/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4229210
It's called ArtStation

>>4229239
He said art.

like https://androidjones.com/news/events/ ?

>>4229239
Isn't that just fancy deviant art basically?
>>4229252
Yeah something along these lines. Are these common or do you guys think they'll grow in popularity in the future?

That reminds me of a nun drawing by some slav on art station

>>4229267
>Yeah something along these lines. Are these common or do you guys think they'll grow in popularity in the future?
The problem really is that there is not much in digital art that warrants going to some place to look at a print (except maybe the psychological or social aspect of it). An actual painting has infinite resolution, a three-dimensional structure and colors that are impossible to perfectly capture in print or on screen. Anybody who ever went to a museum knows that looking at the real thing very often is a very different experience than looking at a photo of it on wikipedia. Of course you can try to make it flashy and interactive and whatever like >>4229252 to attract people, but it's still not quite the same in nature. There's definitely something about looking at the real, physical thing that makes traditional art galleries so appealing, the idea that those are the very brushstrokes of the artists themselves. A print just doesn't have that level of originality to it. For all you know, the artists may never even have touched it.

It is an interesting topic. Digital art is definitely more than just a "different medium", something about the fact that it is replicable and quantifiable creates a more substantial trench between traditional and digital art.

>>4229210
When 2D, static digital art is presented in galleries, it is usually printed out as a high quality print. It's really not too different than photography in that regard. If the digital work is to be sold, it will usually be sold as a small-batch, limited edition print run.

>>4229210
I think the first problem here is that most of digital art is extremely figurative, which is just rarely seen in galeries in general. You don't really see serious exhibitions of glamour photoshoots and there aren't concerts of stock music - I know the comparison might offend many people here but this is how I personally view the great majority of digital art I see on the internet; it looks almost like an advertisement - highly polished with nothing "left for imagination", with characters that are either from a franchise or highly stylized. Do I dislike it or think it's something bad? Not at all, but it just doesnt have a place in a gallery. The only digital pieces that I would actually place in a gallery is stuff like nicponimsky's, which is just rare (at least from what I've seen, if you know more artists like him let me know because I love this stuff).
The second problem is that a loooot of people that dont really know much about digital art still view it as some sort of computer generated pictures, like you do 2 clicks and the image appears there. Vast majority of old people in art world view it like this and its really hard to change their views. I argued for the longest time with my painting prof to let me paint something digitally for the class and he finally agreed, but the pieces really weren't something I'd usually do, picrel (I'm not complaining tho - I liked it and the experience showed me there's more to art than what I used to see).

To sum up: Many (old) people still see digital art as tacky and as some kind of a shtick even, plus a lot of digital artists dont have a very broad array of inspirations and knowledge about art history, which shows in their work in a rather negative way.

>>4230102
to correct the last part: *which shows in their work in a way thats PERCEIVED as negative by many