Digital art vs.Traditional art

[Binky]

The end result is all that matters. The point at which someone becomes an artist is when they can produce something evocative and meaningful, the means they use to create it is irrelevant. Art is supposed to be about more than mere draftsmanship, it is about creativity and then using some means to allow your vision to be shown to other people, how you do it is less relevant than that you do.

Technical skill is not and never will be a key component of what defines an artist save that it may help that artist better convey their message.

[Arisato-kun]

The end result is all that matters. The point at which someone becomes an artist is when they can produce something evocative and meaningful, the means they use to create it is irrelevant. Art is supposed to be about more than mere draftsmanship, it is about creativity and then using some means to allow your vision to be shown to other people, how you do it is less relevant than that you do.

Technical skill is not and never will be a key component of what defines an artist save that it may help that artist better convey their message.

I can honestly say that this post should mean /thread. Well said Binky, well said. I agree 100%.

[Rift]

Plus, for most [if not all artists I know], digital art pretty much always start traditionally and then that is transferred digitally via a scanner.

Anyways, I think the point of the thread got lost a long time ago. It was more about which "side" were you on personally rather than which is better or which requires more skill.

That said: I enjoy both forms, and any digital art I work on always start on paper. I however, get greater satisfaction when completing a piece traditionally.

[eXplosiveMind]

Well no, Digital art is around me more.
Computer games, anime, ect...

most of that start from a white, clean paper page... or napkin whatever is at hand when you have an idea!!!

i think there is one superior method of creating art, since what differs the two is the tools you use, and as it was stated before, great pieces of art can be achieved from different methods!
Of course some of you might think that digital art is more clean and all, and traditional art sometimes is more detailed, or has more into it, but are still art, people still needed to train, and achieve the skills to do that, of course when we are talking about digital art we arent talking about joining some pics in photoshop and create cool stuff but rather creating something from scratch (of course there are some exceptions, but you got my point, sigs, walpapers and that arent exactly art, at least in my eyes)

[tatsukai1990]

there are a lot of pages, and i don't wanna read all of them, so im just going to say that both are art forms, and creativity through art has many different outlets. i do prefer traditional "pen and paper" art though.

[Stev3child]

The end result is all that matters. The point at which someone becomes an artist is when they can produce something evocative and meaningful, the means they use to create it is irrelevant. Art is supposed to be about more than mere draftsmanship, it is about creativity and then using some means to allow your vision to be shown to other people, how you do it is less relevant than that you do.

Technical skill is not and never will be a key component of what defines an artist save that it may help that artist better convey their message.

Jeez thankyou! This is what I've been trying to say all along.

[ydoc]

Technical skill is not and never will be a key component of what defines an artist save that it may help that artist better convey their message.

If this is true then why do people view Digital art as less valueble, they see digital art they think its beatiful but wouldnt pay a dime for it often because they feel the artist "Had it to easy in making it" no cost for supplies no cost for a canvas and no cost to reproduce the original. Anyone on these forums if given the chance to buy a digital art piece would probably just google search and find a place to download it.

[guy]

If this is true then why do people view Digital art as less valueble, they see digital art they think its beatiful but wouldnt pay a dime for it often because they feel the artist "Had it to easy in making it" no cost for supplies no cost for a canvas and no cost to reproduce the original. Anyone on these forums if given the chance to buy a digital art piece would probably just google search and find a place to download it.

it maybe true that digital works are easier to copy but why is that a bad thing? it gets viral and more people have a chance to look at the artwork's message.

[ydoc]

it maybe true that digital works are easier to copy but why is that a bad thing? it gets viral and more people have a chance to look at the artwork's message.

good point didnt think of it that way. However the artist who made the picture is lost in the fray often people will photoshop out there signature and any credit to the artist is lost.

[guy]

yeah for regular people that maybe true in both the digital and traditional world, but for digital artists david lachapelle who have been recognized by the art community, their artworks are pretty much safe. you cant go around masquerading his artworks as yours. well you could but there would be consequences, just like there would be if you took some traditional artists' work and claim it as your own.

and dont look up david lachapelles stuff at work, its not safe