/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3219069]

Digital art is killing my love for art. It feels fake and dishonest, but in today's world it's the best way to produce.

I've realized that I'm appreciating more novices who work traditionally than veterans who work digitally, yet even those novices are getting harder and harder to find.

Meanwhile the general public gives no shit.

Will traditional art simply disappear?

[Anonymous No.3219071]

i like that scolipede
did u get usum

also i think that if u like trad art u should keep doing it

[Anonymous No.3219184]

there are plenty of artists doing traditional. but you have to realize online content is going to favor the tastes of the typical ppl you find online. that is, sakichan, tracers, and hyper renderers that abuse digital shortcuts over actual knowledge. digital almost feels like a dead end because all these tards have stopped learning art and bridged into some image editing world. if you talk to them you'll notice they lack knowledge about pretty much any artistic concept than isn't directly related to making mix-mashed clones of existing artwork using techniques they copied from someone who told them how to do it.

[Anonymous No.3220036]

>>3219069
nice one, love scolipede

[Anonymous No.3220151]

>>3219069

[Anonymous No.3222661]

>>3219069
>It feels fake and dishonest
They're just tools anon. If you have a good understanding of the fundamentals and principles then you can make good art with any sort of tools. Nothing fake and dishonest about it.

[Anonymous No.3222673]

THE IS AN ART REVOLITION HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.

since we are all born after the machine, our entire world is different from how life was for the past 1000+ years. digital art is the new frontier.

in order for traditional fine art to survive and be respected, the artist must push the boundaries in more ways than one.

[Anonymous No.3222677]

THERE IS AN ART REVOLITION HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.

since we are all born after the machine, our entire world is different from how life was for the past 10,000+ years. digital art is simply the new frontier. probably will be the foundation for how art will be made indefinitely.

in order for traditional fine art to survive and be respected, the artist must push the boundaries in more ways than one.

[Anonymous No.3222682]

>>3219184
lol ok kiddo

[Anonymous No.3222732]

>>3219069
You're garbage

[Anonymous No.3222738]

>>3222677
here cums the influx of artists in the market

[Anonymous No.3222751]

>>3219069
I read this and I don't know what the fuck you are even complaining about.

[Anonymous No.3222757]

>>3222677
I think you are in a bubble u have created for yourself. For illustration and concept art, digital has already replaced traditional because of convinience. But there are plenty of fine artists making shit ton of money and will do for many years to come b/c digital prints are plain surfaces and also lack the direct connection to the artists. Good hand crafted paintings will still hold value for a while.

[Anonymous No.3222770]

>>3219069
lots of veteran digital artists do traditional art as a hobby or for sketching though. Just check out their instagram or twitters. As a rule of thumb, if they are better than you at digital art, they are also better than you at traditional art. At most it would take them a couple of weeks to learn an unfamiliar medium, but the fundamentals still stay the same.

[Anonymous No.3222787]

>It feels fake and dishonest
ngmi

[Anonymous No.3223559]

>>3222770
this is completely unfounded false opinion. beyond fuckoff sketches digital and traditional have extremely divergent workflows and knowledge sets. have you even done an oil painting? watercolor? digital painting is closer to an extension of drawing than it is painting. and it allows for the sloppiest non-thinking work possible because infinite layers and infinite redos.

[Anonymous No.3223565]

>>3223559
>digital painting is closer to an extension of drawing than it is painting.
I agree, although you'd have to add, that digital painting has adopted / twisted a lot of ideas from traditional painting: small things like the color pallet in some corner that some shit-tier /beg/ers don't hide in digital sketches, because it looks "so cool".
Brush simulations is another thing, which is pretty disgusting to anyone who paints with real colors. It's an entirely different thing to work with oils, watercolors etc. There's no Strg + Z escapism, but what you create has real debth in each layer, it is something you really create in front of you. It changes drastically in different lights and setups, while any digital art will still be the same tomorrow or in two years when you open the file. Even printed, it is flat like any other wallpaper and you'd again need aids from traditional art (Bristol paper, highly expensive print) to put a bit of appeal into it. Digital art is dead while a real piece of art is a unique object that lives with you.

[Anonymous No.3223579]

>>3223559
That's why I said the artist might need a couple of weeks to get used to the new medium. But their knowledge about the actual fundamentals won't magically disappear just because they no longer use a tablet. Which is exactly why there are so many digital artists who are better than you are at traditional art despite spending 1/10th of their time on it. If you had spent the last 10 years on oil painting and Ruanjia decided to pick up oil painting this week, by the end of december he would have surpassed you in any way imaginable. That must sting, huh?

[Anonymous No.3223581]

>>3223579
troll go home.

[Anonymous No.3223582]

>>3223565
>but what you create has real debth in each layer, it is something you really create in front of you. It changes drastically in different lights and setups, while any digital art will still be the same tomorrow or in two years when you open the file

Why would that matter to you? It's not like your art will ever be displayed in galleries and shit. Literally no one but your mother will ever see your traditional work in real life. If you ever want to show your work to people, you will have to scan it in or take a picture and hope that you get 100 views on your instagram. And guess what, that picture will always be the same tomorrow or in two years.

Hell, even most wold famous masterpaintings you probably have never seen in real life but only the digitalized photo that always stays the exact same every time you look at it.

[Anonymous No.3223585]

>>3223582
not everyone is trying to be a wagecuck illustrator. some people want to be artists and make art. why do you suppose your ignorant opinion means anything and was even worth sharing? go back to making porn bait on social media for online fans.

[Anonymous No.3223586]

>>3223581
How do you expect to be better than an artist in any medium of choice if you are not better on a fundamental level? Literally the only thing you will have going for you is the fact that the superior artist is inexperienced in the unfamiliar medium. Just how long do you think that unfamiliarity will last if even someone like you could get used to your medium of choice?

