Question for people who work in digital art Don't you worry

I've never cared about that, it's painting I enjoy, not leaving some bullshit legacy

>>2729184
People caring about "bullshit legacy" is why we can enjoy any paintings by van eyck, vermeer, davinchi, turner, rubens, any number of classics that are a part of our culture.

People dont take care of shit these days.

Do authors worry that if their original manuscripts are lost, no one will ever be able to read their work?

And why are you so worried about 600 years into the future? Do you think old painters who were commissioned by some rich nobleman to paint their portrait were worrying if their paint choices would last for 600 years?

>>2729174
>Don't you worry that when you die, or when you forget to save it, or even after a few years you will loose your work?
First of all, I'll be dead anyway, so any glory I personally get out of it is lost anyway. Like who cares if someone sees it 600 years from now.

>>2729185
We can enjoy them because they were recognized during the times they were first seen and also because they are historically significant to us.

You could lose your shit in a fire or when your parents throw it out.

>>2729248
Or when your parents set it on fire.

>>2729174

You'll be dead and long gone, and I'm not the religious type, and even if I was I don't think I would care. The idea of leaving a legacy shouldn't be the reason you draw.

If I wanted to preserve my digitals I could do prints of them and pristine them, but I have no wish or want to.

I doubt any of the painters we admire gave a single thought to leaving a legacy or how they would influence art in 600 years. If the idea of having your shit physically around for that long helps clear your head than do it, but it's ultimately meaningless. Plus if you gain infamy in life your stuff will get preserved by those that care anyways.

>>2729174
why would you want to be remembered anyway?

I would rather make good art and enjoy making good art, and be forgotten after i die.

So many triggered wacom fags

It's a legitimate concern, and something that isn't brought up often for conversation. I suspect that in the future the vast majority of digital paintings even by the big name artists will be lost to time.

There's too many things that can go wrong--file formats changing, dying harddrives, slow degradation of files (look at how jpg memes degrade as they get shared a lot), changing hardware (if you save it on an external harddrive with a usb they may not be able to get the data off it 100 years from now when they don't use usb anymore).

The paintings aren't physical so are not going to last unless special measures are taken.

I don't worry about it for my own work since I'm not producing anything that's important in art history. I do worry about other artists, but it's mostly a problem for the future generations who will not be able to see the paintings of our times.

>>2729174
Most people who work digital are commercial artists, and commercial artists care more about getting the work done in a timely manner and then having it reproduce well. It's best to get it done and to the publsher and get a paycheck now than worry about someone seeing it in 500 years. The art lives through the reproductions on the product, not through the original painting. There are loads of illustrators from the last 50 years who used tons of methods that were knowingly going to ruin their paintings but were done anyways. Things like mixing gasoline or weird chemicals into paints to get it to dry faster, drawing or painting on cardboards or other surfaces that will rot, layering paintings in ways that will cause it to crack, using pigments and things that will fade, etc

>>2729264
It's a real concern to me, especially in regards to photographs. I know that there is technology where you can etch images inside glass. And that would last forever, but there is no colour. On the other hand you can do that in 3d, also I suppose you could do one etch in red, one in green and one in blue, then leave instructions on how to composite them into a colour image.

>>2729237
>Like who cares if someone sees it 600 years from now.

im done

>>2729714
The human race won't be around in 600 years.

>>2729715
probably not but aliums will find your work and circle jerk in their art clubs about how good human culture was and theyll wonder what killed us

>>2729715
Yes it will, white people will find a way. We always do.

>>2729249
then it's time to throw them out

>>2729719
>We always do
until we don't.

>>2729719
but im black

>>2729174
Aren't you worried that your painting will sit in some attic, catching dust and never to be seen by another person, until maybe years later it's thrown it into the garbage or at best sold at a flea market for 5 bucks? And even then, it'll only be seen by like a handful of people at best.

There is a much bigger chance your painting will be viewed after you're dead if it's on the internet. Especially if you were actually a decent artist who had a fanbase that saved and spread your work all over the place.

>>2729770
But an actual painting can have a digital copy made of it. A digital painting can have a hardcopy made but it would not last as long and the colour gamut would be massively reduced.

>>2729174
No I don't worry about it.

All I care about is my actual skill. I was never a hoarder of any kind. If everything in my apartment burned down and I got the cash for replacements that would be fine with me. I don't have anything on my harddrive I want to preserve.

>>2729185
>davinchi