Why are we still Painting?

[gxhpainter2]

This may seem like a trivial subject, but one that has bugged me a bit lately. I was a traditional media painter for a number of years before getting into the digital realm. And the more I use tools like ArtRage it seems like to refer to our work as a "painting" sort of misses the mark, and is a throwback reference to what is a simulated exercise. Digital image creation has so many more tools, and great complexity and the way you create color is as far removed from traditional painting as photography was when it was first created. Someone smarter than me should coin a new term for digital image creation, maybe they all ready have and I am just unaware of it. Does this strike any resonance with the rest of you? Anyway just my 2 cent observation of the day. :rolleyes::rolleyes::cool::cool:

[markw]

True… I suppose in the strictest sense of the word "painting".
A dictionary entry might read;
Painting:
1: the action or skill of using coloured pigments, either in a picture or as decoration.
2: an image created through the application of coloured pigments to a substrate.

With digital we are deciding what colour light should be emitted from any given pixel instead of choosing pigments.
So referring to it as "pixeling" might be a more apt name perhaps? But it conveys no meaning.
As with most things people need a point of reference or a handle they are familiar with that requires little or no further explanation. And in this regard the word "painting" serves well enough. After all when hearing the word "painting" no one ever says "what's that then?" we just know.

Though I do quite like the idea of referring to myself as a "pixelist"!:cool:

[gxhpainter2]

True… I suppose in the strictest sense of the word "painting".
A dictionary entry might read;
Painting:
1: the action or skill of using coloured pigments, either in a picture or as decoration.
2: an image created through the application of coloured pigments to a substrate.

With digital we are deciding what colour light should be emitted from any given pixel instead of choosing pigments.
So referring to it as "pixeling" might be a more apt name perhaps? But it conveys no meaning.
As with most things people need a point of reference or a handle they are familiar with that requires little or no further explanation. And in this regard the word "painting" serves well enough. After all when hearing the word "painting" no one ever says "what's that then?" we just know.

Though I do quite like the idea of referring to myself as a "pixelist"!:cool: markw, interesting points I like the term pixelist as well. I guess we are "painting" with pixels , and I would not want to sound pretentious by saying a " digital imagist" but I do think eventually there will be a term to refer to digital image creation to separate that skillset from traditional media works, maybe a few more decades from now or maybe when we have flexible screens that take up a wall for a few hundred dollars to show our creations on!. Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[D Akey]

Not quite sure about the why and wherefore of this. Have traditional artists been giving you grief (as usual) and being from the Pacific Northwest, are you pulling a Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Tribe who was famously quoted -- "I will fight no more, forever. . ."? (Los Angeles version is Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?" -- Incidentally, in both cases there was spilled blood before getting to that point.)

That traditional Art thing vs. Digital is an old saw that keeps coming up. I don't think there needs to be an apology for doing Art any old way you want. . . if the process is expressing a vision. If someone is marketing the same art or about ego it can digress into a pissing contest, whether overtly or hidden. And no matter what you do, people will respond how they respond. You have less control over that than you do over yourself.

Around 11yo I had just moved into a new neighborhood and I was trying to fit in. So I picked the older kid and at his behest we had a 'fun' fist fight where we were trading blows in and around the chest, shoulders and arms -- no faces, groin etc -- "just for fun". He, the older kid, was wearing football shoulder pads. I was not. What does that tell you about how it went? I learned a lesson. It was more an academic test of toughness on my part and I was new and wanted to make some friends no matter what. I was at dinner with my parents that evening and my mom was horrified at all the bruises running up and down my arm and when they asked if I had been fighting, I said honestly that I had not. They gave me a weird look and went back to eating.

The point of that is that while I was playing around, I got a practical lesson. The other kid and I were certainly closer matched physically, and had it been more equal without gadgetry, the exercise might have proven something other than lessons in how to frustrate yourself and look stupid in the bargain. Going in to it I knew it would not go well, but it was a way to show I could measure up. All I really showed them was that I was kinda stupid. I mean, we weren't enemies or angry. Just we had different agendas. And because of the age difference, we didn't end up being friends. We went to different schools and all that. So "friends" wasn't on the table in any case. Plus I looked too much like the classic needy younger kid trying to get accepted, I think.

