/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3446866]

Will digital art ever obtain the status that traditional art has. Or will it stay at a lower tier than traditional?

[Illastrat No.3446872]

Digital is soulless

[Anonymous No.3446873]

>>3446872
I love you. How people still reply to you is beyond me

[Anonymous No.3446879]

>>3446866
It's not "lower", it just doesn't produce unique things that you cannot easily copy. That's the value of traditional art - existence of the original.

[Anonymous No.3446887]

>>3446879
I don't know much about art yet, explain anon? I dont get what you mean

[Anonymous No.3446889]

>>3446866
if you look at what's happening with digital these days, it seems like analogue is becoming ever more important. films are again being conserved using actual film roles as backup, because they are much more reliable.

read up on Walter Benjamin. an artwork has a certain aura - don't think of esotericism right away now, it's about how a piece of art is perceived. within your lifetime, maybe you will come back to a painting numerous times. like Francis Bacon would famously collect reproductions of the painting Portrait of Innocent X by Velazquez. as your life and experience changes, so does the way you look at a painting.

a lot about a painting is ambiguous and can't be reproduced: the circumstances at the time, the intentions, the emotional state of the artist that changes the way he worked on the painting (which shows), the translation of the object onto a flat medium, the depth of the color (oil color in layers has an incredible depth) ….

the original domain of digital art on the other hand is the computer screen. as it moves outside of the computer screen, it is becoming a facsimile, a copy. if you were true to how a digital artwork is best represented, you'd put the exact same type of computer screen on display, showing only the digital artwork. you can make endless prints of digital works with fancy expensive pigment printers, but it will always be a reproduction. as you print it, it changes according to the materials used to print it.

regarding a painting, there is only one single, unique version of it. many artists also paint some of their works two or more times with slight changes, like Wilhelm Sasnal. or they repaint their own art. but the result is always something new.

i disagree in digital art being soulless per se. it depends on how you use it. you rarely see it being pushed to the edge. mostly, it's emulating traditional media with fancy brushes and textures.

>>3446872
nevermind this insane namefag. hide and ignore.

[Anonymous No.3446898]

>>3446889
I see. very in depth, thank you

[Anonymous No.3446909]

>>3446898
add to that the fact that in digital, there is a whole lot of effort to make up for the dead, recurring patterns. the concept of dithering - adding random noise to the entire picture or parts of it to mask colors that are too even, lifeless or flat.
look at concept artists who work hours and hours on a digital work in order to lose the flatness, give texture to the otherwise stale colors. some use the burn tool excessively, or other tools, which creates its own mannerism. as digital has zero texture per se, only pixels on the screen, it needs to emulate texture, so there's lots of faking liveliness in that sense.

[Anonymous No.3446924]

>>3446887
You can ctrl-c ctrl-v a digital painting. There's no "original" that you can buy at an auction.

[Anonymous No.3447305]

>>3446866
seeing how traditionnal art gets pissed on by today's institutions and "intellectuals" with their unconditionnal love for contemporary and conceptual art, I don't know if that's something we'd want.
I tend to think today's art isn't in museums but in movies, videogames, comics etc... Digital art is used in all of those, the major difference is that it's produced way faster and in greater quantity by way more artists, so I don't expect it to reach the kind of sacred status traditional has, because it's just not meant to, it's not the purpose of digital art.

[Anonymous No.3447320]

Digital art can’t be used to launder money, so no.

[Anonymous No.3447323]

>>3446866
It can be, I think the problem with digital art currently is what people do with it. Rarely you see digital artist do art mainly for personal reasons. Compared to traditional art where this is why most people do it.

Digital art got it roots in concept art. You can paint cool castles, and dragons you get money from it. So it's no surprise why a lot of people are doing it. As cool as concept art is it's a product in the end of the day. And digital art made it self as a commodity from the very beginning.

