Digital art discussion - Other Crafts

S swizzle Tiki Socialite Melbourne,Australia Joined: Jun 03, 2007 Posts: 1460	S swizzle Posted posted on Tue, Jul 5, 2011 2:58 AM On 2011-07-04 21:59, Tobor64 wrote: I've actually had this discussion before and can unequivocally say that digital art is every bit as "legit" as art created traditionally. It's more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary. As hackneyed as it may sound, using the computer really is just another tool in the paintbox, no different from pastels or pencils or oils. Ultimately it lies with the viewing individual to decide whether the piece "speaks" to them enough to walk away satisfied with the image presented or want to plunk down their hard earned cash and take it home to enjoy. I must say that i agree with both these comments 100%. The media you use is irrelevant if you don't have the skill and talent to get the best out of them. However having said that i will always prefer a print of an original artwork (using a paintbrush and paints-oil, acrylic, whatever) over a computer generated print. Unfortunately i am not in the position financially to buy original paintings so i have to go with prints. I have several prints by Doug Horne, and his computer work is truely amazing, but given the opportunity i would much rather spend X amount of $$$ on ONE of his original pencil drawings than buy several (however many) prints for the same amount. A good example of this is the work of SHAG. Recently there was an exhibition of his work here at Outré Gallery where i was able to view some original acyrlic paintings. If i liked one of the paintings, the only way that i could afford it would be to buy a numbered print. Now whilst it may be an exact duplication of the original it is in NO WAY the SAME as the real thing. No matter what anyone says you would never be able to convince me otherwise. Obviously every artist has their own style so it's crazy to try and compare them to one another, yet regardless of how much i like Doug's imagery and the quality of the finished work, the prints that i have that have come from "traditional paintings" for some reason SEEM, to me at least, to have just a little bit more appeal for some reason. Just my 2 cents/opinion.

On 2011-07-04 21:59, Tobor64 wrote:
I've actually had this discussion before and can unequivocally say that digital art is every bit as "legit" as art created traditionally. It's more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary.

As hackneyed as it may sound, using the computer really is just another tool in the paintbox, no different from pastels or pencils or oils. Ultimately it lies with the viewing individual to decide whether the piece "speaks" to them enough to walk away satisfied with the image presented or want to plunk down their hard earned cash and take it home to enjoy.

I must say that i agree with both these comments 100%. The media you use is irrelevant if you don't have the skill and talent to get the best out of them. However having said that i will always prefer a print of an original artwork (using a paintbrush and paints-oil, acrylic, whatever) over a computer generated print. Unfortunately i am not in the position financially to buy original paintings so i have to go with prints. I have several prints by Doug Horne, and his computer work is truely amazing, but given the opportunity i would much rather spend X amount of $$$ on ONE of his original pencil drawings than buy several (however many) prints for the same amount.

A good example of this is the work of SHAG. Recently there was an exhibition of his work here at Outré Gallery where i was able to view some original acyrlic paintings. If i liked one of the paintings, the only way that i could afford it would be to buy a numbered print. Now whilst it may be an exact duplication of the original it is in NO WAY the SAME as the real thing. No matter what anyone says you would never be able to convince me otherwise.

Obviously every artist has their own style so it's crazy to try and compare them to one another, yet regardless of how much i like Doug's imagery and the quality of the finished work, the prints that i have that have come from "traditional paintings" for some reason SEEM, to me at least, to have just a little bit more appeal for some reason.

Just my 2 cents/opinion.

Post #596199 by swizzle on Tue, Jul 5, 2011 2:58 AM