Take that how you will in relation to your comment. I can see why they don't want to associate with digital artists. They would totally lose face and look incompetent very likely. . . and their moms would ask about the bruising. . . (no, wait. Scratch that last part about the moms and the bruising). . .

So as to your idea, whether putting a different name to traditional and digital without saying 'traditional' or 'digital', would making a new category term keep them from letting you play in their Art world? I doubt it because at the end of the day the Art gets compared and more to the point artists keep a green eye on other artists. The only thing I could see as opening the door would be to do traditional art of you want to hang with traditional artists. Be careful though, hanging with them, in order to be one of the crowd, they're going to be looking to see how fast you're growing, or how good your stuff looks compared with theirs, no matter what you're painting with. And knowing people as I've observed, the human survival instinct will seep in. So you may get a lesson of your own when it comes to talking behind your back while they smile in your face. (Listen to the O'Jays if you want to get a witness. . . but I digress. . .)

Find or build your own world and or merge with one that's sort of similar where you're playing the same game, or join their game and play by their rules and see where it goes. Honor that. But if you're true to yourself, even if you play with their game ball and their rules, you may not have to humble yourself just so you can meet them half way.

What's more important to you at this point in your life? You have to ask yourself what you want out of your Art, or your retirement. And it's okay to want your art to be a social thing where you meet on common ground (ie. where are your priorities, as Wayne Dyer (RIP) had said in one of his lectures on finding who you are and customizing your life to match that). If it's to be social, own that, have fun with it, but just realize there's rules to every game.

Changing to traditional painting may satisfy what you want your life to be producing for you. And within that, once you're accepted, you can start slipping in the digital ideas. Or. . . you can just hang with digital artists and the traditional artists either get it or they don't. I originally got into Art looking for a community. Personally, I was also sort of following the NASA space race kind of model as well. But in the earliest days they only managed to send one astronaut up at a time. Social stuff came later. But you're not a beginner. Haven't been for a long time. So now what?

As to your original point, I don't personally think that traditional artists need to be coddled with subtle rhetoric or slippery jargon that skates the issue. You're an artist and there are worlds out there. Your call which sandbox you want to play in. There will be other kids playing there, very likely.

[gxhpainter2]

Not quite sure about the why and wherefore of this. Have traditional artists been giving you grief (as usual) and being from the Pacific Northwest, are you pulling a Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Tribe who was famously quoted -- "I will fight no more, forever. . ."? (Los Angeles version is Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?" -- Incidentally, in both cases there was spilled blood before getting to that point.)

That traditional Art thing vs. Digital is an old saw that keeps coming up. I don't think there needs to be an apology for doing Art any old way you want. . . if the process is expressing a vision. If someone is marketing the same art or about ego it can digress into a pissing contest, whether overtly or hidden. And no matter what you do, people will respond how they respond. You have less control over that than you do over yourself.

Around 11yo I had just moved into a new neighborhood and I was trying to fit in. So I picked the older kid and at his behest we had a 'fun' fist fight where we were trading blows in and around the chest, shoulders and arms -- no faces, groin etc -- "just for fun". He, the older kid, was wearing football shoulder pads. I was not. What does that tell you about how it went? I learned a lesson. It was more an academic test of toughness on my part and I was new and wanted to make some friends no matter what. I was at dinner with my parents that evening and my mom was horrified at all the bruises running up and down my arm and when they asked if I had been fighting, I said honestly that I had not. They gave me a weird look and went back to eating.

The point of that is that while I was playing around, I got a practical lesson. The other kid and I were certainly closer matched physically, and had it been more equal without gadgetry, the exercise might have proven something other than lessons in how to frustrate yourself and look stupid in the bargain. Going in to it I knew it would not go well, but it was a way to show I could measure up. All I really showed them was that I was kinda stupid. I mean, we weren't enemies or angry. Just we had different agendas. And because of the age difference, we didn't end up being friends. We went to different schools and all that. So "friends" wasn't on the table in any case. Plus I looked too much like the classic needy younger kid trying to get accepted, I think.

Take that how you will in relation to your comment. I can see why they don't want to associate with digital artists. They would totally lose face and look incompetent very likely. . . and their moms would ask about the bruising. . . (no, wait. Scratch that last part about the moms and the bruising). . .

