Is Digital Art considered real art?

[Sidney]

If you had asked me that question back in the early days of technology, my answer would have been no, but that has changed. Programs like Photoshop, Manga Studio and Corel Painter have really given traditional artists some pretty cool tools to create amazing works of art. We all have our preferences but I find Corel Painter to be the most accurate and life like artists/painter program on the market. I am in not affiliated with Corel, it’s just my professional and personal opinion.

Digital art has really exploded and the levels of art is extraordinary. Some artists will create the artwork using this digital technology, have the artwork printed and add to it with the use of real paint and other mediums. This is not new, it’s just more main stream than ever! I believe digital art is real art, even though I prefer actual paint to canvas

It would be cool so see some digital art from you digital artists

 

[Billct2]

Yes.
Same question was once asked about photography.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I think a lot of it's my mom's influence, she has always embraced tech and she always considered digital to be an art form. Different tools yes, but still a form of real art. So I've always had that type of mentality as an influence.

While I've always been a sketcher (and still am, all my stock designs that I create, all start off as sketches, albeit all digital now using a Cintiq), I have always been more of a needle and thread guy. So my programs are going to be slightly different then the ones listed above.

While the artistry used to be when I first learned all this was you had to hand sketch the design (as well as markers for sequence, colors, angles etc) with a fabric pencil and then start stitching. Now, don't really have to do the hand sketching part anymore, have to know how to use the tools and tweak the settings to achieve the same results.

But despite that change, it still requires that knowledge and flair within the confines of the digital/mechanical realm to achieve the artistic effect.

I think it all boils down to the knowledge, flair of personality that is used, regardless of the tools, low tech, high tech, doesn't matter. At least not to me.

 

[Pixels Are Bad Mmmkay?]

Here's some of my digital art. Done in Corel draw.

 

[Johnny Best]

Combine the two, nice artwork from jsmoritz2000

 

[Pixels Are Bad Mmmkay?]

Man those are awesome! How did you get the watercolor effect on the butterfly? Corel Draw or Paint?

Great work.

Thanks. The watercolor effect is just random layered blob shapes in varying levels of transparency. I do everything in vector. It tends to make realism somewhat a challenge and I like that.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[d fleming]

Art, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So, yes

 

[bob]

Is a particular arrangement of pixels art? Perhaps in the sense that most anything is considered art these days. Digital creations would seem to be far too dependent upon the tools needed to create and display them to be compared to a traditional work, say, a Monet or a Wyeth or something. It doesn't matter a whit if the work is stunning. Or not. It's still merely an ethereal collection of pixels created and displayed by incredibly complex tools. I should think that the tools represent at least as must art and creativity as the stuff created with them.

I admit to some prejudice in these matters. I fail to see the difference between something created by Jackson Pollock and a well used drop cloth.Why is the former worth vast sum and the latter not so much?

 

[David Wright]

Is a particular arrangement of pixels art? Perhaps in the sense that most anything is considered art these days. Digital creations would seem to be far too dependent upon the tools needed to create and display them to be compared to a traditional work, say, a Monet or a Wyeth or something. It doesn't matter a whit if the work is stunning. Or not. It's still merely an ethereal collection of pixels created and displayed by incredibly complex tools. I should think that the tools represent at least as must art and creativity as the stuff created with them.

I admit to some prejudice in these matters. I fail to see the difference between something created by Jackson Pollock and a well used drop cloth.Why is the former worth vast sum and the latter not so much?

Well, I value very highly all my drop cloths. I shall bequeath them to my progeny. Inheritance taxes might be troubling for them though.

 

[Johnny Best]

This might make some people mad but making digital art takes less talent than creating a watercolor or oil art piece. You just buy the program that someone else has put the coding in to get the effects you desire. If you do it the other way you have to know how to use the tools to achieve that effect. I do both and the learning curve on digital art is pretty quick. Also being a former sign painter, painting a letter S took some time as compared to a digital artist hitting a keyboard or Wacom tablet.
Answering why a Jackson Pollock is worth so much, all I know a lot has to do with marketing why someone considers it worth that much. I would much rather have the money to afford it than having it hang on my wall. But artwork of that nature is a great investment.
I love to see good digital art but would rather see a John Singer Sargent watercolor. Everyone has different taste in music, art, women and liquor.

 

[Marlene]

of course it is real art. paint brush in hand or on screen, it still takes an artist to create art, plain and simple. if computer programs were all you needed to put out art, we wouldn't see so many horrid signs

 

[Johnny Best]

of course it is real art. paint brush in hand or on screen, it still takes an artist to create art, plain and simple. if computer programs were all you needed to put out art, we wouldn't see so many horrid signs

Or tarts and sleaze Marlene?

 

[WildWestDesigns]

This might make some people mad but making digital art takes less talent than creating a watercolor or oil art piece. You just buy the program that someone else has put the coding in to get the effects you desire. If you do it the other way you have to know how to use the tools to achieve that effect.

I would say that knowing what's in bold in the digital realm will help you a lot.

Otherwise, I wouldn't have such a revulsion to auto converting anything, doesn't matter if it's within a vector program or within my digitizing program.

I have yet to see a vector program use a tool like gradient mesh on it's own without an operating applying their knowledge of the tool or in digitizing software create a photo realistic pattern with just the coding in the software itself and have it look really good. Plus, if I do things manually, stitch by stitch or node by node, that takes knowledge on how to use those tools.


To me, I think the problem is more about the fact that in the digital realm people can get further then in the traditional sense. There is a little bit of help. That is more of a concern about knowledge and how much knowledge is needed to get started. I think that's the biggest concern in the background.

