Graphics/Design stuff Q&A

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

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

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7335 Jours

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...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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

Posté par 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.

En réponse à

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

Inscrit depuis 6902 Jours

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.

En réponse à

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

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

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

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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!

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7335 Jours

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...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7335 Jours

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...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

Posté par 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 :)

Posté par 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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7506 Jours

Just sayinnnn

En réponse à

SimonM7

Inscrit depuis 7600 Jours

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.

En réponse à

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

Inscrit depuis 7335 Jours

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...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?

SimonM7

Inscrit depuis 7600 Jours

Yeah exactly.

En réponse à

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

Inscrit depuis 7576 Jours

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.

En réponse à

Inscrit depuis 7335 Jours

Posté par 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...

En réponse à

Oooh, Profound, isn't it?