Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?

>>2964395
Digital art is as respected as traditional. Literally digital age.

Who would care about you do with your own paper?

How does anyone collect art? In their own way. There's many ways to store digital art.

The problem is you're trying to put digital art within the context of the traditional framework for art and it's curation, it breaks down.

Digital art can be seen as a democratisation of art in many ways, there is no need to curate it in the traditional manner.

>>2964395
>Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?

Nope

>>2964401
>Digital art is as respected as traditional.
Wrong

>>2964403
That's an advantage and a setback. It's easy to share and spread digital art, but it will not/can not be a valuable object, which I think is a great allure. Sometimes I think things like digital painting will never reach beyond the realm of the art industrial complex

>>2964395
pretty

>>2964401
Smoking the Kool aid.

>>2964395
probably, but most likely it won't be digital paintings, unless an ai did 'em

No.

Uniqueness and value aside, digital art lacks the unforgiving craftsmanship required of traditional art and is generally easier to achieve striking visuals with.

You might as well expect people to respect 3d models as much as Greek sculptures.

>How do you collect digital art?
Many artists nowadays run limited edition print series - something that can be very lucrative for respected digital artists. So there's your uniqueness.

>Of course, you could print it and destroy the original, but how safe is that?
It's just as risky as making a single painting.

>How do you curate digital art (and does that even make sense)?
There are many galleries that hire digital illustrators to create work for shows. Some popular pop-culture ones that come to mind are Mondo & Gallery 1988. These galleries curate their shows in collaboration with the digital artists, and the final art is printed out for the show.

>>2964431
>It's just as risky as making a single painting.
Come on. Forging a traditional work is extremely difficult and the result is never totally correct. With digital all you need is the file and knowledge of the printing process

>>2964395
respected by whom?

physical media is already history.

>>2964395
I don't like unique things. You have to take care of them constantly, make sure they don't get damaged or lost since they are invaluable, and others can use them to extort you too

stuff which are simple, easy to remake, and one in a bunch on the other hand, they truly enhance your life. You don't have to worry about them getting stealed, damaged, lost, and you can use them freely for your needs, allowing you to concentrate on what's important, on what you are creating.

those which like to brag about the uniques of their stuff are just shallow ppl looking for something in their life to validate themself

those which have lots of simple things are generous, because they have more than they need,
those which like unique stuff are egoist, they never have enough

>>2964428
this

digital art has it's place but it will never be worth as much as traditional art.

>>2964395
This is from someone checking out this board for the first time to see how 4chan reacts to criticism, and I see digital art as less of exhibition and more like a song. A bunch of people get it and enjoy it on their own but it's never really made into a big thing.

>>2964395
I don't think it will;
spamming lines and ctrl+Z takes all the resolve out of your work.
With traditional every inked line has resolve, its permanent, you need to think about what you're laying before you lay it. It's real art.

Digital to me is more like play-dough, you can reshape and mould everything at any point. It takes far less talent.
(again this is only opinion) But in this age where information and learning resources are available at the click of a mouse why does no one match the talent of the old masters, or even last generations masters.

Traditional learning also produces better artists than digital does; see sketchbook threads.

>unpopular opinion.

To clarify opinion is regarding drawing/digital drawing, not painting/digital painting.

>>2964454
>Forging a traditional work is extremely difficult.

You're saying this like it's an absolute truth, and that all traditional work is extremely difficult. It's not. You can create traditional work very fast and easy, or very slow and difficult - depending on what you do. Same thing applies to digital artists.

> the result is never totally correct
What does this even mean?

>With digital all you need is the file and knowledge of the printing process.
What a dumb thing to say. This is like saying "With traditional, all you need is the finished painting." It's completely dismissive of the time and skill put into the work - regardless of if it's traditional and digital work.

>>2964496
>You can create traditional work very fast and easy, or very slow and difficult - depending on what you do. Same thing applies to digital artists.

sure but unless you draw on stolen copy paper with $1 pencils all your life, traditional costs a lot more over time than digital. as a result you'll put more thought and effort into what you're doing vs digital where you can just ctrl+z all day long.