So as to your idea, whether putting a different name to traditional and digital without saying 'traditional' or 'digital', would making a new category term keep them from letting you play in their Art world? I doubt it because at the end of the day the Art gets compared and more to the point artists keep a green eye on other artists. The only thing I could see as opening the door would be to do traditional art of you want to hang with traditional artists. Be careful though, hanging with them, in order to be one of the crowd, they're going to be looking to see how fast you're growing, or how good your stuff looks compared with theirs, no matter what you're painting with. And knowing people as I've observed, the human survival instinct will seep in. So you may get a lesson of your own when it comes to talking behind your back while they smile in your face. (Listen to the O'Jays if you want to get a witness. . . but I digress. . .)

Find or build your own world and or merge with one that's sort of similar where you're playing the same game, or join their game and play by their rules and see where it goes. Honor that. But if you're true to yourself, even if you play with their game ball and their rules, you may not have to humble yourself just so you can meet them half way.

What's more important to you at this point in your life? You have to ask yourself what you want out of your Art, or your retirement. And it's okay to want your art to be a social thing where you meet on common ground (ie. where are your priorities, as Wayne Dyer (RIP) had said in one of his lectures on finding who you are and customizing your life to match that). If it's to be social, own that, have fun with it, but just realize there's rules to every game.

Changing to traditional painting may satisfy what you want your life to be producing for you. And within that, once you're accepted, you can start slipping in the digital ideas. Or. . . you can just hang with digital artists and the traditional artists either get it or they don't. I originally got into Art looking for a community. Personally, I was also sort of following the NASA space race kind of model as well. But in the earliest days they only managed to send one astronaut up at a time. Social stuff came later. But you're not a beginner. Haven't been for a long time. So now what?

As to your original point, I don't personally think that traditional artists need to be coddled with subtle rhetoric or slippery jargon that skates the issue. You're an artist and there are worlds out there. Your call which sandbox you want to play in. There will be other kids playing there, very likely. love the story here D Akey, did not know you were such a tough guy, but I could have guessed ! :). This really had nothing to do with Trad vs Digital is it art? which has been hashed over enough and not really a question anymore ( atleast in my mind ) . NO I was just feeling that referring to my images as "painting" evoked some process that I really no longer employ, even the way I think about my process and how I go about creating my works it totally different now . Although I do use traditional concepts like composition, color harmonies, to guide my work I don't think about painting "Fat over lean" if you get my point. I guess I just wondered ( since I have far too much free time to ponder such questions ) why Photography got its own name yet we digital pixelists have not!.. silly I know.. In the end creating an art piece that moves one and is true to its source is what counts, not what it is called. :cool::cool::cool: thanks for your comments on this

[D Akey]

love the story here D Akey, did not know you were such a tough guy, but I could have guessed ! :). This really had nothing to do with Trad vs Digital is it art? which has been hashed over enough and not really a question anymore ( atleast in my mind ) . NO I was just feeling that referring to my images as "painting" evoked some process that I really no longer employ, even the way I think about my process and how I go about creating my works it totally different now . Although I do use traditional concepts like composition, color harmonies, to guide my work I don't think about painting "Fat over lean" if you get my point. I guess I just wondered ( since I have far too much free time to ponder such questions ) why Photography got its own name yet we digital pixelists have not!.. silly I know.. In the end creating an art piece that moves one and is true to its source is what counts, not what it is called. :cool::cool::cool: thanks for your comments on this

I hear ya. I think perhaps the only unifying thing from the super diverse tools that allow for the creation of digital painting is how the viewer is stimulated by the result. I mean, at this point, my cat, as initiator of something on the screen, could accidentally paint something cool because many programs are so fully automated or macro'd to do entire series of functions at the press of a key. Walk across the keyboard, win a prize. So in that dehumanized way, whoever owns the best program wins. And therein lies that end of the spectrum that makes traditional artists go give out a valiant yawn.

So what would a term be. . . Interesting in the olden days when things were invented that the names they were given at the time frequently reflected the owner or inventor. And at that they are considered antiquated or even archaic. And they get dropped as new variations evolve. I say you should grab an etymologist by the scruff of the neck and force him to use his backward looking hindsight driven existence into projecting one forward to name a category for digital artist. Or you can use the time-tested method and have a contest and pick a winner.

