Digital Versus Traditional Art
Virtual Pose
published an article where I said (in a nutshell) that digitally
created art (that means from scratch, using a computer, drawing
tablet, painting software and NO scanning) could be seen as
traditional art would (regardless of the style). This article was a
follow-up to one that looked at why digital artists were finding it
hard to sell their work, despite the fact that the new medium
recruited a lot of gifted artists, who were seduced by clever
marketing. In my follow-up article, titled "Grab a Byte at the Digital
Art Café" (NADTP Journal, April 1997) I urged digital artists to "sell
the experience, not the art" because although the computer has opened
the door to millions of aspiring artists, it cannot change the way
people relate to digital art because of its intrinsically ephemeral
nature. The BY-PRODUCT may look like a real-life painting, but the
beauty lied in the experience (seeing someone actually create the
image, say over the internet or in a "Digital Art Cafe") versus an
inkjet print, or Giclée. Of course, there were other factors that
affected the perception of value: a well-known traditional artist
might well be able to sell Giclée of LOUSY art, while a true artist
attempting to do the same may go broke.
Last year, as digital painting software company invited me to MacWorld
San Francisco to give a series of classes on Life Drawing using their
software. The medium: digital paint. The set up: 20 "virtual easels"
facing a large screen, PA System and music etc. It was fantastic. I
must have coached over 200 people and they all loved the experience.
Also during the week, the company organized a party for the sponsors,
the centerpiece: a nude male model being drawn by an artist using a
digital canvas. It all looked something out of Blade Runner. Very
impressive. However, I still maintain that (outside advertising,
marketing, professional illustration meant for the press) digital
paint is about the experience and has nothing to do with the final
product.
Why do I bring all this up? Well, I see the same software company
convince aspiring artists that going digital is the way to go. (And,
don't get me wrong, I couldn't function without digital paint--as a
professional illustrator). However, "kids" jumping on the digital
bandwagon early without having experienced real inks, oils,
watercolors...or got splinters from their wood blocks for Pete's
sake...might they become depressed down the road?
Your thoughts please.
I am enclosing a couple of my digital paintings (all from scratch, no
filters, no scanning.)
http://www.virtualpose.net/requiem.jpg
http://www.studioview.com/mario/illustration
http://www.virtualpose.net/freefall.jpg
Mario Henri Chakkour, AIA
http://www.virtualpose.net
frankvo...@web.de
>
>Why do I bring all this up? Well, I see the same software company
>convince aspiring artists that going digital is the way to go. (And,
>don't get me wrong, I couldn't function without digital paint--as a
>professional illustrator). However, "kids" jumping on the digital
>bandwagon early without having experienced real inks, oils,
>watercolors...or got splinters from their wood blocks for Pete's
>sake...might they become depressed down the road?
>
>Your thoughts please.
>
People on the digital "bandwagon" will find new possibilities to
create art by the means of digital software as it also happened with
music and the possibilities of electronic equipment. An example to use
these new techniques with visual fine arts you will find here:
Frank
stdo
agree with the experience being the point. I paint in oils and have found
that I am more likely to sell and get leads if I share the experience, such
as painting in front of them or teaching others to paint. I like to do
digital art, but the value in it is in the road to the finished product, and
what the product is for!
thanx 4 listning!
"Virtual Pose" <goo...@studioview.com> wrote in message
news:3be21775.0211...@posting.google.com...
