which one does /ic/ prefer?
digital or traditional art?
>>2246000
Good art.
>>2246021
/thread
>>2246024
But no for real digital. Cuz the superior zooming abilities, ctrl-z, layer modes, color adjustments, transform etc.
>>2246000
The one that's better. In this case, digital.
>>2246000
I appreciate traditional because of the skill that goes into making it but I appreciate digital because of the ease of use and level of depth achievable.
digital, because it's cheaper in the long run
Traditional. The lack of cmd-z makes mark placement and intent much more concrete.
A good watercolor beats any digital shit I've ever seen.
Anything that looks good on any wall.
>>2246116
Would you also prefer an objectively shitty watercolor painting to a great digital painting?
>>2246120
Please stop forcing two dumb choices that benefit your argument.
I would prefer a great traditional painting, because that choice exists and always will.
>>2246000
I really prefer working in traditional, especially when it comes to line work, I just feel like I have so much more control. However my circumstances aren't really the best for me to work that way right now so I'm getting used to digital, and there are definitely things I like being able to do in Photoshop that you can't in traditional media.
>>2246145
My argument is that good art is good art, regardless of the medium. I guess you aren't really an artist yourself, otherwise you'd care more about technical execution, composition, story telling, design, value statement etc than what medium it was made in.
>>2246153
Not the same guy, I just really fucking hate screens and how they look. That and you can't do impasto with a screen. Flat paintings are similar to screen viewable media but a heavily impasto'd Painting-sculpture reacts to the local light. Not even comparable.
>objective art
Fucking shitlord
>>2246943
>No distinction between something well done, and something not. It's all the same. The only difference is personal taste.
Shit taste detected.
digital anus
>>2246957
Beautiful. It belongs in a museum. How many millions would you like to start the auction for?
>>2246960
milion Jews mr Indiana *turn 360 and run like crazy*
>>2246000
How is this even a subject? digital is like plastic beads, while traditional is emeralds and sapphires.
>>2246981
Rather, what if it's like emeralds, and synthetic emeralds?
>>2247014
Nah, it's plastic beads and emeralds.
>>2247035
Plastic beads are more kind to the anus.
I prefer traditional. I like the way everything is unique and when you can see traces of the artist in most traditional mediums, which you don't in digital, because they could just undo and redo until perfection
>>2246000
The important distinction to make is the comparison is only between tools, and not styles/genres or anything else.
Digital is replacing (in many ways has already replaced) traditional, because the toolkit is more versatile. The trend will only continue as digital improves and traditional remains the same.
>>2247050
>digital replacing traditional
I don't believe in that. They both have their own place. Digital is more used in entertainment, but not in art
>>2247048
Are they?
I wouldn't know. I also like traditional, but I have difficulty explaining why... Digital is just so cheap and pointless in comparison.
>>2247050
Like how violins are only found in museums nowadays?
Digital.
>>2247089
Your analogy is shit. There isn't some newer thing which makes violin sounds to potentially replace it. If you mean in the form of a synthesized violin, you should know that artists who use samples of instruments tend to have hundreds of gigs of audio recorded from actual instruments to work from because the technology to accurately replicate the sounds of the violin/guitar/trombone/etc., doesn't exist yet. Not to mention the practice of instruments is a pastime unto itself.
If there existed a cheaper version of the violin, who's strings and bow were always tuned and never broke, which was capable of the full spectrum of sound of a traditional violin with all of the nuance, then an argument could be made that the new tool could potentially replace the old.
>>2247058
Define "art". If you mean galleries, that's changing; it's only a matter of time.
>>2247048
I agree with your point in a general sense, but you can still see the artist through the work in digital as well. It's harder to do when you're wadding through an endless sea of shit work or copied technique, but the same can be said of traditional.
>>2247101
>define art
I'm trying to avoid a discussion about this, but what I see as art is a piece made with the intend to be art and that evokes an emotion. I haven't felt the same way to digital art as I have to traditional. I can look for hours to a traditional painting, but I don't have that with digital.
>>2247101
>there isn't some newer thing which makes violin sounds to potentially replace it
just like how there's some newer thing that can replicate the handmade craftsmanship of traditional art?
oh wait
>>2247101
There have been synthesized every instrument imaginable already, they just don't sound as good, by far. Just like the lifeless strokes of a digital brush just doesn't do the job like the real thing.
Listening to a symphony made from actual vibrating steel, brass and wood is simply a totally different aesthetic experience than listening to the homogenous artificial waves from a computer.
the same thing is true for painting. But if you can't see it, you just can't see it, that's your loss.
>>2246025
no rules, just tools
btw, go back to painting on caves walls, that's the single true form of art, and without buying your tools and pigments, you have to make them
>>2246000
Left one is slightly less shitty.
Digital is (arguably) cheaper and easier and, because of that, I believe it's accessibility is a good thing to exist. I generally respect traditional art more when I see it, due to the implicit difficulty and monetary investment. Plus, seeing art in-person is generally cooler, and traditional art is made for exactly that. Some digital art looks a little odd when not viewed from a screen.
>>2246025
op said what do you prefer not which one allows you to draw like more of a bitch
>>2247474
>Just like the lifeless strokes of a digital brush just doesn't do the job like the real thing.
I said it very clearly, "the technology to ACCURATELY replicate the sounds... doesn't exist yet", which is a quantifiable fact. If you take a photo of any traditionally produced masterpiece, you will be able to find a similar digital piece which lacks absolutely NOTHING, when both are viewed digitally.
>But if you can't see it, you just can't see it, that's your loss.
If digital brush strokes look lifeless to you, you are the one that's missing out, or more likely, you're hopelessly deluded.
>>2250211
>If digital brush strokes look lifeless to you, you are the one that's missing out, or more likely, you're hopelessly deluded.
compared to traditional, they do. I can enjoy a futuristic female swordfighter any day, but you don't see "grown up" art made digitally that often, and there is a reason for that.
>I said it very clearly, "the technology to ACCURATELY replicate the sounds... doesn't exist yet"
so, when that happens you're saying instruments will be a part of history?
Won't happen. Again because of aesthetics.