If we're honest many of us are doing digital art mainly for economical reasons. It's always about securaing that job in the industry or about doing the freelance thing. We expect making money with digital art. While there is nothing wrong with that. No one can deny that it created an industry standard that we all aiming at. That's why we see painting with a guy holding a stick over and over again, and that's way digital art can feel really cheap. We are doing it to make products not art. And that's the concept art mentality.

In my opinion for digital art to be the best contemporary medium it has to divorce itself from the concept art mentality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make a living with digital art. Nor to stop making production concept art art. But this mentality is making the medium really sick, and few are talking about it. The funny thing is there is nothing stopping us from doing this shift in thinking.

I think Craig Mullins alluded to that in interview somewhere, but I might be wrong.

[Anonymous No.3447351]

>>3447305
>traditionnal art gets pissed on by today's institutions and "intellectuals" with their unconditionnal love for contemporary and conceptual art
Most contemporary art shown in these institutions are paint on canvas. Traditional art takes up the biggest spot in the contemporary art scene (especially when you include sculpture). It's just that it's not traditional in the sense that it tries to be like classic art. Which, for the record, you can still see in the thousands in museums all over the world.

[Anonymous No.3447366]

>>3446866
Even modern traditional art can't achieve the status that traditional art has.

[Anonymous No.3447390]

>>3446866
the power of traditional art comes mainly from its history, that it was used from very early pagan worship, up through mass religion, and into modern art. the physicality of the traditional medium will remain forever. digital will forever be unstable due to its entangled nature with technology. it also brings attention to many unwanted existential concerns about creativity, ownership, ai, etc.

i imagine, as other scifi writers have, that as the technology evolves digital art will eventually have little resemblance to traditional art at all, and will become something closer to food art or drug use.

[Anonymous No.3447797]

uniqueness, replication, time and space. technology is used in order to save time, material, space. you put into layman's terms... and reach. it became 'easier' to make, replicate, produce. cheaper, massively, almost inmediate (the result, we all know that a digital illustrations, depending on its level could take days, weeks, same as their analogic counterparts), the tradicional art reñies on the moment, the gesture, the permanent mistake, and the imperfection, as romantic as it sounds. while the machine as a medium just kills it (ctrl z, relieves the so-called artist/ illustrator its fears on the mistake or starting over )

traditional art is about mastery, contemporary art is about concept (some are crappy but their basics are well based), performance is about being on a set time and space, the pubic becomes part of the moment and the piece itself a memory.

[Anonymous No.3447817]

traditional art will retain its status simply because of tradition
>>3447323
concept art is not a "mentality", it's a job.

[Anonymous No.3447885]

>>3447797
Stop using software translations and git gud in english.

[Anonymous No.3447935]

>>3447323
>Compared to traditional art where this is why most people do it.

Laughably untrue. Art was a career, a calling, and a trade. Almost all of the art you see in musuems was paid for, at some point, either by a patron, or to a private buyer after being shown in public. Most artists worked for money, from Michelangelo to Picasso. I can't think of any master who painted just for the love of it, although I don't doubt they would have, if they didn't have to earn a living.
(The one patron who made most of the classic art you admire in museums is the Catholic Church.)
Even going back to the classic eras of greek and roman art, those great statues were commissioned for temples, or for private homes, or by royalty for palaces.

I can't think of an era, or society, or culture where artists created for personal reasons, other than the current one, where there are more weekend artists than working artists.

[Anonymous No.3447941]

>>3446909
The one thing digital can't recreate is the glow, transparency, and subtlety of oil paint. A lot of people here have only seen a lot of the great works of art on their computer screens, at images that can't even begin to recreate the glory of a masterpiece in person. Monet is a good example - on screen, even carefully colo corrected versions of his paintings are flat compared to the real thing, and the subtle colors he created on canvas - colors that can change depending on how close to the canvas you are, or what angle. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a completely different experience in person, than through photos.
That experience is something digital can't deliver, unless it's printed and hung, and even then, the gamut of color printing can achieve still clips the colors artists can create, and no printing can capture the glow of a Maxfield Parrish. I sat and studied Satyr and Nymph by Bouguereau when the Met had it on loan, and no photo has ever done it justice. The Monets on display in the Louvre are like walking into a church, or temple. No photo can impart to you the impact of those canvases. Photos cannot do Rembrandt justice. My favorite painting, "Spring" by Alma Tedema, doesn't have the same impact as seeing it in person. You can't understand the power of Rodin's bronzes, until you can walk around them and take them in.

