OIL

[Anonymous No.4540272]

wow ok. but really is oil like a dead art? is it too pretentious? too expensive? too time consuming? too little of a return compared to other mediums? held to too high a standard?

I have this terrible feeling that this is one of those things that people would love to death if they had the confidence to just go at it and not try to 'learn' how to do it.

sure there's some technical aspects that if you fuck up, will impose irredeemable quality issues, but the act of painting once you've got things set up isn't easy to match.

I'm trying to get a feel of /ic/'s demographic and what sort of mediums are front and centre, and which ones are put on a pedestal, I hate when people who like art don't expose themselves to what's available for fear of this or that, criticism/mistakes. I didn't know I loved oil until I had to do it for a grade over a decade ago.

so how often is there an oil thread here?

PS: I think digital arts should be board separate from tangible arts. You might think I'm being pretentious but fact is that there's a HUGE difference in technical aspects, and not separating one from the other diminishes how effective and relevant topics are for both sides. We have a big enough community to have both boards active but we're bottle necking useful information by sloshing it all into one pot.

[Anonymous No.4540284]

>>4540272
>is oil like a dead art?
I don't know, but i was wondering this: what is the point of oil paint, when you can paint digitally? what can you do with oil that you can't with digital.

digital is cheaper, faster, more convenient, more powerful. What does oil have to offer that digital doesn't?

[Anonymous No.4540299]

>>4540284
>>4540272
desu oil feels more luxurious, when you finish a peace you feel like you achieved something. unlike digital art a 12 years old can play with it. when you oil paint you are practicing the classics. because as you might know old artists didnt have a wacom

[Anonymous No.4540300]

>>4540299
also when you print digital art for like to put it on your wall it feels so fucking cheap.

[Anonymous No.4540301]

>>4540284
>what can you do with oil that you can't with digital
Oil doesn't look like shit for one.

[Anonymous No.4540312]

>>4540299
>oil feels more luxurious
interesting
>when you finish a peace you feel like you achieved something
digital has this feature too
>unlike digital art a 12 years old can play with it
yeah, they can "play" with oil too.
>when you oil paint you are practicing the classics. because as you might know old artists didnt have a wacom
okay
>also when you print digital art for like to put it on your wall it feels so fucking cheap.
okay

so oil paint offers nothing over digital other than snobbery then, like I suspected

[Anonymous No.4540314]

>>4540284
oil keeps on existing once the power goes out and photoshit forgets to save

[Anonymous No.4540325]

>>4540312
whatever you say. no one, no matter how skilled they are in digital art will never achieve the vibe you get from oil paintings. maybe you because i like classic paintings but thats just my opinion.
its like comparing david's sculpture to hot glue figures.

[Anonymous No.4540334]

>>4540325
>thats just my opinion
Yeah, that's just your opinion and it's a wrong one. The FACT is that you can do anything in digital.

Oil painting is better than painting with dogshit on the walls of caves, like people did thousands of years ago. Oil is just a more powerful medium.

In the same way, digital is more powerful than oil.

If you want to use oil, or be even more old school and use dogshit, that's up to you. But digital is just better.

[Anonymous No.4540336]

>>4540325

This is just because old things have a presence to them that can't be replicated. Even when intentionally degraded, digital things are always in a perpetual state of newness. Only the hardware itself can gain the traits of age.

[Anonymous No.4540339]

>>4540334
>Yeah, that's just your opinion and it's a wrong one.
you have a wrong perspective on what opinion is
>The FACT is that you can do anything in digital.
you can never ever achieve a traditional looking painting digitally, even by 85%. anyone will always detect if its traditional or not.
>>4540336
some modern oil paintings have that presence too. if you are skilled enough you can make it look old but you just made it today. you cant do that digitally

[Anonymous No.4540347]

>>4540339
>you can never ever achieve a traditional looking painting digitally, even by 85%. anyone will always detect if its traditional or not.
you are wrong

but even if that were true (which it isn't), digital doesn't need to look like traditional. digital should look digital, the superior medium.

[Anonymous No.4540355]

>>4540347
>you are wrong but even if that were true (which it isn't)
you don't want to believe so its a waste of time to argue with you. have a good day.

[Anonymous No.4540358]

>>4540272
Hey man, 100% grateful in your efforts to improve this board, I think it has a lot of potential. And I long for these conversations , which have been sadly absent for a long time here. I can easily envision a board similar to /lit/, but focusing on the pursuit of the fine arts.

Also, no, I don't think that oil is a dead medium, for a few reasons. A big one for me is the timeless nature of oil, one can paint in oil and compare themselves fairly to the work of older masters from the past, such a comparison between oil and digital would be impossible.

Oil as a medium also has tonnes of advantages over others, even other physical mediums such as acrylic, its slow dry times and inherent character make oil, to me, the peak painting medium.

