Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: Real paint paint artists often disgust ArtRagers. Your experience?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Central Coast of California
    Posts
    30
    This is a tough nut to crack. I'm sure everyone had to be trained to regard digitally produced fine art as inferior, just as we have to be trained that digital photography is inferior to what? glass plates and silver solutions? Apparently, it falls under the realm of 'if it is available to the masses, it can't have much value'. I too, used to sneer at digital artwork as well, as a 'cheat', which I'm sure is the initial reaction of most of the 'just looking' public and other 'real' artists. Of course it's acceptable and expected in movies and entertainment as CGI, but NOT for something to be hung in one's home and especially not for a museum. So my solution to that is to create my artwork in ArtRage and then employ some Chinese knock-off sweatshop to recreate it in oils upon request, but to fully disclose the process to the buyer in the purchase order. That way, the art patron is then participating in the process. As far as other 'true' artists go, have them check themselves against the artists at Cennini Forums and see if they really measure up. They may be shocked at what constitutes 'professional artist' from 'real artist'. I know I did. And have them view the video of David Kassan painting on his ipad. It all takes time to accept the new, but there is no way any 'real' painter is going to revert to grinding their own pigments or raise and butcher rabbits for rabbit skin glue and other 'real' materials. (Does ranting count as performance art?) Just smile and thank them for their opinion and say at least you never worry about having to dispose toxic materials from your studio.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Prineville Oregon
    Posts
    6,177
    Twagger.. you always start the most interesting dialogs!!!... I too started with digtal work way back when pixels were pixels and I kind of liked that "mosiac" quality .. at that time there was no way to print in color.. shortly afterwards came the inkjet printers at a price point a person could afford.. so you could print 8.5 x 11 ...LOL.. I was thrilled when I could but a printer to do 11x17".. but I agree that the painting software has chased a long way down the trail to emulate natural media and they have done a good job.. but there are also strictly digital effect they could develop further.. maybe they will.. I like to print on paper, and canvas sometimes but a digital print emulating oil and printed on canvas to me is not as satisfying as a digital print printed on a fine archival paper. (I must be a closet printmaker at heart )..anway thanks for this thread and very thought provoking it is.

    ps.. one area that I wish raster art programs would pursue is the vector tools.( or simulations). AR is unique ( as far as I know ) in their ability to smooth the pencil and ink pen.. that alone was a selling point to me...that would be the kind of direction I would love to see embraced..
    Last edited by gxhpainter2; 07-26-2012 at 06:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •