Welcome to the Tiki Central 2.0 Beta. Read the announcement
Celebrating classic and modern Polynesian Pop

Tiki Central / Other Crafts

Digital art discussion

Pages: 1 2 3 136 replies

GROG posted on Sat, Jul 2, 2011 4:09 PM

So, GROG spent a LOT of years and hours drawing with pencil and paper. Now hand drawn animation is pretty much dead as far as feature films, and Computer animation is KING. You don't have to "inbetween" your extremes, the computer does that for you. You don't have to be a good draftsman to be a computer animator. You get some amazing images you'd never be able to get in hand drawn animation. You can do everything so much faster now on the computer. People have said,"It's just another tool for artists." But is it? The computer can allow a person who can't draw a stick figure to make ads and "art' in hours that trained artists 10 years ago took weeks to do.

Here's some examples. GROG did all these in a couple of hours this morning, and they required no artistic skill at all. Only a general knowledge of Photoshop.

GROG google "pretty girl" and find image of Jessica Alba.

GROG look at "Wallpapers" and grab this planet image:

GROG google perfume bottle:

Put 'em together, adjust the color on the planets in the background, a little blur around Jessica, add a glow behind the perfume bottle, and add some type. and viola, it's a perfume ad.

Maybe the art director doesn't like the background. GROG google "nebula", then plug it into the background. Move the type a little, and bang, in just a few minutes you've got a revised perfume ad.

No drawing at all and just a few basic Photoshop skills.

How about a movie poster.

Google Finding Nemo.

Google Finding Nemo logo.

Add posterization filter, and bam--- movie poster art.

Let's create some "art"!

Grab our Jessica Alba pic.

One filter, adjust a few sliders. Adjust the background color, and zip, bang, boom--- looks like silk screen art.

What if we did that to a lion?

What if we used a different filter on the lion photo and got this?

And then, what if we combined the two? Now we're making some art!

Say the art director comes up and says we need a picture of a redhead in that same pose as Jessica Alba, but we don't have the time or money to audition models, hire a photographer, book a studio to take pics?
A little push and pull in "liquify" in Photoshop, adjust the color here and there, and here's our new model. Didn't have to pay her, or photograph her, but here she is.

GROG not use ANY drawing skills GROG develop growing up. A trained monkey with a few Photoshop skills could do all that. Is he still an artist, and is it still art?

This artwork GROG do several months ago.

GROG come up with the idea for the Moai Madness art show at the Tonga Hut. GROG quickly knocked out a Moai silhouette in Photoshop. Add a topknot and some type and there's your flier.

You know, now that we're going to have the art show, we're going to need some art in the show. GROG already have this Moai, what if we make a background like those cheap abstract paintings/prints of landscapes you see in hotel lobbies and restaurants?

We'll put the Moai in there, slap a little color on him and there's our Moai art.

Kind of remind GROG of paint-by-numbers. What if we make it even more like paint by numbers by adding hilites and shadows?

What if we adjust the color, add some more Moai's and call it "Ocean Sintenels"? Now THAT's art.

What if we cropped the art and made it into the cover for Tiki Magazine, how would that look?

Maybe it might look better if it was brown.

Sure the computer is just another tool, but does it make it too easy to make ANYBODY look like a good artist? Does it make good artists lazier and less skillful. There are some amazing pieces of art being done on the computer, but more often then not, you can tell it's been done on the computer. Computer art seems to lack the "warmth" that hand drawn art has.

What do ya'll think?

GROG miss Tiki-Kate

[ Edited by: GROG 2011-07-02 16:16 ]

I think it's as good a tool as any but I do agree with you that there is a certain warmth that usually (not always) is unattainable. The various effects and filters you ran through are there for you to use in photoshop but to be honest I never or very rarely use those. A lot of new digital artist rely on that drop down of effects and don't stray from them and anyone with some experience in PS will know exactly how it was done. And in my opinion those effects are what usually kill all warmth in a piece.

When I got bit by the Tiki bug a couple of years ago I was just using Illustrator and PS for everything and I enjoyed the hell out of it and am happy with that work. I think there is nothing wrong with creating all your art on these programs and I think to create good art on it you have to have some art skills. In my case, however, I was prodded to paint by a couple of close painter friends as well as by the words of Brad Parker here on TC and once I did that I never looked back. Even though my painting Cosmos At The Moon Palace is digital and I am very happy with the results (which by the was used no PS effects) I feel that I don't want create another digital painting again. I animate and design for Broadcast during the day and at the end of the day I can't wait to get to my brushes and acrylic!

