/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3832263
what a stupid post.

>>3832267
Your stupid

>>3832267
you're stupid

>>3832263
>can you ever produce TRUELY astonishing art digitially?

No because it has no soul.

>>3832605
>old GOOD
>new BAD
Utter brainlet detected. High IQ artists use both.

>>3832605

Music had this discussion 40 years ago when synths became popular. Pleb tier discussion. It's not about the tools, it's about the artists ability.

>>3832628

>Hydrocephaly

>>3832636
Sherderp ... its not all relative ... the product is created in a different dimension all together the art created in information devices has no emotional impact to everyone because there is no depth of skill required to know materials and plan ahead instead of Ctrl+Z your way to a masterpiece, im not saying a trad artist cant do digi but a digi that cant trad, is no artist to me. plus . Some are easily Impressed some aren't

>>3832628
show me a digital painting that made you feel something

>>3832839
and let me guess the response regardless of what anon shows you
>soulless lifeless i dont like it

wow what a clever trap you have laid

>>3832844
Wrong, I'm genuinely looking for a digital painting like that, because I like drawing digital.
I saw the real Raphael's sistine madonna in a museum the other day, it was so beautiful it almost made me cry.
I want to see a digital master piece like that and haven't found one yet

>>3832263
NO RULES JUST TOOLS

>>3832851
*draw with your own shit*
NO RULES JUST TOOLS

>>3832852
NO RULES
JUST TOOLS

>>3832263
this painting was on an english book i had for college. i always hated the face on it and how bad the hands look

the only good digital art is the stuff Warhol made on his Amiga

>>3832860

Ew

>>3833024
>ngmi

>>3832849
Despite all I said I'm much in the same spot, I do find traditional to have that little something that makes it have more "soul" a lot of the time but love drawing digitally too much to really get into it outside of sketchbooks.
Pic related is one I like a lot. I like some of old Ruan Jia paintings too, as well as some of Chomoran's and Takehito Harada's work. The way they use colors and effects is something I don't really see done in traditional painting, and I think that's where muh "soul" comes from, when they use the medium they're working on to make things only it is able to do as well.

>>3832636
I'd say this, and a combo of "art is in the eye of the beholder" shpeel. What may be soulless to you may be something I connect to.

>>3832852
yeah, pretty much

>>3832598
But he's right, this thread is stupid.

>>3832263
Yes, I can. I will make the old masters proud.

>>3832605
Based and tradpilled

There’s certainly more mastery involved in traditional art that will make it more impressive to someone who knows what they’re looking at. And a genuine painting will always be more impressive in person than a print out. But at the end of day it doesn’t really matter, genuinely express yourself and hone your skill and you’ll make something great. So don’t get caught up on silly stuff like this and just keep improving, for yourself.

>>3834031
>at the end of day it doesn’t really matter
Check back in 500 years, and we'll see

>>3832263
>Waterhouse

>>3832263
I've said it before and I'll say it again, digital art is boring. It doesn't matter how good you are, you can't properly emulate what real paintings can do

>>3832263
People are bored out of their minds of this question. Its usually
>i do trad art bcz im ver good and aurtistic
>digital bad cz davinci didnt touch a cintiq
or
>i never learned normal art and i believe my 8673 brush collection will make me a good artist
>your just mad cz your oil shit don't sell
and yes I'd say traditional medium is very limited hence forces you to learn and be as creative as you can with the process.
And digital is easy to abuse. But if you aren't stupid then you can learn art properly on digital AND have shit ton of ways to create art that is not possible with traditional.
I mean why is new creative exploration on art would be worse than repeating what the old masters already did anyway? Its the opposite of creativity, its like sticking to drawing on a cave wall when someone else is using oil paint because its new and not traditional.

>>3834877
>I've said it before and I'll say it again, digital art is boring. It doesn't matter how good you are, you can't properly emulate what real paintings can do

>

>>3834890
Despite the obvious skill Craig has it still looks obviously digital. Not to mention how fucking worthless it is because it's still just a file on a computer. It's just fact it can't compete with traditional art. Don't get me wrong digital art is great for learning painting because it's basically free once you have what you need but that's about it

>>3834900

So it's just about money for you?

>>3834904
Yes, I want to make as much money as possible but painting with real paints is more fun.

>>3834900
>how fucking worthless it is because it's still just a file on a computer

anon, 99% of the art you'll be commissioned for will need to be a file on a computer as opposed to a physical piece.

>>3834900
>obviously digital
why should you hide that its digital?
>its still just a file on a computer
"its just a paint on a canvas" same argument. Also if so then would traditional art lose all its value once you take a photo and look at it on your pc?
>it can't compete with traditional art
he also does traditional, so if he does the same high quality art on traditional its somehow a real art and if its on digital its not?
>worthless
Thousands of people buy prints of digital art, art industry is still alive thanks to digital art. Companies pay thousands to get a jpeg file from artists.

>>3834909
Digital art would make more money though. Also its fun, maybe not for you but its fun for a lot of people. So both of your arguments are wrong.

>>3832860
soul

>>3834967
>"its just a paint on a canvas" same argument
Except real paintings have brush strokes and other techniques you simply can't do on a computer. I would post some paintings but most of them are over the size limit but look up google art project and zoom in on a great painting and do the same to a digital craig mullins. The difference is insane.
>Also if so then would traditional art lose all its value once you take a photo and look at it on your pc?
No, same as that the original painting doesn't lose its value just because you make 2000 prints out of it.
>so if he does the same high quality art on traditional its somehow a real art and if its on digital its not?
You seem confused, I'm just saying traditional art is real, it's physical.
>>3834968
In what universe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN-n0_Sf5cE

>>3835000
>Except real paintings have brush strokes and other techniques you simply can't do on a computer
digital art's goal isn't to imitate paint on canvas, and it can have brushstrokes. Also most art posted online is low res versions of the original, its not meant to be zoomed in as much.
>You seem confused, I'm just saying traditional art is real, it's physical
Calling it real implies digital is fake or unreal. It seems your defining real as a "physical object you can touch". Paintings are visual, you don't touch or smell it, you don't rate art by how it feels on the hands.
Digital art can achieve the same results as traditional art, but that's not the limit. On a computer the limits of creative exploration boundless.

>>3835000
>Except real paintings have brush strokes and other techniques you simply can't do on a computer
There are traditional painting techniques that are non-painterly, anon.

>>3835000
Old masters' paintings are sold for these crazy prices for various reasons outside of its inherent mastery. Historic value, rarity, and status symbol playing a large role. Its unlikely that any current traditional artist can do a painting and get sold more than them.
Digital art industry is huge, artists are always on the need and people/companies pay more. Realistically digital artists make more.

>>3835030
>Old masters' paintings are sold for these crazy prices for various reasons outside of its inherent mastery. Historic value, rarity, and status symbol playing a large role. Its unlikely that any current traditional artist can do a painting and get sold more than them.
Warhol and Kusami would like to have a word with you

>>3835032
and what would they say exactly? What are you trying to say?

>>3835035
Their prints sell for more than the old masters' original works, my dude

>>3835025
>it can have brushstrokes
I laughed a good while at that
>Digital art can achieve the same results as traditional art
No.jpeg
>Paintings are visual, you don't touch or smell it, you don't rate art by how it feels on the hands
Yeah, it's visual but traditional art looks completely different from digital art. If you can't tell the difference you're either blind or lying
>>3835030
I'm well aware it's an extreme example but the point still stands, trad art sells for a lot more than digital art ever can.

>>3835045
You keep saying "its completely different" and without explaining how its different you just say "and if you can't tell the difference you're either blind of lying".
How is it "completely" different? If so why do people call both "art"? People can spot a bad traditional art and better digital art, and wise versa. Traditional isn't inherently better, if it were there wouldn't be so many digital artists. Most good digital artists draw/paint traditionally as well, even if they don't the same principals apply so its easy to change tools. Just like how you don't lose all your skills changing from gouache to oil. Stop trying to be this mystical artist creature.
If you want to make impossible to define arguments such as soul, feeling or anything you can't explain then its impossible to have any discussion.

>>3835000
Can oil on canvas reach the amount of creative exploration digital art allows?

>>3835052
Man, learn to spell and quit using the dumbest arguments in the world. It's embarrassing to read.
>Most good digital artists draw/paint traditionally as well, even if they don't the same principals apply so its easy to change tools.
Not true at all. Mediums requires different skills. Everyone knows that. I mean you can be amazing with oil painting but acrylic isn't anything like it because it dries so quickly.
>>3835055
What's so limiting about oil painting, exactly?

>>3835069
>learn to spell, dumb arguments, embarrasing
Again with the insults without addressing my point.
>Mediums requires different skills
yes, there are medium/tool specific skills. But the fundamental principals remain consistent. You won't forget your color theory and anatomy simply because you picked acrylics instead of oil.
And again can you answer me what makes digital art "completely different" from traditional?

>>3832284
>>3832598

>>3832267
you've stupid

>>3835073
>Again with the insults without addressing my point
What is your point?

>>3835108
"And again can you answer me what makes digital art "completely different" from traditional?"

>>3835000
>in it for the money
>posts auction of a piece of work whose creator has been dead for hundreds of years
kek

>>3835110
I've already answered that multiple times. They're nothing alike. Traditional art is real, digital isn't. You can use a huge canvas in real life and with digital you're stuck with pixels. Any other dumb questions?
>>3835111
Nice numbers

>>3835123
Ok I'll continue to be dumb until you enlighten me on how one is real and other isn't.
Let me try to make your point for you, It'll probably be easier for you to point out what's wrong with it.
What traditional has and digital doesn't:
>can't touch
>can't smell
>is made of pixels while other is paint
How does that make it real?
Admit it, you can't answer. You're just picking words you can't define and then keep repeating "its so obvious i don't have to explain it, and those who don't get it are idiots".

>>3835136
>Admit it, you can't answer
I have no idea what you're trying to say at this point. I'm just laughing.

critique pls

>>3834851
I’ll see you then, and I’m sure we’ll talk about all the masterworks you’ve made in your life.

>>3832636
/thread

I was hoping someone would recommend a good program to us for digital art.
Instead all I got was autism, and I'm already full of autism.

>>3835153
needs more Loomis