Are we back in a golden age of traditional drawing/painting media?

[Anonymous No.6884895]

As digital art gets more and more devaluated by both AI slop and the failure of the NFT market I feel it's a great time to pick up traditional art skills again; would /ic/ agree?

[Anonymous No.6884896]

>>6884895
Of course, the fallout spills over to trad as well. Losers like this guy who have remarkable technical skills regarding materials and media but are utterly awful at creating appealing figures and stylization from imagination are using AI to prompt a base image which they THEN use as a base for their "traditional" pieces.

[Anonymous No.6884897]

>>6884895
ic doesnt even know how to draw a box.

[Anonymous No.6884927]

people will just use generative ai software to make an imagine and have a printer 'paint' it in layers, you won't be able to distinguish "real" traditional paintings from ai ones either

[Anonymous No.6884928]

>>6884895
why does this look AI?

[Anonymous No.6884930]

They're coming for you next, tradfags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L32BRcvnWRU

[Anonymous No.6884932]

>>6884927
>you won't be able to distinguish "real" traditional paintings from ai ones either
You mean you, the AI-impressed idiot won't be able to distinguish them, just like you can't tell art from slop.

[Anonymous No.6884935]

>>6884928
Because it is, except for the actual execution on paper and paint. He goes out of his way to show hilariously extreme angled photos of the finished piece, but if you look at his gallery, it's pretty obvious what he's pointedly avoiding to acknowledge he's doing. He has skills, but displayed a horribly crude taste when working from imagination UNTIL this year lol

[Anonymous No.6884937]

>>6884932
This is the typical position in this issue, and a transparent followup of the deluded mindset that the technology targets; It's never "I can't tell", but "Nobody can tell" instead.

[Anonymous No.6884940]

>>6884895
Jews will claim that you trace their AI model and lawsuit you. They always aim for total control.

[Anonymous No.6884941]

>>6884935
so he's basically a tranny trying real hard to pass. if he keeps this up will his real skills catch up? I'm thinking not much, but it's kind of study if he's not trracing...

[Anonymous No.6884946]

>>6884941
Yeah, the guy is basically staying morally afloat based on sheer semantics, but he's not even confident enough on that angle to actually acknowledge it.

The tragic part is that he does have skills on a strictly technical level: he can sculpt physically and digitally, and he can work with watercolor and acrylic inks with remarkable control; it's just that in terms of aesthetics his work has zero appeal when he's not literally copying shit. ArtStation is eating it up btw

[Anonymous No.6884975]

>>6884895
lol
lmao

[Anonymous No.6884990]

>>6884975
rotfl even

[Anonymous No.6884994]

>>6884895
>As digital art gets more and more devaluated by both AI slop
I wouldn't say digital art is more devalued, it never really had any value in the first place. It's the reason NFTs failed, because of digital art's inherent lack of value. AI does sort of take away the awe of art though, it takes away from spectacle of human ability, I think that effects even trad art, though less so than digital art.

That said, the failure of NFTs shows off the inherent value of traditional art, which is formed not just through the artist's talent, but through the scarcity of the piece, something that digital art can't ever really have.
Even if you do a limited print run of some digital art, and never release it on the internet, it'll still be worth less than trad art simply because it COULD have been printed endlessly, and also because it lacks anything tactile like paint on a canvas does.

[Anonymous No.6885011]

>>6884994
Thinking of artwork through "commodity" rationalities rubs me the wrong way, so I tend to appreciate traditional artwork not for simple logistical scarcity but through an aesthetic of a fully standalone created objects that don't require an intermediate universal layer to both create and interpret them, like digital art (or digital anything really) does.

[Anonymous No.6885040]

>>6884895
>I feel it's a great time to pick up traditional art skills
it's always been a great time for that. the more things change ...

[Anonymous No.6885064]

People are going to be tracing their AI generations using AR with apples goggles one day

[Anonymous No.6885103]

>>6884994
>the inherent value of traditional art
Trad art market is its own gamed-to-fuck, rigged, self-contained system. 99.9999% of it is worth less than toilet paper, and a few a big names collect all the spoils. You might say "but, I can sell my trad painting for $200..." and the same is true of a digital art commission.
It's all bullshit, you can't possibly justify these outlandish multimillion-dollar price tags outside of an artificially constructed environment. Which we saw with NFTs, by the way, until the bubble burst. There's no "inherent" in it.

[Anonymous No.6885110]

>>6885064
projectors exist now and there's only one drew struzan so...