Here's my aforementioned Cosmo along with a recent Cosmo painting that was done in acrylic. The first may look slicker and more iconic (to me anyway :D ) but I prefer the second in terms of overall feel.

Great topic for discussion Grog! And by the way that mermaid pencil drawing you posted a few weeks ago....you should paint that! :)

Tiki Tower
The Art of Robert Jimenez

[ Edited by: zerostreet 2011-07-02 19:55 ]

There are times when I look at some pieces of digital art it just looks so soulless, without life. Modern animation strikes me that way too sometimes.



Sometimes I use something Knocked out via computer to give me composition ideas, to cut back on the amount of times I have to re-paint something...
...And then I STILL have to re-paint the blasted thing.


This was really interesting. One late night I went on Amazon.com and googled photoshop 7. I found books as cheap as 65 cents and $4 shipping. I now own 8 books, one day I'll see what they say meanwhile I have to get back to painting! Wendy

So I asked my computer this question, The computer said no.

GROG posted on Sun, Jul 3, 2011 1:38 AM

GROG think for work the computer is great. Anything that can speed up production, make things more efficient, and cheaper and end up with better quality end product GROG all for that. But, when it comes to hanging pieces on GROG' wall, GROG would rather have art done by hand. GROG have plenty of prints and serigraphs, but sometimes you can't afford the $10,000 SHAG original, but you really like the piece so much you settle for the $250 print.

GROG has gone to figure drawing and there are people that show up and do figure drawing on their computer. After a 15 minute pose GROG have a nice charcoal drawing with the feet unfinished or the face or some part of the figure, where as the guy with the computer has a pretty nice color painting pretty much all rendered out. He can't hang it up on the wall until he hooks his computer to the printer, but he also doesn't need a flat file to hold all his artwork and he's not contributing to the destruction of trees in the Amazon forest.

It's hard being a cavemen in modern times. Used to we could turn on the TV and had three networks to pick from plus PBS. Now if you want to watch TV you have to turn the TV on and the cable box and Tivo your program that's on one of the many thousands of channels, but there's still nothing good to watch. Maybe some old Warner Bros. cartoons that are still entertaining after 50 years.

Technology, it's supposed to make things easier, but an hour of work on the computer and just before you finish your art, the program unexpectedly quits or your computer freezes and you haven't saved your work in the last 30 minutes. But, even starting over from scratch, you're still going to finish that art faster than if you were doing it with pencil and paper.

Love the computer. Hate the computer.

A thermos can keep something hot or cold how does it know which to do?
A computer always knows when to freeze up to spoil our day how does it know?
Grog what is the meaning of life? Wendy

Zeta posted on Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:25 AM

Nothing like the human touch. Never. No matter what. It has to be 100% man made to be called ART. In the near future when everyone is a "digital artist", old school, traditional artists will be highly sought after.
If an asteroid strikes earth tomorrow and all electronic technology is destroyed, I would still be able to make my stupid little drawings, even if it's with my own blood.
I don't like digital art. It's cold. "too clean/perfect" Lame. I like the the idea that a human being did every line in the comics I read. R. Crumb, P. Bagge, D Clowes, J. Ryan, M. Kellerman. Etc...
Stay primitivo artista friends!
F*** Computers.

Commercial art, publicity, hollywood movies, Business art, you can keep your photoshop. I'll keep my China Ink.

I feel your pain. As a graphic designer the computer is a required piece of equipment. When I first began my career everything was done by paste-up. I learn how to use and operate linotype machines to set type for paste-up. Using a stat camera and figuring out screen angles, combining those things with Ruby/Amberlith to create mechanicals, and ending up with matchprints. As technology progressed, so did my desire to learn these new technolgies. I watched as high-paid film strippers and fine photographers became unskilled labor and desperate for computer knowledge. And we are now looking at a job market that does not value experience over technical knowledge. We are in another cycle of digital evolution. Designers that have not kept up their skills in web and interactive media will be left behind. Design has become paperless and with that, design needs are changing as well. Pads and phones are taking over where books and personal conversations ruled. There is no need for the overhead of creating a bound book or printed brochures - when you can download it and store it without creating clutter. If you want it printed - print it yourself. Any company wants their product to be cheap to produce and sell. Taking away out-of-date processes is inevitable.

Is digital Art - "real" art? Only the person viewing it can make that decision. Personally I say - yes. The computer is a tool that allows more artistic freedom and creative expression to be be expressed in a faster medium. There are some artists that recieve big $$$ for their digital paintings. Would you buy an original digital painting? - probably not - unless you intend to use it in a digital format. The computer also allows artists to show their art to a larger audience.

