Alright, /ic/ guys n gals I had one quick question
What's better in your opinion, traditional painting or digital?
>>2284100
traditional is better because when youre done you can run your fingers along the painting and feel the cracked texture of the dried paint, idk, its just a better experience.
i cant tell you how many original paintings ive bought just for that sensory stimulous of dragging my finger along the finished painting. its pretty fun.
>>2284100
better for what
>>2284107
just in general really
Traditional is objectively better
>>2284100
they are essentially the same. They both have the capability to teach people great things.
Just for the sake of having an opinion I'd say digital is a simulation of traditional and not something that teaches you different lessons.
Traditional is more important on an individual idea basis and field testing, and digital is more important for mass producing an idea once you have it.
They both have pros and cons. You can't really say one is better than the other without putting some some sort of definition of what "better" means or what criteria you are judging it with.
>>2284147
>digital is a simulation of traditional
While this is true in some regards, digital is capable of doing many things that are utterly impossible in traditional paints, and I think it's naive to simplify it to being a "simulation of traditional".
>>2284152
>While this is true in some regards, digital is capable of doing many things that are utterly impossible in traditional paints, and I think it's naive to simplify it to being a "simulation of traditional".
i know it's a weird way to put it. I'll say that any knowledge to be gained, whether it's obtained through digital art or traditional art, is authentic.
but theoretically if there was a manner of painting that was important for the mass market to experience, like say if impressionism was making people have a deeper understanding of themselves, but not everyone had money to spend on painting supplies, digital could simulate that experience and the ideas would still come across. Even if it wasn't experienced in the real world.
I'm talking specifically about video games. If this idea needed to take hold and you could simulate it in a video game as digital artwork for the mass market that would be far superior than trying to explain it away, or have people take up painting who have no experience.
Digital has the capability to gamify traditional, if there ever comes a time where that is necessary.
>>2284103
that doesnt make it better you autist
>>2284167
No I like his definition because if you follow his logic then macaroni art is objectively the best art form
>>2284169
haha i get yah
>>2284103
Lol I thought I was the only one who did that hah, yeah.. that feel when you scratch it a little or there this big raised chip and you just pop it right off with your fingernail... its a great feeling.
>>2284152
>digital is capable of doing many things that are utterly impossible in traditional paints
What exactly?
As long as we're talking about two dimensional static images, real, physical paint under real, physical lighting conditions is simply a richer medium. You can't make impasto with digital, for example. Nor can you give the viewer the experience of standing in front of a two meter tall, three meter wide painting.
Digital is quite limited, both in resolution, color depth and scale.
>>2284228
I was thinking more along the lines of certain markmaking or textures or perfect repetitions of fractals and such or things like integration of photos or 3d or simply uniquely digital processes that lead to results you wouldn't think of if you were working in traditional paints. But in terms of things like physical textures that you are mentioning...well digital is viewed on a screen which has the unique advantage of being able to emit light rather than just reflect light, so the viewing experience is unique. And while you can't view a three meter wide image all at once, you can zoom in and out of a hi resolution image and view those same details but in a different context. You can also flip the image horizontally or vertically, change it to black and white, animate it, and do all sorts of other things that change your experience of it that you can't do with a real painting.
I do agree that digital is somewhat limited in color depth (you can't replicate the effects of, say, glazing...and the technology isn't quite there for the mixing of digital colours to fully be analogous to pigment mixing). But who knows where things will be for digital art in 15 years or 100 years or 300 years.
>>2284240
Yeah, but those technological gimmicks you meantion would be outside the realm of "fine art" as we know it. They'd be a different genre altogether.
And experiencing art is very different from simply looking at it. Zooming into a huge painting on a tiny screen is different from standing in front of a painting the size of a wall. Art isn't just about the image on the canvas, it's the whole package.
So in that way, I think digital can never truly emulate traditional and should, instead, play on its strengths to find its own niche.
>>2284100
digital are for hacks
>>2284246
you can print in in 3x2 meters
>>2284246
I'm not so concerned with what is deemed "fine art" or not. The definition seems to constantly shift and at this point the line between art/porn/fineart/illustration has all blurred to the point of not even existing or mattering.
Anyhow, in terms of just imagemaking, digital provides many things impossible in traditional media. And the reverse is true. I'm not sure why you are arguing that considering it's simple fact. Calling it all a gimmick is akin to calling impasto a gimmick.
I do agree with your last line though, and I think it already has to a large degree.
They both have their advantages. As an artist I prefer digital for the lack of a mess, lack of need to buy equipment, the ability to endlessly edit etc. Traditional has the one advantage in that it creates a physical item that you can enjoy to a greater degree than a digital image on a screen. Also from a traditional painting experience it's easier to take a step back from the painting and work on it as a whole rather than getting trapped micro focussing on disparate aspects.
>>2284261
Yeah, but we're talking about digital and traditional painting specifically. To be a painting, it pretty much has to be static.
If we were talking about digital visual mediums vs traditional means of artistic expression, it'd be a mess of comparing apples to oranges to bananas.
>>2284271
>To be a painting, it pretty much has to be static.
Fair enough, so scratch the bit about animating it or doing other things like that. But I think all the various processes and the flexibility that digital allows in imagemaking means you get some wildly different images than working in any traditional media. So I don't think it's fair to universally call traditional superior. Especially when some of the things you are using as arguments are limited to oils. Acrylics for example don't have the same colour depth as oils, watercolour doesn't have impasto, woodblock prints have to be flat, you never get a 3 meter wide gouache etc.
>>2286870
thats a myth, paint is just oil in the end so whats the harm in adding a little more.
I like both!
>>2286881
Awesome, well, go tell that to an art conservator, I'm sure they'll be amazed to hear it and throw away all their gloves.
The problem is that the secretions from your skin are acidic. However, realistically, we're talking 100 years before any significant damage occurs.
>>2284100
If you're creating a single work of art, traditional.
If you're creating a reproducible work of art, or art that serves a purpose outside itself, digital.
If you're just learning, start traditional.
However, as art changes, digital will probably become more important. Even right now, the most important forms of art are films and games, and as things progress, art will become less physical: holograms, virtual reality, engineered dreams, etc. Of course, we will always have painting, drawing and sculpture and the like.
whats better? a banana or an apple?
>>2288204
Bananas are better on average, but a honeycrisp apple or even ambrosia is superior. Most apple breeds are pretty lame, though. The other problem with bananas is that they attract fruit flies.
>>2288187
tell me where to get in touch with one and ill be glad to inform them... -_-
regardless, sure i believe a 100 years of actual touching a painting could eventually cause SOME sort of damage... but realistically im not going to touch the same painting for a 100 years in a row... at best if i started now i could touch it for 20 years and thats if i take hours slept into account.
no one is going to perform a "touch orgy" with a painting, im just talking about casually rubbing a painting as i walk by it.
I'm a digital painter and I have to say that I really respect traditional a lot more. I think if traditional painting is at the same level of digital than it looks better because of the beuatiful nuances of the brush strokes and the painter and medium. Digital is just much easier, cheaper, and is a good learning tool. Not only that, digital is highly more capable. It would be very difficult and may even be impossible to do things on a canvas like airbrush, then add oil, then airbrush again etc. so you get a very different look.
