Why are we still Painting?

[Slap Happy Larry]

While we're at it, why are we 'scrolling' down web pages?

Honestly I never even think of actual scrolls when I use that word. Language is never static, and it seems the word 'painting' is expanding in meaning.

But I don't think traditional painting is going to disappear anytime soon... Just look at the resurgence of colouring-in books dominating the adult bestseller list right now. For many people it seems traditional art-making has a zen aspect to it, which Artrage comes close to replicating, but still requires use of technology and a certain amount of analytical know-how.

The children's picture book world is an interesting one when it comes to the digital 'versus' traditional rub. I doubt very much that there are many picture book artists working today without making use of a computer for either some, most or all of their process, yet if you see an interview with that artist, or a photograph of their workspace, they'll almost always show their pots of paint and stacks of textured paper and they'll talk about their thumbnail sketches. You won't hear which art software they've been using. You won't see a photo of an illustrator standing next to their scanner, or cursing at the printer.

I guess they know that 1. that's not what consumers want to know about and 2. part of the children's picturebook product is 'nostalgia' and the illusion that it has been created by some artisan living in a quaint village with their thumb through a wooden palette, squinting to the horizon to catch the dying light.

This is why I think the term 'pixelating' or whatever isn't going to catch on anytime soon

[Caesar]

While we're at it, why are we 'scrolling' down web pages?

Honestly I never even think of actual scrolls when I use that word. Language is never static, and it seems the word 'painting' is expanding in meaning.

But I don't think traditional painting is going to disappear anytime soon... Just look at the resurgence of colouring-in books dominating the adult bestseller list right now. For many people it seems traditional art-making has a zen aspect to it, which Artrage comes close to replicating, but still requires use of technology and a certain amount of analytical know-how.

The children's picture book world is an interesting one when it comes to the digital 'versus' traditional rub. I doubt very much that there are many picture book artists working today without making use of a computer for either some, most or all of their process, yet if you see an interview with that artist, or a photograph of their workspace, they'll almost always show their pots of paint and stacks of textured paper and they'll talk about their thumbnail sketches. You won't hear which art software they've been using. You won't see a photo of an illustrator standing next to their scanner, or cursing at the printer.

I guess they know that 1. that's not what consumers want to know about and 2. part of the children's picturebook product is 'nostalgia' and the illusion that it has been created by some artisan living in a quaint village with their thumb through a wooden palette, squinting to the horizon to catch the dying light.

This is why I think the term 'pixelating' or whatever isn't going to catch on anytime soon

A most interesting intervention indeed. Very pragmatic and keen. Interesting the scroll reference. Actually there was a possible reason and feeling for that choice. A scroll is read by progressively unroll it, which is more or less what seems to happen on a screen, the upper part apparently rolled again and the above unrolled I think.
Although I'm an English speaking native the term pixeling or pixelating "horrifies" me a little because if pixel is a contraction of picture element it just says that I'm just ordely placing those elements, thus no creativity or unique skill or vision neceddarily implied. Moreover picture comes from pictura (Latin) or pittura (Italian) which is an illustration or an artpiece achieved by painting, therefore, in a way we're back to painting but having lost the artistic content somehow focusing on the picture elements, the puzzle pieces placing.
I tend to concur with Gary's preference for visualizzare, but in English maybe rather than translate it into visualize, which we preponderantly associate with a pure mental activity, we may coin a neologism like visualing, which encompasses the whole artistic process from our inner vision to making it visible also through either happy and unhappy accidents and changes and not concentrating too much on the tool we use, as it is the specific case of disegnare o dipingere in Italian which probably cannot be univocally transposed in strictly coincident English words.
Anyway I'm afraid that whatever will eventually appear to be the term, it will probably take into no account linguistic subtlelty because we errouneously disregard their deep reference with our brain mechanisms, thus with a better intelligence in the sense of intelligere (Lat.), i.e understand, capture with our intellect. The same applies when we read and write by computers and similar gadgets, we lose (also according to a research test I read) the opportunity and benefits of developing a better conceptual organization, more appropriate wording, coordination of hand, spatial vision and idea etc. It's not a matter of zen. Being able to have high or unique manual or artisanal skills is a fundamental part of being human and learning, since our mind basic structures and paradigm, logical and spatial, refers predominantly to our main physical unrivalled resources and assets, to our capability of language and handicraft (homo cogitans and homo faber, i.e. that thinks and that makes).
So painting and writing the good, old way is still as much good as ever (until we fully evolve into ectoplasms with tentacular protuberances and wirelss controlling devices LOL) and tells us more about our psychology and personality apart from being useful to better develop our mind as well as specific body coordination with it.

P.S. What about virtupicting as a term? Is there any sort academy in Oxford or elsewhere dealing with this matter for English language to propose a term or apply for a copyright or a "word patent"? LOL

[Gms9810]

Also, I for one would like to learn the traditional methods.. I think there are some things that shouldn't be the exclusive domain of computers.