Don't get me wrong, I love both. But digital simply doesn't have the visceral experience traditional art has, and without that, it's a hard sell to have people put value into it, like they do real art. I don't know if it ever will.

[Anonymous No.3447943]

>>3447935
>I can't think of an era, or society, or culture where artists created for personal reasons, other than the current one, where there are more weekend artists than working artists.

this day and age has enabled a lot of weekend artists, true. materials are easily accessible, cheap, ready made canvas, all that stuff. there are courses encouraging old housewives to pick up on art, "discover the artist in you" and all that exploitation. but it's exactly that, just exploitation, and you find it in any other field as well. just think about hobby musicians! in every aspect of life where people are ready to spend their hard earned money and are passionate about it, some business will come and make a fortune of it.

that's washing out art production, at least the reception and expectations that people have in it. almost everyone knows some ngmi hobby idiot in their family that paints flowers or copies photos with a tracer. those are the points of orientation for normies: "oh, you are drawing as well! i know a tattoo artist / hobby painter" bla bla bla.

if you let yourself be intimidated by commercial exploitation of hobby art, maybe you should find something else. and you are wrong in assuming that artists have always been artists for the career. it is a necessary evil, just watch the film on Turner. don't project your own expectations on others. while you might just be in it for money and getting low praise for your commissions, someone else is passionate, honest and doesn't care if it sells or not, just the need and enjoyment of creating art. there are numerous cases of artists that have been discovered after they were already dead.

[Anonymous No.3447945]

>>3446872
thats not too bad for an autistic nigger like you

[Anonymous No.3447946]

>>3447941

I'm the one you replied to and I've written the same arguments as in your paragraph in a thread a while ago, I completely agree.
You get shit for saying that on here, because most losers have never actually been consciously looking at and comparing reproductions to the original works. I stand in front of a small version of Monets water lillies and I am completely captivated. It's infuriating to see museum visitors these days, all on their smartphones, spending about 2 seconds at each painting before they photograph it or take a selfie. Yes, they photgraph it. As if there wouldn't exist photos of 10x the quality that their shitty smartphone can achieve. simply google the fucking name and you have a set of "as good as it gets" reproductions. And they still don't do it any justice. People are fucking illiterates these days when it comes to why you go to a museum and how you go through an exhibition. And worst of all, there is a growing consensus in museum directors that they should FORCE even more "interactivity" on the visitors and be more educational and explanatory in the texts and text walls. facepalm

[Anonymous No.3447949]

>>3446866

The problem with digital is that it's closer to "being something artificial" than the traditional art. So it's status will probably be in a shittier position for a very long time. At least in the eyes of the normal people that don't interact with art so much.

[Anonymous No.3447953]

>>3447943
I'm not "assuming" anything, it's proven fact. It's called "history", dude. Artists worked for commissions in every era of history. It's always been a trade. If you'd care to fumble around and try to prove your assertion, feel free, but you're doomed to fail, because unlike you, I've studied art, and art history, as part of getting a degree in art, and have continued to study the history art on my own, probably longer than you've been alive.
Also, I'm not "intimidated' by anything, either, I've been working as a professional illustrator and artist, again, longer than you've probably been alive. I've survived off my skills and talents, how about you?

I suspect you're talking completely out of your ass, and making up shit to demonize me, and doing a lot of projecting yourself, because you're an arrogant neckbeard who freaks out if someone corrects them or tells them they're wrong - considering this is 4chan, i don't think I'm taking any chances thinking that.