I seem to feel the slight whispers of a second renaissance of culture and art. And I think that oil will be inseparable from that resurgence. as we collectively refute the beliefs of the modern era of painting and return to the pure pursuit of beauty, oil will be the chosen medium.

[Anonymous No.4540361]

>>4540347
show me a digital painting that could be mistaken for an oil and I'll be inclined to believe your conviction. in other words, prove that your "facts" are factual, before defending them as if they were axiomatic. It shouldn't be that hard if you are right.

[Anonymous No.4540366]

>>4540361
I'm not going to prove shit, educate yourself if you want. But it doesn't even matter, the fact is that digital doesn't have to look like oil or any other traditional media, digital should look digital because it's just better.

[Anonymous No.4540372]

>>4540366
bait aside, see >>4540314

[Anonymous No.4540375]

>>4540366
>muh spoonfeeding
>I'm right but I won't prove it
lmao

[Anonymous No.4540376]

>>4540366
you aren't gonna prove anything, not because you don't want to but because you can't.

[Anonymous No.4540382]

>>4540376
The proof should be obvious to you. You can literally set values to individual pixels if you want. You could do anything.

[Anonymous No.4540388]

>>4540382
what does that have to do anything? that doesnt prove you can paint traditional-like digitally (which what we are discussing). you just want to prove digital painting is better aimlessly.

[Anonymous No.4540394]

>>4540388
>that doesnt prove you can paint traditional-like digitally
yes, it really does.

>you just want to prove digital painting is better aimlessly.
I already explained why digital painting is better. Because it allows you do things that you can't do with mediums like oil. It is more powerful. But believe what you want, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.4540397]

>>4540372
>>4540372
>>4540372
>>4540372

[Anonymous No.4540400]

>>4540394
>yes, it really does.
see >>4540361

>I already explained why digital painting is better. Because it allows you do things that you can't do with mediums like oil.
that doesnt make it better than oil painting, each has their own vibe

[Anonymous No.4540420]

>>4540394
what do you mean by powerful?

[Anonymous No.4540424]

>>4540400
>that doesnt make it better than oil painting, each has their own vibe
Is painting walls with dogshit just as good as oil painting on a canvas? no, oil on canvas is better than dogshit on wall. In the same manner, digital is better. It is more powerful. Some mediums are more powerful than others

[Anonymous No.4540432]

>>4540424
>comparing dogshit to oil painting
you are trolling i swear because no one can be this retarded

[Anonymous No.4540442]

ITT kids on lockdown give their opinions on why their mommies wont let them have paint in the house.
>>4540272
op you fucked up making this another trad vs digital thread instead of just enjoying physical paint.

[Anonymous No.4540453]

OP Here, I left in drunken fit of self loathing.

>>4540284
>>4540325
>>4540334

I'll give my two cents here on digital vs tangible but I didn't think this thread would devolve into such a cliche argument

1. the physical operation of painting imparts a whole different feeling in the process and impacts the artist, their work thereafter, their influences, there ability to appreciate work. A culture obsessed with the finished product has less appreciation for the things that inspire art in the first place. To be cliche, the journey > the destination.

2. The science of oil painting renders features that digital art (which requires a screen) will never ever be able to replicate, such as luminescence of layers, glazes, and pigments that occur in nature, not replication of hue by electronics.

3. archivability is a big topic with a lot to talk about on both sides, digital art can last indefinitely- did you just assume that's a good thing?
Advances in archiving techniques may actually allow for oil paintings to have the same permanence by way of scanning, which makes the original MORE archival because it is in two forms, tangible paint and digital media.
>I seem to feel the slight whispers of a second renaissance of culture and art.

one day we'll be able to scan an oil painting, and with some pretty complicated programming, re-interpret how the artist would paint other subjects in their own style, as well as possibly 3-dimensionalizing paintings to create animated realities.


I just want people to experiment. I use digital software to help make oil painting more streamline

[Anonymous No.4540508]

>>4540453
post your work

[Anonymous No.4540518]

Honest question OP: are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.4540519]

oil paint is faster than digital with 100% better results

[Anonymous No.4540531]

>>4540518
don't be mean
OP is just a lonely guy using /ic/ as his personal blog

[Anonymous No.4540553]

>>4540519
Also oil painting is 70% mixing colors on the palette and the other 30% is applying your drawing ability with a brush.

Digital has no color mixing, and because of brush sizes, gradients, and layers, is more akin to watercolors than oil painting.

You can try to make digital art "look like" an oil painting, but the processes couldn't be more different. If you've ever done an oil painting you know the majority of the painting you do is mixing colors on the palette and digital you just click what color you want.

[Anonymous No.4540707]

>>4540519

Except when you're using it Brian

[Anonymous No.4540713]

>>4540553

This is bullshit, you can glaze with oil paint and that is more akin to digital than watercolour where you have to preserve your whites and lighter values. Stop talking shit you NGMI.