There was a radio personality who probably thought this one up ahead of time and had somebody call in (or pre-recorded a call that he played to top all the others who would call in) -- the question was he needed a word for the female equivalent of a 'Womanizer" -- ie they wanted to come up with a word for a woman who indulged in men a lot (use your imagination). The answer was too good, and clearly a set-up. There were only one or two calls with guesses. So seeing that this was going to be too dull and wasn't stimulating interest, he played the winner, which he had already in hand as the payoff -- and what do you think the word was? Slut? Trollup? Whore? Nymphomaniac? Nope -- all too pejorative. All 100% negative. And it didn't exactly mirror it. The winning word for a woman who indulged in men a lot was a . . . wait for it. . . a guyser!

Come up with a name that sparkles like that and I think you may get some people on board with your new, hot off the press, name for digital painting.

[Gms9810]

For my opinion, which I'm sure is valued (not), I've had a lot of experience with digital but am just starting my adventure in traditional media. Having said that...

1 For me the feel of real paint and real brushes has a magic feel that tablets like Wacom can't duplicate. Though I like my Intuos it's not the same feeling of accomplishment that brushes or pencils give. Maybe that's because traditional media is still new and fascinating to me.
2 I think it's important that traditional media and methods are kept alive lest (did he really say lest?) we forget and it's forgotten.

[byroncallas]

I opine we live in a transitional period. In another generation, assuming we don't blow ourselves up, there won't be many people doing what we refer to as "traditional painting". And what we do now as "digital art" will have morphed and progressed to a place where what we do now will seem as antiquated as painting in caves. Before 2050, no doubt things will have progressed to where we can "think" a painting and watch it materialize in front of us as a holograph.

Living in a transitional period, we are inclined to have feet in two worlds, with both emotional and intellectual tugs in both directions. The generation or two coming behind us won't have tugs for our old and antiquated ways, just as most of us don't have tugs to go on barefoot hunts in the jungle to catch and kill a warthog, skin and gut it, and roast in in a pit in order to eat it with our bare hands over a hot, sweltering fire, while we watch our backs to ensure a tiger doesn't jump out of the bushes and eat us for dinner. Times change and sweep us along without consideration for our personal inclinations.

Meanwhile, it seems perfectly wonderful to absorb ourselves in those present practices that we find fulfilling, whether, with creating art for example, we are fulfilled using traditional tools or find inspiration and fulfillment embracing the new medias. Different strokes for different folks...

...so I opine. :-)

PS for Gary: There do seem to be terms, which was your original question: "Digital Art", "Digital Painting", "Computer Generated Art" etc. Here is an interesting Wiki which condenses a lot of similar conversations explored in this forum about this topic. It illustrates the commonality of concerns and experience for those of us living through this transition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_painting

[gxhpainter2]

thanks for your responses, Gms9810, D Akey and Byron... you have all made good points, and I guess Byron is right given time I think the digital world will come more into its own. I mean even in the few decades I have been using it ( from first using Painter 2, and Photoshop to the current state ) there has been a tremendous growth in the quality of the tools and printing output capability. I laugh at my early works done in MS Paint and printed on an HP color inkjet. At the time I thought it was amazing stuff...:cool::cool::cool:

[elainep]

My personal favorite is "digital painting" to separate my work from photo manipulation. Unenlightened traditional painters often feel that the computer does all the work, that no drawing and painting skills are needed and then there was that digital artist I knew, who made abstracts out of her photos, using photoshop filters. She kept referring to them as paintings, when I know some of them were created in minutes with a few different filters. I have no problem with photoshop filters, but it is painting techniques, it's photo manipulation.
I tell people that the program handles paint, pastels etc, in the same way that the "real thing" works and requires drawing and painting skills, so therefore it is painting.

I still enjoy the feel of real painting traditionally, and won't give up on it. However, I do feel I have more control with pixels, the unlimited undos, the ease of working on my laptop wherever I happen to be, and no clean up give me the opportunity to do more than I can with traditional paint. One of my students is taking a trip which will involve a very long flight and lots of airport connections and wait time. I suggested she take her laptop or iPad and paint, paint paint!