My carving came out of a need to escape the digital world. Even now, when I tell people that I am both a designer and woodcarver I get bizarre looks and strange reactions. Very few people see that relationship between the artist and the designer. For me one is business and the other is fun - I'll let you figure out which is which. Some day when my kids are grown, I may fully embrace the fine artist - but till then I will continue to use the computer in a way that best suits me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so is the opinion about what is "ART".

Zeta posted on Sun, Jul 3, 2011 11:25 AM

"There's nothing more human than machines." -Gustavo Cerati

I only like digital art in Science Fiction. District 9 blew my mind... but that's it. Terminator 2 was amazing too. But that's it.

This is an old argument, but it comes down to the computer does not create art, the "Artist" does
A computer is a tool like a paint brush, if you have no talent, you are not going to get anything
that you could call art.

But it does help those who couldn't draw a straight line etc.
for Desktop publishing it does allow the creation of of better looking documents from just about anyone
which is what most of your examples really show Grog.

A good example is alot of Doug Hornes art is digital, but I see Art in what he does both in his computer work and
the pieces he does by hand.

My feeling is you still have to be an "artist" no matter what tools you use.

On 2011-07-03 11:33, Chuck Tatum is Tiki wrote:

My feeling is you still have to be an "artist" no matter what tools you use.

100% Agree with that!
Having all those half-ass artists with their computers
just makes us real artists keep on our toes...
Mankind has taken the fast track to ruin by using the computer as a crutch....
Example: We no longer retain or place value on what we learn
because it takes no effort to gather knowledge anymore..

No more scouring libraries or bookstores

just google and BAM! there it is....

This easy acccess could be what is destroying many art movements today....

Everybody seems to be cannibalizing from the same well....

Read some Books! Get a home library,a big one!
it's a reference collection that no one else has

and avoid the computer for image scouring when you can
because 5 million other "artists" are looking there!

Great topic Ernie!
Where do fannypacks fit into all this?

http://www.kenruzic.comWebsite ALMOST DONE! On FaceBook Too!
Categorized and Classified! http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=35616&forum=21&start=0&173

[ Edited by: little lost tiki 2011-07-03 23:10 ]

No matter how pure you think your art is, technology has crept in. So maybe ceramics is still a pure art, safe from technology? Not unless you mined your own clay, ground your own glazes, and fired it in an anagama kiln. No, I ordered my glazes from the internet, they were delivered UPS with a tracking number, and fired in a microprocessor controlled kiln. (OK, I'm too cheap to buy a microprocessor controlled kiln, just play along with me here)

I understand the issue of "just a tool" vs "no soul" but it's all in how you use that tool. If you take a 4 inch bruch and paint a wall white it is a serviceable wall but it has no soul because no part of your soul was put into it. Yet take that same brush and paint a mural, you have poured part of your life into it and it has soul. The same is true with the computer. You can take a stock photo and apply a couple of quick filters to it, you have a serviceable image for a print ad but it has not soul. Or you can take that same computer and program to create art by putting your soul into it. Alternatively, the human touch and the lack of technology do not automatically breathe life to art. The finest canvas, paint, and brushes in the hands of an uninspired artist still produces crap.

Well said MDM & I share your point of view.


You would think with all of our new tools, technology and computers
we would have better everything.
But I would say that cars are not better, maybe better gas mileage but
not cooler or more stylish.
Same thing with architecture and many new things of this era.
It looks like the new tools we have are used mostly for making things
faster and to help the bottom line, make more money.
It's sad that we are looking so much to the bottom line and not more
quality based, more artistic.
But then with the wages that are paid today you could not afford to
put these time cosuming touches in.
Could you get digital art on a chapel ceiling?

[ Edited by: tikiskip 2011-07-03 21:53 ]

tikiskip, The tools are not to blame, Society finds ways to abuse many things
that were intended for better purposes, There was a time in this country when we
wanted to make the best things, but now it's the cheapest things at the most profit.
It's about greed pure and simple.

The Internet is a pretty cool tool, but look what most people do with it
this is just a testimony to the nature of society today.

So no I am not happy about it either, but you have to blame "people" for it.

the robots are winning!

Quick! Grab the brushes and easels and head for the HUT!

Zeta posted on Mon, Jul 4, 2011 12:09 PM

I think the less tools you use for your art, other than your skills, talent and raw materials, the better. If you need some super advance microprocessor owned by a Multinational corporation to create a tiki or a punker, you have a problem and all around just don't get it. Art is supposed to be messy, savage, REAL!!!


Unless you are into some futuristic, PoMo (Post Modern) contemporary apocalyptic super complex stuff, which is fine too, but it's a completly different beast. That belongs to some other hipster forum. Like RobotCentral.com
Or unless you want to make a comment / statement using plastic, foam, recycling industrial materials (like picasso or woofmutt)

I dunno...

One more example... I like a tiki sculpture better if it's done with hammer and sharp metal thing (I don't remember the word in English, sorry) than one made with a chainsaw... It's cooler to think that it took days and lots of complications to create perfection, HUMAN perfection, better than just press a button et voila!

I think it's obvious...

Keep TIKI free of digital! (Except for internet for Tiki Central)

Zeta, if you follow that line of thinking to it's logical end, a tiki carved with a sharp piece of flint and smoothed with a rock is better than one made with a chisel and sandpaper - but I don't see anyone doing them that way. Using feather quill instead of a pen doesn't make it better, it's about how the artist uses the tools that he chooses.

There's an old adage that says "It's not what you've got but how you use it". That line is most frequently uttered by men who got the short end of the stick, so to speak :wink: However "It's not what you've got but how you use it" is very true when it comes to art.

Paipo posted on Mon, Jul 4, 2011 4:16 PM

On 2011-07-03 20:54, MadDogMike wrote:
No matter how pure you think your art is, technology has crept in. So maybe ceramics is still a pure art, safe from technology?

Check out this mug-making process....

Like others who've posted , I learnt to do things the old way in terms of graphic art and illustration in the 80s. I must admit I have gotten lazy with age and nowadays do virtually nothing on paper except design sketches for my carvings. I love some of the tools available today like CNC mills and 3D printers as they allow the impossible to be made, and also allow artists to realise complex ideas without having to outlay huge sums for technology...but much of the work as noted, seem artificial, soulless and lacking the hand of the artist in many (not all!) cases - which after all is what we buy art for. I love the physical act cutting and shaping stone with diamonds - the balance between brain, eye and hand and the feeling of joy when it all comes together. Somehow the thought of waiting for a piece to be spit out the orifice of a machine doesn't quite hold the same excitement. Maybe in a another couple of generations it'll be a moot point.

[ Edited by: Paipo 2011-07-04 16:48 ]

Zeta posted on Mon, Jul 4, 2011 4:43 PM

Digital art is like virtual sex.

:lol: OK, I concede defeat :lol:

On 2011-07-04 16:43, Zeta wrote:
Digital art is like virtual sex.

I think MadDogMike is right on the mark, Zeta you are entitled to do Art anyway you see fit
but it seems that you would prefer to limit others to your ideas also, which I find very
counter productive to the creation of "Art" in general.

So I respectfully disagree :lol:

teaKEY posted on Mon, Jul 4, 2011 5:28 PM

The Original Mona Lisa painting price would be like 500 Million dollars

A digital copy of Mona LIsa is 5 dollars.

An orignal where the artist touched it during the making aspects of it is what its all about.


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. I've been drawing and painting for as long as I can remember and have worked in many media from oil paints to airbrush acrylics, and at this time in my life my computer is the instrument of choice for me. And I will be the first to admit that working on the computer does indeed have advantages over working with traditional media; I spend a lot of time composing my pieces and the computer allows me to adjust my sketches and create color comps quickly. However, for me, working on the computer is no great time saver because it still takes me just as long to create a painting digitally as it would traditionally. For example, my "AstroTiki!" painting took me six weeks to complete, "Rebirth" took me six months to complete (I was also working full time during its creation), "Castaway Comics" & "Future Bob" each took over two weeks. The reason for these long work periods is because I utilize the same methods I would for a traditional painting, from underpainting to blocking in colors & values to blending and detailing. I strive to make a point of not using any pre-programmed filters or shortcuts because I, too, have seen way too much digital art that has the cold, artificial look others here have mentioned. I'm always pleased when people viewing my work are surprised to hear it was created digitally...that's always a big compliment for me.

When I create a digital painting, although there is no real physical brush dipping into a puddle of real physical pigment, I am still interacting with the computer in a very real, tangible way. My personal set up allows me to draw and paint directly on the computer screen with a stylus that reacts to my gestures and movements very much like a traditional pen or brush. For me, there is no disconnect with my media as if I were using a mouse. What I draw is what I get. When I am in the midst of creating my work I'm concerned with how to render this area convincingly or wondering if I should add a cool complimentary color to that area to make another area pop forward or any other myriad decisions that are made in creating the piece. For me, there are no shortcuts. The painting will only be created if I'm there creating it, digitally or not.