I honestly find the frail little ego of tradfag elitists a very precious sight. All your self-worth and pride is based on the perceived difficulty of your medium of choice, yet you have zero pride in your actual work.

[Anonymous No.3223587]

>>3223581
He's right about learning a new medium though. If you know how to draw/ paint you can adapt in a fair amount of time

(Unless you started digital)

[Anonymous No.3223588]

>>3223579

I agree with you. In fact I would go as far as to say that traditional painters would learn the fundamentals faster if they also did digital painting. The flexibility and speed of digital painting allows you to repeat certain tasks at much higher rate than traditional painting and get more experience within a shorter time frame. I went to an atelier for a couple of years and the guys who were experienced with digital painting picked up traditional mediums much faster than those who had only done traditional before.

[Anonymous No.3223590]

>>3223585
Where was I saying anything about being a "wagecuck illustrator"? I simply pointed out the fact that no one will ever see your "art" in real life, so why would you make such a big, romantic deal out of the facetuous nature of observing traditional art in person whereis digital art always remains the same?

If you ever want people other than your mom and close friends to actually see your art, you will have to show them a digitialized photo or scan of your work. And if you are perfectly fine with only showing your art to your mother and closest friends, then you are not an artist but a hobbyist sunday painter. Which is fine, I just don't see why a hobbyist would have such an inflated ego. Be humble, sit down and continue to paint flower vases with grandma down at the community center and leave art to the real artists. (of both the traditional and digital variety)

[Anonymous No.3223594]

>>3223590
>fact that no one will ever see your "art" in real life
you have no idea what you're talking about. please stop responding.

[Anonymous No.3223597]

>>3223594
You're right anon, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. I'm sure sometimes your mom will bring her book club over and proudly show your "art" to all of them. Hell, if you're lucky one of them might even "commission" you to do a painting for the waiting room at the local dentist.

[Anonymous No.3223600]

>>3223586
see >>3223587
very few digital artists have strong fundamentals unless they learned traditional too. they are not the same thing.

>>3223588
if you know the 'fundamentals' already then you can use whatever medium you want granted you invest time learning techniques to produce the effect you want.

>The flexibility and speed of digital painting
digital is anything but flexible. real physical materials are bound to the laws of physics. digital are bound to programmed rules where you draft visual illusions within an illusion device. you're operating with many levels of restriction more than physical mediums.

>repeat certain tasks at much higher rate
this is a common point of focus for digital criticism but you haven't at all connected with what is being told to you. speed is hardly the thing you want with something like fine art.

[Anonymous No.3223602]

>>3223600
>very few digital artists have strong fundamentals unless they learned traditional too.
What a dumb argument. Very few traditional artists have strong funamentals either. Obviously the majority of all artists are shit, digital or traditional.

>they are not the same thing.
Gee, I wasn't aware the laws of perspective change when you draw traditionally. Or that humans grow an extra limb and have 20 more bones in traditional art. Or that a good composition in digital art becomes a bad composition in traditional art. The more you know.

[Anonymous No.3223606]

>>3223600
>this is a common point of focus for digital criticism but you haven't at all connected with what is being told to you. speed is hardly the thing you want with something like fine art.

No one is talking about fine art here you stupid fuck. Obviously you don't attempt to do fine art digitially.

[Anonymous No.3223610]

>>3223579
>That's why I said the artist might need a couple of weeks to get used to the new medium. But their knowledge about the actual fundamentals won't magically disappear just because they no longer use a tablet

masters at digital art still know where all the pieces fit, it's just harder to put them together

[Anonymous No.3223615]

What are you even arguing about? At this point it seems you just argue for the sake of it.

I think we all agree that
1) traditional art != digital art
2) you need fundamentals for both
3) changing medium isn't the hard part

Choosing digital over traditional or vice versa depends heavily on your working process and your field of work. Ideally you're comfortable with both, but if you work in concept art, no one is forcing you to draw traditional or keep a sketchbook, it just helps your progression. And if you're hired to do water color illustrations for children's books no one cares if you can do digital.

Just find a medium in which you're comfortable working in, but don't by shy to try out more things. Both traditional and digital have their pros and cons, and depending on the medium or programm you also have a lot of differences.

So yeah, all this shit flinging is kind of pointless; you obviously have different aristic paths in mind.

[Anonymous No.3223637]

>>3223600
>if you know the 'fundamentals' already then you can use whatever medium you want granted you invest time learning techniques to produce the effect you want.

My point is that I believe you can learn certain aspects of the fundamentals faster because traditional mediums have a inherent bottleneck in their physical attributes such as drying times, finite amount of paint and limited ability to undo mistakes etc.

>digital is anything but flexible. real physical materials are bound to the laws of physics. digital are bound to programmed rules where you draft visual illusions within an illusion device. you're operating with many levels of restriction more than physical mediums.

Digital art is the most flexible medium of all in terms of workflow for reasons stated above. Maybe you're talking about the organic quality inherent in traditional mediums, in case I agree. Beautiful brushwork and mark making is easier with a physical brush and paint.

>this is a common point of focus for digital criticism but you haven't at all connected with what is being told to you. speed is hardly the thing you want with something like fine art.

There are no reason why you wouldn't want to learn as fast and efficiently as possible. I've studied at an atelier and I know the value of making prolonged studies and taking your time. Certain things need to be absorbed and learned over longer periods of time, that's true for sure, but you still want to be efficient about it.

[Anonymous No.3223705]

>>3223637
>learn certain aspects of the fundamentals faster

do you really learn that much just undoing a mistake and doing it again vs fixing the mistake itself? contrast to say software engineering where people learn the fastest by fixing errors in live builds.

>drying times, finite amount of paint and limited ability to undo mistakes
these are all benefits as they encourage or outright prevent one from forging ahead without thought.