[Anonymous No.6885123]

>>6884895
>not already being a trad chad

[Anonymous No.6885140]

>>6884940

[Anonymous No.6885149]

>>6884895

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

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wBmIx-2S0SE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axES1R5Iz6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbAS-QX17Y

[Anonymous No.6885151]

>>6884895
I have traditional media drawing as a hobby and have experimented with most mediums (pencils,watercolors,copics,gouache). The AI stuff is really useful for concepts and pretty much anything you can think of.
Taking an AI work and painting it traditionally still requires some skill. I find watercolor the most difficult medium, colored pencils are more forgiving but require a fuckton of time.
AI is also useful to generate poses and whatnot that you can use for your drawings.
I feel bad for full time artists, but I'm really enjoying this tool and am really eager to study all the things I generated and want to redraw.
I don't think digital art will die though, I do see a lot of digital artists offering an "AI art fix" service in the future.
Kinda shitty for those who com'd OCs, the AI can make that for FREE in seconds, but maybe some will still commission artists for a traditional drawing of their OC or whatnot

[Anonymous No.6885167]

>>6885151
bait/10, good job

[Anonymous No.6885188]

>>6885011
I generally just look at art and appreciate it based on whether on think it's a cool picture or not, but if we're discussing art's worth, you gotta look at it like a product.

>>6885103
>Trad art market is its own gamed-to-fuck, rigged, self-contained system.
Sure. but we weren't really talking about the wanky 'high-art' world, just regular art being sold anywhere, even a garage sale, world.
>There's no "inherent" in it.
It's a physical object, that people can see and touch, and it was crafted by another person using their skills forged over a certain length of time - that's the kind of inherent worth I was talking about. That's not even getting into scarcity.

[Anonymous No.6885280]

Digital art is nothing but a job. All you own is a tablet, and the only benefit to the medium is doing things "more efficiently" or "faster" or "more easily", so that you can churn out more work. It's just a way to optimize your labor, so that you can make more images that you don't actually possess. It's the same thing as writing copy or wrangling spreadsheets. You couldn't ever do that stuff for fun and then sell the product afterwords. Just get a commission to do labor, and walk away with money for your time.

In traditional media, you own your materials, and then you transform your materials into something worth more money. It's more akin to carpentry or clothes making or pottery. You can make yourself wealthy just by making things, because the product of your labor is inherently valuable.

One sets you up for high-output wage-slavery, the other actually generates a store of wealth.

[Anonymous No.6885289]

>>6885280
The amount of objectively stupid shit you people say about [subject you don't know] is staggering, and revealing. You can't even conceive of, imagine a "use" for art that isn't related to productivity and physical product. It's all commodity to you. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're an artist, thinking like this, really? You seriously can't conceive of any use for digital techniques, even in a predominantly """traditional""" process?
The sheer amount of new visual worlds digital art has unlocked couldn't have even been imagined 30 years ago, and it's insane that Sunday painters will throw it all out of hand because just they can't sell a shitty oil portrait to their aunt.

[Anonymous No.6885291]

>>6885280
Also, traditional art is just a lot of fun. Collecting the materials, mixing paints, sharpening pencils. Managing your materials gives you a bit of downtime when you can look at your work in progress and think about it, and it's just really fun and meditative.

Traditional media also makes more sense physics-wise. The pigments appear to be the color they are for the same reason whatever your painting appears to be the color it is. Painting a landscape with dirt? You're literally using dirt in paint to paint it. Painting blood? You're using paint that's red because of iron content. Painting a bluebird? You're using paint that's refracting short wavelengths the same way a bluebird's feathers do. And by the way, ultramarine pigment reflects a much shorter wavelength than an RGB screen is able to put out. And techniques like grisaille or washes are like building the structure of the subject right there on the canvas. It helps you understand the things you're painting a little better than trying to craft an image out of three channels stimulating your rods and cones, entirely divorced from nature.

Taking away all of the practical fun and scientific education from painting just to be easier and more efficient is pretty sad.

[Anonymous No.6885293]

>>6884932
>As digital art gets more and more devaluated by both AI slop
the point, you dumb motherfucker, is that the same shit that happened to digital art can just as easily happened to trad painting. going amish won't save you from the t-2000 bob ross knock offs that are coming. the tech bros are hard right now and there's nothing they'd love more than to automatedly rape art in every way they can.

[Anonymous No.6885301]

>>6885289
>The sheer amount of new visual worlds digital art has unlocked couldn't have even been imagined 30 years ago

what are those "OMG new visual worlds"?

[Anonymous No.6885303]

>>6885301
The dazzling plethora of ways to produce RGB bitmaps. Look, I found a new way to make that pixel [125,64,89]!

[Anonymous No.6885307]

>>6884895
>this cope
kinda feels like when there is an invasion people replegate to a smaller territory, and then the invasion may go further and people replegate to a even smaller territory and so on, till they dissapear.

[Anonymous No.6885309]

>>6885301
3d art, computer art (as a precursor to digital art), web art, new developments in animation, making drawing tools affordable and available to normal people (some of whom have good ideas but no space or money to tradlarp in their studio). Also watch Love, Death, and Robots. There's an emerging popular movement to make digital art LOOK digital, leaning into the aspects that make it unique, rather than the Correll imitation kitsch.

[Anonymous No.6885311]

>>6885140
>taking a picture of somebody in the middle of talking
>YO DOOD SANPAKU MEMESHIT
It's not like people emote with their eyes while talking or something

[Anonymous No.6885312]

>>6885303
You're such a brainless fag. No go ahead, show me your dazzling fruit still lifes.

[Anonymous No.6885322]

>>6885312
And you show me your anime titties, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.6885323]

>>6885289
>new visual worlds
There are no new worlds. There is this world, and everything we do exists in it. You're engaging in escapism, because real life hurts too much.