[D Akey]

Also, I for one would like to learn the traditional methods.. I think there are some things that shouldn't be the exclusive domain of computers.

Yeah. It's all in the eye of the beholder as it were. I can see what works for me. And I can see others should look at it however they want to. I had a lot of fun working for years doing things the old fashioned way. Was also often a pain.

I still think the Undo feature is the greatest thing that ever happened to Art. It's almost as if the art we're making is nothing but a thought with all that free malleability until that moment we shout "Done! Save As!" That's like externalizing thought as you think stuff through. Allows for progress like leaping from plateau top plateau without losing ground.

On the other hand, it's not essential to work that way, especially when you're using traditional materials and know what you're doing, or are doing a technique in which you can paint over and paint over to adjust. Each direction has its pluses and minuses. All of it's worthy. If you like traditional materials, then that's certainly what you should use when you chose to do so.

[Gms9810]

I couldn't agree more about the undo, tis a true lifesaver. However, there can't be different medias, just colors. Example, I paint a few strokes in "oil" then right into that I slap on some watercolor, they mix just fine. in real media that could never happen. Or paint on some water color then switch to chalk or wax crayon. and they all mix just like a big happy family. Although not realistic it can be fun and useful. And I'm not bashing AR because every other drawing package I've seen works the same way. I wish a little window would pop up saying "idiot, you can't do that."

[Caesar]

Just to be lapidary this time, as a possible conclusion of the last exchange: if You enjoy travelling by car, does it mean doeing it by biking or walking isn't worthwhile anymore?
Each way has pros and cons and no one excludes the others. Paraphrasing Shakespeare we may say "A travel would move You among places as well by any other means (and name), or even without any means but Your mind maybe, wouldn't it".

[D Akey]

. . .I wish a little window would pop up saying "idiot, you can't do that."

Oh man, George, you're running into the artist's conundrum. It looks like it opened another door that we all, as creators, face sooner or later.

Two different points here:

1) When on the computer we are painting with pixels. And when painting with little cubes of light, you can do that. So we can put that one aside for the moment.

2) I agree in principle with you even though not necessarily in your point of contention with digital vs traditional materials. I think the issue is far bigger than ArtRage. It's about being a creator. Never underestimate the incredible value of setting limitations. When dealing with the infinite, for the creative person, reduction seems to be the only way we can grab and manipulate anything at all, and see it and show it.

The creative challenge, and sometimes the hardest part of that process, is being willing to narrow things down. Knowing where to cut and how much to not use in creating something is the flip side to bringing something into form.

It's true of writers, of artists, of musicians, it's true in allocating resources, budgeting, eating, choosing who to like, who to love, how many to love, how much medicine to take, and which kind. The flip side is also knowing when either extreme of freedom or restriction is working against us.

We pick a section to manipulate, and we learn proportion. After a point, we don't have to puke before we know it's too much alcohol we're drinking. . . if any. Sometimes it's called wisdom, sometimes prudence, sometimes mastery, and it's essential to any artist to know what works for them. Inhale and exhale. Expand -- contract. And this process is what defines the difference between artists.

Just be selective with digital mediums, and don't leave every choice to the computer. If you don't like mixing oil with water, then police yourself.

To accept this fact or narrowing what I'm aiming for, it took me, personally, far too long to learn. My imagination is vast, and that infinite expanse of potential doesn't allow for those thoughts even to be fit into sentences, or to fit onto a canvas. I end up dissatisfied and frustrated because I compare what I've done and feel like I totally missed the target, because what I end up doing from that mindset is never ever even close. I think it's also the bane of our existence for those who never learn to accept that limits already exist in our world when not working within mostly set parameters.

I think the reality of that condition is why spirituality get's shoved into religions, and why religions become so narrow, exclusive and dogmatic -- the high stuff gets pulled down by the demands of the narrow, by sometimes well-meaning ones who have agendas that are very specific because that's where their reality lies. Yet, there exists a perpetual effort among visionary humans to try to grasp those shiny keys that are just out of reach above our cribs, in every endeavor of life. It's also why artists are often called having their heads in the clouds.

Since there is no right and wrong answer in Art, it makes it really hard on the artist as visionary. It's great for an apprentice or someone working in a pre-existing studio where it's very clear what they are doing. But we're talking about two different worlds.

It also seems why computers have removed such constraints where they can, and it's why people embrace that freedom.

When you figure it out, lemme know.

[Caesar]

Oh man, George, you're running into the artist's conundrum. It looks like it opened another door that we all, as creators, face sooner or later.

Two different points here:

1) When on the computer we are painting with pixels. And when painting with little cubes of light, you can do that. So we can put that one aside for the moment.

