Recently, during an online exchange about digital vs traditional art I made some comments I liked so I copied them here. I think it is relevant to anyone who is struggling with the problem. Trust me, there are some serious successful artists who are trying to come to grips with the transition.
But is it really a transition? The computer has made life easier for so many graphic artists but does it necessarily have to "replace" traditional art?
Here's what I wrote...
"Creatively there still needs to be the ability to produce an image. There also has to be the ability to problem-solve and know when you're done. Painting on a tablet is still a far cry from the textural feel of the media and the intuitive ability to see the colors you get.
When going to the computer there is a whole host of other issues concerning color reproduction and calibration. Having worked both ways, I have to point out that I enjoy the ability to revisit an earlier thought [through undos] but there is also a certain spontaneity lost. I also find it is harder to make an 'original mark' on the computer.
I still go back to the media for sketching and to get my thoughts down quickly. The computer has made the final product easier to disseminate but I don't think that it has necessarily replaced the creative genius behind true artistic endeavors.
There's a lot to be said for having a final product. The final, unalterable proof of what an artist intended. Prints don't always achieve that."
No comments:
Post a Comment