[Anonymous No.6885327]

>>6885309
wtf is web art?
anyway those are just new mediums, not really "wow visual worlds." Are you in marketing or something? lol because it feels you want to shill something using fancy words.

[Anonymous No.6885328]

>>6885322
Again, revealing. You associate digital art with pornograpy because you don't like art. You just want to sell shit. Well you're no Matisse.

[Anonymous No.6885330]

>>6885323
>>6885327
Please, don't be obtuse

[Anonymous No.6885333]

>>6885330
Traditional art is fun and you can do almost anything with it. Digital art exists just to make you more valuable as a laborer.

[Anonymous No.6885337]

>>6885333
>you can do almost anything with it
Except
>pixel art
>3d art and animation
>laser precise edges, without industrial grade equipment
>art that looks digital
So quite a lot. I don't get why tradfags have this inferiority complex. They seem to make bad and unoriginal work, incidentally. The "old masters" would be doing both if they were here today. Artists look forward.

>fun
your opinion, I like both

[Anonymous No.6885341]

>>6885337
>The "old masters" would be doing both if they were here today

No.
They were masters because managed their medium at another level, doing both would harm they skill. They even made their own tools.

[Anonymous No.6885348]

>>6885341
You're nut if you think a guy like Da Vinci would tradlarp. He was far too curious about things to limit himself. I just think tradfags have perverted the greater ideal in what these guys were doing. They wouldn't be painting chapel ceilings in 2023, nor pontificating on the robust smell of freshly sharpened mahogany casing, it makes no fucking sense today.
Then again, it's a pointless thought experiment, but what isn't pointless is thinking like an artist rather than imitator.

[Anonymous No.6885350]

>>6885348
>Da vinci would be a differente person

yep, we agree. a zommer da vinci would be something else, not the supreme master he was.

[Anonymous No.6885351]

>>6885348
Da Vinci technically was a trad LARPer who wished to return to Roman days and make realistic statues
But I somewhat agree that he would also check out some alternative ways of doing things. Maybe he would make his own program for digitally editing

[Anonymous No.6885353]

>>6885350
So do you like, kick yourself at night, knowing you'll never live up to that standard, knowing it's impossible due to mass shifts in culture and the pace of human life? You're okay painting lame trite, palely imitative shit instead of doing something new and exciting, like the zoomers you look down on?
I don't get it but to each their own

[Anonymous No.6885356]

>>6885353
>something new and exiting
Like this?>>6885337

[Anonymous No.6885359]

>>6885356
Yes, it looks sharp as fuck. It isn't a grand idea, more of an advanced sketch, and should be taken as such. It's a good, imaginative interpretation of the subjecting, expressing itself in the digital language of its medium, and not hiding it. Can you point out what's bad about it? Not enough of men in tights for you? Not enough impasto, chiaroscuro, bravura?

[Anonymous No.6885363]

>>6885359
Maybe after you waste some pencils drawing you would get it.

[Anonymous No.6885368]

>>6885363
Your obsession with material and bare physicality is seriously gay and false. The thing that always annoyed me about tradlarpers is not the art they like, which is usually good, it's is they glom on to the lamest shit. The material scarcity aspect of it. I've destroyed my fair share of trees in my life and I just don't relate to that part, sorry. I wish my Tombows would never shorten.

[Anonymous No.6885377]

>>6885368
>it's is they glom on to the lamest shit. The material scarcity aspect of it.

no is not, is not about the pencils. Is about something the persons grows. Is more than just the skill.

[Anonymous No.6885396]

>>6884932
Him and most of the population, nobody notices the jank unless there's a screeching drawfag pointing it out for them. Keep in mind you've spent dozens of hours looking at artwork, the average normie sees two drawings a week and scrolls past them after a few seconds.

[Anonymous No.6885607]

every time i get to any of these threads I think I'll be amused but then after all this fucking fighting I can just say
>go back to work cunts, you got comms to finish

[Anonymous No.6885751]

>>6884895
Nobody who matters gives a shit about AI.

The whole point of this shitware is to eliminate midwits from the market, both at the supply and demand end. So that discerning patrons can have private access to real artists.

No more screeching retards foring producers to censor or modify the artistic production.
No more useless nodraw grifters making art for money and likes.

Art for the noble class, by the noble class. As Nietzsche envisioned it.

[Anonymous No.6885776]

>>6885607
They don't have comms to finish, that's why they dream about a future where nobody can be employed through art.

It's the same social resentment bullshit you see from all losers wishing the successful people will be ruined by this or that law/technology/war/wathever.

They don't want to succeed and live a better life, they know they can't ever be successful because they're inherently flawed peole who aren't worth their upkeep, so their only hope left is for others to be worse off by no fault of their own.

[Anonymous No.6886054]

>>6884895
Nah, there will always be a market for art because humans like to express themselves, Ai generation will be helpful, but people like it when you can feel the soul of the performers, the intentionallity behind the paint strokes, the sweat behind their acting, the rasp in their voices etc.