What would be different is that you'd look at his stuff, roll your eyes and think "I know where the filters are in photoshop too, big deal" and that would be that.
jim
people already say that when they see a photograph, but when they try
to reproduce something that was made on film or paper, they soon
realize that even with the same film, camera and notes the photographer
"gave up" in the magazine or forum or where-ever ( velveeta, 1/250S f22 &C )
they still can't make the same print or expose film (or sen$or ) the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrey
I really don't believe I'd be thinking that. Maybe if I had a head injury, but it's not quite probable.
The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.
I don't think he'd be working in PS for starters, even if he had been able to choose to work electronically.
I doubt very much that he would be working with a computer for art (who knows for sure?) There were many other processes that were available during his life, including photography, yet he did what he did. Even though he worked with Philippe Halsman to produce some very cool photographs, and had allot of exposure to the process through that experience, evidenced by the intricacies of that work, he stuck to his brushes.
Most painters still paint with a brush. I think that those means satisfy the artistic urges in tangible tactile ways that a computer screen can't. Most artistic persons are into the artifact and the way it communicates content, but more so in the creation of a physical thing that exists as we do. I think that's why there is no substitute for the real photographic print or the painting, and never really will be, among those who truly appreciate art.
I've been thinking about it, and without everybody thinking I've gone all Shirley Mclaine, I believe that artistic artifacts convey the energy and light that the artist sent forth. For some reason I think a digital intermediary or display short circuits that. So do Sputz prints.
I had seen Vincent Van Gogh in books and reproductions all of my life, and liked his work. I thought I knew all about it. When I saw the real paintings, they knocked me down. I could feel the presence of the man. I'll never be the same about that artist, and I will always know the difference.
I don't think an artist like Dali would have given that up.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.
That's so very wrong. It is not the same thing. Maybe it would feel similar if they had a rough canvas surface on the Wacom that yielded to pressure (not the slippery slick "pressure sensitivity" they build in) and if that tablet somehow exuded a substance with viscosity and olfactory stimulants. A stylus stroked across a digital tablet is nothing like true painting, either in execution or result.
In fact, I would suggest that "digital painting" is further away from its parent than is "digital photography."
Sitting at a desk marking a Wacom tablet to make "brushstrokes" on a digital image file in a software program like "Painter" is more akin to sitting at a desk marking a Wacom tablet to make corrections on a digital image file in a software program like "Photoshop."
Getting out of the chair and using your whole body to drum paint into a canvas is totally different experience.
A "digital painting" also lacks facture and that is one of the hallmarks of Painting.
That book is an attempt to romanticize the medium. Painting is not alchemy, unlike the opening paragraph states, and painting was perfected only because it was profitable a couple centuries ago either for a church or the monarchy.
Olfactory stimulants have little to do with it - that is the experience of the artist and artist only. It has no effect on the viewer.
If experience of the artist at the time of creation had an effect on the viewer, the greatest artist would emerge who'd sandpaint with cocaine powder and the viewers would be ecstatic because the artist pushed off in the process. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
Dali's choice of medium is not his accomplishment. It is the message and the influence on the viewer that counts. Deliver the message, conceal the artist?
If Dali had chosen to paint watercolor, he'd have less texture... the pictures would still convey the message.
Am I making my art or are my tools? Everytime you load a program in to your computer you have to agree to a copyright contract . The question is, would Dali agree ?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
That book is an attempt to romanticize the medium. Painting is not alchemy, unlike the opening paragraph states, and painting was perfected only because it was profitable a couple centuries ago either for a church or the monarchy.
Olfactory stimulants have little to do with it - that is the experience of the artist and artist only. It has no effect on the viewer.
If experience of the artist at the time of creation had an effect on the viewer, the greatest artist would emerge who'd sandpaint with cocaine powder and the viewers would be ecstatic because the artist pushed off in the process. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
Dali's choice of medium is not his accomplishment. It is the message and the influence on the viewer that counts. Deliver the message, conceal the artist?
If Dali had chosen to paint watercolor, he'd have less texture... the pictures would still convey the message.
While there is a point here, we're back to the old content illusion. The choice of medium isn't the accomplishment, I agree, but neither is it irrelevant. The choice of medium contributes directly to the perception of the work. Artists are free to choose their mediums, and the tools within them. The continued attempts to homogenize medium and methods as immaterial to the artifact to validate certain workflows simply points up the immaturity of certain mediums.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
I really don't believe I'd be thinking that. Maybe if I had a head injury, but it's not quite probable.
The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.
Amusing - I took Jim's statement the other way (ie, we'd be foolishly closed-minded and discount him immediately). Guess you could read it either way.
__________________
The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
.
Linear Mode