>Digital art is the most flexible medium of all in terms of workflow
ok, sure. digital grants you plenty of freedom to work in whatever order you like. even though there isn't really that much productive variance to be had.

>Maybe you're talking about the organic quality inherent in traditional mediums
yes but not only that. if i want a particular effect on the canvas when working digitally i have to stop my creative workflow and investigate brushes, functions, and configurations, etc. when working in the real world i can literally take a knife to the canvas, throw water on it, and so forth. i'm not working within someone's sandbox. that's what i mean by flexibility.

>There are no reason why you wouldn't want to learn as fast and efficiently as possible.
how you learn shapes what you will become. strictly looking at your artwork as a function of skill progression is clearly misconceived and void of actual content. learning is simply about solving problems. so i don't see how one can be any faster than the other. traditional presents different problems that overlap with digital. shifting to digital may provide a better experience for your problems or it may be a burden. not everyone is creating for the same reason and if the process is supposed to be enjoyable digital sure as hell leaves a lot to be desired.

a side issue i have personally is digital art looks in general pretty much all the same to me. maybe a dozen categories of uniqueness. something about digital prevents that personal touch from showing through. why is that?

[Anonymous No.3223721]

>>3219069
>Will traditional art simply disappear?
It is as old as human civilization. I'm pretty sure some obscenely colorful tablets and smartphone apps aren't really a competition to that.

[Anonymous No.3223724]

>>3223615
>changing medium isn't the hard part
complete /beg/er. The difference between oils and acrylics alone is huge.

[Anonymous No.3223728]

>>3223705
>want a particular effect on the canvas when working digitally i have to stop my creative workflow and investigate brushes
imnplying that digital shitbrushes are anywhere close to a real brush or brushstroke. lmao
You can cosmetically get rid of the typical, disgusting repetitive patterns of digital brushes as much as you want. Even if you print it, it's still flat, dead and dull. Oil paints were traditionally applied in many layers. The light is absorbed or reflected in each different layer. Even paintings with about two or three layers have the typical depth of real paint applied in layers. You can work around these flaws with dead digital artwork with silkscreen prints, but it still doesn't compare. The original of a digital artwork is a copy, unless you exhibit the screen it was made on.

Again, traditional art and brush-simulation based, digital artworks have absolutely zero in common as a finished piece.

[Anonymous No.3223730]

>>3223637
>There are no reason why you wouldn't want to learn as fast and efficiently as possible.
Because you become a fucking baby-Loomis or the Frankenstein lovechild of Vilppu, Proko and Loomis or whatever. You become a fucking copy of their respective style.

[Anonymous No.3223735]

>>3219069
>digital Art
It's easier to find a fucking unicorn.

[Anonymous No.3223773]

>>3219069
A lot of top digital veterans are proficient at traditional art. Look at Karla Ortiz, Mullins, Wesley Burt...It's not going to disappear. I mean...shit...are you seriously going out looking for an excuse not to love art bro? top tier procrastination mentality.

[Anonymous No.3223845]

>>3223773
>Look at Karla Ortiz, Mullins, Wesley Burt
> proficient at traditional art
They are all concept artists. Nothing "traditional" about that.

[Anonymous No.3223853]

>>3222677
There are whole new branches like interface culture, gaming (combining cinematic, digital, artistic and storytelling techniques), virtual reality as a new medium for ideas ....
All of these are very new, promising branches.

While these areas can and have been truly new and avantgarde, concept art and digital drawing tools, like the stuff Wacom produces, are a direct translation from traditional materials and media (brush simulations, haptic and resistance of the drawing board).
The artwork that is featured mostly on /ic/ is as nostalgic as the entire approach to "digitize" traditional art materials with Wacom and other tools. Unless you truly milk the possibilities of digital art, you are a nostalgic, escaping into the Strg + Z, self-regarding nerd-culture of digital artists, who jerk off to their medievil-fanfiction, bit-titted pixel whores.

[Anonymous No.3223859]

>>3222757
this guy got it.

>>3222770
>veteran digital artists
sounds like a bunch of scarred, amputated wheelchair fedoras.

>As a rule of thumb, if they are better than you at digital art, they are also better than you at traditional art.
As a rule of thumb, if you compare digital work to the craftsmanship of handling real materials, pigments, oil, turpentine, varnishes and real brushes, you probably don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>>3223582
> It's not like your art will ever be displayed in galleries and shit.
It has been displayed numerous times, you speculative, presumptuous dickhead.
Lol and you seriously think that artists need to be on instagram?

>Hell, even most wold famous masterpaintings you probably have never seen in real life but only the digitalized photo that always stays the exact same every time you look at it.
I'm sorry if you haven't had the chance to travel. I've been in the biggest museums around Europe: Amsterdam, Dublin, Moscow, Vienna, Krakow, London, Paris, Budapest, Venice, Rome, Berlin, Hamburg, ... the list goes on. I was probably most impressed by the Eremitage and the Pushkin in Moscow.
Many of you /ic/ers probably haven't seen enough real paintings to tell the difference, telling by the shit you talk about comparing it to digital art.

[Anonymous No.3223862]

>>3223859
based poster.

[Anonymous No.3223864]

>>3223586
funny how this comes from a guy who seems to paint the most clichéd motif (girl looking right at you) from a photo (human copy machine) and fails to find a decent way how to paint hair. It looks like fucking brick architecture.

You probably think you're "mastered fine art", too.

[Anonymous No.3223883]

>>3223724
That's not what I said. The handling of those paints is really different, I even stated that;

> depending on the medium or programm you also have a lot of differences

If you know how to paint it will not take you years to understand how to handle another medium though, it's a matter of weeks/ a few months.

[Anonymous No.3223888]

>>3223883
if you only do digital you do not know how to paint. that is the whole point of this argument.