Elaine

[Caesar]

Dear Gary and mates, Your stimulus is quite interesting and poses an absolutely meaningful point indeed.
I wouldn't discard the word painting though, as a general category comprising also a virtual kind of visual composition, insofar it's a somehow artisanal and unique production. The only problem is rather if we should separate what exist in one piece only (as for the handmade, physycal, visual art) or can be reproduced several times or without any limit by printing or storage in memories etc.
For Latin and Italian language pictura or pittura, respectively, is a no issue, since it fundamentally means you represent an image by means of shapes, lines, colors etc. on a surface (2D), usually flat, but not necessarily so. The corresponding english word picture got a quite different meaning and refers mostly to photography. The term imago or immagine (Latin and Italian) is a category comprising the former one, since it's a visual object, image in English, which says nothing about how it's produced. Finally what is common to any visual art as a fundamental pillar, including photography and photomanipulation in case, is composizione, from Latin cum ponere, put together, composition in English, apart from other features making them define as art. This is the mind creating and ordering activity which generally forego, captures and/or drive along the execution any technique to rendering tones, textures, colors, patterns etc. It's very much connected to a style, a recognizble signature to I think, to a personal identity somehow, to uniqueness.
So we may say that dipingere, different from pitturare would be still valid in Italian (incidentally not a secondary language for art and visual arts or architecture), but English lack the term as a specific one, unless to depicture exist,since it referers to an artistic activity and not to a wall refreshing by painting for instance, the prefix de says all, in Latin it means a movement downward from an higher place (even sky or Olympus). As a matter of fact whatever the tool is and the technique, the term applied and applies since ever to any new ways to fix on a surface shapes, colors, tones, texture etc. affresco, encausto, olio, acquerello, tempera etc. (fresco, encausto, oil, watercolor, gouache etc.) are only more specific and not all of them generated a specific verb in Italian.
Just to be complete, the pertinent terminology disegno (drawing more or less), from Latin de + signum (sign) encompasses the graphical category only, the composition structure or an image creation where traits, lines, filled tonal areas are the main issue and colors are not necessary, just an additional option. Once again the de somehow talks of a creative act as a start.
Another intriguing term is visualizzare (visualize), i.e. see inside our mind the idea or make it visible to other people, very much about what visual art is about, i.e. to make us see, to turn visibile (visible), i.e. better observable, intelligible, and possibly enjoyable by our sight and mind an image, an idea etc. including it's emotional content in case.
Having said all the above, before a proper term for dipingere virtualmente/ digitalmente, i.e virtually or digitally painting or better picturing (if it ever exist in this sense) may be found, we should decide if photography, photocomposition/ manipulation, collage etc. is part of the game or not (not in my view) and if the eventual English word should possibly derive from a Ancient Greek, Latin or Italian etymology as a base, considering it an historical evolution. Take into consideration that the terms photography (i.e. drawing with light from ancient Greek) as well as picture comes from such roots. the same applies to creation, fantasy, image, composition and so on. The word pixel too is probably a contraction of picture+element, so I'm practically using in this sentence and in this comment, especially in what sound as an educated terminology, mostly ancient languages words (probabilis, contrahere/ contractio, sententia etc.) which tend to give a clue and a cue of what that word is about.
as an element to explain one of Your question, dear Gary, keep also in mind that photography as well as computer images making didn't start as an art, nor the Cugnot first steam-car or the Ford T making (automotive?) did.
Personally I may easily find definitions in Italian in case, such as videografica (existing), in my opinion too much leaning toward the line and traits structure, or vipingere, vidipingere or vicreare (not existing) or even digidipingere, where prefix vi may stand for either video and/or virtual and many more combinations in case, but I doubt I could enforce any of them by my personal authoritativeness. :o;)LOL I may try to turn into English my proposal if You wish, but I have no title to ...:rolleyes:;)
Finally I think that photography, photocomposition/ manipulation, collage etc. are not comprised in dipingere or dipinto (to paint/ painting less precilely though), but may well be part of visual art (so the same should apply if they come from a PC, laptop etc.) and exclusively or preponderantly automatic images creations with no or negligible "manual" (in broader sense) intervention of the artist, no happy accident or uniqueness, is not art in strict sense I think, because its etimology from Latin and even, more remotely from Sanskit, referred to adaption, manufacturing, production where the act of making, a practical manual/ physical skill was then required, mostly or predominantly.
Now I apologize for all this crazy etimological and phylological hodgepodge, I shut up and follow with great interest what will eventually come out as a word in English in case by any native English speaker mate (thus entitled to generate the word) in here. :p:D:)

[BushcraftOnFire]

I put this in Google translate.. but it came out the same.. LOL! Just kidding of course my Brother!