What needs to be stressed here is that the image I'm creating springs forth from my imagination, my passions, my warped sense of what I enjoy creating. There is no stock library I can cut and paste onto my canvas other than the one in my own imagination. No computer program can, as of yet, transfer the visions from my head into this physical plane for others to see without me as the conduit. If there is a way to do so with a few keystrokes on a keyboard, someone please tell me because I'm sure my wife is pretty tired of being an artist's widow while I'm cloistered away in my studio for hours on end hunched over my Cintiq painting.

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 really like the no clean up part myself, no cleaning out my airbrush etc.
Like Tobor say's if you don't have the skill or talent in the first place
you won't produce anything worth a damn on the computer.


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.


As for actually making artwork, it is surprising how similar digital and traditional art really are.

Both deal with good composition and the elements and principles of design. Both types deal with color
theory, both types are strengthened by creative concepts and both types rely heavily on good hand-eye co-ordination.

I have to say Grog those examples you show look like they were created in a short time. Not sure what your point
is other than, look how easy it is to do digital art, anyone can do this. They were created by your hand, you made
the decisions on how to compose it, you made the decision of what images to use, what filter to use etc. etc. Created
by a human, not a computer. I get sick of people asking, “Is this hand drawn or is it digital?”. Both! It’s
done on the computer and I hand drew it!! All starting with a blank screen. Yes, just running a filter over an
existing photo is very easy and anyone can do it, but I think most people can tell you’ve just run a filter over the photo
and as the non artist gets more visually educated more and more people will be able to tell when that has been done.

Digital art easy? Not really, as you’ll see in some examples below. I challenge anyone to run to their computer and
create these images. Anyone can sling some paint on a canvas for a few minutes and say, hey look how easy it is, anyone
can do this, this is “Real” art. Any good digital artist has the same knowledge of light, shadows, forms, shapes, line
color, anatomy and mediums that traditional art is based on. Without knowing these fundamentals any type of art will
suffer, no matter what medium it is done in. A lot of time and effort can be spent on a digital piece, but is it the
same as the time and effort spent on an oil painting? I can’t say. It is more efficient to duplicate traditional methods
on the computer, but it still takes the knowledge and time. Take fine art Photography for example, something that has
been around for awhile. In photography you have no original, you can’t hang the negative on the wall, you have to do
prints. Is Photogrphy not a lagitamate art form? When it comes to creating art on the computer like Tobar said, “It's
more about the skill level and passion of the artist creating the work, the means are secondary.” I’ve seen some very
passionate art done on the computer and to say it is soulless does not make sense to me. Saying that takes away from
the artists talent of the person that created it. It was created by a human not the computer! Art that just uses a
watercolor filter over a photo is just bad art. Like a bad painting created with real paints. Just because it was
painted on a canvas does not make it good art. I’ve found that people who focus on what medium a piece was done with
are usually other artist. People who by art usually buy it because the image speaks to them in some way, not what
medium it was done in. My belief – art should stand or fall on the merit of it’s content, and not the
choice of art medium.

I completly understand the idea of doing a one off original piece of art. When I started doing art the computer was
not an option and when it did come into existance I embraced it as a tool to create art. As an artist I like to go
back and forth between traditional and digital in fact all of my digital work is started by putting pencil to paper.
With digital you do not get a one of a kind piece, it is what it is. Digital has the advantage of an "undo" button
while traditional has the advantage of being immersive and messy. Sometimes, there is nothing more satisfying than
taking a piece of chalk or crayon and putting a mark RIGHT THERE with your hand. It is infinately more difficult to
place your mark correctly in programs such as Lightwave or Blender. Both forms of art can be highly frustrating and
highly rewarding by turns. It all depends on your mood and the end result you have in mind.

I’ve added some examples of what I consider good, passionate digital art. Found in a book called “Digital Art Masters”.
A great book that gives a step by step on how the image was created by creative talented artists. And if you want to
talk about time to create these images...it took more than a few minutes.

Painted in Photoshop, no photography used.

Pencil drawing outside of the computer, painted in photoshop.

Painted in Photoshop from a blank screen.

Maya, Mental Ray and Photoshop. 150 hours of work on this piece. Easy, I don't think so.

Painted in Photoshop from a blank page. No artistic talent? Yeah right.

