|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:20 am
i saw this posted in the art discussion forum a while back and thought it would be interesting what you, as mainly traditional media artists, would think of it. is there any merit to this idea? most of these links say about the same thing, but i've posted extra for those who might want a different veiw (different person, NOT the other side. i've yet to find any articles saying it doesnt weaken skills, if you know of any, please post em) http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/06/drawing_programs_weaken_skills/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6058369.html http://graphicssoft.about.com/b/a/257670.htmnow, i have tried CG art, and its really hard for me. so im not downing it, by any means, im just curious as to what you think the effects of solely using a computer graphics program (such as Photoshop, or Painter) to create art. i'll post my opinion later.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:22 am
There are some good points there but it all comes back to lack of practise I think.
If you only draw with your computer you'll never learn or you will forget how to draw with real media and the other way around.
And it's true that a good CG artist does'nt have to be good with real media. Real media is much more of a challenge cause you can't edit or draw a perfect line just like that. But as a CG artist you need to know how to handle the program with can be difficult to learn. I myself can't handle the programs properly, I don't use layers I don't let the program do the lines I basicly draw on free hand and take avange of the editing abilites and the clean look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:37 pm
i've got to agree with you, chemie; if one only uses on media (or program, in this case, i suppose), then their skills with other media will weaken just from lack of practice. i personally believe that real media is a bit more of a challange, just because there are things that really cannot be undone without altering the picture. sure, you can paint over it, erase it, or scrape it off, but the scar is still there. in digital media, that just isnt the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:40 am
Exactly. Plus real paint have it's own life somehow. xd You really have to mix and blend the colors no program does that for you, no shortcuts.
There are so much more work but it looks so much better with real media. Still it seems that most people on gaia prefers CG. I've spend a lot of time in the R&C forum and even held my own real media auction (huge failure D smile .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:36 pm
blending/mixing colors can be a nightmare, especially since much of the time if you dont get it right, you just have to start over.
there are very few artists that can really pull off CG and make it look almost like real media; most of it just looks cartoonish and flat. yeah, one of the few reasons im not fond of gaia is because most people prefer CG, which i dont understand at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:15 am
I think that those people prefer it becous, once you got the program, it doesnt cost you any money more, you dont have to clean up neither you need a lot of space... its just easyer and I think it's proven that humans are lazy and prefer the easy way a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:01 pm
wow, that is a good point Hasel; i never thought of it that way. i always assumed it was because its so much easier to get those flat, value-less colors characteristic of anime/cartoons on the computer, but i think you may be onto something smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:41 pm
most of those articles say laziness is what causes people to sway towards digital art. i don't think that people who do real digital art by hand are lacking in other departments. you bring to digital art what you already know from doing traditional.
those articles are only talking about people who go to art school and manipulate photos instead of doing any real work from scratch. they're not talking about people like this or like this
it doesn't have to do with lack of skill. though, like anything, if you don't practice you'll lose it. i think there has to be a balance between the two. there is no way you can hope to become a designer and not know how to use digital programs. even a lot of traditional artists do digital art and use them in their exhibitions.
you can also only get so far with computer graphics and manipulations. if you don't know the basics of design it'll definately show. i know a lot of people who can't draw very well and have careers doing graphic design, but they'll never be GREAT graphic designers since they settled for mediocraty and never took time out to learn everything they could.
manipulating things digitally will NEVER replace the real thing, anyone who thinks so and does it themselves will just end up in the pile of designers/artists that will never be remembered for anything and only do enough to get by. emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:13 pm
i personally dont believe it when people say you can do digital media without having a basic knowledge of artistic form/techniques; it just doesnt make sense. however, i do believe that its possible that many people who draw on the computer (and pretty much ONLY on the computer) could definately lose their touch when it comes to traditional media, but the figure drawing, basic anatomy and concept should still be there.
i think the point these articles try to make is that in some cases, an artist who begins in digital media doesnt need to spend as much time on things like shading, blending, mixing colors, or refining lines, and THAT is what weakens them, because (from my experience) it takes some time to really grasp, understand, and execute certain aspects of drawing.
i also agree, Magaly, that with only knowledge of digital media, artists just wont get as far as other artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:47 pm
All I know is, the more time you spend doing anything that isn't drawing, the less time you'll have to get better at it. However, for painting, it's very different. I noticed that digital painting has actually improved my painting skills... before I even started painting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:53 pm
tatertot101010 All I know is, the more time you spend doing anything that isn't drawing, the less time you'll have to get better at it. However, for painting, it's very different. I noticed that digital painting has actually improved my painting skills... before I even started painting. interesting. i've spoken to a few artists and some purely digital artists claim they are completely unable to draw traditionally, and others say they are fully able to maintain their traditional media, but you're the first to say that its actually improved your skills, but i suppose it DOES make sense, in a way. i would assume it depends on how one uses a computer, and how one draws, position wise and things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:39 am
i don't buy it. i believe that the people who use digital media very well spend over 15 hours on one piece [more than they'd probably spend with a painting of the same size]. when it comes to people who edit photographs and say they're doing digital art, that's a whole different ballpark. i don't think the 2 type of digital artists should be put in the same category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:55 pm
magaly i don't buy it. i believe that the people who use digital media very well spend over 15 hours on one piece [more than they'd probably spend with a painting of the same size]. when it comes to people who edit photographs and say they're doing digital art, that's a whole different ballpark. i don't think the 2 type of digital artists should be put in the same category.
i agree that they shouldnt be put in the same catagory. photomanipulations and digital painting is different. and it is debatable which they are talking about. but quotes like: "Putting down a Bezier curve or drawing a perfectly straight line is easy in a drawing program, but some believe they lead to 'artist laziness.'" (first link) suggest the artists the articles may be talking about actual digital painting rather than just photomanipulation. however, quotes like this: "Students are more comfortable manipulating computer graphics than doodling, drafting and drawing with pen on paper" (2nd link) suggest that the articles refer more to manipulation rather than painting. its definately debateable, but i would assume the articles refer more to artists who actually paint with the computer. in my opinion, photomanipulation doesnt really require any kind of skill, just knowledge of the program. i've done photomanip a couple years back and it looked passable, even though i really didnt know what i was doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:22 pm
I don't think it weakens drawing skills, but I do think that *sometimes* digital media is used out of laziness. I mean, I've seen really great digital paintings that are even better than most traditional paintings I've seen, but I really dislike when people chose digital media just because they don't have to mix paint colors, or just because they can draw straight lines. I really like the anime style with cell shading and all, but I don't like when people only do that because it's easier than "normal" shading.
By the way, bezier curves aren't easy for me. They're much easier with pencil and paper. Maybe there should be an article called "Traditional drawing weakens digital drawing skills?" Well, not weakens, but my point is that traditional and digital drawing each requires practice in their own medium.
P.s. some photo manipulations are really amazing, and those require more than just knowledge of the program. You would also have to envision how objects would be combined to look real... but then I guess it wouldn't matter to much if it was off.
Wow, a novel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:52 pm
yeah, almost two years later, i've since changed my view on photomanipulation. i mean, photomanips can be easy, but for it to be outstanding, it's NOT easy. passable is easy, great is not.
i would also argue now that...digital painting seems to have a plateau. people without drive or talent can go so far (like me), and then there are digital artists, who not only put the time in, but also manipulate the computer exactly like another medium.
i have a great respect for those who digitally paint, but not so much for those who just fiddle around with filters and such.
i think there are digital painters, and then there are lazy artists who use the computer a cop-out and give digital artists a bad name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