[Anonymous No.3223895]

>>3223888
correct.

>>3223883
Do you know what scumbling is? (applying thin layers of oil colors to achieve multiple layers of depth)
That alone takes years of practice to know what the hell you are even doing and how you can use it. On top of that, you have to do it right, lean to fat (more oil the more layers you use), otherwise you'll get cracks either immediately or after years.
If you have no ideas or experiences about materials in oil painting, you should read up on it and come back to read what a bunch of bullshit you're written here.

You can pick up your stupid Wacom, turn on the computer and start doodling your Loomis crap. Don't compare that to real painting.

[Anonymous No.3223988]

>>3223888
I agree

>>3223895
Way to be salty. Sucks that you needed years to learn oil colors, but stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.3223989]

>>3223988
Old masters used to put on some ten layers to create dark shades and put very few layers on light areas, in order to allow the light to almost directly shine through to the ground.

>Sucks that you needed years to learn oil colors, but stop projecting.
Oh, so I guess you learned it in a week.

[Anonymous No.3223996]

stop enabling the retards. they aren't even making arguments at this point.

[Anonymous No.3223999]

>>3223996
good point.

[Anonymous No.3224004]

>>3223989
No it took me about a semester and was definitely the hardest traditional medium I learned. I'm not trying to downplay it, but the handling of a different medium is a rather fast to learn compared with drawing fundamentals which took me 3 years and painting which took me 2 years, both ongoing.

To truely master a certain craft takes years. But the same theoretical principles apply, wether it's a crayon drawing or an oil painting; it's just the process that differs. Again, not trying to downplay the skill involved in oil paintings, just saying that it pales in comparison. Then again, it's hard to compare, as you work on your drawing/ painting skills along the mastery of your medium of choice.

All I wanted to say is there is no need for elitism; doing just digital is fine. Not everyone wants or needs to draw/paint traditionally. And while painting digitally does not transfer to drawing digitally doesn't mean digital painting is worth less.

[Anonymous No.3224005]

>>3224004
>To truely master a certain craft takes years.

>>3223988
>Sucks that you needed years to learn oil colors, but stop projecting.

you are a joke.

[Anonymous No.3224007]

>>3224005
mastery != application

You can be sufficient in painting without mastery.

[Anonymous No.3224010]

>>3219069
>Digital "art"
There are very few works I've seen that can be called art. Even the one's done by those who are considered to be professionals. I think It has something to do with how easy it is. Layers, textures, corrections, brushes that basically draw shit for you. You'd think those tools are supposed to give you more liberty but somehow they actually take it away.
Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVrsmD-EdOA
The guy just photobashes some clouds in and calls it a "Clouds Painting Tutorial".

[Anonymous No.3224013]

Digital art is superior in every way besides the fact that you can't have an "original" copy.
You lot talk about the difficulties of traditional painting like not having undos and mistakes thus being permanent but things like that are just limitations, they don't add anything to the artwork. Digital art is only limited by your skill and imagination, you could manipulate every single pixel in a 10kx10k image if you wanted to. That is not to say limitations don't foster creativity, they are just not exlusive to traditional art.
Digital art is the future, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.3224016]

>>3224010
True, but this is a most unpopular opinion on /ic/ – nobody wants to hear it.
Calling concept art, character design and illustration of a /ic/ average level "digital art" is like comparing packed, sliced American cheese to Swiss cheese.

>You lot talk about the difficulties of traditional painting like not having undos and mistakes
And you are dumb enough not to know that there are thousands of other differences besides your lazy Strg+Z.

[Anonymous No.3224020]

>>3224013
>you could manipulate every single pixel in a 10kx10k image if you wanted to.
and it would still be a fucking pixel picture. you print it on expensive paper and it's still a fucking pixel picture. flat, lifeless, dull.

[Anonymous No.3224025]

>>3224007
You're wasting paint in watercolor without at least 4 years under your belt, I can only imagine how bad the learning curve on oil is, although from what I've heard the learning curve isn't so rough in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.3224026]

>>3224016
Dumb krautposter.

[Anonymous No.3224028]

>>3224026
damn, great argument.

[Anonymous No.3224029]

>>3224025
>You're wasting paint in watercolor without at least 4 years under your belt
Complete and utter bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3224032]

>>3224025
>>3224029

to be fair, you don't have to paint watercolors all the fucking time. You can do all other techniques, charcoal, pencil, oil, acrylics on the side and improve in all areas. You'll get better in watercolors as you figure out how to use them your way. I've had fairly good sets of watercolors (about 5$ each little color) for years and only used up my favorite colors halfway at most.

[Anonymous No.3224091]

>>3224032
I can't keep a half pan of ultramarine around for a month.

[Anonymous No.3224109]

>>3224091
>he doesnt blow his paycheck on backups of all his favorite materials until he has a huge stockpile of art supplies that he never uses like 7 full bottles of Higgens Black Magic

haha
help

[Anonymous No.3224113]

>>3224109
>not special ordering a crate of F pencils from grorious nippon

[Anonymous No.3224117]

>>3224113
I ordered a shitload of 102 nibs from my local art store and complained until they gave in and started stocking Higgens Super White.
Feels good man
I got some jap mechanical pencils and they're fantastic

[Anonymous No.3224217]

>>3224091
>ultramarine
*Yesterday by the Beatles*

"Ultramarine ...
you're not the Lapislazuli
you used to be."

they've found cheap substitutes for all rare pigments by now.

[Anonymous No.3224225]

>>3224217
Not really.

[Anonymous No.3224226]

I have 2 drawings one digital and one not u can obs tell which ones which but both look unique to its style

[Anonymous No.3224229]

And then the non digital

[Anonymous No.3224230]

>>3224225
"... which was originally made by grinding lapis lazuli into a powder."

"The raw materials used in the manufacture of synthetic ultramarine are the following:

iron-free kaolin, or some other kind of pure clay, which should contain its silica and alumina as nearly as possible in the proportion of SiO2:Al2O3 demanded by the formula assigned to ideal kaolin (a deficit of silica, however, it appears can be made up for by addition of the calculated weight of finely divided silica),
anhydrous Sodium sulfate (Na2SO4),
anhydrous Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3),
powdered sulfur,
powdered charcoal or relatively ash-free coal, or colophony in lumps."

[Anonymous No.3224231]

>>3224226
>>3224229
omg i can't tell which one is digital and which one is anal.

[Anonymous No.3224233]

To all you tradfags saying you're better than digital artists just because of your medium, POST WORK.

[Anonymous No.3224239]

>>3224233

[Anonymous No.3224243]

>>3224004
>hardest traditional medium I learned
what about watercolors?

[Anonymous No.3224266]

despite the high-tech futuristic initial impression, physical art is clearly the more complex medium since the physical world is infinitely more complex than even a 60,000 x 60,000 photoshop pixel array

inb4 someone btfos me by proving that this watercolor drawing is actually digital

[Anonymous No.3224272]

>>3224266
for all I care, digital art as a thing may just be a meme.
Traditional art has endured as long as human civilization and has been reinvented, based on the time given, many times. Even today, we see fascinating new possibilities in pigments and art material. e.g. acrylic colors are quite a young invention.

[Anonymous No.3224276]

>>3224272
I wouldn't say that, in the end digital is a physical medium too, but we're just running on technology less than a hundred years old at the moment and a simple pixel array combined with a simple electronic pressure sensor is nothing compared to a liquid medium

in 300 years you'll probably see digital art that blows your mind

[Anonymous No.3224280]

>>3224010
So all digital art isn't art because a lot of people photobash? Great logic mate.

[Anonymous No.3224281]

>>3224226
>>3224229
The non digital only looks better because you're trying to use pencil techniques with something that isn't pencil. Digital is a completely different medium. Just because oil looks bad if you try to paint with it like it's watercolour doesn't mean its inferior, same with your case.

[Anonymous No.3224282]

>>3224276
digital is way too limited atm.

just look at the advent of digital cameras. In the beginning, they featured a completely unsatisfying resolution for a very long time. the appeal of analogue film is only drifting away now as digital cameras have become quite good.
same with analogue video (VHS), then digital video and 4k today.
now, digital art is fairly young as well. but the problem really is that it emulates traditional mediums while it has some really awful flaws, that being its sterile, machine based format, it's limited depth and the inadequate possibilities to materialize it (expensive prints, still flat).

"digital art" as a thing is still a baby.

[Anonymous No.3224283]

>>3224266
I agree with you that traditional is harder but it's not because photoshop has a lower resolution, you're not individually painting every pixel.

[Anonymous No.3224286]

>>3224281
yo anon, this >>3224226, >>3224229 guy is just some lost dude who probably wanted to post in /beg/. not part of the discussion.

[Anonymous No.3224293]

>>3224283
I never said it was harder, just more complex
like look at my picture, look at all the pretty details the watercolor produces via texture
it's half the charm of the thing

[Anonymous No.3224314]

>>3224293
But this can't possibly be an example that proves your point, the image you're showing us uses pixels. Any complexity we can see is possible digitally, and anything beyond what digital is capable of is impossible for us to see. :D

But I get the point, we can all imagine a physical work of art in all it's complexity sitting in front of us.

I dunno, everything is ultimately infinitely complex, or is at least complex down to the level of Planck units. You could try to argue that a digital canvas has finite pixels (an aside, wat about vectors, huh? it's all math, it's truly infinitely detailed in a sense), while a physical canvas is near infinite in resolution, but pragmatically speaking, in terms of looking at or making a work of art, you can only see so much detail physically, so in that sense the painting does have a finite resolution. Also, the finite pixels of a digital canvas are generated by a material substrate which is just as 'non-finite' as a physical painting.

If we start talking about zooming in to the surface of a work, well, sorry, but an electron microscope with digital output can see far higher resolution than an optical microscope. In fact the near infinite complexity of the physical world that the painting is a part of is only detectable via digital means.

>>3224283
Yeah, digital really is easier. It's because you can undo things, work with multiple versions easily, and separate things into layers, and because the toolset has been streamlined (ie no physical brushes, water, solvents, towels, lights, drying time... etc. it's all in one interface.) Anything I can do physically, I can do in 1/3 the time digitally.

[Anonymous No.3224320]

>>3224314
yeah but digital art is just fake brushstrokes
call me when they're running fluid simulations and subsurface scattering and shit on my heightmapped photoshop canvas

[Anonymous No.3224324]

>>3224314

A print of a digital work on paper requires photo paper for best quality. As much work as you may put into it, it will be flat in every respect. You can choose glossy or matte paper, but that's it. You can also choose to print it on canvas, some companies do that, but that's really the most disgusting thing you can do in terms of digital art kitsch.

A painting has a thin, put very significant surface, as it is far more complex than the flat surface of a printed page.
Oil colors are usually applied in layers, unless you paint thin and alla prima. Even then, it will have a very organic structure, visible bumps, valleys, points of reflection and light being sucked in. The lighting situation for a painting is very important. Reproducing a painting is very much dependent on which kind of lighting you choose. Finally, there are more or less glossy and matte areas all over the painting.

The depth in a real painting is not just a nostalgic thing. It is really like a layered, continuous a recording of movement on a surface.

[Anonymous No.3224326]

>>3224320
>call me when they're running fluid simulations and subsurface scattering and shit on my heightmapped photoshop canvas
... which would push digital painting even further down the "pretend like it's real paint" misery path.