Sad to hear that Zerostreet will never create another digital painting again. I think as artists we are always learning and I feel
digital art is a legitimate medium that should be explored. Even if it is just part of your process.

I'm in agreement with your post Doug. As I said in my post I don't think there is anything wrong with any artist creating all his or her work digitally. I enjoyed creating digital paintings and,to your point, all of mine started with a pencil drawing that was scanned in. I don't think someone with no art skills would be able to pull of a body of digital work. The samples you show are awesome, there are tons of amazing digital artists for sure.

I only say that I will not go back to digital because I am so much enjoying acrylic. It's scratching an itch in my brain that digital couldn't I guess...And I realize my statement was not 100% truthful, as a very recent Moai T-shirt I produced was done completely in Adobe Illustrator! :D

The Master speaks! since I have great respect and I also am a fan of Doug's work
I think his comments validate the digital art form.

If you think a computer replaces the artistic expression of a skilled artist, you don't know anything about computers.

I think this discussion is similar to the Vinyl vs Digital CD debate as opinion vs hard facts
collide etc.

On 2011-07-07 18:47, Chuck Tatum is Tiki wrote:
I think this discussion is similar to the Vinyl vs Digital CD debate as opinion vs hard facts
collide etc.

i think all artists should stick with Vinyl!

By the way.....
Great rant,Doug!

Do you find that the undo botton, the layers feature, and the ability to do multiple saves allows you more creative freedom? In spite of your best planning, do you sometimes dramatically change your composition in ways that you could not with a traditional painting? ie reverse an element and move it to the other side?

Zeta posted on Fri, Jul 8, 2011 9:32 AM

CD is like bad acid.
Viva la Vinyl!!!

There's no Ctrl Z in real life.

Can you imagine?:
Michelangelo di Buonaroti giving the final touches of "La Pieta" when suddenly he fucks up and brakes Mary's marble nose?
--No problem. he thinks, I will just Undo it.


It's back to square one.

Somethings are impossible to reproduce. That's the whole mystery of art and creation. Nobody but Dali could paint like Dali.
No Dali filter.
Art is like a fingerprint. No matter how great technology gets. It will never beat your finger dipped into blood and into a white surface. That's the real thing. The print. The other will always be REproduction. Like Plato's cave, or something... I dunno. It's ok to use technology in your art if you can create that technology.
Just like I think it's ok to eat meat if you kill the animal yourself.

I dunno. I do know digitalization of everything is making a lot of artists unemployed and killing the culture I like, replacing it with a fake overproduced electronic one, that only benefits the media and not it's creators. Like facebook, google, etc...

Keep it simple, keep it real. That's my motto.
Luddites unite!!!

P.S. Swamp Fire, great speech.

TikiG posted on Fri, Jul 8, 2011 10:06 AM

You know with all the discussion regarding digital vs traditional - I just thought about something interesting.

Digital today, in a visual and aural sense, is the standard of our modern time.

Digital is not strong in taste, smell or touch (at least at a pop consumer level at this time...can you imagine the future debates on the internet regarding digital taste, smell and touch?)

Thank God we're only talking visual and aural today!!

All art serves some kind of emotional response - even if its eventually thrown away in the trash.

The medium is in a sense just a window waiting for a reflection.


Man, oh Man....this subject for artist is pretty close to talkin' Religion and Politics! DANGEROUS! But have been hunched over both a computer and an drawing board for weeks and this is a perfect brain stretcher subject! lol!

I could write a 10 page speech on this subject, debating and supporting all these points. But I think what really hasn't been stated that is REALLY important is simply "CONTEXT". Artists know this. A certin "blue" changes it's appearance to the eye depending on what surrounds it...other color's saturation(brilliance), how it is lit, the values, hues...opacity...blah blah. Change any of these factors surrounding this "blue", the judgement of how we feel or "see" that color changes. Same with this subject.

My opinion on digital art is in this mind set above. It is a wonderful new tool..and it is also something "abused". It is both catalyst and crutch. In skilled hands..it expands new possibilities to a well trained artist in traditional art. It can also make a very unskilled artist able to make a very acceptable image..or a mediocre artist fabulous to many viewers who don't care how an image was made..they just react to the end product..etc.

Doug and other artist we know of in this "Tiki" Ohana are SKILLED ARTISTS. I see them work in many mediums..digital included. They understand strong fundamentals of creating an image and telling a story. So in that context, digital "paint" and design are just another tool. However, I feel Ernie (Grog's) frustration in a different context. Here's an example.

