Sal Buchanan 11 Jan 2005

As an art director, I sourced work from professional digital artists, and sometimes I did the work myself. In each case, we were both paid, me by the company I worked for, and the digital artist by the job. What's your point Terence? An Art Director is not a desktop publisher. A desktop publisher does not supervise photographic shoots, or work with a copywriter to come up with an advertising campaign. Are you saying that because I did illustrations or any commercial art for publication and was payed for it that I have no soul? I don't get it, how would you know that? Don't you think I did other creative things for myself during this period, without being paid for it.

We've all made a living at some time or another, doing a crappy job. Give me a break!

WESTERN ARTWORK By Denny Karchner 11 Jan 2005

Check it!

http://www.ArtWanted.com/mb.cfm?Task=Topic&Topic=103701&Cat=7&PageNum=1

terence ulrich 12 Jan 2005

#1 "Sal" I wasn't attacking you or anyone else.

I don't even know you...as a professional illustrator myself I have been the victim of art directors having to cut their budgets and resorting to using clip art or photos to illustrate their columns. The entire time they complain while doing it. Believe me it happens all the time, at least here in the states.

#2: the guy The Buffalo posted doing the Mac stuff obviously has a lot of soul and creativity. I can't even begin to figure out how he does what he does. That is real skill.

On the other hand there is a lot of crap out there which I refer to as desktop publishing...anyone with P-shop, Illustrator or Quark can do it, with minimal effort or creative input. Its done just to stay under budget and is not creative or challenging.