>>2964496
Wtf? It's not dismissive. If you want to forge a digital painting all you need is, literally, the file and adequate printing.
Forging a traditional painting requires knowledge of the exact paint used, emulation of the original artist's brushstrokes and other series of minutia that makes it very difficult to produce conving forgery.

>>2964395

The only people who don't respect digital art are pretentious faggots

You shouldn't give a flying fuck about the opinion of pretentious faggots

>>2964395
>Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?

Traditional artists don't respect digital art. They think that if you used a "wrong" method to reach a good result that then you cheated. Also you can't sell digital art on an auction house so it doesn't have that high-money tax evasion and exclusive thing going for it.

I make digital art, but people keep asking me to buy the originals, of which none exist. I lose potential sales, but doing digital is so much easier than traditional.

>>2964516
It's only a forgery if you pretend it's an original, otherwise it's called a copy. You can't make a "fake" digital work.

Besides if the copy is perfect then it should matter if it is not unique or you art not buying the art for its own sake but as a financial investment.

The traditional art world is like the diamond industry. We are fully capable of manufacturing perfect diamonds but rich faggots still pay crazy money for imperfect ones that have been dug out of the ground with blood and sweat. The brand and the idea of forced lack of supply is worth the money. Not the product itself.

>>2964395
most art you see, even traditional, is through reproduction.

As in, it doesn't fucking matter anymore.

Also I say it is and what I say is the word of God.

>>2964562
>It's only a forgery if you pretend it's an original, otherwise it's called a copy. You can't make a "fake" digital work.
My argument is regarding the attempt to produce limited-series prints of digital works.
People collect art works because they're scarce or unique. Collectors won't invest tons of money in said prints of digital works because they're afraid, since said works are so easily replicable.

>Besides if the copy is perfect then it should matter if it is not unique or you art not buying the art for its own sake but as a financial investment.
A (apparently) perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. These objects have distinct, abstract, speculative value attached to them that, like it or not, is what makes fine art something as feasible as it is. People are willing to pay tons of money for the ownership of works they deem valuable

>>2964564
That's exactly what I'm talking about; in digital art there's no original, only reproductions. That's why its value is so limited

>>2964395

I sometimes spend a long time hunting the highest quality version of a particular digital painting to add to my collection. Having the original .psd in full resolution would be the closest thing to having a original.

>>2964571
>A (apparently) perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. These objects have distinct, abstract, speculative value attached to them that, like it or not, is what makes fine art something as feasible as it is. People are willing to pay tons of money for the ownership of works they deem valuable

You don't get it. A perfect copy of the Mona Lisa "is" the Mona Lisa no matter how much financial investors try to convince you otherwise with talk about metaphysical superstition.

The human mind can work wonders with the power off belief to the point of placebo effects being a real thing and it is the same sort of collective brainwashing that is at play here. That's why I compared it to diamonds. The works themselves don't warrant their bloated values. It's the concept of branding that does it.

Another comparison is money. They used to be made out of actual valuable stuff but today they only have a value because we agree they do. These art objects are being treated like money but unlike money they have a purpose from an art perspective that is being ignored in this context.

You say "like it or not" but that's not what this is about. It's about if the art pieces actually contribute to their financial value from an artistic perspective.

>>2964575
and even then it wouldn't be the original because the artist would have the true original. :(

>>2964584

There is no such thing as a perfect copy of a painting. It's simply not possible to produce such a thing.

>>2964584
There's nothing superstitious about this. The original Mona Lisa is a unique work by Leonardo da Vinci; it doesn't matter if you're able to produce a 100% similar copy (not possible, by the way), it still is just a copy. It's not an array of bits to be easily replicated or even an image. It's an unique object

File: top20_most_expansive_paintings_14-239x300.jpg (20KB, 239x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 239x300px

>>2964591
<- Look at this piece of shit of a painting.

From its artistic value I wouldn't buy it for $10. But because it has a perceived value of being valuable faggots will study every inch of it under the idea that it holds some magical code for faggorty.