[Anonymous No.3224327]

>>3224320
>photoshop
you get everything you just said you wanted in Corel Painter

[Anonymous No.3224330]

>>3224324
cont.

forgot to say, this >>3224326 is just a simple comparison of what i meant here. >>3224324

[Anonymous No.3224337]

>>3224320
Maybe you'd just be adding limitations at that point? I don't see that as being more complex or less fake.

Call me when you can make a physical painting perfectly 2 dimensional yet have 100 layers, when you can make near infinite perfect copies of it, and when you can go backwards in time while painting it.

Not saying digital is superior. I prefer traditional.

[Anonymous No.3224338]

>>3224326
I agree, the beauty of digital is everything about it that isn't trying to be a physical medium. I like working with vectors.

[Anonymous No.3224345]

>>3224327
looks pretty cool, but still looks digital
I'm not denigrating digital, but it's just matter of fact that a physical object is more detailed than can be stored on computer
>>3224337
yes, it has definite value and use areas, but that's ease of replicating and manipulating data you're talking about there, not complexity

[Anonymous No.3224347]

>>3224338
lol, that's one way to see it. You could also call that giving into an illusion, or being deluded.

where painting is a voluptuous, mature woman; digital painting is a worn out fleshlight.

[Anonymous No.3224365]

>>3224345
I was just pointing out that your argument goes both ways, digital lacks things that traditional has, traditional lacks things that digital has. Wasn't about complexity.

However, someday digital will have all those things you ask for, while traditional will never have the things digital can do.

I guess there is a kind of deep down detail that a physical object has that *could* be simulated but which it would be pointless to simulate, simply because the simulation device would have to be many times more detailed than the thing simulated. And so why not just have the original object? But I'd argue that that level of detail is beyond our perception in the context of appreciating an art object, so it isn't a difference we need to worry about.

The real thing that traditional will have going for it, once digital simulations are so accurate you can't tell the difference, is simply that fact that it wasn't made digitally. Like once we are all eating meat created in labs that is indistinguishable on an atomic level from "real" meat, people will still pay a premium for meat from a suffering animal because perceived authenticity has a value all its own.

[Anonymous No.3224371]

>>3224365
>traditional lacks things that digital has.
not sure if that's true at all.
you can go back and change layers on a real canvas as much as you like, not just in digital. you can even gain a surplus of texture and depth, by applying thin layers (even scrubbing old layers off with sandpaper can be done).

digital Ctrl+Z culture isn't superior to that. And the result will still be a flat image with all layers combined.

[Anonymous No.3224372]

>>3224347
A digital painting that is trying to be like real painting is like a worn out fleshlight, or perhaps a realdoll if it's really convincing. But I specified digital art that isn't a simulation of painting so I don't see how your analogy applies to that.

A digital object is no less real than a painting. It too exists purely in the material world.

[Anonymous No.3224373]

>>3224365
>*could* be simulated but which it would be pointless to simulate
... and it would still be flat, if you'd print it. It would also still be flat, if you show it on the same screen that it was done.

Animation, however, is different to fine art as you can truly do things that can't happen in a fine art painting as an actual object.
There are "animated" still lifes out there with a retro look like paintings, but that's a gimmick in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.3224376]

>>3224371
>you can go back and change layers on a real canvas as much as you like

That is SO not the same and you know it.

>flat image

Why is this bad? Maybe I want it to only exist digitally, I don't even want it to be a 3d object. Maybe it's intended to be a unflattened photoshop file or a string of code. A painting can't do that.

[Anonymous No.3224377]

>>3224376
>maybe i WAAANT it to be flat ever think of that HMMM?

just stop.

[Anonymous No.3224378]

>>3224376
>>3224372

The problem I have with "digital painting" (pretty paradox to begin with), are these brush traces. No matter how much you work on it, eventually every little hairline in a digital artwork will have this dead and faked look to it that you get from brushes.
It's just a failed nostalgic thing, pretending like you could "simulate brushes". And even if those simulations would get better and better, they would still come out completely flat, no matter how you presented it.
And the argument of being able to print it indefinitely is completely bullshit. The same applies for replications of paintings. Cameras, printers and reproduction techniques have become incredibly sharp and true to the color. Reproduction is no unique feature to digital art. Take any fine art printing technique, from Lithography to silkscreen prints. Thinking of it now, digital prints even pale compared to these printing techniques.

[Anonymous No.3224381]

David Hockney has given the whole iPad painting app craze a very clever and inspiring twist. He purposefully used the most basic "digital brushes" to make his iPad paintings. The huge difference here is that David Hockney has several decades of experience in real painting.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=david+hockney+ipad&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fpatricia1957.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2Fkey-153-241.jpg

[Anonymous No.3224409]

>>3224381

hahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.3224416]

>>3224409
Oh yeah, hahahahaha.
"Why didn't -you- paint the great canyon on a large scale out of several tiles with an ipad? It's so easy, a fie year old could do it!"

[Anonymous No.3224418]

>>3224381
So this is what a millionaire artist's work looks like.

[Anonymous No.3224421]

>>3224416

His work is naivistic and objectively not very skilfull. All the above mentioned digital artists paint like gods with oils compared to him. THIS is the man you choose to be an example of a traditional artist? You're fucking nuts man.

[Anonymous No.3224438]

>>3224378
Yeah, I agree, the simulation of brushwork and similar simulation attempts are kind of silly. For now at least. However, given 3d printing and scanning, I think it will be possible pretty soon to duplicate the Mona Lisa as a 3d object and it will require microscopes to tell the difference. Eventually you could do it atom for atom. Why not?

>print it indefinitely

Didn't say that, I'm talking about perfect digital copies. And I'm not saying that makes digital better, I'm just saying that's something you can't do with traditional media. Also, you bring up reproduction techniques, people probably had the same argument we are having only talking about painting vs printmaking or something.

