Support NeoGAF

[Ihateyouchris]

I'm not using just my opinion, this is the collective opinion of many artists, writers, architects, et cetera. In regards to what you have posted, though, admittedly that is my opinion, but your picture of Kerrigan doesn't even address what I've been talking about, it's just a straight up digital rendering. But it's not like dealers are exactly lining up for shit by Samwise.
I didn't say I hated all digital art, I've elaborated on what I hate.

If you had any knowledge of painting, you wouldn't be arguing with me now, and resorting to ad hominem because you don't know any of the names I have and could drop. Why do I need to save myself? The world is on my side; in 100 years nobody is going to give a shit about anything you've posted; nobody will treasure it; nobody will care if it has been lost forever.

Actually, in 100 years the only art of our time people are going to give a shit about are our films, so digital art wins.

 

[pjberri]

K I'll write my reply on papyrus and send it to you by pigeon, but I must hurry because the Hans are at the door and I fear my provisions will not hold for long.

You seem like the type to post your reply in Papyrus, philistine.

 

[buhmachine]

Actually, in 100 years the only art of our time people are going to give a shit about are our films, so digital art wins.

wtf kind of stupid shit is that

 

[Concept17]

I'm not using just my opinion, this is the collective opinion of many artists, writers, architects, et cetera. In regards to what you have posted, though, admittedly that is my opinion, but your picture of Kerrigan doesn't even address what I've been talking about, it's just a straight up digital rendering. But it's not like dealers are exactly lining up for shit by Samwise.
I didn't say I hated all digital art, I've elaborated on what I hate.

If you had any knowledge of painting, you wouldn't be arguing with me now, and resorting to ad hominem because you don't know any of the names I have and could drop. Why do I need to save myself? The world is on my side; in 100 years nobody is going to give a shit about anything you've posted; nobody will treasure it; nobody will care if it has been lost forever.

Oh please, drop some names, link us to some wonderful paintings done long, long ago, that, thanks to the opinion of many, make anything less seem obsolete.

You mention Horatii by David. You say a single face required more talent than all I had posted. This is simply not true. The amount of detail and skill in one of the two portraits I posted, is far more than any portion of that painting.

You're likely to drop names of painters who only paint realistically, or rather, those who studied one or two things, and only ever painted that. Likely to be human anatomy and drapery. Those are great sure. But being able to create a piece that properly establishes many principles/elements and ALSO adds a great deal of imagination, is far more impressive than simply creating something real.

Your ideas on what is good in art are exactly what I think is currently wrong with Art in general. Unless a painting/sculpture receives a numerous positive critique from other artists (or those who claim they can properly read a painting because they've taken a couple classes), it is not impressive, nor will it ever be. It has become more about who you know, then a person's ability. The major difference you see between traditional art and digital art, is imagination, and if you've ever tried creating something entirely out of your head, as compared to something you can properly observe and use endless reference from, you would know that it takes a great deal of skill to achieve a successful 'sci-fi/fantasy' painting. Yet here you are, shitting on great work. Send yourself to some museum, and stay there...for our sake.

 

[pjberri]

For some reason you keep name-dropping traditional artists... I have yet to hear a substantive why from you. Using generic terms such as "the art is lifeless and lacks composition" really does not hammer your point in. Not to mention calling other people's work "garbage" just makes you look like a pompous ass.

You are like CoolTrick of the art threads, aren't ya?

I'm using generic terms for generic art that doesn't change at all in its execution across different pieces by the same artist. What do you want, a thesis? I'm communicating simple ideas, and if you can't comprehend those then, well, I couldn't care less. If you want to wallow in mediocrity, that's your prerogative.

 

[Ihateyouchris]

wtf kind of stupid shit is that

I think the most talented and relevant artwork today comes from films.
2001 a space odyssey > bullshit art produced for galleries

 

[xabre]

The fact that you would herald this garbage over something like a painting by Friedrich is an absolute travesty.

 

[pjberri]

You mention Horatii by David. You say a single face required more talent than all I had posted. This is simply not true. The amount of detail and skill in one of the two portraits I posted, is far more than any portion of that painting.

Oh dear.