Not including drawing since I was two on the kitchen table, I have been working daily for four decades to make what I see in my brain come through my hand. If I made a mistake drawing or painting, or couldn't make a smooth gradation with wet paint...the work looked like crap. If I wanted a painted tree to feel like an impressionists painting or an airbrush look so perfect in gradation it looked like silk...it took years of "nerve training" and ass busting skill development with flesh and mind matter. Same to learn to draw a figure or understand how light theory works on things that you want to look real that come from your mind only. The only "data base" I had was in my own brain. People who could not master these skills...soon were out of a career..or never had one as artists. What is this important?

Well, I have noticed some interesting things out there happen as we now mix traditional, seasoned artists with fresh outta school, highly capable digital artists. I taught Entertainment Design for Illustration majors at Art Center College for eight years. These students are SERIOUS about their careers. There were many levels or margins of talent in my classes. What I see today is that digital art has GREATLY narrowed the margins of talent as perceived by society. I have first hand witnessed former students of mine who were at BEST marginal artists that I was seriously worried for career wise who I have talked to in recent times that generate MIND BLOWING digital art now...and fully admit they would flounder like an eel in the desert if asked to draw and paint or design in traditional mediums.

Over lunch recently, this person and two others showed me how they use the art of other traditional artists(scanning in parts of the art)to create a data bank of "brushes" and colors and sections of art with photos and computer generated perspective models to montage together skillfully and end up with a powerfully impressive image. I saw the one I mentioned that I had little respect for, skill wise create and painting that looked, even in style like a very famous Disney artist in the print. He had a "tool box" of things to imitate the brush strokes, the style, the colors....it blew my mind. He was able to create a piece that if asked to do traditionally, would be WAY out of his league in a lifetime of developing his hand and brain link traditionally. It's understandable why many artists resent this! Especially animators and illustrators who worked hard to posses raw, traditional skills from mind to medium. No different than if they were to create a program(maybe they have), that can allow anyone to write music to some acceptable degree with or without training. YES, the better talented or traditionally trained perhaps the better the song, but still, it would allow tons of good enough music to be created that one could saturate the music industry with, generated by a person who had put in VERY little "dues" into a career in music...nor could they sit and do a live performance on a piano. What if a computer could make anyone's voice sound like a singers...would we not eventually get insensitive to raw, rare talent?

What is my point? Well...the point is that we can argue that digital art IS a tool...or a crutch depending on the hands it is in. It can put a lot of people who spent decades the old fashion way to hone a skill out of a job..replaced by mediocre art technician just out of tech school. It can also be a truly FUN and incredible way for a traditional artist to expand into another medium! I am doing that too...not to replace any traditional skills for good...but just cus it's another variation.

The one tough thing about a digital image as a sell-able art product though, in my experience and seeing other artists I have shown work with is that there is no "original". I am not saying this is bad or good. However, I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to sell a collector of my art on a limited edition print that wants THE ORIGINAL! They will pay 15K for that!..but pass on $100.00 for a print. There are times I have sold originals that looked great in print, but had my cat's hair in the paint or a gnat embedded in the pigment from those painting outdoors moods I have had. Why would anyone want this?

Well, People explain that they want the "THING" I(or any artist)actually touched, leaned my wrist on, sneezed on or just absorbed the creative energy in the room. I relate to this I think. I savor Polaroid pictures of my relatives that have passed on even more than other photos. Why? Because that Polaroid paper was sitting in the camera and popped out IN THE MOMENT while they were in the room...and was "there" where that image was captured. Call me crazy...but I can feel the energy inside that little picture and that is special.

Anyway, there is my string of thought...thinking out loud, without judgment..just observations and pondered. I have some definite opinions about digital images, animation and such. Not all good, but many good things too. But in the end, there is no "perfection" like imperfection in my mind...human and all else of this world. Look at a tree or any thing that feels "alive". A computer will never be able to duplicate this...no matter what you tell me. There is a "life" and energy it cannot duplicate that some call a "soul". So digital does have it's place in our world I think..and a very respected and mesmerizing one...BUT..all in context!
Have a great week and summer all, THOR

[ Edited by: THOR's 2011-07-11 19:23 ]

Great Observations Tom!

People explain that they want the "THING" I(or any artist)actually touched, leaned my wrist on, sneezed on or just absorbed the creative energy in the room. I relate to this I think

the computer hasn't figured out a way to absorb and project that Mana yet
Once it does....I'm lookin for another hobby!