[D Akey]

Good point. I think we paint when Google Translate fails. :rolleyes:

[joey_matthews]

I'm writing more, creating more graphics, taking more pictures with my DLSR and creating general art.

Yet I don't seem to find time to actually draw anything or use art rage, I actually don't think I have it installed on my current laptop. For years now, I have sort of taken a back seat with my hobbies which is a shame.

[D Akey]

I'm writing more, creating more graphics, taking more pictures with my DLSR and creating general art.

Yet I don't seem to find time to actually draw anything or use art rage, I actually don't think I have it installed on my current laptop. For years now, I have sort of taken a back seat with my hobbies which is a shame.

Hi and welcome.

So you're saying we aren't still painting. ;)

Here I go again, shoving into the mix another conversational digression based on what was said rather than the original topic. Oh well, they can sue me for following it.

I do those things you mentioned, but not so much photography, just cause I don't yet need to. If I did I sure would or if I lived where Kenmo (a user here who lives in an eye-poppingly beautiful part of the world has jumped into photography hands and feet) does, I would. I guess my slot instead of being filled by photography is music and writing.

I have a ton of diverse software sitting around on my computer and in boxes because I had an idea at one point I would use it. I did some, but because operating system changes got forced on me and some applications didn't work any longer I no longer do many of those things that were dependent on the old software. I don't feel great about wasting money and not having those tools at hand, but the upshot is that such caprices in the software world have changed how I do things and what I do. Some of the software was merely for fun or experimenting and replacing it wasn't worth it to me. I tend to go with the flow unless I really need something where I have to bite the bullet and pay for the new software.

Anyway, in essence, I think we're simply creative spirits in a room full of fantasy generating tools. So long as we're living on a linear timeline, we have to pick and choose at any given moment. At one point in my life before computers made all these creative tools available, I was totally into doing art -- period, with some other moments of toying around maybe with a new style or a new kind of paint or whatever. Nowadays specializing is by choice it seems because any one person can do 100 different things fairly decently. If drawing or painting is in your cards, you'll do it when you do it.

ArtRage will be there patiently waiting for the moment you will have a thought that can best be done by it. Meanwhile, stay creative and all the tools will manifest, or so I've found I'm happy to say.

[Victor Osaka]

You know, I'm looking forward to the day I can buy (read "I can afford to buy") a touch screen monitor the size of a full canvas. Maybe 3'x4'. Oh to be able to paint on a canvas that size with ArtRage. I get goosebumps imagining it.

[Frisch]

I find the discussion about being real or not, odd - my father recently asked me; When are you doing it for real? - I was shocked - are you kidding me? I have spent thousand upon thousand of hours on this - the time used was real - me handling my toy; REAL -

It's all real - really - : )

The rest is accept - it's here

[gxhpainter2]

Thanks for all your great commentary on this and Caesar, yours is especially eye opening, your language is so much richer in its subtle way of capturing meaning and nuance.
I especially like visualizzare ... that seems to capture the process perfectly in my mind.

And like Victor I am eagerly awaiting the day we can digitally paint on a 3'x4' monitor and easily print it or even better when we have the ability to put it onto a film monitor for display in its original pixel glory of colored light. :cool::cool::cool::cool:

[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 :o;)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? :o;) 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:o

[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. :rolleyes:;):cool:

[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. :rolleyes:;):cool:

Holy words, dear DAkey!:eek::cool:
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.

[D Akey]

Holy words, dear DAkey!:eek::cool:
That's actually what we learned by eating the apple in the Eden: "pls lemme see now how can You play God with Your limitations once You set Yourself free to pursue Your individual needs and wishes, to get by Yourself alone and boundlessly. No way Your potential can be enclosed in Yourself and fullfill all You can be and do". The most our talents are the worst is the opportunities explosion and the most limited is the time You feel You have". Once You learn this lesson, the sooner the best, You learn responsibility and effectiveness hopefully and also that either You fit into mankind, into an immensely larger entity and vision or You're an astronaut lost in space.
The highest conquest in art and intelligence is possibly measure, canon, proportion, relationship, balancing, 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 a little and see what happens, but You cannot define Yourself against anything and anyone else as a new universe creator or You would certainly fail or build a sand castle 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 is an achievement I should appreciate and enjoy and not measure against any kind of hypothetical perfection, something too much similar to death in a way. Even more important is that anything we do, we have to find a way to have fun doing it. Happiness is not a place we may rach and stay, rather a flow we have to follow somehow 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, is something each of us may probably expect differently or not as an issue, but the path, I guess, always matters.