 

[my name is ed]

K I'll write my reply on papyrus and send it to you by pigeon, but I must hurry because the Huns are at the door and I fear my provisions will not hold for long.

you know, youre quickly beginning to become one of my favorite posters.
really,you're insane if you think digital art wont progress into something grander.
I can only imagine what kind of other shit you must have thought of back in the day.
The internet will never be a valuable tool of communication!
phone lines?!? theyre of no use!
transistors wont do shit for humanity!
antibiotics?!? fuck that, ill let jesus heal my body!

edit: shouldnt we include 3d art as well? its digital media as well

 

[Concept17]

Oh dear.

Thanks for continuing to be vague in proving any single point outside of your own opinion. I'm out for the night.

 

[reilo]

I'm using generic terms for generic art that doesn't change at all in its execution across different pieces by the same artist. What do you want, a thesis? I'm communicating simple ideas, and if you can't comprehend those then, well, I couldn't care less. If you want to wallow in mediocrity, that's your prerogative.

Uhm, no, it's not that I cannot comprehend these things - it's that you just can't seem to provide a substantive opinion as to why digital art is "garbage" to you.

Are Salvador Dali's ink paintings any less impressive to you than his oil on canvas stuff simply because of the medium used? Or what about Escher's stuff because he had to the gall to use a ruler and a lithograph?

 

[blackadde]

mullins has done enough beautiful studies in oil and other traditional media to have some authority on the medium:

but he also has a firm enough grasp on color theory and composition to make the digital medium as legitimate as any:

rather than tell people what to think, i'm just going to let the images speak for themselves. personally, i'm going to go enjoy and create art for the image rather than the process.

(sculpture is a poor imitation of architecture! paint is a poor imitation of sculpture! photoshop is a poor imitation of painting! etc.)

 

[monchi-kun]

one more time for TIMO

http://www.ambientdesign.com/artrage.html

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Uhm, no, it's not that I cannot comprehend these things - it's that you just can't seem to provide a substantive opinion as to why digital art is "garbage" to you.

Are Salvador Dali's ink paintings any less impressive to you than his oil on canvas stuff simply because of the medium used? Or what about Escher's stuff because he had to the gall to use a ruler and a lithograph?

exactly. i can't believe he used craig mullins as an example. his digital work IS just as impressive as his traditional work.

 

[Mobius 1]

:lol Bloody right.

 

[pjberri]

Thanks for continuing to be vague in proving any single point outside of your own opinion.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's as simple as that. Your argument contradicts images you've posted, and you are assuming that all classical painting is representations of life, not to mention you've gone on some epic tangent that has nothing to do with the train of thought I have been adhering to.
Why should I bother with you? You think some derivative fantasy shit trumps a landmark painting that defined a movement. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[my name is ed]

You don't know what you're talking about, it's as simple as that. Your argument contradicts images you've posted, and you are assuming that all classical painting is representations of life, not to mention you've gone on some epic tangent that has nothing to do with the train of thought I have been adhering to.
Why should I bother with you? You think some derivative fantasy shit trumps a landmark painting that defined a movement. You don't know what you're talking about.

wait.....*looks through thread* he said the technique needed to make a complex digital painting takes more than a portion. Reading comprehension? Wait, did you say something about command of english language? oh yeah you did. Dont hold others accountable for what you dont.

also,
rap? more like crap!
democracy? who would let simpletons run things?
basketball isn't a real sport!

 

[pjberri]

Uhm, no, it's not that I cannot comprehend these things - it's that you just can't seem to provide a substantive opinion as to why digital art is "garbage" to you.

Are Salvador Dali's ink paintings any less impressive to you than his oil on canvas stuff simply because of the medium used? Or what about Escher's stuff because he had to the gall to use a ruler and a lithograph?

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not accusing mediums of being inferior to others, some of my favourite contemporary artists work in pencil or watercolours on paper.

My problem is the laziness and dishonesty of recreating painting and the aesthetic of paint with a tablet and a computer. I'm not even totally against this, if you have a requirement for that, then by all means. But if you want the aesthetic of paint, then you should paint. I don't have a problem with digital artists, only this.

There are people in this thread thinking I'm lambasting a new medium in favour of traditional methods, which is fucking idiotic. Digital painting is the superfluous emulation of an old medium, it has nothing to offer the world.

 

[pjberri]

wait.....*looks through thread* he said the technique needed to make a complex digital painting takes more than a portion. Reading comprehension? Wait, did you say something about command of english language? oh yeah you did. Dont hold others accountable for what you dont.

also,
rap? more like crap!
democracy? who would let simpletons run things?
basketball isn't a real sport!