If I owned it I would insure the crap out of it to give the impression that it is valuable and then I would write it off as a tax free investment. Then I would eventually sell it and buy other crap art to maintain its value.

From an artistic point of view there are tons of images that are superior.

This is what traditional art is about. It's not about... How do you put it:

About what is

>(apparent)

>>2964596
>There's nothing superstitious about this. The original Mona Lisa is a unique work by Leonardo da Vinci; it doesn't matter if you're able to produce a 100% similar copy (not possible, by the way), it still is just a copy. It's not an array of bits to be easily replicated or even an image. It's an unique object

That right there is superstition. It's like you think the canvas itself hold some magical power.

>>2964395
Traditional art is more respected because it requires all the skill sets necessary for digital, but you also have to plan ahead, and you can scarcely fix mistakes. This is why traditional art is more respected. That doesn't mean digital is inferior.

>>2964605
>badmouthing Munch
stick to anime, kiddo

>>2964632
>Defending scams

Stick to being a talentless sheep.

>>2964643
>muh concept art
>muh tablet
>muh red-pill

>>2964650
No wait. You seriously think that painting is good?! I don't really consider you qualified to judge anything art related if that's the case.

>>2964661
so youre somehow able to judge this painting but no one else can?
heres a tip kid, this painting is worth lotsa moolah and is highly respected in the world. Theres a general agreement that this is a high quality painting, and yet you have the fedora level arrogance to claim you know better. Stick to fapping to naked drawn chinese babies kid

>>2964670
>fedora waaah

You can tell why it is you think it is good beyond "because others tell me so" right?

>waaah I'm not an art sheep

>>2964674
>You can tell why it is you think it is good beyond "because others tell me so" right?
naturally, this is expressionism. Hes expressing a feeling, a powerful scream that he sensed in nature.
Id like to know why you think its so bad but only so you can see and learn from your mistakes.

>>2964670
You are a tool if you cannot see that at least half of the top 20 most expensive paintings have have little to no value on from an artistic technical perspective on the scale of all the paintings ever produced.

Check them out for yourself:
http://www.whudat.de/top-20-most-expensive-paintings-in-the-world/

>>2964679
For all I know he painted it with his dick. I'm sure had the planets not aligned for this artist to get the connections he have then it wouldn't stand out among a bunch of beginner tier works in a pile for scrapping.

>>2964401
It's only normies who think digital art is just a few clicks and it's done that don't respect it.

>>2964682
>Cézanne, Klimt, Van Gogh, Picasso, de Kooning
>no artistic value
wew lad

>>2964682
Most of those are very good, some are a joke and dont deserve anything, a sad reality of the art world.
Not sure how you determine the "artistic technical perspective" of a painting
A Picasso may look like nonsense to someone who doesnt know shit about anything, but if they knew he could paint realitic figures of people and animals by the time he was 12, then you might start to look more closley, and wonder why he would paint this, if hes able to paint something else so much "better"

>>2964674
>>2964686
right on, bro. pretentious artfags piss me off so much
munch had no talent AT ALL. any kid who studied loomis for a few years could draw something way better (more realistic) than his work

>>2964693
>can't count, muh feelings. muh expressionism

Picasso's works have value because of his story and what he was trying to achieve. The works themselves mostly serve as a status symbol. Staging and hype isn't a modern invention.

>Muh cutting my ear off for attention

>>2964704
Why are you being your faggot self and trying to make this about Edward Munch instead of the work we are talking about?

>>2964704
>any kid who studied loomis for a few years could draw something way better (more realistic) than his work

which is why /ic/ is full of successful artists

...oh wait

>>2964704
>more realistic is better art
>pretentious art fags
>doesnt see the irony of himself being so pretentious
Its easy to spot the true artist from the fakes who dont get it but i suppose art comes in all shades. If purely technical is your thing then maybe go and be a draughtsmen or technical drawer

>picasso was so talented he mastered realism before turning 15
>a technical god, he does the very opposite of what was expected
>paints childlike scenarios full of ingenuity
>sparklets to this day can't begin to understand the beauty of his work
how can one man be so based?

>>2964710
He's obviously just being a faggot. This is a self portrait by Edward Munch. Doesn't make the Scream any less shit but faggot like to think that if you got talent then there's some hidden truth in any shit you do. And they will spend decades studying turds laid by a gold hen.

>>2964708
>>2964710
>>2964711
>when you post obvious sarcasm but the current state of /ic/ is so appaling that people think you're serious

File: self-portrait-1882.jpg (294KB, 1221x1690px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1221x1690px

>>2964715

>>2964716
saddest part of it all

Half of art is the meaning behind a piece. If a digital artist can weave purpose and meaning into his art then he is the same as a great analog artist.

>>2964395
never, because pixel is not real.
Even printed, it still lack human touch. There's no relationship between the mediums. Unless you make it happen.

>>2964395
>Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?
There are respected works of art that live their entire life as a digital *thing* cgi films, games, music. But digital art without the context of being part of a larger media work...
History just won't be kind to digital manchild art. can you really blame them though?

>>2964428
>unforgiving craftsmanship
HAHAHAHAHA

>>2964716

>current state of /ic/
>current state

um

>>2964661
>I don't appreciate the history of my craft
>I can't place anything in context
>the only things that are good are things that appeal to the most base level of satisfaction I receive from them

File: Drawing a blank.jpg (16KB, 498x295px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 498x295px

>>2964876
>Muh context

>>2964395
digital art already is more respected than traditional in the general population. Most normies are far more impressed by concept art or illustrations of their favorite movies or video games than of some nicely rendered naked chick in a museum.

>>2964825
Blame who? Digital art isn't created for historical relevance. There is no one to be bothered by it, nor anyone to blame for the fact that history won't remember most digital art as standalone pieces. There will however be plenty of digital art remembered that is directly tied to products of entertainment art that became far more popular than any traditional art piece ever could.

>>2964898
>There will however be plenty of digital art remembered that is directly tied to products of entertainment art that became far more popular than any traditional art piece ever could

I highly doubt that, considering that people and history books are still talking about goddamn caveman paintings in france and michelangelo's scribbles. nobody will give a shit about craig mullin's or [insert digital artist here]'s shit 40,000 years from now. entertainment art is intentionally made to be disposable.

>>2964815
How can Pixels be Real if we Arent Real

Nope. As technology advances digital art has become more procedural and easy for anyone to do, traditional will always be more impressive.

>>2965169
As if. No normies are aware of the work involved in mixing colors or the planning involved in traditional art. Besides, all those things were hindrances artists in the past have tried to overcome. Now when we finally got the ultimate paint tool near at hand suddenly some start worshiping the flawed methods of the past.

It's always like that at the dawn of new technological innovations. Traditionally art done today just doesn't hold the same value as that of the past from before digital painting became mainstream.


I tell you that plenty of great artist of the past would have given a lot to be able to paint directly in light.

>>2964395
The thing with Traditional art is that if you fuck up there is no cntrl z to undo your mistakes.
Also you can infinetly copy /fileshare digital art.
on Traditional art there is only one treu Original piece witch increases the value.

>>2965126
none of the old masters made stuff to be exposed to hipsters in museums. they were comissioned by rich people to portrait them, or by the church to do bible fanart.

literally the same than Wizards of the Coast comissioning Mullins to do Magic The Gathering art.

>>2964401
digital art is to traditional art what electric piano is to a grand piano.

It's an aesthetic thing which most people don't comprehend at all, so they're saying ignorant stuff like "who cares if it's made on paper or on a screen?" Yeah, and who cares if the sound is made of an electronic circuit or a metal wire, right?

It's not logical and the fact that some of you are trying to argue that there is no logical difference hence there is no difference at all, are just unaware and ignorant of the aesthetics.

There's no difference between a fan blowing air in your face and the wind outside either, right? wrong. There is an enormous difference, but it's hard to say exactly what it is.

>>2965235
>No normies are aware of the work involved in mixing colors or the planning involved in traditional art.

yeah... which is why so many people are getting tablets, downloading photoshop, and calling themselves "artists" and "designers" after watching 2 Skillshare videos. The barrier to entry for digital art is much lower than traditional art and for that reason it will never have the same value as traditional art.

