Fill in the blank: Digital art is better than traditional art because ________.
One of the original digital artist
- Back when I was a freshman and sophomore in high school there was an art show for students in LA. I had the pleasure of having several of my pieces exhibited there when they started to recognize digital art. In the beginning they were just displayed, but over time they began to have contest. My first pieces were simple manipulations, but the last piece I exhibited I spent 6 months working on. I got an honorable mention for that piece. The winner, well he took a prearranged room from a architecture program changed the lighting and printed it up at the last minute. Today we would recognize that as plagiarism...but back then...well, the familiarity with all the different programs was much lower, and so it wasn't recognized for what it was. I didn't complain. It did, however, take me a long time to understand that it wasn't the program or effort that goes into a piece or even how amazing a piece looks that matters. All that matters, all that ever matters is how it moves the viewer.
- —Guest Nick F. S. Jr.
Art is Art
- I think about it this way: There are many arts. There are several branches of art. I believe that traditional and digital art can exists in harmony under the visual art section. This argument is futile. It's like comparing a painting to a drawing. (Or maybe oil pastels to a colored pencil). Everyone has their own prefrences. I personally think that digital art is easier to produce, as well as faster. Not to mention you can correct mistakes that would ruin the entire picture if it were traditional. Then again, nothing can compare to the feeling of creating something new and unique and stir up the pensive feeling of pride you get when ever you complete a traditional piece of work... but who says you won't get the same feeling as when you do the same on a computer, or likewise? Comparing Digital and Traditional art is like comparing your two most favorite foods or colors. Both have their own unique qualities that you adore about them, but both are also rather different, too. In the end, both rock.
- —Guest iArtemisHunter
- True Art is never finished, and seeing some come up with the poor excuse that " I can change it easily" is just pathetic. Art should be given time, you can always go back. There's a difference from seeing your actual tangible work of art, never being reproduced the exact way again, then seeing the bullshit "anime" misshapen figures people use their Tablets for. It's horrid. I use both but seeing how some consider digital better? No. Simply, no.
- —Guest MLUdrea
- the outcome for always says it all. it doesn't really matter if it is digital or "not". if computer facilitates your life, by all means master it. but if you keep singing the same song everybody knows how to sing, then there goes your problem. i judge art by its content (whether it is sublime or orgasmic or frigid or sordid "but" sterile). craftsmanship has nothing to do about it. judge the substance.
- —Guest sik ipsacals ada
- A complete non argument. Digital opens new doorways and allows for creative outcomes that are not possible with traditional media. Traditional media allows outcomes that are hard to replicate digitally. Everybody wins.
- —Guest Angus McTurdburger
- Digital art much like music is a computerized copy a mere fabrication of true art numerical codes, programs, etc. It has nothing to do with creativity, take away the human elements who programs such things and digital art would never exist. Take away the computer and artist is still an artist; doesn't depend on the computer for his creativity and imaginational process . Although in the production side of the industry digital has its place especially in gaming and animation and photography. I remember watching a Walt Disney show on Sunday night as a kid and was truly amazed by the artwork done by hand 100s of pictures of their characters poses etc. I'm not that naive or gullible to believe digital art has no place in the art world--it does. It's just not pure hard form its mechanical form of art processed by a computer program using human imagination and creativity, not done on its own. I cook pancakes for breakfast the designs on them are amazing but could that be considered art?
- —Guest isaiah shockley
I agree that art is art
- For me digital is another medium. Someone suggested to me that digital is 'cheating'. I felt that there might be something in that and that prompted me to learn traditional mediums. I'm glad I did because traditional seems to give more satisfaction and it is less problematic with learning the software and waiting for the computer to catch up and bugs and so on. Traditional is easier for me but I want to use digital to plan my paintings and I do not believe it is cheating to use digital. Not at all. I hope to master both digital and traditional but I will love traditional more.
Traditional is Better for Fine Art
- Digital art is better for graphic design but with fine art, traditional is better. No computer or printer can paint in impasto. For me, very thick, textured paint is what makes a painting special, unlike the uniform surface of a digital print. I don't think the old master's paintings would be the same if you couldn't go and see the originals. I like the idea that they have painted and left their mark on that bit of paper or canvas.
- —Guest Russell
Traditional art should be more valued
- I guess in my opinion digital art is easier, but for that reason traditional art should be more valued. It takes more effort to draw traditionally. Besides that digital vs traditional is equivalent to email vs a hand written letter. Isn't it more special when you can hold the letter and know the writer penned every word then to receive a simple email?
- —Guest Seffen
Toxic traditional vs. digital art.
- I have chosen to become a non-toxic printmaker so I can go on living to create art. In photography and in the traditional fine arts of lithography, etching, aqua-tinting, I was reduced to being a chemist and for safety, wearing huge masks, gloves, and goggles while processing the artworks in the darkrooms or printrooms, acid tank rooms, or aquatint cabinets. Clean-up was worse with solvents. Give me digital, give me life!
Grows as you grow
- Digital art can always be edited. As you learn new techniques, you can go back and apply them to your artwork. I have digital paintings that I have worked on over the course of 2 and 3 years. They are always getting better! Digital art can also be printed in whatever size, on whatever paper, or even canvas, that might be desired. Digital art can also be done collaboratively using the internet, a big plus for those who need to collaborate on art projects. And finally, one of the main reasons I got into digital art is the fact that I can easily make high quality prints myself and sell or share my artwork with a greater number of people affordably.
- —Guest digitgal
Better in some ways
- I honor the traditional art. I have training in it. However, I suffered a horrible art block for over seven years due to an intractable case of perfectionism. Nothing I ever did was perfect enough and ink and paints are had to erase and start over. Not so with Photoshop. Just press the undo button! Digital work has cured a stubborn art block that therapy and Arts Anonymous meetings and various creativity seminars and courses couldn't budge! Digital photography and editing works better for me because I could not see in the dark room and I am allergic to all those chemicals. If you are a creative artist, it doesn't matter what medium you choose. There is great art in all media, just as there is mediocre and lousy art in all media. The artist makes or breaks the work, not the medium.
- —Guest MEL810
Digital art is repairable
- Digital art is better than traditional art because it's repairable. I am doing document restoration. I work with old engineering draws that were shot to microfilm back during WWII. These drawings were originally dimensional and many were non-dimensional drawings. As you might suspect there have been many distortions introduced into the these copies. First the paper drawings were often smudged and tattered from handling before they were shot on microfilm. Then the microfilm camera lens causes distortion and what I call dust to the entire print. And lastly the printer causes unequal distortions in length versus height. At this point I'm just getting started using Photoshop as a tool to clean up some of these old drawings, and I'm only cleaning the drawings I need to make parts from, but in using Photoshop in this process I can determine where and how much distortion is in the print and clean it to remove the taters, dust and smudges, to the point that I can make good parts.
- —Guest Rich Seifert
- My comment 'Freedom' was below, and referred to 2writenride's "Not Better Just Different" and not bart's. Traditional does not win for artistic expression because it's the artist not the medium that expresses anything. The mastery of traditional methods is certainly one of humanities greatest achievements, but digital editing of photography is more available to millions, and artists are emerging that were subdued by technical difficulties before. That bit's better, is it not? Would links to writer's work be possible Sue? [I can't link from these comments, but you're welcome to submit work to our galleries... we have several at http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/galleries/ -SC]
Traditional wins for artistic expression
- Digital art is okay but the creative aspect is determined by one's editing software, not raw talent. Digital art can never challenge traditional art for pure artistic expression. The smudging you complained about is just one of the obstacles a traditional artist must master... shading, blending, composition, tones, highlights, perspective, distance, depth, style, edges, color coordination, mixing colors by hand, glazes, washes, varnishes, oil, acrylic or watercolor or gouache, charcoal, pencil, colored pencil, pastels. Digital art is nowhere as complicated as traditional. I do both.