is traditional (non-computer) art going straight to hell?

[shamelesslyahippie]

i was in barnes and noble last night, looking in the magazine section and was appaled at what i saw:

Number of just straight up "art" magazines: 3
Number of digital art/ photoshop magazines: 15

oooh crap

first photography, now what? illustration? painting? how can a computer really replicate?
its a machine, theres nothing natrual or creative in it

so hear this you huddled masses, those who bow thier heads in the presence of a photo-shopped picture, for modern technological progression, stop, pick back up your pencils, pens, paintbrushes and brandish them like swords against the machine....literaly .

[meanderingartist]

Wow. This is a charged post!
Before I go on I want to say I really love your name!
What I feel is that any art done on a computer still needs a human component to generate the ideas, themes, images - the creative aspect lies outside the computer but is directed into the computer by the user.

That being said, I prefer to express myself more hands on with the actual brush, pen, pencil or lump of clay. I feel more involved and natural that way.

Being an old hippie myself (yes, I am that old ) I still subscribe to the 'to each their own' theory and consider computer generated  art to be valid even if it is not the same type of art that I create, buy, sell or hang on my walls.

[ImaginationsEnd]

I happen to be one of the people who enjoys both the "traditional" methods of creating art and the "digital" aspects as well. Each has its pros and cons, and sometimes work great together.

Traditional art is, to me, more soulful, easier to create, and provides results that are more true to the vision in my head. They may not be as polished or as slick as digital arts, but I can say that they're "mine".

Digital arts are cheaper to produce in the long run (save for the inital investment in a computer and some equipment), are slick and sleek, and have a certain quality to them. On the downside, they aren't as "soulful" as the hand created objects of traditional art. There's only so much you can do with digital. You can't hold it or feel it, unless you print it.

I had a similar reaction when I realized that there's a huge decline in the written word (as opposed to the "typed word". Main point being that everything is going digital)...as a former librarian, I cried when I thought that libraries were going out of style. Then realized - the more traditional aspects will never go out of style. There will always be people who want to feel the weight of the "real" media within their hands. There's nothing quite like holding a book to read it or picking up a brush to paint with.

There is no lack of "traditional" art magazines, though. Quite a few are still alive and kicking. In most cases, when it appears that the magazines are outnumbered, it's the book store's fault. They buy the magazines that sell, and the magazines that sell are the ones that are requested by the customers. If you want something particular, put in a request. Most book stores (even the larger chains) are more than willing to special order something for you.

[crackedmoon]

I think that a computer is just as valid a tool as a paintbrush or a pencil. Computers are a technology, just because it is newer doesn't mean it's less. Paintbrushes and pens and pencils and paint are all technology too, they've just been around longer and are less complex than a computer program. Art is about expression, it doesn't matter what tools are used for that expression.

[nirvanagrl]

I use to look at this in a similar way. I majored in traditional art so was taught to be snobby against anything they considerd to not fall under the fine arts category (aka, Crafts, Graphic Design, Illustration). But i see so many amazing things being painted and drawn on the computer. And i do respect the time and work that is put into them. They have created a new art with new tools. I still prefer my paintbrush and charcoal but i think that those who have the time and patience to sit infront of the computer and create these works are just as valid as artists. I realize that the world of art is changing. These shifts are normal. Maybe a caveman would be questioning when he saw the first paintbrush or art tool being implicated. Then you think back to portraits. In long ago past a portrait was a painting. They didn't have photography so a human had to capture the likeness. I guess i am saying technology is a natural progression. Even if thats somewhat a contradition.

I do understand your point and the concern of traditional methods being lost. For those who work with computers i give you lots and lots of Kudos because i know it would drive me bonkers. i will continue to use my paintbrush and pencils because i love them and they are an extension of me. Something about getting down and dirty in my art that brings me to much satisfaction.

Vive Art!

[alana1223]

theres nothing natrual or creative in it

you're right.  there's not.  

Until a human steps in.  



If there's nothing creative about it, why aren't websites black and white text?


I bet there were a lot of people who felt the same way about photography when the camera was used as a mode of art.  Why is a photo art?  you just point and shoot.  Compared to painting a pic, it doesn't seem like there's much to it.

(yes, i am also a photographer - I know there's a little more to it than that, but there is to a computer too)

sorry, this posts makes me frustrated.  

[missjesswinkwink]

I must say... I was just pondering this a few moments ago while checking my dA account.  I am firmly entrenched in both the fine art/artisan crafts and digital art worlds... however, I've started moaning the death of traditional art, especially on that site.  There are still plenty of people doing it... but it simply seems that 14 yr olds with anime fetishes and access to photoshop are taking over the world .

There is something to be said about working with your hands to create something.  It's a beautiful thing.  I totally agree with this post (and I'm a graphic designer!).

[shamelesslyahippie]

I apologize if i offended anyone, and i certainly didn't mean to if i did.
i was just posting an opinion of mine, a simple observation on what appears to me to be a shift in the world of art. I'm not saying that digital art is Bad, or not legit. in any way, i cant do most of the stuff other people do with a computer, i was just feeling frustrated, the kind of art i do, and enjoy, and work terribly hard at seems to be fading into the background and letting something which to me seems inhuman (though I'm sure its creative for those who use it) take over.

i don't mean to be snobby or pretentious, this is just what i'm panicking about right now.

[WIPs]

I apologize if i offended anyone, and i certainly didn't mean to if i did.
i was just posting an opinion of mine, a simple observation on what appears to me to be a shift in the world of art. I'm not saying that digital art is Bad, or not legit. in any way, i cant do most of the stuff other people do with a computer, i was just feeling frustrated, the kind of art i do, and enjoy, and work terribly hard at seems to be fading into the background and letting something which to me seems inhuman (though I'm sure its creative for those who use it) take over.

i don't mean to be snobby or pretentious, this is just what i'm panicking about right now.

While I do agree with you about traditional art disappearing, there's nothing wrong with digital art. In fact, to be able to do digital work is amazing. I just downloaded Gimp and I can't make heads or tails out of how to use it. Not only do digital artists know how to use it, they know how to make art out of it.

[shewolf]

I see your point - I said something similar when hand-drawn animation started to die. There's something really beautiful about Bambi, Frex. I'll admit Shrek looks awesome, but I miss the look of the hand done stuff.

I like CGI. It has a place in art. But I don't want to see all art done in a mass-production thing, either. Imagine if Rembrant had put out 5 bazillion copies of his art. Would it be meaningful today if he had?