 

[equippaint]

This might make some people mad but making digital art takes less talent than creating a watercolor or oil art piece. You just buy the program that someone else has put the coding in to get the effects you desire. If you do it the other way you have to know how to use the tools to achieve that effect. I do both and the learning curve on digital art is pretty quick. Also being a former sign painter, painting a letter S took some time as compared to a digital artist hitting a keyboard or Wacom tablet.
Answering why a Jackson Pollock is worth so much, all I know a lot has to do with marketing why someone considers it worth that much. I would much rather have the money to afford it than having it hang on my wall. But artwork of that nature is a great investment.
I love to see good digital art but would rather see a John Singer Sargent watercolor. Everyone has different taste in music, art, women and liquor.

I tend to agree with this. To me, the real art in digital is the creation of the program. No offense to anyone of course, I just don't equate digital stuff (including music) with art but to each their own.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I am kinda curious for those that don't believe that digital is art (with the exception of the coding of the program), where does that leave protection of our rights to the files?

That protection is typically framed around something like "our artwork".

If one doesn't believe that Ai, CDR, SVG, EMB or any digital graphic file is actually artwork, to me, that protection would also go away and it would be up for grabs for anyone.

To me, claiming that it isn't artwork also opens up a can of worms as well. Just me wondering anyway.

 

[Gene@mpls]

A great discussion, but you are all wrong. Especially Bob.

 

[equippaint]

I am kinda curious for those that don't believe that digital is art (with the exception of the coding of the program), where does that leave protection of our rights to the files?

That protection is typically framed around something like "our artwork".

If one doesn't believe that Ai, CDR, SVG, EMB or any digital graphic file is actually artwork, to me, that protection would also go away and it would be up for grabs for anyone.

To me, claiming that it isn't artwork also opens up a can of worms as well. Just me wondering anyway.

My opinion really doesnt mean anything to anyone except myself. As long as the courts see it as art, than thats what it is.
Personally, Im not a big fan of the broad brush on intellectual property rights. At what point does it end? Can I own and control a basic real estate sign layout, an exit sign, a do not enter sign if Im the first one to design it? Does ANSI own caution symbols and require anyone who uses them to pay for it? Isnt there a difference if someone takes a photo from the internet and uses it vs going out and taking the exact same photo with their own camera? If someone recreates a vector, did they steal it even though they drew it all out themselves. I dont like thieves but at the same time, I dont like total constraint and ownership of everything in life. For what its worth, I have the same issue with patents. To me it all stifles creativity and innovation when you are able to own a half cocked idea and others arent allowed to ever use it to improve on it. Theres then no incentive to improve your products, provide better service etc.

 

[Gino]

Art.... is in the eye of the beholder. If I see a da Vinci, Monet, Picasso or others, some I like and some I don't. However, these people did everything with eye to hand coordination. They could bring to life using all the laws of physics, light/dark, color theory and all the elements in creating a masterpiece and it was all in their head and they could bring it to you, while today's digital artists, whom are good, but rely on a lotta gimmicks, software enhancements and other geeky crap to get their creations across. They are very creative, but it's a shame they cannot reproduce without the use of some high-end software and toys.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

My opinion really doesnt mean anything to anyone except myself.

I'm always trying to learn and improve, so other's opinions always matter. It's how I grow and improve my way of thinking anyway.

Personally, Im not a big fan of the broad brush on intellectual property rights. At what point does it end? Can I own and control a basic real estate sign layout, an exit sign, a do not enter sign if Im the first one to design it? Does ANSI own caution symbols and require anyone who uses them to pay for it? Isnt there a difference if someone takes a photo from the internet and uses it vs going out and taking the exact same photo with their own camera? If someone recreates a vector, did they steal it even though they drew it all out themselves. I dont like thieves but at the same time, I dont like total constraint and ownership of everything in life. For what its worth, I have the same issue with patents. To me it all stifles creativity and innovation when you are able to own a half cocked idea and others arent allowed to ever use it to improve on it. Theres then no incentive to improve your products, provide better service etc.

For the most part I agree. Broad reaching can be bad. However, if I don't have some type of protection, then I may not either want to share or try to improve and set myself apart from someone else, if someone else can just blatantly take advantage of it. To me there is some give and take. I firmly believe if someone "creates" something that is useful to someone, that they should be compensated for that.

They are very creative, but it's a shame they cannot reproduce without the use of some high-end software and toys.

I'm kinda curious as to why you think that? While I can't speak for everyone, I can draw analog or digitally. I can embroider analog and digitally(mainly digitizing in this respect). Yes, I do prefer to do things digitally. However, I can do both and I would suspect that there are others. May not be the majority, but I would say that there are others.

Speaking as a drawer, there is not one significant difference between my drawing using a pen and paper versus using the Wacom pen and Cintiq. Not in any way that I would conclude meaningful (maybe I'm just not that sophisticated of a drawer though). Now, I'm not a painter, so there may be a fundamental difference there between analog and digital. How I use the sketch tool in Ai, is exactly how I would use a regular pen doodling on hotel writing pad (I can't afford the good sketch books).

 

[David Wright]

Well , what do you think of this in the news today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/...-is-sold-for-110-million-at-auction.html?_r=0

 

[GAC05]

"A dirty sock is not art until someone puts a frame around it" So yes I think digital art is good to go.

Don't have to look to far into this to see something that will look like art:
CG Art Galleries | CGSociety

wayne k
guam usa