Post #615490 by Zeta on Mon, Nov 28, 2011 8:43 AM

Chuck Tatum is whatever. You bore me to tears. Speak for yourself. Drop the mob mentality. Where did you came from? What are you about? What is your contribution to this site? Why don't you stay in bilge and tikishout where you like it so much? Besides, you are not an artist, you have no say. Only as an spectator. Just ignore me like I ignore you alright? Get out of my way.

Back to art talk.

For me, to be called ART, it has to be 100% hand made. Everything else is awesome and all, but doesn't make my soul vibrate like 100% human live performance.

I know legions of tikicentralites agree with me, even if they don't admit it here because they don't want to hurt sensibilities.

I truly highly respect digital artists skills very much and they indeed are artists. But what I am talking about here is the end product. It's not the same to have the original tiki, than what it is to have a copy.
People want to own something that was touched by the artist. The real thing.

For example, that's why prints from etchings have always been more valuable than lithographs. Because the artists actually worked into the metal/wood/linoleum and the transferred it into the paper. Instead, the lithograph was drawn by the artist into the stone and then applied to paper. This extra step on transferring the image made buyers less interested in the lithographic prints because they where not touched directly by the artist. They had less soul.

Also, the motivation. It's not the same to create a one of a kind work of art like a painting, than it is to create a digital painting for mass reproduction. The first painting is more human scale, the second is more for business.

Both are art alright! But the first one is more art than the second.

In my own humble opinion.

:)

This thread's name is "digital art discussion", right?
... Now I have to get back to my drawing board.