Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
I was reading the Post Your Last Work string and took note of the spat between someone and someone else regarding digital art and traditional art.
I'm far from being a traditionalist, but I am a painter (an airbrush artist, which I'll discuss later) and I personally believe that some forms of art may be quite a bit less difficult to master.
Certainly there have been controversies among artists involving new materials, techniques and tools that have the most traditional screaming, "you're cheating - that's not art!" I know that many traditional oil painters must have insisted that using acrylics (with their easy clean-up, their lack of dangerous solvents, thinners, etc.) wasn't really painting, but eventually acrylics caught on with many noteworthy artists.
The same must have been true with techniques like tracing, pouncing and even the grid system. I have personally heard people complain that using opaque projectors is "cheating," and they no doubt feel the same about using a computer.
I've used an airbrush for several years and I've found a certain stigma among other artists for my choice of tools. Many traditionalists believe that airbrush artists only paint using stencils and involved masking materials. While that might be true of many different kinds of airbrushing (automotive, hobby/craft, and fingernail painting especially), it's not true of all airbrush artists. I've also found the objection by traditionalists that we (airbrush artists) never touch the canvas. That may be true again for some artists, but being a multi-media artist, I frequently work my support more vigorously than most oil painters using tools like electric erasers (on Bristol board), Exacto-knives (on canvas) and sanders and rotary tools (on wood or metal).
I suppose my long rant is leading up to the question; at what point are tools and techniques more responsible for the art than the artist himself? Certainly ANY art requires input from an artist (I've heard of paintings done by elephants that have sold for thousands of dollars), but when can the artist be held responsible for not fully comprehending the intricacies of light, texture, form, composition and all the other things we rely upon to judge "good art."
Before anyone reacts to anything I've said, please note that I have nothing against anyone using Ray-Tracing software, figure animation software or any other digital tools to create their art. I would, however, like to hear (and defend) both sides of the issue.
I'm far from being a traditionalist, but I am a painter (an airbrush artist, which I'll discuss later) and I personally believe that some forms of art may be quite a bit less difficult to master.
Certainly there have been controversies among artists involving new materials, techniques and tools that have the most traditional screaming, "you're cheating - that's not art!" I know that many traditional oil painters must have insisted that using acrylics (with their easy clean-up, their lack of dangerous solvents, thinners, etc.) wasn't really painting, but eventually acrylics caught on with many noteworthy artists.
The same must have been true with techniques like tracing, pouncing and even the grid system. I have personally heard people complain that using opaque projectors is "cheating," and they no doubt feel the same about using a computer.
I've used an airbrush for several years and I've found a certain stigma among other artists for my choice of tools. Many traditionalists believe that airbrush artists only paint using stencils and involved masking materials. While that might be true of many different kinds of airbrushing (automotive, hobby/craft, and fingernail painting especially), it's not true of all airbrush artists. I've also found the objection by traditionalists that we (airbrush artists) never touch the canvas. That may be true again for some artists, but being a multi-media artist, I frequently work my support more vigorously than most oil painters using tools like electric erasers (on Bristol board), Exacto-knives (on canvas) and sanders and rotary tools (on wood or metal).
I suppose my long rant is leading up to the question; at what point are tools and techniques more responsible for the art than the artist himself? Certainly ANY art requires input from an artist (I've heard of paintings done by elephants that have sold for thousands of dollars), but when can the artist be held responsible for not fully comprehending the intricacies of light, texture, form, composition and all the other things we rely upon to judge "good art."
Before anyone reacts to anything I've said, please note that I have nothing against anyone using Ray-Tracing software, figure animation software or any other digital tools to create their art. I would, however, like to hear (and defend) both sides of the issue.