[Anonymous No.4540714]

traditional medium with the exception of pen and pencil for drawing practice, is relevent only when the artist wishes to sell an original piece. Digital is superior in every other sense.

[Anonymous No.4540721]

>>4540519
bait

[Anonymous No.4540723]

>>4540453
2 is the only point you needed to make, the visual quality of oil paint in person is unmatched

>>4540553
>>4540519
how are the ebay sales going, my man?

[Anonymous No.4540733]

>>4540453
this is a good point but keep in mind it's a subjective point of view. I paint digital because I detest the over-romanced attitude towards painting that I see in the mainstream art establishments. To me the images are most important, not the paint that they're made of. As a human being I am limited in the amount of paintings I can produce in this lifetime and so choose digital because not only can I create more work, but in creating more work I can become better than I otherwise could if I had to take the time of traditional media and cut down the quantity of work produced in my life. I'm not saying quantity is better than quality, but frankly digital artists are the only people in history to rival Rubens in mastery, no other oil painter has done such a thing, so I happen to think digital does not sacrifice quality, and allows artists to create more and push themselves further than they otherwise would. Should they have the determination to do so.

[Anonymous No.4540739]

>>4540284
Major: Depth, texture, vibrancy, physicality
Minor: Smell, feel of application, difficulty

[Anonymous No.4540749]

There's no way to do oil painting unless you're a professional. It takes weeks to months for one layer of paint to dry. Plus you really need a dedicated studio if you want to do it properly because oil takes so much prep and cleaning. Acrylics are nice because if you lay the paint on thick if can mimic oil.

[Anonymous No.4540763]

>>4540749

Bullshit

[Anonymous No.4540791]

>>4540749
acrylic will never mimic oil.

[Anonymous No.4540924]

>>4540763
surprise! a board full of pretend-artists dont know what theyre talking about!

[Anonymous No.4541207]

>>4540749
That's funny, because the layer I painted yesterday will dry enough tonight for the first pass proper. Then about 2 days later I can finish it.

[Anonymous No.4541233]

Actually try it for your self. Loading up a brush with paint and applying feels good. Also go see oil paintings in person, to me they will always give a feeling that cannot be matched by digital

[Anonymous No.4541253]

>>4540733
>but frankly digital artists are the only people in history to rival Rubens in mastery

[Anonymous No.4541377]

>>4540453
3/3 I agree. I think that anyone who truly values progress as an artist, and really loves exploring an studying the world visually will find themselves naturally painting in oil.

[Anonymous No.4541782]

>>4541207
Well, generally if you glaze it can take up to twenty layers or more for semi-opaques or transparent paints.

[Anonymous No.4541788]

>>4540272
>wow ok. but really is oil like a dead art?
no
>is it too pretentious?
no
> too expensive?
no
> too time consuming?
no
>too little of a return compared to other mediums?
no
> held to too high a standard?
no

[Anonymous No.4541820]

>>4541782
If you're Titian. Who else bothers will all that these days? I glazed some areas of a painting last night and it's dry today. Big wow.

[Anonymous No.4541830]

>>4540284
>What does oil have to offer that digital doesn't?
An original copy made with real materials.

[Anonymous No.4541963]

>>4541830
this is literally the worst argument for why traditional media are better than digital, it opens the floodgates for digital shitters to mock you and tell you how pretentious you are.

And I'm saying that as someone that firmly believes digital is useless as an art form, the limitations of digital are as simple as it's limitations as a way to make images, and that traditional media are just better and more efficient/faster for making visual images.

[Tokio !osGldUiH6E No.4542037]

>>4540272
> I think digital arts should be board separate from tangible arts
please leave and don't come back till you are 18

[Anonymous No.4542644]

>>4540314
>forgets to save
Doesn't it auto save? I'm pretty sure mine started doing that when I switched over to cloud storage for my images.

[Anonymous No.4542981]

Oil painting is so much fun it’s hard to describe. At least compared to other traditional media I’ve used I am amazed how fast the process is. This took about 2 hours and was super fun to make. It has so much texture that you can feel once dry.

[Anonymous No.4543055]

>>4542981
True, paibting woth oil is fun, also the scale and being "real" is what makes traditional art really connect with someone.

I dont know why, when I see art in a screen, either trad or digital, it doesnt connect with me... I can think "cool! I like this", but thats it...

Even when I see a print of a digital work it looks way more appealing, because its in my hand, I can touch it, see the details with my own eyes instead of zoom.


I think both mediums are great and but have different target audiences in the end. Traditional work, specially oil, seems way more fit to the fine arts crowd and gallery circuit and digital work is more geard towards illustration, graphic arts, entertainment and mass production...

[Anonymous No.4543062]

>>4540272
No way dude! Oil is awesome :) After doing oil I never felt happy with a digital painting, I start things as a digital painting now and see it through in the flesh. I totally get the physical relationship technical aspect, it's very pleasant. It makes me jump for joy!

[Anonymous No.4543075]

>>4541253
wrong