>>2246000 I really prefer working in traditional, especially when it comes to line work, I just feel like I have so much more control. However my circumstances aren't really the best for me to work that way right now so I'm getting used to digital, and there are definitely things I like being able to do in Photoshop that you can't in traditional media.
>>2246145 My argument is that good art is good art, regardless of the medium. I guess you aren't really an artist yourself, otherwise you'd care more about technical execution, composition, story telling, design, value statement etc than what medium it was made in.
>>2246153 Not the same guy, I just really fucking hate screens and how they look. That and you can't do impasto with a screen. Flat paintings are similar to screen viewable media but a heavily impasto'd Painting-sculpture reacts to the local light. Not even comparable.
>>2247035 Plastic beads are more kind to the anus.
I prefer traditional. I like the way everything is unique and when you can see traces of the artist in most traditional mediums, which you don't in digital, because they could just undo and redo until perfection
>>2247089 Your analogy is shit. There isn't some newer thing which makes violin sounds to potentially replace it. If you mean in the form of a synthesized violin, you should know that artists who use samples of instruments tend to have hundreds of gigs of audio recorded from actual instruments to work from because the technology to accurately replicate the sounds of the violin/guitar/trombone/etc., doesn't exist yet. Not to mention the practice of instruments is a pastime unto itself.
If there existed a cheaper version of the violin, who's strings and bow were always tuned and never broke, which was capable of the full spectrum of sound of a traditional violin with all of the nuance, then an argument could be made that the new tool could potentially replace the old.
>>2247058 Define "art". If you mean galleries, that's changing; it's only a matter of time.
>>2247048 I agree with your point in a general sense, but you can still see the artist through the work in digital as well. It's harder to do when you're wadding through an endless sea of shit work or copied technique, but the same can be said of traditional.
>>2247101 >define art I'm trying to avoid a discussion about this, but what I see as art is a piece made with the intend to be art and that evokes an emotion. I haven't felt the same way to digital art as I have to traditional. I can look for hours to a traditional painting, but I don't have that with digital.
>>2247101 There have been synthesized every instrument imaginable already, they just don't sound as good, by far. Just like the lifeless strokes of a digital brush just doesn't do the job like the real thing.
Listening to a symphony made from actual vibrating steel, brass and wood is simply a totally different aesthetic experience than listening to the homogenous artificial waves from a computer.
the same thing is true for painting. But if you can't see it, you just can't see it, that's your loss.
Digital is (arguably) cheaper and easier and, because of that, I believe it's accessibility is a good thing to exist. I generally respect traditional art more when I see it, due to the implicit difficulty and monetary investment. Plus, seeing art in-person is generally cooler, and traditional art is made for exactly that. Some digital art looks a little odd when not viewed from a screen.
>>2247474 >Just like the lifeless strokes of a digital brush just doesn't do the job like the real thing.
I said it very clearly, "the technology to ACCURATELY replicate the sounds... doesn't exist yet", which is a quantifiable fact. If you take a photo of any traditionally produced masterpiece, you will be able to find a similar digital piece which lacks absolutely NOTHING, when both are viewed digitally.
>But if you can't see it, you just can't see it, that's your loss. If digital brush strokes look lifeless to you, you are the one that's missing out, or more likely, you're hopelessly deluded.
>>2250211 >If digital brush strokes look lifeless to you, you are the one that's missing out, or more likely, you're hopelessly deluded. compared to traditional, they do. I can enjoy a futuristic female swordfighter any day, but you don't see "grown up" art made digitally that often, and there is a reason for that.
>I said it very clearly, "the technology to ACCURATELY replicate the sounds... doesn't exist yet" so, when that happens you're saying instruments will be a part of history? Won't happen. Again because of aesthetics.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.