He didn't say 'a portion', he said "any portion".

 

[my name is ed]

He didn't say 'a portion', he said "any portion".

still a portion

half of michael jordan < kevin durant


rock? sounds like noise
condom? ill stick to doing it while standing.
aids research? im not gay, are you?

 

[pjberri]

still a portion

half of michael jordan < kevin durant


rock? sounds like noise
condom? ill stick to doing it while standing.
aids research? im not gay, are you?

I think you're grasping at straws.

Also, this isn't an argument of the shock of the new, but that obviously flew over your head.

 

[my name is ed]

I think you're grasping at straws.

Also, this isn't an argument of the shock of the new, but that obviously flew over your head.

not the shock of the new, more like underestimating what the new can do and offer or just recognizing its potential. Once a program is able to fully duplicate anything painting offers then what will you say?

 

[pjberri]

not the shock of the new, more like underestimating what the new can do and offer or just recognizing its potential. Once a program is able to fully duplicate anything painting offers then what will you say?

When a program can paint in 3D I'll be impressed.
Until then it is a very, very poor substitute. Comparing it to rock and roll is absurd and a completely different argument.

 

[my name is ed]

When a program can paint in 3D I'll be impressed.
Until then it is a very, very poor substitute. Comparing it to rock and roll is absurd and a completely different argument.

I bet one day it happens. I dont see why comparing it to rock and roll is that different where a comparison is impossible or absurd. Im going to sleep now before you say "youre doing it wrong" (paraphrased) one more time

edit: for the rock and roll thing, in my defense I was still thinking you were dismissing all of digital media

 

[pjberri]

I bet one day it happens. I dont see why comparing it to rock and roll is that different where a comparison is impossible or absurd. Im going to sleep now before you say "youre doing it wrong" (paraphrased) one more time

We aren't talking about "one day", though. Hypotheticals aren't worth shit here. Oh my god, one day, in the future, traditional painting will blow your mind some much that it won't be able to support your body so both will disintegrate! Try arguing the point, next time.

 

[my name is ed]

We aren't talking about "one day", though. Hypotheticals aren't worth shit here. Oh my god, one day, in the future, traditional painting will blow your mind some much that it won't be able to support your body so both will disintegrate! Try arguing the point, next time.

except its not really that hypothetical. the way technology advances will allow it to happen. dont be so blind. kthxbye

 

[CounterSeal]

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not accusing mediums of being inferior to others, some of my favourite contemporary artists work in pencil or watercolours on paper.

My problem is the laziness and dishonesty of recreating painting and the aesthetic of paint with a tablet and a computer. I'm not even totally against this, if you have a requirement for that, then by all means. But if you want the aesthetic of paint, then you should paint. I don't have a problem with digital artists, only this.

There are people in this thread thinking I'm lambasting a new medium in favour of traditional methods, which is fucking idiotic. Digital painting is the superfluous emulation of an old medium, it has nothing to offer the world.

That's exactly what you're doing. Way to contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Referring to digital painting as being a superfluous emulation of traditional media proves that you fail to even see, embrace, or even apreciate what the digital medium offers.

Digital artists don't paint with a tablet intending to mimic traditional media, just like how, for example... artists using watercolor don't have any intention on making their piece look like it was done in charcoal or vise versa.

Digital is just another medium, and if all you see are comparisons of superiority and inferiority between mediums, then you must be living a rather bitter and stale life.

 

[pjberri]

I would like to thank pjberri for helping me form a brain tumor.

My next target is anime art.

 

[pjberri]

That's exactly what you're doing. Way to contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Referring to digital painting as being a superfluous emulation of traditional media proves that you fail to even see, embrace, or even apreciate what the digital medium offers.

Digital artists don't paint with a tablet intending to mimic traditional media, just like how, for example... artists using watercolor don't have any intention on making their piece look like it was done in charcoal or vise versa.

Digital is just another medium, and if all you see are comparisons of superiority and inferiority between mediums, then you must be living a rather bitter and stale life.

Digital painting does not encompass the array of mediums under the 'digital' umbrella, and digital painting is what I'm talking about.

If digital painters aren't trying to emulate painting, why don't they use brushes that don't look like paintbrushes? This is nothing like charcoal versus watercolour.

 

[Prax]

Wow. So much elitism.