Thor's mention of the airbrush reminded me that the discussion about digital art has taken some of the heat off the airbrush artist. For years the airbrush got a lot of the same criticism, that it wasn't a serious medium and was only suitable for t-shirts at carnivals. I bet the airbrush artists are happy to have the white-hot spotlight off them :lol:

GROG posted on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 3:21 AM

Yay! Now we're talking! Great observations by a number of artists and and art enthusiasts alike. GROG especially glad to hear from Tobor, Doug Horne, Thor Aloha Station, etc.on the subject since they do both handmade and digital art and combinations thereof.

GROG believe that In the end, digital art IS just another medium. You can play with clay, pastels, colored pencils, wood carving, stone carving, photography, oil paints, airbrush, enamels, collage, paper mache, airbrush, glass blowing, styrofoam, scrimshaw, watercolor, welding, digital, CNC machine, or maybe you want to wrap an island in fabric, etc. etc. etc., but in the end you have to find the medium that best helps you create the vision in your head. Every medium has properties and characteristics that make that medium unique unto itself. Wood carvings can crack, and rot, and fade in the sun, but that is the nature of that medium. Stone is hard, oil paintings are flat, films move, etc. Digital art may have a "coldness", but that's not necessarily bad, that's just a characteristic of that particular medium. As man has developed, technology and innovations have lead to new ways to create art faster and more efficient and the computer is leading the way into the future of creating art. It is a tool just like a pencil, a paintbrush, a chisel, etc. You still have to learn how to use it and practice on it until you can get it to do what you want it to do to create what you want to create. The artists eye is the final factor in deciding what the end product will look like.

But still, GROG can understand the desire to have the original piece straight from the artists' hand. The old way of animating, you had development artists and designers who developed the look of the film. Storyboard artists who plotted out the story and staging of the film. You had animators who did the rough animation, then you had clean-up artists who took the rough animation and put it on model, and gave it a single cleaned-up line, and then you had inkers and cel painters who put the animation onto cels which were then shot on film. All of the artists were extremely talented and had developed the necessary skills for their part of the animation process. So, when GROG buy animation art, GROG prefer to get the rough animation drawings, because the animators were the ones who initially breathed life into the drawings and made pencil lines on paper seem like living, solid, characters with emotions who inhabited a make believe world.

Why you talking like Animation is Art,Ernie?

GROG posted on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 10:24 AM

Because animation is the ultimate art.

Frankly, I would like to take all the money from "Christo's" projects
(Who is just an Interior decorator with to much money anyway, Just my opinion)
And redistribute it among the economically depressed Artist's (Grog I am looking at you)

Because I think Grog would be a little happier with a new "Fanny Pack" and his power still turned on.
I hope you don't wear the "Fanny Pack" to job interviews Grog, do you?

Zeta posted on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 12:54 PM

They should invent digital paint.

or digital wood...

Zeta,you do know you are on a computer right now, talking about all things "Digital"
and you are doing it digitally. :lol:

Zeta posted on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 2:07 PM

Chuck Tantrum,
Read older post (page 2) on this thread,
where I say "Except internet for tiki central"


On 2011-07-03 22:23, Chuck Tatum is Tiki wrote:
tikiskip, The tools are not to blame, Society finds ways to abuse many things
that were intended for better purposes, There was a time in this country when we
wanted to make the best things, but now it's the cheapest things at the most profit.
It's about greed pure and simple.

The Internet is a pretty cool tool, but look what most people do with it
this is just a testimony to the nature of society today.

So no I am not happy about it either, but you have to blame "people" for it.

To Thor and Mr. Horne I love your works!
My intent was to blame people.
I don't care how you get there cool is cool.
Many things are designed on a computer but just I
don't know, where's the wow.
What would you say the clasic car of the last ten years would be?
Maybe it's more a problem of what I like is not in style.
I know i'm talking more of design than true art.
But art used to in the desing of cars, homes, ect.
And last, the internet is a great tool!
Just don't know if it's helping in some areas.

On 2011-07-12 14:07, Zeta wrote:
Chuck Tantrum,
Read older post (page 2) on this thread,
where I say "Except internet for tiki central"

Hey I am pretty sure I put a "Laughing face emoticon" in my post
you hot blooded Latin :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P
:lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol: :P :lol:
There you see, lots of funny laughing things to set a mood.

Zeta posted on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 7:42 PM

I'm Basque, not Latino, and that commentary is racist.

[ Edited by: Zeta 2011-07-12 23:31 ]

Pages: 1 2 3 136 replies