Yeah, good points, Caesar. It's a real challenge for me especially when having had more than my share of romantic ideals to measure my reality against while growing up (especially having grown up at the end of the hippie era when the whole country was going through that questioning adolescence at the same time -- all questions, and few answers). It's sort of what pulled me into being an artist - in order to find and anchor some answers for myself in that endlessly undulating thing I call a life. And in a way I'm rather glad that there may be permanent choices, but no permanent universal answers. Keeps the questions coming and things lively.

I once heard a speaker of Eastern spiritual consciousness say about these things when being born into the body and wanting to withdraw into a cave as a hermit and simply be ecstatic all the time, it was offered as a way to ground them back into the world (paraphrasing slightly), "(Listen), you've enrolled in the school. Why not take the curriculum. . ." So it seems a fairly universal human issue about that split in us -- about where we place our focus and the degrees.

The point to that I took to mean that these limitations we have by being human carries with it particular, and custom tailored lessons based on how we handle them. And that works for me, since it's merely an approach that leaves it wide open for variations that dance with the ever-changing experiences. And so some of us make pictures as the form our dance takes.

Dynamic, eh? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ;););););):cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

[Gms9810]

Oh, believe me, I wasn't complaining, (I think) I like the option to mix impossible things.

[damasocl]

Mi opinión personal:
Yo comecé a pintar en el método tradicional..., bueno, estamos hablando de los años 60 (siglo pasado!)...
Solamente, desde el año 2007 yo pude acceder a Internet en mi casa...
...Y descubrí la primera versión gratuita de Art Rage!!!
Inmediatamente me hice a mi mismo un FAN...
Casi no he vuelto a tomar los pinceles desde entonces...
Pero, ...saben uds. qué cosa echo de menos???
El olor a trementina, y demás solventes...
Quedarme sin telas para seguir pintando...
Quedarme sin pinceles...
Quedarme sin pomos/tubos de óleo...

Utilizo mucho este software para crear material didáctico que luego utilizo en mis clases...
Muchas veces he pensado que pintar en la PC, y no con pinceles reales, es como escribir en una máquina de escribir Underwood, vs pluma con tinta china!!!

My personal opinion:
I started painting in the traditional method ... well, we're talking about the 60s (last century!) ...
Only, since 2007 I could access the Internet at home ...
... And I found the first free version of Art Rage !!!
Immediately I made myself a FAN ...
I almost no retaken brushes since ...
But ... you know. which I miss thing ???
The smell of turpentine, and other solvents ...
Go without "canvas" to continue painting ...
Stay without brushes ...
Stay without knobs / oil tubes ...
Much use this software to create learning materials later use in my classes ...
Many times I have thought that painting on the PC, not with real brushes, is like writing on a typewriter Underwood, vs pen with ink !!!

[D Akey]

Mi opinión personal:
Yo comecé a pintar en el método tradicional..., bueno, estamos hablando de los años 60 (siglo pasado!)...
Solamente, desde el año 2007 yo pude acceder a Internet en mi casa...
...Y descubrí la primera versión gratuita de Art Rage!!!
Inmediatamente me hice a mi mismo un FAN...
Casi no he vuelto a tomar los pinceles desde entonces...
Pero, ...saben uds. qué cosa echo de menos???
El olor a trementina, y demás solventes...
Quedarme sin telas para seguir pintando...
Quedarme sin pinceles...
Quedarme sin pomos/tubos de óleo...

Utilizo mucho este software para crear material didáctico que luego utilizo en mis clases...
Muchas veces he pensado que pintar en la PC, y no con pinceles reales, es como escribir en una máquina de escribir Underwood, vs pluma con tinta china!!!

My personal opinion:
I started painting in the traditional method ... well, we're talking about the 60s (last century!) ...
Only, since 2007 I could access the Internet at home ...
... And I found the first free version of Art Rage !!!
Immediately I made myself a FAN ...
I almost no retaken brushes since ...
But ... you know. which I miss thing ???
The smell of turpentine, and other solvents ...
Go without "canvas" to continue painting ...
Stay without brushes ...
Stay without knobs / oil tubes ...
Much use this software to create learning materials later use in my classes ...
Many times I have thought that painting on the PC, not with real brushes, is like writing on a typewriter Underwood, vs pen with ink !!!