Anyway, I love the more painterly/raw look that some artists can achieve with digital programs too! I always wanted to be able to emulate that, but I never quite figured out how... One day though! One day!

Painting with acrylics/oils/watercolours is expensive, messy, stinky, and requires too much space! Also, how would I effectively scan that in? Plus, ctrl-z, layers, and saving leaves many options for different versions and other flexible hoo-hah too. I can see how some people might see this as "cheating" or something, but most artists cheat with everything they can anyway. You should have seen my shock when I realized watercolour artists could use MASKING FLUID to protect areas they did not want the paint to run onto! Or how classic painters made charcoal tracings before they painted the actual thing! Or how about some artists using an eraser!? Wow! Bunch of crafty cheaters, they be!

As for that whole "emulation" bit--everything tries to emulate everything anyway. Maybe some people are ticked that digital painting does this emulation job particularly well. And, it also has its own area of specialization too! Technically technical vector-based stuff, pure gradients, perfectly flat colours, and lens flares..! Some may argue it renders the art "lifeless" because it depends on machine-generated components, but that's not really the point. I think the fact that creative input is being used to decide how these elements are used and composed makes it as worthy as any other medium.

And you know, maybe not all digital painters try to emulate acrylic/oil/watercolour. Maybe it's just that during the process, that's just the way the image ends up looking.. And they like it!

I got Painter X, but I still want a new tablet before I use it. XD
Then I too can cheat! And do a bunch of "anime art".

 

[tmaynard]

I would like to thank pjberri for helping me form a brain tumor.

Exactly. :lol

I kept reading hoping somewhere along the line he would get banned for something...

...I was let down.

 

[pjberri]

I have my own problems with it. I certainly don't need to hear yours.

You don't need to, but I know you want to.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

This is Thomas Kinkade for nerds.

Spoiler

I know nothing about art

.

 

[Manabanana]

Jesus, the guy just wanted some Photoshop advice.

OP - That image was textured with an overlay as well; it's not just brushwork on canvas. There are plenty of tutorials out there and textures you can download from forums. It's a really simple process. Find a texture you like, lower opacity, and fiddle with layers and blending options until you get a look you like. It can make the canvas looked tea-stained or like woodgrain, etc.

 

[dogonfire]

:lol wow.

OP - have you been to conceptart.org? Here's the photoshop section of their forums.
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=78

 

[funkmasterb]

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not accusing mediums of being inferior to others, some of my favourite contemporary artists work in pencil or watercolours on paper.

My problem is the laziness and dishonesty of recreating painting and the aesthetic of paint with a tablet and a computer. I'm not even totally against this, if you have a requirement for that, then by all means. But if you want the aesthetic of paint, then you should paint. I don't have a problem with digital artists, only this.

There are people in this thread thinking I'm lambasting a new medium in favour of traditional methods, which is fucking idiotic. Digital painting is the superfluous emulation of an old medium, it has nothing to offer the world.

Luddite.

Also, I work with 30 artists who paint and draw in their spare time and use pen/tablet during the day. They're smart enough to recognize the two as being different, but no more of less 'lazy' you smug elitist bitch. So before you propose 'speaking for artists as a collective' realize that you aren't.

Oh, and enjoy the cancer oils are slowly killing you with!

 

[Shouta]

I would like to thank pjberri for helping me form a brain tumor.

Yeah, seriously.

 

[pxleyes]

We aren't talking about "one day", though. Hypotheticals aren't worth shit here. Oh my god, one day, in the future, traditional painting will blow your mind some much that it won't be able to support your body so both will disintegrate! Try arguing the point, next time.

Have you ever created a work of art yourself?

 

[reilo]

Have you ever created a work of art yourself?

He doesn't have to when there are all these great artists that have done so already. He lives vicariously through them.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Have you ever created a work of art yourself?

Usually, pretentious art critics are failed artists who saved their reputation (in their own wrapped minds) by relying on supposed "artistic knowledge"; basically, memorizing everything they learned about art in school except what would have actually made them good artists, because THAT requires skill honed through practice, but they hate themselves so they get depressed when they fail through practice and give up. If they DO make art, they'll use their own self-imposed insanity to pretend that THEIR art is good because it follows the artistic principles they have twisted.

It's like, someone can't paint a sphere, so in his head a sphere is a cube, therefore he paints a cube.

 

[pjberri]

Have you ever created a work of art yourself?