>>3224377
Plenty of traditional painters now and in the past have worked to make their paintings extremely flat and eliminate signs of the artist's hand. Don't know why you can't imagine someone might want a flat painting, a 2d art object... or any number of things... art can be taken in many directions.

[Anonymous No.3224440]

>>3224421
>>3224418
you two are dwelling here on /ic/ for a very good reason.

>David Hockney – Secret Knowledge
He has done research on the assuption that artists like Vermer have used optical aids (lenses, mirrors) to achieve their masterful amount of details.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbFZIpNK10

>One of the internationally most important artists alive today.
>Two little /ic/ shits think they can play down his work.
that is /ic/ in a nutshell. If it isn't concept art with "muh correct anatomy", it's no good, huh?

[Anonymous No.3224443]

>>3224421
>His work is naivistic
problem?

Jules de Balincourt. essentially a naive painter as well.

These past few days, browsing and discussing shit on /ic/, I get the impression that you guys seem to hate modern painting a LOT. But you love your average Loomis based shit.
I think most of you lack a huge chunk of education on the subject.

[Anonymous No.3224445]

>>3224440
I happen to think that some of Hockney's paintings are great, but if you can't see that >>3224418 is objectively terrible, you are not gonna make it.

>He has done research on the assuption that artists like Vermer have used optical aids (lenses, mirrors) to achieve their masterful amount of details.

Explain how this is relevant.

[Anonymous No.3224449]

>>3224438
>duplicate the Mona Lisa as a 3d
boy, you have no idea what you are talking about. the color on the mona lisa has aged so much, you can't replicate that.

I recommend you read "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin.
It will answer you why such an iconographic painting can never be reproduced and all attempts are silly.

>>3224445
If you dislike his iPad paintings, that's you thing. I can't argue with that.
As a painter myself, I see the knowledge and skill that he shows in his previous works, I see his handwriting, I see a very well throught through choice of colors, well balanced amount of details and sense for composition.
You can see that in a quick Picasso sketch on a napkin as well as in an iPad painting of Hockney.

[Anonymous No.3224458]

>>3224449
I'm sure there are already painted reproductions of the Mona Lisa that would fool 99% of people, so I don't see it as a stretch.

[Anonymous No.3224462]

>>3224458
That's not the point and you should read the book. I doubt you'll read it, as it's not your vice article kind of level that you read for fun and laughs. But no matter how good you are at forging a painting, experts can tell. Even if not, the aura of the original in case of the Mona Lisa can't be lost.

[Anonymous No.3224463]

>>3224440
he also bases this hypothesis on "but how could he possibly just paint like that without cheating" which is not surprising considering hockney can't paint

[Anonymous No.3224464]

>>3224440
>>3224443

>reeeee why u no like what i like??

Look, if you're into naive art, great. You do you man.
This board tends to focus more on work with a basis in realism. And when it comes to that, Crockney can't paint his way out of a wet paper bag. He objectively lacks the fundamental skills of realist art.

[Anonymous No.3224465]

>>3224463
>considering hockney can't paint
you are a snotty child, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.3224469]

>>3224463
>>3224464
>And when it comes to that, Crockney can't paint his way out of a wet paper bag. He objectively lacks the fundamental skills of realist art.

Holy fucking cow, I'm done with you fuckheads.
You take pride in your fucking uneducated little brains, while all you do is copy other people's shitty anatomy sketches at best. Most of you are second rate manga or cartoon amateurs.

/ic/ should really be renamed into
"manga / illustration critique"
or
"day care center for kids with Wacom tablets"

[Anonymous No.3224476]

>>3224462
>aura

Pff, oh jesus...

[Anonymous No.3224477]

>>3224469

He is objectively not skilled in realist painting and drawing. I don't think he has ever claimed to have such skill either. Why are you butthurt over a simple factual statement?

[Anonymous No.3224482]

>>3224477
>realist painting
that's all you little shits ever think about. if it isn't realistic, it has got to suck.

the closed-mindedness on here is just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.3224486]

>>3224476
that's why you should read a book for chance, little man. you don't understand jack shit about painting, yet you feel entitled to talk about it.

right now, you're close to freaking flat earther when it comes to basic knowledge of painting. even as a shit concept artists, you should read up on it as not to embarrass yourself when you actually talk to people who aren't as uninformed as you.

[Anonymous No.3224489]

>>3224482

But am I wrong? I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was making a factual statement.

[Anonymous No.3224492]

>>3224486

>talks about paintings having "auras"
>gets called out on his bullshit
>retorts with "lol ur like a lfat earther!!"

wew lad

[Anonymous No.3224494]

>>3224489
you fucking moron, open your fucking eyes. do you think Hockney can't paint realism? Look at this picture
>>3224440

He chooses to paint the way he paints, because he is past realism. It is overrated. realism is nothing without an idea. Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.3224501]

>>3224494
>you fucking moron, open your fucking eyes. do you think Hockney can't paint realism? Look at this picture

What picture? No, I don't think he can paint realism. You may prefer his naivistic style of painting and that's fine, but that doesn't make him well versed in the fundamentals of realistic painting. Please post his realist work and prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.3224504]

>>3224492
oh, I guess Walter Benjamin, one of the most important art critiques and philosophers was wrong to coin the term "aura", which you probably confuse with some esotericism out of your complete lack of general knowledge for art.
It's not your fault that your art education seems to have been a complete waste of time. But the fact that you know jack shit about art and have no interest in aquiring a basic knowledge, falls right back at you.
Instead, most of you guys here spend your time jerking off to anime and doodling cartoon characters.

