Post #206129 by Rain on Fri, Jan 6, 2006 6:17 PM

i used to have a big problem with digital art - until i learned how to use photoshop and illustrator. there are some people that will use a single filter on a photo and call it digital art, and then some people that will digitally "paint" something from scratch, yes - but isn't that the same as the difference between someone drawing a stick-man and someone rendering a near-photo-real drawing with the same pencil? admittedly, i still see the "single-filter" people and cringe, but now that i know more about what goes into digital art, i have no problem calling it as such. i AM, however, one of those unrefined sorts that has a hard time seeing, say, an installation of a urinal as art. (representational all the way, baby!)

my opinion on the difference between illustration and fine-art (but there are grey areas, as with anything): illustration is created as an accompaniment to or as an (you guessed it) illustration of a concept, a story, an editorial thought, instructions, or something else seperate from the art. fine art is done purely for the image's sake. some of the reasons the definition isn't 100% fast are - sometimes an extant piece of fine art is later used as an illustration; sometimes a piece of fine art is inspired by a historical or mythological event or concept (so is it then an illustration?). the line is blurry.

ok, i think i could write pages arguing this out with myself, so i'll just stop there... it's shades of grey.