Now, did you have an actual point, or are you just going to flap your fedora at me more? I'd rather you try to prove your asinine assertions, it would definitely be more entertaining.

[Anonymous No.3447955]

>>3447949
>for a very long time. At least in the eyes of the normal people
unless digital art production comes up with a form of reproduction that is unique to it's genre, it will always be like that.
printed digital works are always a reproduction per se. I've talked to an idiot illustrator some years ago and he told me about his plan to sell digital works. he has "different levels" of selling stuff. first is just a printed copy, second being a printed copy and the digital file, third is adding the right to make reproductions, signed, and so on, and the last and most expensive being "i give you the original file and i delete it from my computer! only you have the file, herpy derpy!" - total fucking bullshit. it's on your harddrive, you will never be able to prove that you don't keep the original file, or a printed copy. the absolute idiocy that some digital illustrators come up with these days to compensate for the lack of an original.

[Anonymous No.3447960]

>>3446866
i think it will achieve some status, but digital art is video games not fake paintings.

[Anonymous No.3447962]

>>3447953
oh yes, here we go again.
i appreciate your insecurity that drives you to play your "i studied art and art history!" card. well, no shit! what a fucking surprise, some of us did that too! and what does "longer than you've probably been alive" mean, dickhead? give me some numbers.
you really sound like that one douchebag with his head up his ass, a good stereotype in art uni.

>Artists worked for commissions in every era of history.
well no shit, Sherlock! But not every artist. Don't go all "It's called history" on me, well you don't seem to remember shit yourself. You really sound like that one dude who is completely idiocyncratic in every respect, twisting what he heard about art history to suit his agenda, has a fixed idea about the art world and ironically calls out others for being stubborn and to "freak out if someone corrects them or tells them they're wrong", but really, it's you who is reacting autistically here. not everything is black and white like you want it to be to make living easier. same as you don't need to study art for being a great artist. i know quite a few people who make unique work and even more so, because no one has ever tried to push them in a certain direction. i've studied and graduated painting at a university and i've also studied art history, big deal. looking at artists like you, it's clear as day that that doesn't make you a better person or more confident in what you do. get back to work, dickhead.

>fedora
lmao just drop the buzzwords, man. it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.3447967]

>>3447955
I worked in art publishing, that's not that crazy an idea. What controls that is a contract - if you sign one that says you destroyed the original, you can get sued if you pop up with a copy later on.
You don't always sell all rights with a painting, anyway. Some artists sell a painting, but not the reproduction rights - you can own the canvas, but you can't sell prints of it. And, you can do a small run of prints, and never print them again, which can create value, especially if you hand sign and number them. (There's scams with that, sadly - they'll have fine print that they won't make more posters that size - and then turn around and sell a poster 75% of the size of the small run. And use machines to sign, which legally is acceptable as a real signature.)
You could also have a transparency printed of the file, and destroy the file. All of our art at the art publisher started with a 4x5 or 8x10 transparency, because digital fails too often for archival purposes.
But yeah, a real oil painting will always be superior to a digital file. At least in our lifetimes, anyway. Maybe someday they'll have 3d printers that can replicate oil layers, or bronze castings down to the micro-millimeter.
And, for us, there's nothing like putting brush to canvas, and creating something. Digital doesn't feel the same. Hell, it doesn't even smell the same, linseed and mineral spirits smell good.

[Anonymous No.3447968]

>>3447962
>i appreciate your insecurity
Yeah, i stopped right there. Go flap your fedora at someone else, asshole. I know exactly who I'm dealing with - no more (you)s for you.

[Anonymous No.3447971]

>>3447968
:) funny how you replied to me here: >>3447955
and in a more autistic, butthurt fashion here >>3447953

but i do appreciate the fact that you have a normal discussion with my arguments on reproduction. just cool down and have a cup of tea, if you see that veine on your forehead pop out too much from posting here. come back when you've dropped your "I'VE STUDIED ART REEEEEEEE" insecurities.

[Anonymous No.3448310]

>>3447885
fuck you... i'm doing the best i can, to put things short and easy

[Anonymous No.3448430]

>>3447946
>People are fucking illiterates these days
agreed but what seems to be the cause? are there just too many hobbyists and clowns in the art world that prevent people from taking a closer inspection? is it a general philosophical problem? the prevalent attitude towards knowledge has turned pretty shitty even though it only improves quality of life.

[Anonymous No.3448440]

>>3447955
>the absolute idiocy that some digital illustrators come up with
it's not just illustrators! remember, as of writing this, there are incredibly elaborate IP laws in place in every country across the world. people are so backwards to how reality works that they are willing to punish others for infringing on their rights to remain counterproductive and outright delusional.

[Anonymous No.3448591]

>>3447955
yeah, it's fucking called limited print runs.

You people realize that "prints" have existed for centuries right? You guys realize that even though there are a shit ton of comic books, the first print run is the one worth the most money right?

Nothing is stopping you from owning a reproduction of the Mona LIsa. In fact, most art that you see in your lifetime is a reproduction. Like, 99.99% of paintings that someone sees, even a lover of the arts, are going to be reproductions. You rarely see the originals.

Even then, technology is going to get to the point where we will be able to literally copy the atomic placement of the matter a painting is made of into an exact copy of the original. What the fuck are traditional fags going to do then?

A physical painting doesn't have worth because there is just one of it, it's the image on it's canvas that matters. A bunch of snobbish rich cunts convinced idiots otherwise.

(Plus, what you gonna do when you find out your reality is just a simulation anyways)

[Anonymous No.3448703]

>>3448591
>You rarely see the originals.
Speak for yourself, you cheap, lazy moron. I've been to the most important museums in europe and russia and regularly go to museums. Nobodys fault but your own, if you don't want to or can't afford to see originals. This is literally the only legit way to look at a painting. You travel there and look at it. Your shitty backlit computerscreen is not a painting.

[Anonymous No.3448769]

>>3447351
Yeah, by traditional I meant classic (As I thought was implied by OP's pic related). And we'll agree on the fact that classic art is still shown in thousands of museums.
Anyway, as an art student myself, I constantly see teachers and institutions despise figurative art, treating it like shit tier art when they can't stop talking about how genius some contemporary and assimilated art is (they just won't shut up about Duchamp for example).
If you want your stuff to get in a museum today,
Anyway, my point was that institutions and art teachers (that are not in the classic art thing) just despise figurative art, and that's what digital art is mainly about for now, so I wouldn't expect it to reach the same status as traditionnal or classic art anytime soon, it's just not the right time anymore.

[Anonymous No.3448770]

>>3448769
sorry, didn't delete the whole museum sentence, I'm stupid, just ignore

[Anonymous No.3448772]

>>3448769
is that actually true? i've never has a tutor/lecturer like that, only ones who like contemporary art and old school stuff.

makes me wonder if you were talking about something that actually is shit tier, like academicism which is pretty but not as good as the other naked people art and not important at all.

[Anonymous No.3448978]

>>3448591
>A physical painting doesn't have worth because there is just one of it
lol.

[Anonymous No.3449040]

My trad arts are one-of-a-kind throughout the universe. My digital arts are not.

I had a piece I drew in illustrator printed on canvas. My friend loved it, so I just printed another as a gift. The dude at the print shop really loved it and I wouldn't be surprised if he printed one for himself on the sly.

[Anonymous No.3449183]

>>3448772
> i've never has a tutor/lecturer like that, only ones who like contemporary art and old school stuff.

Well lucky you, I got shat on several times for being too old school and traditional by contemporary loving teachers. They'll consider old classic art, renaissance art and all of that on historical ground but wiil deem you outdated if you take inspiration from it and try to go figurative,and even worse if you go realistic. Don't go telling a story with your art if you're gonna represent it as accuratly and realisticly as you can.
My drawing teacher is the only one praising and encouraging people like me at uni. But again, I'm more of a Da Vinci guy than a Jeff Koons one, people like me work in concept art or freelance illustration nowadays, not for rich folks that don't know where to invest their money anymore or institutions that keep that market rolling

[Anonymous No.3449206]

>>3449183
No kidding. I'm old, and I faced that bullshit in college, constantly. I was an illustration major, and the "fine art" students would sneer at us, and make comments like "Well, if you want to sell out and work for MONEY..." - and some of the teachers were worse. I'd say half of my teachers were fantastic, i was lucky to get some of the better ones for painting, the other half were a complete waste of time and ignored anyone who wasn't doing bullshit abstract art. And I was lucky that all of my art history professors kind of laughed at modern art and were fantastic about teaching us about the masters.

[Anonymous No.3449209]

>>3449040
You could literally do the same thing with traditional art. Ever heard of scanners, anon?

[Anonymous No.3449215]

>>3449206
is funny because at uni we shared a building with the architecture students, so we were the ones getting sneered at as a bunch of weirdos down in the basement

[Anonymous No.3449343]

>>3448769
>teachers and institutions despise figurative art
i'm genuinely sorry you've made that experience. at my university, pretty much every tutor was open to any approach, especially figurative. but i know that it can be different and i've seen it when i went abroad for one year. the university in there was more business driven, restrictive, but also careless. you had to pay a huge tuition and students would graduate after three years. in my opinion, that is not even enough to figure out the different materials and what you can do with them, lest would you have enough time to find out what you wanna do with your art. we've had a student in my class who moved away, because the university wasn't supportive of his works. i didn't particularly like his political, polished, "cool" works, but he seemed to be happy in the other university he went to when he moved away and it worked out for him. so, don't be afraid of changing the university, if it's not your thing and you see yourself being stuck in an environment that doesn't help you develope.

[Anonymous No.3449347]

>>3449040
>I had a piece I drew in illustrator printed on canvas.
>printed on canvas.
i just threw up in my mouth.
prints on canvas are the absolute abomination.

[Anonymous No.3449636]

>>3449209
My bad, I was referring to my oil panting. Even the most meticulously photographed oil painting will obviously never be mistaken for the original under even the most casual inspection.

Also, I'm not arguing one is better than the other, just this is a shortcoming *to me personally*

[Anonymous No.3449638]

>>3449347
Only because you are sorely wanting in imagination. It can be done to excellent effect if you don't suck.

[Anonymous No.3450580]

>>3446866
No because you can always press copy and past on digital and its intangible. Traditional art is tangible and 'one-of-its-kind', if you destroy a painting you can never get it back, you can recreate it but it wont be the exact painting.

[Anonymous No.3450601]

>>3446866
probably certian forms, or platforms.

once technology expands more
the current protfolio produced will be more akin to kodachrome, and the super nintendo.

only hobbyists that have preserved technology will bother with using it.

I don't know why though.
every single piece of digital art I see seems like its made with pastels.

[Anonymous No.3453292]

>>3447390
>i imagine, as other scifi writers have, that as the technology evolves digital art will eventually have little resemblance to traditional art at all, and will become something closer to food art or drug use.
yeah, that happened around 1962 when they invented the first video game

[Anonymous No.3453295]

>>3446866
The majority of expensive paintings are due to scarcity.
There is only one of them, and after the artist dies they become valuable.
Digital art is infinitely reproducible.

[Anonymous No.3453345]

Digital "art" isn't art.
The trade isn't nearly as respectable as traditional art either.

[Anonymous No.3453363]

>>3453345
Yup, digital art to art is like quantum- healing to medicine.

Seriously, it has nothing to do with painting. It should rather be called digital drawing, considering the technology you use. The rest, brush simulation, is a nostalgic emulation of the real thing.

[Anonymous No.3453369]

>>3453363
Just because you can "draw" or "paint" digitally doesn't mean you can draw or paint using traditional mediums.
If you can actually draw or paint, the only thing you need to switch to digital is to learn the software.

[Anonymous No.3453460]

>>3453369
>If you can actually draw or paint, the only thing you need to switch to digital is to learn the software.
I agreed with you on most things so far, but I don't think changing from traditional materials to digital workstation is easy. I had a hard time getting used to the strange behavior of the pen and tablet, the size you work in, the fact that what you draw appears on the screen above. I do a lot of coloring for illustrations in digital and I try out stuff on photos of my paintings before I make big changes (very good at Photoshop, using it for >10 years now). But I mainly work with traditional media, because they are much more organic, haptic, intuitive, less restricted in your movements. I really mean it when I say, you can't compare digital drawing with the act of painting with color. I've seen quite a lot of digital artists who supposedly are "experts in traditional materials" as well, but you instantly see that they are trying to use their digital work in it and it just doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.3453489]

>>3448703
Unfortunately for you, it is. A 3D scan of the canvas will create a 1:1 copy.

Color is the result of light being reflected upon a surface. Paint color does not have the full spectrum of color. Light does, therefore the light that comes from a screen has the full spectrum of color available to it, while real life paint does not.

This means you can make art on a canvas, scan it, and get a 1-to-1 representation of it's color gamut, but you cannot do the same with an RGB artwork to print. the typical canvas and paint cannot reflect the most vibrant of color in light, lest they be a mirror.

the 3D scan can capture the texture and volume., which also allows you to cast light upon it and see it in various ways you can't usually do. The only layer you can interact with in real life that you can't in a monitor is touching the canvas, and i'm pretty sure no decent museum will let you be all willy nilly with your grimey fingers.

[Anonymous No.3453505]

>>3446866
no

[Anonymous No.3453506]

>>3453489
>A 3D scan of the canvas will create a 1:1 copy.
only problem being that all that is theory and isn't done in the slightest way, you moron. show me a 1:1 copy of the mona lisa by a 3d printer or any other example.

you have no idea about materials. paintings are done in layers of different thickness. you can't recreate this sufficiently unless you recreate the entire process of layers.

btw you still talk about copies, not about creating original works with real materials. so get fucked.

[Anonymous No.3453511]

>>3453506
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/sep/27/world.artsnewstemporary

> Scientists have made the most detailed copy yet of the most famous painting in the world, using a new three-dimensional high-resolution scan to look at the Mona Lisa in depth.
> Canada's National Research Council (NRC) will use the 3D scan to reveal features invisible to the naked eye, giving scientists and art historians a new perspective on the painting and helping to uncover some of the mysteries surrounding Leonardo da Vinci's "sfumato" painting technique. "We have made a virtual model of the painting so we can zoom in and look at features on the surface and back in great detail, in a way you really can't see on the real painting," said John Taylor of the NRC.

> in a way you really can't see on the real painting
> the 3d scan teaches you more about the painting than seeing it in real life

Congrats, you fooled yourself. dumbass.

[Anonymous No.3453513]

>>3453489
>Paint color does not have the full spectrum of color. Light does, therefore the light that comes from a screen has the full spectrum of color available to it, while real life paint does not.
oh my god you can't possibly be this stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_burn-in

google "lcd degredation" … right from day one, your computer screen is deteriorating. the back light is diminishing and the pixels will age. this happens to EVERY monitor out there. there are true color calibrated monitors for printing companies which are way more expensive than your Apple shit and even those can't do a painting judgement, even with the best photos.

use your brain for once. a computer screen is made up of individual pixels, they have gaps inbetween, and the screen is backlit. you can get an impression of what the real thing looks like, but it holds no comparison.

are you fucking 14years old? have you ever looked at a painting up close?

[Anonymous No.3453514]

>>3453511
with your logic, you wouldn't have to go on holidays. you just look at videos of Miami beach, is all it needs. god are you stupid.

[Anonymous No.3453516]

>>3453511
>says nothing about a 1:1 physical copy
Congrats, you can't even back up your ludicrous claims. summerfag.

