why hasn't there been a digital painting that can be considered

>>3029876
Because it thrives in an environment in which exclusivity is non-existent

>>3029876

Because digital art is easy. The computer does it for you.

>>3029876
Digital art is not respected, has little cultural heritage in a status sense and it is widely available watering down the value even further. There's stuff on deviantart and cgsociety that will blow your mind but it remains largely irrelevant other than from the perspective of the artist and the size of his portfolio.

>>3030327
Digital art generally looks like shit and ages even worse. I remember CGI from 90s movies that looks comically pathethic now while practical effects movies from the 70s and 80s like Aliens or Predator still hold up. The same with videogames, hand painted games look good even after decades.

File: 1497921768682.jpg (134KB, 1056x587px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1056x587px

digital art does =/= realist digital painting.

this is art. fight me.

File: Ruan Jia Silence.jpg (1016KB, 946x1362px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 946x1362px

>>3030339
>Digital art generally looks like shit and ages even worse.
Nah. I've known Ruan Jia since 2007 and still his shit looks on point
> I remember CGI from 90s movies that looks comically pathethic now while practical effects movies from the 70s and 80s like Aliens or Predator still hold up.
It's highly relative.

I remember being scared by Aliens.

But then I remember growing up and wondering how the Alien tail looks like its hanging from a string and dangling funnily.

>>3029876

Easy.

The "great works of traditional art" are the finest pieces all of humanity has ever been able to produce over the course of millenia. Digital art, meanwhile, has only existed as a serious medium for 2 or 3 decades at maximum. Hardly surprising, really.

Just to emphasize, here's an article about a computer creating a painting:

https://www.livescience.com/54364-computer-creates-new-rembrandt-painting.html

Give it time, and remember your ideas of good or "on par" are themselves based upon the classical pieces of the past, so we are hardly impartial judges.

File: two crowns Frank Bernard Dicksee King Painting.jpg (649KB, 1016x1280px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1016x1280px

>>3029876
>why hasn't there been a digital painting that can be considered on par with any of the great works of traditional art?

Rose tinted glasses.

For example: all those American artists stuck painting romantic-period shit in the late 19th/early 20th century are deviantart tier: people sticking to a safe style while the "high arts" have moved on to other things.

Pic related, prime example.

>>3030358

*it does not necessarily* mean realist digital painting.

>>3030362
>It's highly relative.
No, it isn't. Try comparing the Aliens to shit like this: https://youtu.be/aoUUXfk26Cc?t=4m12s

>>3030378
>while the "high arts" have moved on to (((other things.)))
Yes so we've seen.

>>3030390
I mean its case to case of CGI.

Just like there's Aliens, and then there's B-movie Monster schlock.

Besides most of the time, CGI is aged by HD faggotry.

>>3029876
Digital art is too perfect. That's the problem the subtle imperfections and unpredictability of strokes in a traditional painting aren't matched by the very controlled cleanliness of digital. It feels soulless as a result.

It "can be considered" on par easily from a subjective standpoint.

Still, it just seems to lack value when not done in a traditional medium. There's plenty of digital art that, if replicated perfectly as an oil painting, would probably blow people away.

Of course that's easier said than done. Someone who's done oil paintings their whole life can't just pick up a tablet and do just as well digitally with no training in the new medium, and vice-versa.

>>3029876
Because it isn't old enough. The artist has to at least be dead before his art can be "great".

File: Taku_Ghar.jpg (42KB, 450x297px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 450x297px

>>3030406
>le jews and muh /pol/ (((((brakkits)))))
I should add: modern artists nowadays who try to be like their Romantic fap-idols fail quite far from the mark.

>Be US Department of Defense.
>HURR WE SHOULD HAVE OIL PAINTINGS OF NOTABLE MODERN BATTLES JUST LIKE OUR 19th CENTURY MILITARY
>End product is lifeless shit like this lining the halls of the Pentagon.

>>3030407
Try naming any CGI movie from the 90s that doesn't suck dick today. And I mean actual CGI not just shit like Jurassic Park where 70% of the effects are practical.

>>3030362
That's a shitty piece of art though.

>>3029876
Both of the image posted itt suck balls. It's all "muh details = good art" flashy garbage (ie, kitsch).

>>3030430
Not true

>>3030430
This is the most cliche, reddit tier, brainlet answer in this entire thread.

>>3030468
>kitsch
Yiddish word for "it takes more craftsmanship than shitting on a canvas"

Someone post a traditional work of art made within the last year that you like.

>>3030489

It more just means it's tacky or garish.

>>3030566
I would but this is a blue board.

>>3030604

It's ok if it's a work of art...

File: Durer_Revelation_Four_Riders.jpg (3MB, 1855x2631px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1855x2631px

>>3030489
Not really. Pic related isn't kitsch, for example (and it tookmuch more skill and effort to produce than your digital art).

>>3030374
When will a computer make good doujins?

>>3030457
Looks pretty cool desu

>>3030665

But that was five hundred years ago. Nobody is denying that Durer isn't one of the all time greats or that this isn't incredible to look at.

But what traditional work being made today compares? Digital work comes closer imho.

>>3030923
*nobody is claiming

File: digital_art_7bea8ced74ea4b86dc3c427d829d4329.jpg (172KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1280x800px

>>3029876
Not a medium many folks take seriously yet, most being done for video games and movies. Thus there's not much money or motivation - and despite what >>3029947 says, it is generally more time intensive than more traditional art forms, even if the completed work is easier to manipulate.

But I'll dump some random digi arts...

File: digital_art_4307827-digital-art-wallpapers.jpg (574KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 1920x1080px

>>3031004

File: digital_art_13246378_10154281400339903_7143211598977975249_o-1024x560.jpg (95KB, 1024x560px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x560px

>>3031005

File: digital_art_wallup-226924.png (3MB, 1920x1174px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1174px

>>3031007

>>3030566

https://youtu.be/KAExa9P7hME

File: digital_art_b33bf637309ea5991a0ee93a9d7df17e.jpg (289KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1280x800px

>>3031010

File: digital_art_-hd-collection-13.jpg (152KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1600x900px

>>3031015

File: digital_art_bat1.jpg (73KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x360px

>>3031017

File: digital_art_Jungle-City_11.jpg (343KB, 1024x449px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1024x449px

>>3031019

>>3029947
Oil painting is not real art. You can just go back over mistakes like an undisciplined hack. The fraud Jan van Eyck was the Pollock of the Renaissance.

>>3031029
Undo button and layers already make it 100x easier.

>>3031029

Tomorrow's Van Eyck will be using a computer.

>>3030408
digital brushes can have randomness to them, an artist can place strokes in the wrong spot (especially if they're working with less-than-great equipment), an artist can pick a color slightly different from what they wanted (or not even have it available due to constraints of digital color space), and then there's the whole issue of displaying it, you'd need to print it on industrial equipment to get the best appearance, and of course you're going to want to adjust the picture for that because it's a different medium and that's a whole other can of worms
I get what you're saying, but I'd say the sharpness and the ability to juxtapose things that are clearly more finely crafted with things that aren't betray digital painting more than it just being "too perfect"

File: Sea beast.jpg (225KB, 1600x999px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1600x999px

>>3030457
Nice aesthetic.

>>3031599
That's quite a realistic painting.

>>3031653

4 u

File: asdf.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>>3029876
Unironically, "angry wojak" is one of the greatest artworks of all time. It's inexhaustible.

File: Vanitas Alchemy.jpg (476KB, 716x900px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 716x900px

Because (((elites))) downplay everyone that they can't control, see the media shitting on youtube personalities, and you can't really control digital painting or use it as (((status))) symbol, masses blindly follow the idea like they always do.

File: pedrocampos.jpg (103KB, 720x515px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 720x515px

>>3030408
> Digital art is too perfect.
Classical art is also too perfect, see the photorealistic painters. They should be respected on the levels of Michelangelo for their talent. I doubt that Italian hacks could draw something like that.

File: night-hunt.jpg (112KB, 1200x890px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x890px

Here's some nice modern oil paintings for you filthy plebes and (((/pol/)))acks

File: Dinosaurs_eating_CEO.jpg (407KB, 2000x1833px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 2000x1833px

>>3032266

File: Abstract Entities.jpg (315KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1536x1024px

>>3032267
Now I understand why they want painters to stick with abstract act.

>>3032267
Cute dogs.

>>3030466
Starship troopers

>>3030457
this is worse than osprey pics

>>3030638
/his/ is alright with works of art