//
you're reading...
Art

Winter is near~

  Talking about digital art versus paper-based…I found an old – actually one of the earliest – digital artwork of mine which is a digital painting sort of as it’s based on an actual photograph (of me). I tested my tablet with it and  though I was very pleased with the result, I think digital painting, mixed media, collages and the likes are very different genres and they don’t feel like painting at all (for me at least). It’s a bit paradoxical since it IS painting yet it feels different.

Advertisements

About Flypaperpaint

Fantasy illustrations, comics, character design & children's book illustrations.

Discussion

10 thoughts on “Winter is near~

  1. Very beautiful!

    Posted by mistylayne | September 24, 2012, 5:49 am
  2. I find it quite mystically beautiful

    Posted by on thehomefrontandbeyond | September 24, 2012, 3:35 pm
  3. aloha Beradett B – I too was trained in more traditional materials. I still like and enjoy paper in particular but also canvas and other materials as well. I also like the tool(s) of digital technology a lot – and often may combine digital work with traditional materials in both directions – meaning I will create on paper then bring that into digital programs to complete a work as well as create with digital technology then print that as I would in a photographic process and then add that to paper in a variety of ways followed by or along with painting, drawing and other traditional materials.

    I conscientiously make a choice not to compare creating with one set of tools and materials with another (digital with traditional in this case) even tho they have the same names. I try to think of them each as completely different creating processes and different tools entirely.

    one of the difficulties in doing this is that names for traditional tools and materials were given from the start to digital programs – brush, oil, watercolor, pen, pencil etc. and still is. there is a reasonable reason for this even tho it does seem to create a comparison issue unless we make an effort to think otherwise.

    from the start as often as not the digital thing named as “watercolor” did not behave or work anything like watercolor imo and the same with most other digital tools. I think this was partly because the people creating the programs were not people who worked with these tools and materials. they simply applied a name to a process that manipulated pixels – or number formulas or codes based on what they thought it seemed to be most like to them.

    to be sure programing and writing software is not something I understand or know a lot about – probably much as programers did not know a lot about my area either – art. they just gave names to the way a code worked according to what they thought it might approximate. in some cases they were a long way off and in other cases a little closer.

    some programs now do behave more like the materials they are named after. that’s good however imo it’s better if we as the creators who use these digital tools, do not think of the tools in the same way we would the name they are given after traditional tools and materials. I think it’s more useful to think of a digital tool for what it does rather than the traditional tool or material it’s named after.

    when I do that the process of exploring and finding out what a program can do becomes a lot more fun and I don’t have to compare the end result between traditional materials and the digital work I’ve created using tools of the same name. one is simple one thing and the other is a completely different thing even tho they have the same names. that for me makes working with both tools and materials a lot of fun and I believe each helps understand things that may be possible in the other. way fun on that too. aloha

    Posted by Rick Daddario | September 27, 2012, 4:43 pm
    • Thank you for your comment.
      I think differentiation- which would be ideal- between digital and traditional rather than comparison is not really possible at least not at this stage.(the line is getting blurry though, think 3d hologram technique for example. The way programs are named like this is because they were intended to imitate a creative process (such as painting with watercolour).The emphasis is on imitate. I’m not against these programs, the results can be quite wonderful indeed and I don’t shy away from using digital painting once in a while but from the point of view of the artist, my argument is that the relationship and attitude one has with a real canvas or paper and the physical process of painting is different and more intimate/emotional than with digital painting. Also there’s a difference in skills you need with “real” painting and digital one I think.

      Posted by Bernadett-B | September 27, 2012, 8:02 pm
      • yes I see. good point – as you say – digital technology was originally intended (in the area of art) to approximate or simulate the materials of a visual artist (and in other areas for other artists as well). I would prefer what makes digital technology unique in characteristic to imitation in my work/thinking. I think imitation is still being sought after in some programs. others seemed to be going after a combination of what is unique to digital and also similar to traditional. I like this.

        watercolor now is accepted along with oils etc. as a worthwhile traditional material (altho not generally as one equal in value to oil – this is changing, yet slowly). when watercolor first came into reasonably accessible use they were not considered worthwhile for a finished work of art (4-5 hundred years ago if I remember right) only as a study material at best. over time they began to be appreciated in their own right for the unique qualities inherent in them. in this way, once this was established (as well as a few other things like permanence) they began to be accepted for their own properties as a valid material for art. now we accept them as traditional. right now digital has some of that same label attached to it altho it is advancing quicker to a unique status (imo) – maybe because of population numbers and accessibility. I think it will continue to gain relevance as a worthwhile process to use in creating great works of art – eventually, however not as an imitation but for what it can do that is unique to it. we are now as I see it figuring out exactly what that is. confusing the issue to some degree is this naming issue. not that I want to change that but simply understand and acknowledge that it is distinctly different.

        digital is a different kind of relationship than one has with paper. I agree with that. however I think/believe it can be quite personal and intimate – that remains with the individual as a choice. as it is with traditional materials.

        both traditional and digital can be personal or commercial relationships between artist and materials – open to all and/or private only to the creator by intention. both can be used in private by choice or in public by choice. each intended for an audience of as few as one or as many as the masses. there is a limit on traditional materials in some cases – watercolor, acrylic, oils etc. but not so much in others such as traditional printing options. there are differences of course. which to me is what makes digital technology simply another tool and material which I can use in my work as an artist. I like that. I like exploring that realm and more and more understanding that I want to cross/integrate the two – traditional and digital while valuing both for what they are as creating tools and materials.

        exactly as you say, digital and traditional each take different skill sets in order to be able to create with the materials and tools of either one. as I see it this is all the more reason to consider each unique and different, and each valuable for what they are.

        thank you for the opportunity to think out loud on this topic. I appreciate your thoughtful insight as well as your work. each artist as I see it currently is best served by finding our own way and exploring in our work to become ourself to become the best self we can be. that is what makes each of us unique – our self. this is what I believe will make our work unique and special and like no other will ever be. I like that, while at the same time (hopefully) we also find the underlying grounds which all human beings have in common. I see creating – and creating art – not as a luxury or a stage of growth but as a life long necessity to becoming uniquely me (among other things). I like that too.

        thank you – I enjoy thinking about this and appreciate our conversation. aloha.

        Posted by Rick Daddario | September 27, 2012, 10:41 pm
      • Thank you for your nice words and sharing your thoughts with me and my blog readers.
        I also think it’s good to think out loud as it allows discussion which in our troubled times is very important.
        It’s a great point you’re raising about how watercolour was once a “stepchild” material and it’s still not valued as high as oil. I don’t know whether digital will be viewed the same way in the future but it’s an interesting aspect.
        I was thinking of personal along the line of personal-emotional relationship one has with the material/artwork regardless whether it’s commercial or not.
        I, too think that art is more of a necessity than a luxury, though the way artists are valued/paid it seems like a luxury sometimes 😀 But for an artist art is self-expression too so it’s essential.

        Posted by Bernadett-B | September 28, 2012, 6:45 pm
  4. ps. both times I’ve commented here I’ve gotten so caught up in our dialogue I’ve forgotten to mention that I like your self portrait exploration. I like seeing the stokes – “brush strokes” and line that create the abstract texture in the work especially along with the photographic image. cool on that. aloha.

    Posted by Rick Daddario | September 27, 2012, 10:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

September 2012
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

License

Ask permission before you take anything from this blog for any purpose. (c)

Contact me

e-mail: bernadettbon (a) yahoo.com

Categories

bloglovin
free counters
%d bloggers like this: