Graphics/Design stuff Q&A

Since 7506 Days

It's not stupid. There's a reason why digital painting remains on the computer and not in public places like galleries or museums.

Pretty much all strokes are dead giveaways for digital painting

In reply to

Since 7576 Days

Yes. No print of a digital work has ever been hung in a gallery... lol.

And the gap between these two things has nothing to do with the relative newness of the medium or the fact that paintings are one-off pieces of art, and considerably more popular among collectors than prints of any kind as a result.

In reply to

Since 7506 Days

Correct because it doesn't belong alongside paintings created by a person's actual physical touch yet. I imagine it will at some point, but not anytime soon. Right now they serve as illustrators portfolio and concept work. That's about it.

Nothing has to be one of a kind either, prints can sell for millions. Andy Warhol or Shepard Fairey can attest to that.

In reply to

Since 7576 Days

Digital paintings are still created by a persons actual physical touch. And clearly you must know that you're wrong about digital work hanging in galleries, but whatever.

In reply to

Since 7576 Days

Shepard Fairey prints cost "millions?" I think you misspelled "thousands."

In reply to

Since 7506 Days

There is a machine creating it, so no. You may be controlling a mouse or wacom with your hand, but that doesn't mean you aren't separated from what you're actually making. The barrier is there always.

Shepard Fairey was the low end example and Warhol was the example of millions.

If you can't recognize the difference between physical mediums that have been around for centuries and this new digital format (which tries to simulate physical medium) that has been growing within the past few years you haven't used physical mediums with your hands enough.

In reply to

Since 7335 Days

Yuck. Sorry, nothing but contempt for snobby "fine" artists. Get off your horse. Art is art. Some art is defined by it's medium, but imagery is what it's all about. I find digital art to be more impressive as even little things like texture are conscious decisions. That being said, there is a ton free-form ability in digital art. Of course Shepard Fairey wasn't anything until he painted Obama. Crap. Fine art is more about self-importance than anything else it seems to me. It's awesome if that is how you express yourself, or if it speaks to you( don't know why it be on canvas has anything to do with it), but don't look down others because of some strange need to feel superior...

In reply to

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Since 7576 Days

Everyone should finger paint then, because you're still using a tool to create pretty much anything, which is separating you from your work.

Posted by Frozpot

Yuck. Sorry, nothing but contempt for snobby "fine" artists. Get off your horse. Art is art. Some art is defined by it's medium, but imagery is what it's all about. I find digital art to be more impressive as even little things like texture are conscious decisions. That being said, there is a ton free-form ability in digital art. Of course Shepard Fairey wasn't anything until he painted Obama. Crap. Fine art is more about self-importance than anything else it seems to me. It's awesome if that is how you express yourself, or if it speaks to you( don't know why it be on canvas has anything to do with it), but don't look down others because of some strange need to feel superior...

To be fair, Shepard Fairey was already pretty heavily ingrained in pop art culture prior to blowing up over the Obama thing. It's a pretty poor example considering the discussion though, since pretty much any of his modern pieces could be created digitally and hang in galleries.

In reply to

Everyone should finger paint then, because you're still using a tool to create pretty much anything, which is separating you from your work.

[quote=Frozpot]Yuck.  Sorry, nothing but contempt for snobby "fine" artists.  Get off your horse.  Art is art.  Some art is defined by it's medium, but imagery is what it's all about.  I find digital art to be more impressive as even little things like texture are conscious decisions.  That being said, there is a ton free-form ability in digital art.  Of course Shepard Fairey wasn't anything until he painted Obama.  Crap.  Fine art is more about self-importance than anything else it seems to me.  It's awesome if that is how you express yourself, or if it speaks to you( don't know why it be on canvas has anything to do with it), but don't look down others because of some strange need to feel superior...[/quote]

To be fair, Shepard Fairey was already pretty heavily ingrained in pop art culture prior to blowing up over the Obama thing. It's a pretty poor example considering the discussion though, since pretty much any of his modern pieces could be created digitally [i]and[/i] hang in galleries.

Megido

Since 6902 Days

Wow, yeah what a tremendous amount of bullshit. Sounds like "crap, i'm not that good so i need an excuse to discredit this incredibly awesome artist...Oh, i know! He did it digitally, it's not legit!"

Enjoy great drawings, paintings and sculptures for what they are, instead of foisting your retarded preconceptions of what is and isn't art on them for whatever arbitrary reason.

In reply to

"I still don't know if snakes make good pets, but at least they've got your f****g back."

Since 7506 Days

I NEVER was proclaiming anything to not be art. I was proclaiming one to be colder than the other. Also more mechanical than the other. Nowhere did I say something wasn't art.
Just because I say it doesn't get into galleries or museums? So what? It's a fact. Digital paintings are mainly used for purposes of speed for illustrators and remain on a computer. They'll bridge that gap eventually, but not yet.
Texture is considered by EVERYONE.
I also wasn't looking for "superiority". I was defending a nib photograph.
I also never named an artist and trashed on them.

His work would never be made digitally because he's a printmaker and street artist. It wouldn't sell high enough and not enough people would want it.

I probably should have never fed into this mess in the first place

In reply to

Since 7576 Days

It's not a fact. Digital work hangs in galleries frequently. Stop talking out your ass.

And what a load of shit--a lot of print makers create digitally. Wasn't Fairey's iconic "HOPE" poster done in Adobe Illustrator? And regardless of how it was created, it would still be just as iconic and prolific, period. And Warhol helped build Amiga by promoting digital techniques!

In reply to

Since 7335 Days

Sorry, I'm a bit touchy on this particular thing. We have some issues at school right now where my instructor wanted gallery space to put up some of our digital work, and the art dept. wouldn't allow it, citing digital art isn't "fine" art. Drives me nuts...

In reply to

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Since 7576 Days

What school? The division between fine art and design is not technical. To reference Milton Glaser: design is about communication and fine art is about self expression. That is all.

In reply to

Since 7335 Days

Eh, it's just a shitty Community College that I go to to take some refresher courses (almost 5 years in the Army does much to atrophy the skillz). I've already got my BA in Media Art and Animation, but it's still lame. I agree with you and Mr Glaser 100%. Thanks for the link to goodbrush.com, good stuff there...

In reply to

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Since 7506 Days

Never once in my life have I witnessed digital work hung in a gallery outside a school setting. Never, ever. I frequent galleries in NYC and Boston.

What Frozpot says regarding his gallery at school is a stigma that exists in all spaces. It's why you really never see digital painting in a gallery space.

In reply to

Since 7576 Days

Posted by Frozpot

Eh, it's just a shitty Community College that I go to to take some refresher courses (almost 5 years in the Army does much to atrophy the skillz). I've already got my BA in Media Art and Animation, but it's still lame. I agree with you and Mr Glaser 100%. Thanks for the link to goodbrush.com, good stuff there...

Yea, Mullins is masterful. Love his work. It's so human (lol).

Also: that shit would never fly at a real art school. No offense intended--I just attended a CC class after getting my BfA from a real college too :)

Posted by Tinks

Never once in my life have I witnessed digital work hung in a gallery outside a school setting. Never, ever. I frequent galleries in NYC and Boston.

What Frozpot says regarding his gallery at school is a stigma that exists in all spaces. It's why you really never see digital painting in a gallery space.

Oh you're an expert. Word. We all agree with you now. Shut up.

In reply to

Since 7506 Days

Just sayinnnn

In reply to

SimonM7

Since 7600 Days

Oooookaaayyyy.

Sssso. Art huh.

Anyway, I was talking about reference photos earlier, and I found a place that has a truckload of sorta random photos of things on photos.com. It's not the end all of reference places obviously, but it gets around wrestling google for photos of *totally ordinary things*. Because let's face it, whatever you search for gets you genitals in all sorts of configurations.

In reply to

http://www.twitter.com/simonlundmark - Follow me on twitter

Since 7335 Days

the cool part is if you are just using them for reference, you don't need to buy them as the watermark isn't prohibitive...

In reply to

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

SimonM7

Since 7600 Days

Yeah exactly.

In reply to

http://www.twitter.com/simonlundmark - Follow me on twitter

Since 7576 Days

Then you're getting into the fuzzy realm of intellectual properties and to be honest I'm not sure anyone knows where that line is anymore.

In reply to

Since 7335 Days

Posted by GriftGFX

Then you're getting into the fuzzy realm of intellectual properties and to be honest I'm not sure anyone knows where that line is anymore.

He's talking reference, not recreating the image though. Sites like those are mostly used for stock footage. if he was using the composition or actual pieces if the image, that would be different. It's not much different than sitting at a bar and watching people...

In reply to

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?