traditional vs digital ilustrations

File: JesuschristOPnoonecares.jpg (92KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x800px

>>2876859
>Another fucking boo hoo >o< thread

>>2876859
No, you're right OP, digital artists are a dime a dozen now. The only way you can tell one from another is how saturated their colors are on the pieces they work on. The computer does the majority of the work, as of course, all computers should. The user has barely input anymore.

But then again, look at the kind of times we live in. Everything is digital now to some form or another, and as such, you have to evolve or get left behind.

See, I don't think that's a problem for most artists who CHOOSE to stay behind and truly master their craft. Traditional mediums have proven the test of time and are now considered works of art, but that too, is in the eye of the beholder.

It's hard to see something digitized and wonder if it will hold the same kind of quality say, 20 years from now.

Digital isn't bad, it's just idiot-proof. All you have to do is remember a shortcut on the keyboard to erase a mistake or, delete a troublesome layer that you no longer like.

Traditional mediums are a little bit more unforgiving. You have to start all over if you screw up on a piece.

At least we're not chiseling on stone walls anymore.

>>2876985
Honestly, a good artists knows both digital and traditional. It makes you that much more of a threat when competing with those who only know one medium. :)