Maybe, but as humans, we evolve, so anyone can be comfortable with a mouse such as those who prepare a pencil, plus u don't need talent to something on a program, and how arisato said, it takes hard work and dedication, yeah u can do it, but. Traditional art, not anyone can do, how many ppl here can do worderful things with Ps but can't draw for shit, more than you think, and just cause of that it means they are considered artist, nah, not in my book,and like I said, Ps is crazy n u can do crazy stuff with it, and I enjoy seeing digital produced things, but it will never be art in my eyes
And yeah, u will. Prolly say that art evolves by it being digital and stuff, again, no talent
Video of someone drawing with photoshop. . .
That looks like talent to me. . .
There is talent in digital art <.<; You dont just push one button and it magical looks good
here Juice I'll give you a hand.
The problem with digital art is that it makes art a bit easier. For example with digital art if you make a mistake control z is your best friend. While with traditional art manipulation is your control z. One can argue you can simply use an eraser and its the samething. But to be honest its not.
Just like with photos. Taking it on a digital camera and allowing a software to easily fix your mistakes takes away from the true art form. Where as a person who takes a picture with film depends on chemicals to affect the outcome of the picture. And if you fade it out too much or darken it you have to start over with a negative. Unlike the software you where as you can simply reload the image or go back.
When I draw my pictures I can either take the time and make it come out perfect which would take a lot longer than doing it on a computer. Or I can do a rough outline and easy correct it using lineart. i gave you a good example with the recent Sasuke pic. I can do a ok job on his sharigans on paper. But I can make them easily perfect using software.
I'm a traditionalist but at the sametime I recognize digital art as a major movement in the art world where you can take things and easily manipulate it. I see no issue with digital because as mankind goal is to make things simple and easy. It simply falls into the guideline of it just being another tool. And thats all that matter.
Red eye correction would like to have a talk with you sir.
Originally Posted by Mikessc88
^ damn!..nicely said HB, thanks
I saw someone use the camera example and I can easily elaborate on that since 1) I work for Canon. One of the bigger Camera companies. And 2) I actually started off in the camera department learning about film and point and shoot cameras. To the ones where you see on the NFL sidelines which I have one. An EOS 30D. Not to mention I took a few years in photography in High school.
Originally Posted by [JUiCE]
Lets just put red eye correction to the side, even though I do acknowledge its validity here <.<;
You can be talented at creating images using software... whether or not one considers it art is up to them, just as someone considering anything to be art is up to them.
There's no such thing as superior art forms. Each art has a medium, and a medium is the boundary between idea and artwork. An artist could proclaim to produce superior work than a digital artist because he used his hands and skillful use of the medium to produce and represent his idea over "a simple click of the mouse". But that would be totally wrong because what art always comes down to, is the idea represented and or portrayed. Take a trad artist, and ask them to try and manifest their idea with digital, and they'd be as lost as taking a digi artists and asking them to manifest their ideas with a paint brush. This is also dependant on how great and what methods they have come up with to produce their work under the conditions they are adjusted to.
What you guys are arguing is the craft side of art and the discipline. You need more of those sets of skills to master trad art, because the mediums demand a specific method of usage, thus more is required from you. Not to mention understanding the materials you use, and all of the media. But its exactly the same in digi art when artists become srious about it. Even in this so called "simplified/effortless" digital world, much is required from you because digital art can produce many new aesthetics , opening a new gateway to various different methods that require the same amount of effort as trad art. Its about what the artist produces with his medium that counts.
What makes the artist is not the medium, but the mind. And the mind is what makes the art. It is ridiculous to shun an entire form and community of art soley based on the select artists you represent the entire community from. I suggest looking up master digital artists and viewing their work. There can be no superior since its purely subjective.
I'll post a really good website I visit for such digital art in a sec.
Who cares... both require skills that I dont have.
But traditional FTW.
It's never the artist when it comes to Traditional Art and Digital Art. The only thing that differentiates the two is the tool used. While Digital Art uses newer technology to create art, Traditional art uses the very basic of tools.
An artist should be able to make great art with any tools available (digital or traditional). Give an artist a pencil and a paper and he can draw you a universe; show him MS Paint and he still can draw the universe.
So which is better? I'd say the traditional art. It's the most basic, the foundation of Digital Art. Digital art has its own good points (consistency, unlimited paint, etc.) but nothing beats the feel of the paper, ink, eraser and paint on my hand when making art.