Artist Articles -
Artist Blog
These are just a few thoughts and personal opinions concerning this subject, mainly because a lot of sites which can show your work seem to put a lot of emphasis on the difference or acceptance of the two types of painting.
As a once traditional painter using oils, canvasses, paper and unfortunately for me the awful smell of turpentine in the air, the splatter of paint against your cheek, the paint staining your fingertips, and then applying myself to the technicalities and disciplines required for digital painting I am constantly bemused by this subject
In my opinion, digital painting is just taking traditional techniques that little bit further, without being restricted to for me the messiness. I believe that accomplished artists are the individuals that can develop the same idea both traditionally and digitally.
By utilizing and developing the software technology available artists can be inspired on new levels, harnessing what technology and software have to offer. A lot of time and effort can be spent on a digital piece, but is it the same as the time and effort spent on an oil painting?.
I think that if many of the great artists could see how art has developed, they would be in awe or fascinated by digital artists, just as today artists admire and respect the masterpieces of the greats.
Digital painting for me is as an evolution of art itself, and is definitely a valid art form. It will never replace traditional art but is nothing to look down upon. It takes a great amount of skill, effort and patience, just as traditional art does, but nothing beats a one-of-a-kind original painting that is 100% unique and authentic. That can never be reproduced. I appreciate the effort that goes into it and the very delight of the experience that goes into it. But this doesn’t mean I consider the digital alternative any less brilliant.
Good digital painters have the same knowledge of light, shadows, forms, shapes, line, color, anatomy and mediums that traditional art is based on. Without knowing these fundamentals any type of art will suffer. It is more efficient to duplicate traditional methods on the computer, but it still takes the knowledge and time. It is a lot faster to create a digital painting: no time spent mixing paints, stretching and priming the canvas, letting layers of paint dry, cleaning brushes, but it still takes an artist to create a high quality piece of digital art.
Just something to think about…If you were going to buy a painting, how much emphasis would you place on if it was digital or traditional? Or would you go by how it looked, or cost above anything else? Would you pay more for a traditional work than a digital work?
My eye is very traditional when it comes to art. I know a blank canvas with an accidentally-on-purpose paint splatter is art these days but despite the artist’s best intentions and anything can be art viewpoint, I still like art to be something I can understand and relate to. Setting aside a few exceptions where I have been enchanted by colour or texture- I like art that’s nice to look at. By this I don’t mean beautiful- I mean sensual, absorbing, art that draws you into its form, colour and texture.
I am a fan of traditional art where the artist doesn’t create this aesthetic intrigue in front of a computer screen but my ArtRage paintings can take me many hours to complete, does the graphics tablet and good software make it any less of a painting in terms of the feel of painting. Having said that it is amazing how “traditional” some of the art work looks despite being done on painting software.
