Post #597847 by THOR's on Sat, Jul 16, 2011 7:07 AM

Perfect example of the digital tool used as a way to "stage" a painting and allow freedom to play with elements quickly and to the satisfaction of a buyer...then bring in the traditional tools to inject the "soul" and original. No "crutch" here for lack of talent....great example. This would fall into the "fine art" context I would say, since that was the intent of the final result of the process.

Technology arguments have always been a subject of debate in art. Norman Rockwell (by the way...ABSOLUTELY AWESOME COVER you did, Ernie, for Tiki Mag on that issue with Ben!) used to use an early version of image projector he called a "baloptocan" sp?). He used this to take a drawing or photo he took of a model and project it onto a surface so he could trace it. Many said he was "cheating"..but his argument was that he COULD DRAW without question without the thing..but it gave him a speed and advantage of trying different scales..etc. that allowed him to maximize his potential output for "Saturday Evening Post".

I think my opinion stand that again, as a tool that catalyzes the talent of an artist who could create impacting art and exhibit exceptional skill with a yellow #2 pencil and a stack of white paper or on a canvas with a brush and pigment without digital back up...is, in "classic terms"..a true visual artist. A designer lacking this ability and using the tricks and clicks and scans and filters and such of a computer as their only means of being able to make images that impress people, is a "technician" in my mind. A different level of respect.

No different than if a person were to have a program to write music that had formulated filters, harmony or chord changing tools that formulated to sound good to the ear, etc. where you could "borrow" riffs, no fail chord strums on a Martin Guitar in sound without ever having touched a guitar...blah blah. You can argue the better a person's "ear for music" is the more likely the end product will sound more authentic....but the skills were greatly technical adjustments and skill sets. Again, I say this from witnessing, working closely with all level of talents both technical and traditional. Students in my classes, co-workers and just fellow friends who are some form of creative minded spirit.

I am having fun exploring digital art. It's like an etch-a-sketch on steroids in my book!! But, Classical skilled artists have always fascinated people the most. Not unlike watching a tightrope walker as they exhibit years of hand, eye, mind and body skill to defy gravity using a pole and their feet on a wire. If we give them a mechanical leotard (let's call it an "I-Tard")that is wired to a data base that fires signals off to their muscles to maintain perfect balance...they could perhaps accomplish feats anything we have seen to date! But is their skill still as "magical" to us? Would it not be less entertaining after a while..when their is no sense of human error adjustment or the way they walk seem just not the same? I dunno... Just thinking out loud here on this thread. Always with the argument that we can have strong opinions on this subject based on the context we insert it into.

OK...had my Sat. AM coffee and heading for a hike and then to my studio. Have a great weekend all!