Real paint paint artists often disgust ArtRagers. Your experience?

[Twaager]

When I first started "painting" on a computer, it was mid 1980. I had an Amiga 500 and a Amiga 1200. The software was Deluxe Paint and Brilliance. Back then no software tried to be anything else but digital. It was not a fake "real thing" paint program like Artrage or Painter. Just pure digital. I was a pixel pusher.

I loved those long nights in the digital realm of pixels, and yes! you worked with pixels those days. You could see them pixels on the screen, jagged and sharp. The screen resoulution was low as well as the picture resolution. But the images we made were beautiful. They were presented on the demoscene. Never ever has the beauty of digital art been so great.

It is over.

Now all paint software compare themselves to "real art". They are faking oil paint, graphite pencils, watercolour, ink and more. Never trying to invent digital tools in their own digital respect.

We love "the real thing" and therefore wel like the computer art to look just like "the real art" looks. We even print our digital art on canvas to make it look more arty (I never do that, it is fake IMO).

In the beginning of photography many methods of making photos look like "real art" were invented. Without any bigger success. Nowadays photography is treated as an artform of it's own.

Digital art will be treated that way too some day. It is an artform of its own. Andy Warhol proved that when making some of his famous pictures with the help of Amiga. Digital art is here to stay in its own respect.

Digital Art is Digital Art. It is.

[Docsmith626]

When the hottest platform out there was the Commodore 64, the programs, written in Basic, were called "Sinful One-Liners" and the object was to produce the most creative visual effect with eighty characters or less of Basic code. The results were often remarkably beautiful and clearly computer generated.

[Astrila]

I had drawing software for years but never used it to draw because with the mouse I find it very difficult but with my new tablet and pen the experience is so natural. I love it.
I think digital is just another tool. It still takes practise to get good at it just like any other tool.
One of the draw backs is the difference between printing and screen image. It always comes out different than it looks on screen. If you spend hours selecting your colors like some artist do this could be frustrating. But every other painting tool also has its limitations.

[BAT]

Here is my take on this: I have been a traditional color pencil artist for a while now and I work in graphite and also in watercolor. I love the old ways but like I said I have a take on this:

I learned long ago that its not the medium that matters its whether or not you are able to convey your ideas and your thoughts; those little nuances that sing to the rest of the world that you are an artist.

I can have all the fancy papers, pencils and pens in the world. I can have every piece of software ever made but if I cannot express a single idea visually about what is art to me, then I have wasted a lot of money on supplies be they digital or otherwise.

stick to your guns--if this medium gets the word of your mind out--then have at it and have fun--and forget the naysayers.

This is very true... but I still love smell. the feel and just getting part of the art on me...

[Frisch]

Do your thing.......and without the slightest proof, or the chance to see it come true, I would bet that the old masters who stood day in and day out in toxic, they would have loved this tool, and taken it on as a gift.

For me it's a toy, and a relaxing way of enjoyment.

[Boulderdash]

It's simple:

Use the tool where it's made for:

- Oil
Oil paint on canvas or board. The smell of paint. The feeling of brushes. The buttery flow of colours. Very fun to work with.

- Gouache
Dries quickly, use on paper. Wonderfull material! Used by the greatest illustrators of our time. Suck bright colours. So fun to work with. (Favorite of mine)

- Pecils en ink
Sketchbooks.

- Computer
Is digital, so let it be digital! With sharp (vector)lines, pixels. Flat colours. RGB-colour. Make it for a monitor. Please not try to make emulate an oilpainting in a computer. Sorry, it's not the same, it will always be something else. Why on earth imitate an oilpainting?? Crazy in my eyes. (But that's pure my opinion)

[Jesmcalli]

I think digital media in general has a stigma attached to it when it comes to the traditional artists. However, it's a relatively new form of producing art, and I think in time it will be afforded the same respect as traditional. Personally, I believe that if any of the masters that are semi-worshiped by traditionalists were alive today, they'd embrace digital as one of many tools they'd use to produce their art.

Part of the negative image attached to digital media today is based in ignorance. Case in point, two of my figure drawing professors. While neither of them look down on digital ( one of them worked in digital media exclusively for years), they had no idea that there were programs out there ( like Artrage ), that emulate traditional media so closely. I showed them some of the quickie figure studies I did in AR, I showed how the various media interacted with one another, and the canvas, and they were suitably impressed. They kind of operated under the assumption that while most digital programs can create the look of various traditional media, it didn't behave like traditional media, and that it wasn't the same. Programs like AR show that that assumption is false.

Once traditionalists realize that going digital (and doing it successfully) still requires a solid foundation, that digital isn't going to magically make you a better artist by default, I think we'll see more acceptance of digital as a viable media.

[damasocl]

I think the same controversy will come when painters discovered oil painting!
The difference, of those years is that did not exist this forum.

[GRSArts]

For me Digital Art saves me money.
I'm retired and studied art when I was younger. I left art to work in the military, telling myself I would return to it after retirement.
I started back into it with color pencils. Some of my drawings would take 2 to 3 months. Then I finally decided to get back to acrylics. I had a lot of fun painting, but I started to have a lot of paintings laying around the house.
That's when I decided to try digital art. Not every painting I paint do I think is good. It's like the old film 35mm camera's. Out of a roll of 24 pictures, maybe 1 or 2 are really good. But with digital art I can paint and paint and not worry about the cost of paint or paintings taking up space. If I do a piece I like, then I can print it on watercolor paper. It's all about a creative process, whether it's on canvas or digital. There are many ways of doing something, not one is the only right way.
Spiritually speaking, it's not the end I seek, it's the process.

[cpoole]

lol...

i looked at Briex's galleries and they look fantastic. just ignore the naysayers since they are either jealous or simply out of step.

I started taking university art classes at age 50 and i am the only student in my classes that works all digitally. great support from the faculty but the students are not ready to go there... maybe costs are bit prohibitive... maybe they are not interested. i get both posative and negative critiques... i learn from some of it and ignore the rest.