>>2964395
Everybody's got an opinion, but at the end of the day only money does the real talk.

And today the big money is on digital. Traditional media is pretty much dead.

>>2965596
>And today the big money is on digital
Name digital "artists" as rich as Jasper Johns, Hirst or Richter
digital painters are nothing but industry cucks

>>2965587
The "barrier to entry" for both forms is the years of arduous practice it takes to git gud. You think the cost of paint or materials is the significant factor here? kek.

>>2965607
I'd argue the barrier for entry for traditional is a little lower if you're pandering to a normie audience.

If you're digital though, you have to be fucking good to impress people who are ambivalent to anything that isn't tradfag-pandering.

>tfw Bob Ross-plug-and-paint tier paintings and photocopies of celebrities are valued more by normies

>>2964830
shut the fuck up bucket crab.

>>2965607
>>2965607
>You think the cost of paint or materials is the significant factor here? kek.

where did I say that?
i'm talking about the fact that digital tools and lessons are much more plentiful and readily available to everyone, which is allowing hacks to saturate the market. most people will never venture beyond celebrity photo-copies because they view traditional art as some mystical thing that they will never master in a liftetime. on top of that, art school and ateliers are expensive as fuck. all this allows traditional art holds it's value.

>>2965587
Opposite. All those new people suddenly get aware of how much work it takes to produce good digital works. So the respect grows.

>>2964395
>Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?

No, and only hacks have a portfolio of nothing but digital art.

>How do you collect digital art?

You don't.

>How do you curate digital art (and does that even make sense)?

You don't.

>>2966184
>No, and only hacks have a portfolio of nothing but digital art.
You are the hack

>You don't.
Obvious lie. Ignoring the porn folders and manga collections a lot of people collect there are are for more people who save digital art on their computers for its own sake than there are people who collect paintings.

>You don't curate art
Welcome to the internet. Must be your first day here. Here a lot of different people curate a lot of different info on something called websites. Dumbass.

>>2964560

Just lie buddy

>>2964682
>artistic technical perspective
Art is by definition about creatively conveying ideas and technique is just a tool.

It's like saying Nelson Mandela or Luther King Jr were shit orators because they didn't study the linguistics.
Sure, it's hard to communicate ideas if you don't know the language but the ideas are what holds most of the value.

>>2964560
Print it, trace it, block in the values with a soft pencil, smudge the shadows and say it's the original concept drawing. Literally no way to prove it isn't.

Or do it the opposite way, draw on paper and scan it in. That way you get points for combining both mediums and have something physical on your hands.

>>2964716
>haha, I was merely pretending to be retarded
>XD gottem

>>2967499
It's people like you who are the reason we got people justifiable confusing the toilets in museums as a part of the exhibition.

by your definition everything can be art and we certainly should not agree on those 20 paintings being art as it's all a matter of personally finding a value or message in them. For all I know you could find messages and value staring at your turds and you might consider them art.

Without a focus on craft and reaching ideals through it, the concept of art is meaningless.

>>2967499
>>2967514
>Cleaner clears up Hirst's ashtray art

>"I didn't think for a second that it was a work of art - it didn't look much like art to me. So I cleared it all into binbags and dumped it."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/19/arts.highereducation1


>Overzealous cleaner ruins £690,000 artwork that she thought was dirty

>He thought it was art: the cleaner saw it as a challenge, and set about making the bucket look like new.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/nov/03/overzealous-cleaner-ruins-artwork


>A bag of rubbish that was being displayed as a work of art at the Tate Britain gallery has been gathered up by one of the cleaners and thrown out with the trash.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/modern-art-is-rubbish-and-confusing-for-tate-cleaner-557922.html


Just a few examples.

>>2965605
What a retard.

Botero might have all the money he wants (he was rich before started painting) but the digital art industry is orders of magnitude bigger than the bullshit masturbatory physical media gallery market.

>>2967514
On the other hand we have people in this thread shitting on german expressionists.