[Anonymous No.3453519]

>>3453514
Now you're just admitting you have no argument and you are making up imaginary "experiences" to make up for your lack of an argument. Suit yourself, I already proved you wrong.

>>3453516
> More details than visible to the naked eye

So you admit yourself your own definition of 1:1 is irrelevant since you yourself cannot perceive what it means in practicality, and you are wholly making shit up because of your personal feefees?

>>3453513
LCD does not have burn in like Plasma and CRT do, and complaining about degradation over time is stuyypid, might aswell say your eyes are shit too because they degrade over time so real life viewing is still shit.
> a computer screen is made up of individual pixels, they have gaps inbetween, and the screen is backlit.
Higher end screens with very high ppi would not have any gap you can easily notice even if your stick your eyeballs on the screen.

Even a non-industrial screen has more color in it than a paint can BECAUSE it's light. this is infallible, RGB spectrum of light. The question is how much of the gamut is being covered on said screen, which in most cases, will still be greater than what is achieved with paint.

And yes I have. If you would color sample and scan any color you wish, you would realize it's not at all a question of the screen in question, but of the true color value it encompasses. Screens can be calibrated, material cannot without changing it's molecular composition.

[Anonymous No.3453530]

>>3446866
Is reality really that hard to cope with for you?

[Anonymous No.3453537]

>>3453519
this guy actually believes you get the same experience looking at reproductions on your computer screen as looking at them irl

i'm done.

[Anonymous No.3453640]

>>3446866
90% of people you pick up off the street will not have an appreciation for traditional art.
This is justified.

[Anonymous No.3453706]

>>3453519
>"Even a non-industrial screen has more color in it than a paint can BECAUSE it's light. this is infallible, RGB spectrum of light."

[Anonymous No.3453814]

>>3453519
Have you not heard how Google's latest smartphones were experiencing burn in? iPhones suffer from burn in too once they get a couple years old, especially with the night mode

[Anonymous No.3453816]

>>3453519
>Screens can be calibrated, material cannot
Screens are calibrated to mimic physical materials, autist

[Anonymous No.3454008]

>>3453640
Third worlder?

[Anonymous No.3456977]

>>3453519
god i wish i could just beat you with a shit flaked toiled brush until you bleed.

[Anonymous No.3457187]

i dont think it ever will unless digital art some who gets tot he point where it requires the same amount of skill. but the whole "the whole theres only one original with traditional" doesn't make sense to me, since the same can be said about digital art, when you export the image it always creates artifacts and copying and pasting an image just makes more.

[Anonymous No.3459330]

https://vimeo.com/mrwongping

[Anonymous No.3459341]

>>3446866
What are you even saying? What is the status of digital art? What is digital art? Are movies filmed with digital cameras digital art since they're stored on hard drives? Or does projecting them onto physical screens make them not-digital? Is a drawing that exists in digital space inherently worse? What about if I scan a traditional drawing, does it lose its value?

[Anonymous No.3459383]

>>3457187
>when you export the image it always creates artifacts and copying and pasting an image just makes more.
yeah but you can keep exporting new ones everytime

[Anonymous No.3459387]

>>3459341
>What about if I scan a traditional drawing, does it lose its value?
It does if you sell prints of the scanned drawing. Knowing there are more artworks exactly like yours and with the same quality around makes it lose its value.

[Anonymous No.3459412]

>>3446866
>>3446879
Watch John Berger, digital art has every bit of value as traditional art, but the art establishment can make more money out of selling the """original""" painting to rich fucks.

[Anonymous No.3459425]

>>3459412
>>3459412
lol have you actually read any Berger?

Has anyone here actually seen a fucking painting in real life? Light effects paint in ways digital screens / prints could never reproduce

[Anonymous No.3459437]

>>3459387
Ah, so it's about elitism.

[Anonymous No.3459538]

>>3459425
dude, just reading this >>3453519 gave me a clusterheadache. /ic/ faggots live in some parallel universe, i'm sure.