2) I agree in principle with you even though not necessarily in your point of contention with digital vs traditional materials. I think the issue is far bigger than ArtRage. It's about being a creator. Never underestimate the incredible value of setting limitations. When dealing with the infinite, for the creative person, reduction seems to be the only way we can grab and manipulate anything at all, and see it and show it.

The creative challenge, and sometimes the hardest part of that process, is being willing to narrow things down. Knowing where to cut and how much to not use in creating something is the flip side to bringing something into form.

It's true of writers, of artists, of musicians, it's true in allocating resources, budgeting, eating, choosing who to like, who to love, how many to love, how much medicine to take, and which kind. The flip side is also knowing when either extreme of freedom or restriction is working against us.

We pick a section to manipulate, and we learn proportion. After a point, we don't have to puke before we know it's too much alcohol we're drinking. . . if any. Sometimes it's called wisdom, sometimes prudence, sometimes mastery, and it's essential to any artist to know what works for them. Inhale and exhale. Expand -- contract. And this process is what defines the difference between artists.

Just be selective with digital mediums, and don't leave every choice to the computer. If you don't like mixing oil with water, then police yourself.

To accept this fact or narrowing what I'm aiming for, it took me, personally, far too long to learn. My imagination is vast, and that infinite expanse of potential doesn't allow for those thoughts even to be fit into sentences, or to fit onto a canvas. I end up dissatisfied and frustrated because I compare what I've done and feel like I totally missed the target, because what I end up doing from that mindset is never ever even close. I think it's also the bane of our existence for those who never learn to accept that limits already exist in our world when not working within mostly set parameters.

I think the reality of that condition is why spirituality get's shoved into religions, and why religions become so narrow, exclusive and dogmatic -- the high stuff gets pulled down by the demands of the narrow, by sometimes well-meaning ones who have agendas that are very specific because that's where their reality lies. Yet, there exists a perpetual effort among visionary humans to try to grasp those shiny keys that are just out of reach above our cribs, in every endeavor of life. It's also why artists are often called having their heads in the clouds.

Since there is no right and wrong answer in Art, it makes it really hard on the artist as visionary. It's great for an apprentice or someone working in a pre-existing studio where it's very clear what they are doing. But we're talking about two different worlds.

It also seems why computers have removed such constraints where they can, and it's why people embrace that freedom.

When you figure it out, lemme know.

Holy words, dear DAkey!
That's actually what we learned by eating the apple in the Eden garden: "pls lemme see now, dear creature of mine, how You can play God with Your limitations once You set Yourself free to pursue Your individual needs and wishes, to get by Yourself alone, referenceless and boundless as Your own life source. Alas there's no way Your infinite potential can be enclosed just in Yourself and still deploy and fullfill all You can be and do". The essence of what You said in a few millennia ago words perhaps.
So, the most our talents are, the worst is the opportunities explosion and the most limited is the time and means You feel You have and actually have.

Once You learn this lesson (the sooner the best), You learn responsibility and effectiveness hopefully and also that either You fit into a mankind and universal scope, into an immensely larger entity and vision, not as a projection of Yourselg as a God, or You're an astronaut lost in space.
The highest conquest in art and intelligence is possibly to have discovered measure, canon, proportion, relationship, balancing, harmony (not extremes, gigantisms, absolute sizes and measure). Those words are the only way we can probably focus and spot beauty, make fully visible and understandable reality, just like fixing axioms and make all a whole branch of logics and mathematics undestandable, enjoyabe imtuitable as a model, a translation for an otherwise elusive reality. You may obviously change those rules, breach them to some extent and see what happens, seek for further progressing, but You cannot define Yourself against anything and anyone else as a brand new new universe creator or You would certainly fail and build sand castles which will eventually crumble, sooner or later.
Personally I eventually found, quite late alas, a satisfying truce in my hopeless battle with my immoderate juvenile ambitions and silly "infinite-resources" approach and the final agreement is, in any field, that anything original enough, new or innovative enough, surprising enough, for myself to start, is an achievement I should appreciate and enjoy and I should not measure against any kind of hypothetical perfection, something too much similar to a mere trivial perception copy or to death in a way.
Even more important, I think, is that anything we do, we have to find a way to have fun doing it. Happiness is not a place we may reach once and for all and stay in this world, rather a flow (panta rei, to tell it with Eraclitus) that we have to follow somehow, also swimming among eddies and vortices, almost drowning sometimes, but keeping faith and hope. What's our eventual, ultimate status or virtue or reality, these ones will determine once beyond the irreversible veil, that's something each of us may probably expect differently or not see as an issue, but I guess the path we walk still and always matters.

[Pop Alexandra]

Also, I for one would like to learn the traditional methods.. I think there are some things that shouldn't be the exclusive domain of computers.

I totally agree.
There's a certain beauty in making traditional art, especially now that AI has reared its head.