You can't prove that there wasn't an idea behind the toilet installation in the gallery.
You can think that it's a shit idea (and I think that too), you can refuse to go to that exhibition, you don't have to pay $600k for the installation, but that's about it.
You can't prove it to other people and neither can you forbid them from paying thousands of dollars for it. And who cares if it makes them happy, it's their money.

>>2967603
Art has a subjective (creative) and objective (technical) side. Technique can be judged objectivelly, idea not.

It's a bit like money - a gold coin is backed by the gold it's made of, a paper bill only has value if we believe it has. Paper bills are easier to fake, but they have value nonetheless.

I think most modern art is shit, but I can't objectively prove it. And that's okay.

>>2967662
It's funny that is your perspective considering digital art reaches a lot more people today than traditional have ever managed. If you want to judge arts value by how many are influenced by it then digital have already won and it will only grow in the future.

>>2964694
Picasso painting, not his Dad doing it for him
Top bantz, m8

>>2967662
>You can't prove that there wasn't an idea behind the toilet installation in the gallery.

I get the potential concepts. I just wouldn't call it art beyond maybe the art of a craft which in this case is media communication but that would take one in that field to judge. In that case it would be no different than any other crafts can have people who excel.

The piece itself I would never call art. Just a tool.


Art has no meaning as something subjective. It is a shared value among a group of people that can make something art. Art is about ideals and inspiration as a part of a civilization.

was it intentional to post a photobashed fantasy everythingshines image as the op?

>>2967685
Okay, first off you should differentiate between the words "reach" and "influence".
Nowadays digital art is seen by a lot of people, but doesn't influence many. Flipping through tumblr posts is a very different experience from seeing a physical canvas in a gallery.

The relationship between traditional and digital is more like a father and son than it is two equal contestants.
Digital has its place, it fulfills the massive demand of the entertainment industry, but it will never replace traditional painting, not even close.

>>2967697
We might be disagreeing because of different definitions.

For me art is an idea and painting, sculpting, piano playing or poetry are just different mediums. Different mediums are better for communicating different ideas, like a hammer is better for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.

The reason why postmodern art exists is because some people claim that their ideas can't be conveyed by conventional tools. And I can't argue with that.

It really isn't an easy debate.

>>2967734
I mean "influence", not "reach". The mediums digital art is displayed in far exceeds that of traditional art. It is also a much broader concept as we start including animation and 3d.

What influence young people today in morals and dreams are movies, games... Pretty much any entertainment that is digital. Digital art is at the center of that. With mo-cap and improved tools in the future it will only improve in quality. In the future successful wealthy people will be looking to old retro digital works when they want to be nostalgic and remind themselves of their past and dreams.

File: stop.png (514KB, 572x421px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 572x421px

>>2967756
>In the future successful wealthy people will be looking to old retro digital works when they want to be nostalgic and remind themselves of their past and dreams.
A movie, cartoon or even a music clip maybe -because it'll be included in said genre-, but a digital drawing?

>>2967763
yes. Even digital painting/drawings. It's about where you want to display it.

Here's another thought. Robot and computer technology have started taking off again and it probably wont be long before you with a combination of chemistry, computers and robots can not only generate copies of traditional works but can even recreate original works in the shape they were in the day of their completion. Something superior to the copy/paste function we have today in computers. Where would that leave traditional art you think?

>>2964395
That photo is a fucking photo collage.

>>2964428
If you art is only valuable because of the methods used to create it, your art is worth very little.

>>2967782
Let's wait until it happens

>>2967800
Why? Going by copyright laws most famous paintings should be free for reproduction as long as you don't claim it's an original. Once the tech is there it wont take long before companies will let you order recreations of paintings.

At the same time the tools and software we use for digital art is ever evolving while the traditional version have stagnated.

It's a doomed fight for traditional produced art.

>>2964560
It's only easier because it's the medium you've practiced the most.

Design, color theory, composition, anatomy, ect are all common skill sets among medias. If you can paint in oils you can paint digitally... after you learn how to use the media. Vice versa.

