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.
Last edited by JBrunner; 01-28-2008 at 07:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.