Traditional or digital art?

Post Reply New Topic

There has been a lot of debate on this topic.

Personally I think both have their advantages.

Digitally you can work on complex layers without scrapping the original idea. You can also add fitlers and touch ups to make different parts shine without extensive altercations.

Traditionally you have a much wider range of options that can be mixed together. Some art forms don't even translate digitally, like glass blowing or mixed media. It also has a more broad range of techniques.

I may be wrong on these points.

I wish I had photoshop... I want to be able to make art and make it look real, eg. mixing photos, etc.

I'm personally more a fan of traditional art, most digital art seems to have an inherently artificial quality about it. Nothing beats a really good oil painting in my opinion . I find that digital art seems to be becoming more the mainstream though, everyone I know who says they're an artist does almost purely digital art with very little done by hand.

Art is art.

But I will say that a person well grounded in traditional art that can also learn computers will probably do better. As opposed to someone who buys Photoshop and thinks filter plugins will do it for them.

Another major example is people who use Digital Cameras and rely on the automatic setting. I will admit the auto setting in new cameras is becoming very sophisticated and can often get good results. However, someone with a film background that really understands manual shooting, shutter speed, and F-stops is more likely to take the best artistic pictures.

I think the difference is the traditional art requires much more skill, study, and discipline. Digital art should to, but it's not as apparent because people think they can take shortcuts. Digital is still relatively new, but eventually we'll so who the Masters of Digital are versus the amateurs.

I like the idea of an artist making everything on canvas instead of working with a virtual medium.

Digital art usually does not satisfy me. But it depends on the artist really. I don't know any good digital artist, but I am sure there are some who make it look good.

I have difficulties with art in general because most of it just does not touch me. There's rarely a piece of art, an oil painting or whatever, that really looks good to me. I know many people say the message behind a piece of art is very important and this is why art is created, but I disagree with that argument. I still think a piece of art should look good to me rather than represent some ideal of the time it was made in. I feel the same way about books and music. I think art transcends time and it has nothing to do with fashion.

Very good points all.

I agree that those that do traditional art before digital art will almost assuredly do a better job.

I am a bigger proponent of the idea of traditional art, but little art truly touches me emotionally. Good art, however, is powerful. And when it comes to digital art being done in an artificial vacuum I completely agree, it just feels like it has better shading, contrasts and such.

This is a subject which is very close to me, as an artist who focuses largely on technological concepts. At present, my entire practice hinges upon the assertion that the either/or premise in this case is a totally artificial and unnecessary restriction. It's a trick question. Throughout history, artists have always integrated new technology into their craft. During the Industrial Revolution, new vibrant artificial pigments were developed which allowed painters to create work that had previously been inconceivable. From the standpoint of a painter such as myself, why should computers be any different? The truth is, there are already many artists, myself included, who integrate digital technology into traditional practices to create work that is a balance of both. And the opposite is true as well-- I'm sure many artists who work primarily with digital media, in companies like Pixar and DreamWorks, are equally proficient with a pencil and sketchpad. Most of my digital drawings start out that way, and I only scan them in and use Photoshop to color and shade.

My feeling on the matter is, to really be a successful 21st Century artist, one should be versed in both modes of production. All of those things that have been said here, about both having their own distinct strengths and weaknesses-- that's true. So logically, if you combine them, you're creating something where one mode's strengths cover the other's weaknesses.

Both. Each are just a different medium.

I've dabbled in both, and I can say that virtually everyone who has seen my work has preferred my traditional art to my digital art. For some reason my use of colored pencils really appeals to people.

However, I feel "safer" using digital media to do my art, because I can easily correct any mistakes that I make, whereas with traditional media, one mistake can ruin the entire picture. I also like the polished, professional look that programs like Paint Tool SAI give to anime-style drawings.

I used to be a graphic designer, with a leaning to graphic art on the computer. I found a tremendous creative freedom using the computer, although in those days digital work hadn't gained much acceptance, except for commercial use. The paint brush allows me a different kind of creativity. If I can just let go and allow my creativity to lead, getting inspiration as I paint, then the best work comes.

Good point IdahoRose, if you make a mistake in traditional media it's tedious to fix, if possible at all. Digital art uses layers.

Of course that also means you can't quite get the same effect...such as, say, holographic cd inserts. I like those, but they can't be made on computers (at least to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Well digital art easily makes tradional art more pristine Chevand. What we need to do is try to support local art shops more though...I have noticed they get very few visitors while sites like Deviant Art gets thousands daily.

I don?t care how the art?s made. I just want to look at something that appeals to me.