>>2967804
You're not only predicting the future but also trying to make a point from your own ideas about how it'll unfold. What you're saying is pointless.

Master works have been reproduced since the renaissance, yet the originals were always in certain museums or collections. Even if your fantasy became true and you could reproduce a masterpiece 100%, the original would still be the original, the one in the museum/owned by whoever, and this copy would be worthless compared to it.

The thing about old paintings is that they are a physical piece of time.

It's just mindnumbing that you're trying to argue that somehow someone in the future will look at a digital piece like OP's pic and think about it the same way they think about a painting or a sculpture.

>>2967809
If you think predicting that businesses will sell such a service once profitable is reaching too far then you are fooling yourself. They are already experimenting with robots doing paintings btw and what you should worry about is the tech hitting the black markets before becoming commercial available. We aren't talking far out sci-fy here and it will probably come as a side dish to other innovations. A self driving car with the AI and sensors involved is a bigger accomplishment.

>Master works have been reproduced since the renaissance

Not like this

>The thing about old paintings is that they are a physical piece of time.

So are any antiquities and old houses. They don't last. Be new artists will go for the digital medium in the future.


>It's just mindnumbing that you're trying to argue that somehow someone in the future will look at a digital piece like OP's pic and think about it the same way they think about a painting or a sculpture.

What is mind numbing here is that you cannot understand that when the media stops being special then all that is left is the idea itself.

File: f5c02e235420553ed0f8e72684ccba13.jpg (609KB, 1450x1727px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1450x1727px

>>2967796
>if it's valuable for certain reasons, it is not valuable
flawless logic

Would you respect Sargent's paintings as much as you do if you knew he probably used ctrl+Z a dozen times before he got that broad stroke the way he wanted?

>>2967833
>robots replicating paintings
You mean a photocopier?

You don't seem to understand the principle, traditional and digital aren't on the same playground. They probably don't even play the same sport.

Google offers a 3D map of the entire world, available to everyone for free, yet people travel now more than ever - why is that?
People are emotional creatures and you can't replicate a feeling of standing at a place where Jesus died or a famous battle occurred, no matter how good the photo of that place is.

The experience isn't personal, isn't physical, isn't genuine.
You know how people pay insane amounts for limited collections of paintings? What will your future offer, limited metadata jpegs?

>>2967804
>At the same time the tools and software we use for digital art is ever evolving while the traditional version have stagnated.
It's funny because quality of digital tools is measured by how close it is to imitating traditional experience.

>>2967833
nah kid copies of masterworks are perfect. Theres a reason art forgery is a crime. copying a painting and making it look like the original is really not that hard.

otherwise idk what you people are talking about i just jumped in to say that.

>>2967848
>You mean a photocopier?
obviously not.

>It's funny because quality of digital tools is measured by how close it is to imitating traditional experience.
No they not. They aim to be able to match it to suit the needs of some but they certainly don't limit themselves by that and many digital artists go pretty far away from that with their use of selection tools and filters.

>>2967852
Forgery is a crime because it is lying. You don't need a perfect copy to pull that off. There are many ways to check for authenticity, including looking for signs of aging.

>>2967855
You're grasping at straws now. Stop posting

>>2967618
the "big money" still is on traditional, cuckold
digital art industry is mostly made of underpaid wageslaves shitting out subpar designs for whatever industrial purposes. it's a lot of money but a LOT of people too
traditional art is still supported by a network of billionaire patrons, museums, centuries-old institutes and etc

>Will digital art ever be as respected as its traditional counterpart?
Yes, and I'm the one who will single-handedly elevate it from kitsch consumer art to a fine, transcendental Art

>>2968093
No, that will be me

>>2967833
Traditional painting is more like a sculpture than a digital drawing

>>2968012
>grasping
You are uninformed and dull minded. You don't provide anything to the discussion but just sit and whine like a little baby. Now stop posting.

>>2968275
That has nothing to do with digital vs traditional. It has something to do with understanding value lighting. You see it more in traditional art since many digital artist haven't received formal training.

>>2968111
Trips dont lie

most digital art is produced by and catered to manchildren, therefore it can't be good