Me too. I feel guilty about having all these art supplies and having no interest in making such a mess. But they are just sitting as I work on the computer.
Even though I bought a bunch of odorless turpentine, it still has toxic vapors, only you cannot smell it (very much). I can still smell a little of it.
And when I used airbrush, the dust from the paint in the air always flew around the room settling on the furniture, stereos, and in my nose and lungs. I always had problems with my airbrush parts getting clogged, air compressors spitting condensation onto my painting, cutting friskets, and then there was the very costly price of art supplies, and having to buy, transport and store them.

Yes, I loved it and hated it all at the same time. I figured it was just part of the job, like fishermen had to deal with the sea, the weather, mending nets, keeping the fish fresh to market etc. All jobs have some price to pay, even if you love it.

That's a great analogy about writing with a pen versus with a typewriter.

----------

Yo también. Me siento culpable por tener todos estos materiales de arte y que no tiene interés en hacer un desastre. Pero ellos sólo están sentados como yo trabajo en el equipo.
A pesar de que me he comprado un montón de trementina inodora , todavía tiene vapores tóxicos , sólo que no puede oler ( mucho). Todavía puedo oler un poco de él.
Y cuando yo solía aerógrafo, el polvo de la pintura en el aire siempre voló alrededor del asentamiento en la de muebles , equipos de música , y en mi nariz y los pulmones . Siempre he tenido problemas con mis partes aerógrafo se obstruya , compresores de aire escupiendo condensación en mi pintura, corte friskets , y entonces no era el precio muy costoso de artículos de arte , y tener que comprar , transportar y almacenar.

Sí , me encantó y lo odiaba , todo al mismo tiempo. Pensé que era sólo una parte del trabajo, como los pescadores tuvieron que lidiar con el mar , el clima , arreglando redes , manteniendo el pescado fresco al mercado , etc. Todos los trabajos tienen algún precio a pagar , incluso si te encanta.

Eso es una gran analogía de escribir con una pluma en comparación con una máquina de escribir.

[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.

[gutmannludie]

I find digital artists still need to possess drawing and painting skills, as well as a deep understanding of color theory, composition, and artistic concepts. One more is painting digitally can be a valuable and convenient option, especially in situations where carrying traditional art supplies may be impractical or when you want to work on the go. Whether you choose to create art digitally or traditionally, both mediums offer unique experiences and possibilities.

[billymichael]

Valid point! Digital art creation includes much more than traditional painting. Perhaps a new term is needed to capture its unique complexity and tools.

[gill34051]

I use tools like ArtRage it seems like to refer to our work as a "painting" sort of misses the mark, and is a throwback reference to what is a simulated exercise. Digital image creation has so many more tools, and great complexity and the way you create color is as far removed from traditional painting as photography was when it was first created. Someone smarter than me should coin a new term for digital image creation, maybe they all ready have and I am just unaware of it. Does this strike any resonance with the rest of you? Anyway just my 2 cent observation of the day

[leslieestrada]

It is a way of connecting with your inner self. And more often than not, we remain surprised with what we see.

[artist_dubai]

This is an intriguing question and one that speaks to the heart of why art, in its traditional forms, continues to be relevant and cherished even in our digital age.

Painting, as an art form, is much more than a visual representation; it's a deeply personal journey and a form of expression that transcends time and technology. The act of painting engages us in a tactile and sensory experience that digital mediums cannot replicate. Each brush stroke carries with it the weight of emotion, the subtlety of thought, and the touch of humanity.

In a world increasingly dominated by screens and virtual interactions, painting remains a grounding and authentic practice. It connects us to the historical lineage of artists and storytellers who have used their canvases to capture the essence of their times, emotions, and surroundings.

Moreover, painting is therapeutic and meditative. It allows artists and viewers alike to slow down, reflect, and engage with a piece at a more intimate level. It's a form of communication that speaks in colors, textures, and forms, often conveying messages that words alone cannot.

So, why are we still painting? Because it's an irreplaceable facet of human expression that continues to evolve, inspire, and connect us in ways that nothing else can.

[leslieestrada]

As an artist I show my moods and emotion in the paintings, artworks