Yes. And a lot of it is created digitally. Shock/horror.

Luddite.

Also, I work with 30 artists who paint and draw in their spare time and use pen/tablet during the day. They're smart enough to recognize the two as being different, but no more of less 'lazy' you smug elitist bitch. So before you propose 'speaking for artists as a collective' realize that you aren't.

Oh, and enjoy the cancer oils are slowly killing you with!

I don't have a problem with tablets, and I don't paint with oils. But if you're going to use a tablet, then why bother using it to half-ass a painted aesthetic? What's the point? There's a lot of writing to be found across different professions regarding truth in materials. If you look at architecture, it's like having a Formica finish on everything and beams in your ceiling that aren't a structural necessity. That is generally considered unnecessary and in poor taste.

And you're calling me a bitch? :lol

 

[pjberri]

It's like, someone can't paint a sphere, so in his head a sphere is a cube, therefore he paints a cube.

The fuck? I love it when dullards try to concoct these kinds of elaborate analogies for things they don't know shit about.

USUALLY, pretentious art critics are from other fields and were never artists in the first place.

 

[Cmagus]

some very nice artwork by this person.Honestly there isn't a set way really to paint like this you'll find once you get into photoshop and start adding things you'll play around with many different things from start to finish.Really it's just getting in there and building up layers slowly.

Here is a tutorial from a person I know it may help you understand some things other than that it's all about the art style you go and just look up as many references as possible

http://norke.deviantart.com/art/How-I-painted-Alania-41310608

 

[Squeak]

The big advantage of digital painting is that you can correct an endless amount of times without being discouraged by smudgy ugly paper, and you can save and undo if you change your mind.
Paint with a tablet though. A mouse is just horrible for anything other than pointing. Also you'll be able to carry your learned motor skills over to pen and paper if you so desire.

 

[pxleyes]

Yes. And a lot of it is created digitally. Shock/horror.

Would love to see some of it. :lol :lol

Look, simply put your accusations that the digital medium is somehow easier and allows for lazy and uninspired artists is fundamentally flawed. Art is now judged by the difficulty of its creation but rather its message and finished aesthetic.

Bluntly, you are wrong. Shut up.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Timo: Check out some issues of Imagine FX, they come with tutorial DVD's you may find useful. You can just watch and see what parts of the program are being used.

Feel free to PM me for more infos.

And fuck all you morons coming in here with your retard faux-art intellectual bullshit. Timo's got some chops, so STFU. :\

 

[Hunter D]

The big advantage of digital painting is that you can correct an endless amount of times without being discouraged by smudgy ugly paper, and you can save and undo if you change your mind.
Paint with a tablet though. A mouse is just horrible for anything other than pointing. Also you'll be able to carry your learned motor skills over to pen and paper if you so desire.

I'm not an artist, but aren't artists taught to embrace flaws and work with them?

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I'm not an artist, but aren't artists taught to embrace flaws and work with them?

To an extent, but if it didn't have to be that way would you actively choose to ignore the option to produce better work?

 

[Prax]

I'm not an artist, but aren't artists taught to embrace flaws and work with them?

Yes, but they also make use of the tools around them as well. There's more to being an artist than being either perfect or having to leave your flaws as is. Sometimes if you have the resourcefulness, you rework those flaws (and this includes using an eraser, throwing out your garbage sketch, or ctrl+z! XD).

Don't try to put artists and their works on some kind of holy pedestal. Sometimes I think it's wrong how some try to put "art" out of the reach of the very humans that created it.

Also, I think Loish is such a lovely painter...! http://loish.deviantart.com/

Surprisingly, it seems that she regularly just paints with the default brushes and an Intuos tablet (airbrush in photoshop and smeary round in painter). Her short FAQ with some tips

I think most of the magic of her stuff is through the smart use of textures. => Ariel

Those little circles... I really like them! oO


Paint like her! I'll live vicariously through you.

 

[pjberri]

Would love to see some of it. :lol :lol

Look, simply put your accusations that the digital medium is somehow easier and allows for lazy and uninspired artists is fundamentally flawed. Art is now judged by the difficulty of its creation but rather its message and finished aesthetic.

Bluntly, you are wrong. Shut up.

Where is that my accusation? I've used the word lazy, but that hasn't been my argument, which you obviously don't understand at all. My last post clarified this and relates to message and aesthetic, which are relational.