[Anonymous No.3224510]

>>3224501
Is this your first time here? Click on the picture. It's him in front of two of his paintings. HERE ::::::
http://i.4cdn.org/ic/1512358500875.jpg

>>3224440
>>3224440
>>3224440
>>3224440
>>3224440
>>3224440

[Anonymous No.3224511]

>>3224494
He's right dude, Hockney can paint realistically. Too bad it still looks like shit.

[Anonymous No.3224512]

>>3224510
Needs more Loomis

[Anonymous No.3224520]

>>3224494
>>3224501
He's right dude, Hockney can paint realistically. Too bad it still looks like shit.

[Anonymous No.3224577]

>>3224462
> experts can tell. Even if not, the aura of the original in case of the Mona Lisa can't be lost.

But the aura is by definition lost through the process of reproduction, so if you duplicate the Mona Lisa even roughly, to the degree that a run of prints are duplicates (okay, we're talking future technology here, but you allowed the hypothetical), there is no aura. If not even experts can tell, then it's definitely lost.

Aura is bullshit anyways, every object is original (except maybe fundamental particles? i really don't...). Even digital copies are represented by differing sets of silicon, electrons, etc. Maybe not bullshit, but at least some sort of continuum.


> I doubt you'll read it, as it's not your vice article kind of level that you read for fun and laughs.

Boy are you arrogant. Don't give reasons or arguments or anything, just keep arguing from authority and insulting people (>>3224504
).

[Anonymous No.3224578]

>As a painter myself, I see the knowledge and skill that he shows in his previous works, I see his handwriting, I see a very well throught through choice of colors, well balanced amount of details and sense for composition.

[Anonymous No.3224582]

>>3224578

[Anonymous No.3224583]

>>3224582
I'm being unfair, though, this is rather beautiful: >>3224416

[Anonymous No.3224587]

i do traditional art. wanna form a discord?

[Anonymous No.3224600]

>tradfags
lol

[Anonymous No.3224626]

>>3224587
sure sounds fun

[Anonymous No.3224669]

>>3224365
>Wasn't about complexity.
it was about complexity
I never said anything about anything but complexity

[Anonymous No.3224685]

>>3224280
Read my post again and realize how retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.3224687]

i'm selling my wacom because of this thread.

[Anonymous No.3224694]

based purely off the opinions of a couple dozen people

[Anonymous No.3224707]

>>3224687
>>3224694
You do realize that's not enough? Blow me and you might be forgiven.

[Anonymous No.3224775]

>>3224587
looks like Fauvism, a bit from yesterday, but good luck and keep up the practice.

[Anonymous No.3224800]

>>3224775
that looks nothing like fauvism, its closer to early cubism or cezanne.

[Anonymous No.3224851]

>>3223845
They do traditional art as well, not just concept art. Google their work. Shit son, stop being so close minded.

[Anonymous No.3224925]

>>3224707
post dick

[Anonymous No.3225117]

good?

[Anonymous No.3225160]

>>3219069
>Will traditional art simply disappear?
No you're a faggot.
There's multiple techniques for multiple people.

[Anonymous No.3225443]

>>3224851
She sucks at what you call "traditional"
All she does is collage different photographs together and than she makes a meticulously gay drawing, merging it all together in a completely awkward fashion.

the red circled owl that seems to be taking off just this second has no starting point where it would make sense that she could open her wings that wide. Her perspective and her vicinity to the shitty girl with the skull are impossible (compare the angle of the arm)
The are with the three owls features a lazy, shabby shading. The skulls perspective is messed up as well.
Not to mention the cliché motif ... girl with a transfigured gaze, skull (wow! we all die!), owls, the symbols of wisdom! oooooweeeeh! it sucks. it's not better than you "wolf howling at the moon" Twilight kitsch wallpaper.

[Anonymous No.3225446]

>>3219069
Most sophisticated art organizations will not accept digital art. Try to put a digital into any respectable art contest, and it gets rejected in three seconds. Traditional art is still valued, so don't fret. And even if it weren't, digital art isn't fake. It just exists in raw form in the computer. There is nothing dishonest about it. We just can't touch it until we print it.

[Anonymous No.3225475]

>>3225443
Holy fucking nitpicking faggots batman!

[Anonymous No.3225495]

he thinks this is bad
>>3225475

he thinks this is good
>>3224381
>>3224416
>>3224418
>>3224440
>>3224510
>>3224510
>>3224578
>>3224582
>>3224582

[Anonymous No.3225496]

>>3225495
meant to link >>3225443

[Anonymous No.3225509]

>>3225495
arguing with tradfags is like being addicted to heroin
it shortens your lifespan and you gain nothing from it

[Anonymous No.3225753]

>>3225495
arguing with trad artists is shortening your lifespan
you realize you suck at art and have to learn drawing by number /bc "muh realism, muh anatomy"

[Anonymous No.3225768]

>>3225509
>>3225753

So it's settled, tradfags suck? That second post confuses me...

[Anonymous No.3225769]

>>3225768
No wait, I get it. Man I'm too high.

[Anonymous No.3225772]

>>3225768
yeah digital wacom faggots are much better. i'll tell you why:

- competent in art history
- modest
- know that the only real answer to trad art is shifting to computers
- aren't obsessed with materials, computers are material too!
- pic up your wacom and start, much easier
- can stay at home, learn from internet tutorials
- no friends, no distractions
- room constantly smells like old paper towels with dried up cum
- can run on pizza, dorritos and diet coke for weeks
- know how to dress properly
- could easily do traditional art techniques, it's literally the same thing, only shittier and you can't Ctrl + Z
- are based and smart
- sell a lot, unlike tradfags, who can't sell their sticky, complex "real" paintings
- you can print digital art endlessy and you can go back and change things to make new prints, much better than any painting
- paper is killing trees, fuck off tradfags
- digital artists are the future, just look at cosplay

I could think of a whole lot more.

[Anonymous No.3228255]

>>3222682
thanks