Digital artists - some lack of traditional art skill?

In My Humble Opinion
1

This has been brewing in my feverish little brain for a while, and today I saw something that prompted me to start this thread. A bit of this is a mild rant, but mostly, I am putting my finger in the air and asking for more information on this topic.

Today I saw a Bryce artist’s very lovely site today. (Bryce is a 3D graphics program.) Very nice, until I got to their “drawing” section. Truly dreadful, amateurish, awkward drawings showing almost no recognizable artistic skill. They must like and want to draw, or else they’d have never put in the effort, or put the drawings up on their site. But they have so far to go in that area! They need intensive classes, practice and study! And I get this impression that they are so pleased and contented with their Bryce work that they may not feel the need to ever study other art techniques so intently. They may feel that they’ve already “arrived” as an artist.

Do people still want to learn how to draw and paint anymore? I know some do, I’m sorta being facetous. But since I started getting into digital art (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) I have discovered that the possession of traditional art skills are not a given anymore. I frequent some graphics/digital art message boards, and discover that a lot of graphics “whiz kids” have never learned the nuts-and-bolts art skills. For instance, my 18 year old nephew is a Bryce whiz kid, and wants to get into graphics professionally. I think he’s pretty good at rendering space ships, and making landscapes with his 3D software. But he’s having trouble with color, and I find that he doesn’t know ANYTHING about color theory, not even what a color wheel is! And he doesn’t seem desperately keen to educate himself at this time. He thinks he’ll “learn as he goes along”.

Also, I am treated with some astonishment because I actually know how to DRAW, and I don’t have to copy or trace every image I create. Now, I know there are plenty of artists like me, I am not that remarkable of an artist. And I know that there are digital artists out there who do know all the traditional skills, and that the drawing classes and color classes in colleges everywhere are still getting plenty of students. But I am getting the impression that with the help of some of this “rendering” software (“Poser”, “Bryce”) that some people can create rather sophisticated looking artwork, without any real artistic skill to back it up. And while they may feel really great about what they do now, depending on where they want to go in the future, they may end up regretting never learning the basics. I know that sometimes you can get pretty far being “self taught”, but if someone doesn’t even know what skills they are lacking, or where to look for help, I think they’ll end up regretting it later.

Am I wrong? Am I out of the loop? (I probably am.) I went to art school before Photoshop, so certainly I’m out of the loop about the current trends. I feel like I am just now starting to catch up with what’s going on. So, what is your opinion about this? I personally think that some of this software is really nifty, but I don’t think I’d ever enjoy using software that does the rendering or drawing for me. And I don’t think a software program can ever replicate what a human being can express with their own understanding of line, and color, and pen to paper (or, digital tablet… :D)

2

I consider myslelf a bit of a digital artist (moslty digital photography) so maybe I can help…

It is true that there is a lot of amatureish and bad digital art out there. There is a lot of amatureish and bad conventional art, as well.

But you can’t really blame the technology. Almost all art is, in some way, technology. For example, I have heard many conventional photographers rail against digital photography. They say it does not involve the same skilled traditions they have been using. They claim that digital photographers do not produce “real” art. Yet, conventional photographers are alowed to use every tweak of chemical and whatever to their advantage. What is the difference between tweaking chemicals and tweaking pixels. One may be easier than the other, sure. Just like taking a picture is easier than painting a realistic painting. Photography is just another technology.

3

Well, count me in for being primarily a “digital artist” if only due to the fact that nearly everything I do eventually involves Photoshop nowadays.

Truth of the matter is that I’m an “OK” painter. But I’m a better digital artist.
Color never was my strong suit. As a painter, I tended towards really bright, almost garish color schemes. When I muted them, they just seemed muddy and lifeless.
With photoshop, my work has a much more sophisticated color pallette. I feel more in control of the finished piece.

That said, my linework is nearly almost done by hand in more traditional media, then scanned in. I just enjoy drawing on paper too much, though I have had some luck in using just the stylus.

I do agree with you for the most part though.
It’s took me 8 years of college and 4 years of professional work to get where I am as an artist. There’s no real shortcut for that sort of experience.

For example, it’s gotten to the point where it’s relatively easy to make a web site. Millions of people have made them. But how many of them are really well done? And how many of those are really innovative? Very few.
Same goes for music. Any moron can push a button on a drum machine, but few can really turn that into something beautiful or original, though many try.

As the old cliche goes: the proof is in the pudding. If these kids are lousy artists, it’ll eventually show. Despite all the tricks they’ll try to cover their lack of ability, they’re gonna end up with some pretty crappy pudding.

With the rare exception of some folk artists, lack of training and know-how always shows.

4

There is an old saying in the computer trade, “buying a great word processor won’t make you a Great American Novelist.” Good artists are good regardless of what medium they use. It is easier to turn a good artist into a good computer user, than to turn a computer expert into a good artist.
The problem with computer graphics is that they allow people a level of polish and perfection that would have been impossible to achieve without years of traditional arts training. The amateur CG artist knows HOW to make images, but does not have any knowledge about WHY to make images in any particular manner. This is why untrained CG users are sometimes called “rasterbators.” They randomly try effect after effect, picking ones they like and undoing the ones they don’t. Any success is achieved solely at random. A skilled, trained artist knows the effect they want to achieve and sets out to create it.
But in today’s world, the quality of an artwork is not determined necessarily by the skill of the artist in executing their works in any particular medium, nor is it a matter of the skill in which an artist can “faithfully” render a pictorial representation of an object, it is the quality of IDEAS in the work that is the primary factor. I am a good example. IMHO I am a pretty good painter, I paint abstract non-objective works, but if I tried to paint your portrait, you’d probably be horrified at the results. I’ve worked in computer graphics for many years, but if I want to make an image, I prefer paint and brush. I make my living, in part, with Photoshop, but I haven’t used it to make anything related to my own personal artwork for probably 4 years. Sometimes it is the limitations of a medium, and how we work to surpass them, that make it attractive.

5

This is the classic self-delusion of digital artists. You feel like you have more control because you are working in a more limited range of color, RGB or CMYK. Didn’t anyone ever teach you how to mix colors on a pallette? Didn’t you ever learn color theory?
Computer graphics are too easy, it deludes people into mistaking easy results for success. Progress in any artistic medium comes from pushing against it’s limitations. In Photoshop, in some areas there are no limits to push against, and you can wander endlessly and make no progress. In other areas, it is too limited and there is no workaround.

6

even sven, seriousart, ChasE, thanks for your input!

We are always finding new technologies to help us do what we want. For instance, the electric potter’s wheel, the sewing machine. Some “purists” won’t use specific gadgets on the potter’s wheel (I’m one of them!) and some people feel like a hand-stiched quilt is better than a machine stiched one. And I think such purism has its place, but I don’t think we should get too anal about that. However, if an “artist” gets to the point where they don’t even know which colors to pick for a color scheme, or know what design to use, (but let the software or gadget hold their hand through the process) then I think they’re missing out, Big Time.

And ChasE, you are so right about an artist knowing why to choose a particular step, whereas the “rasterbator” (I’ll have to remember that one!) just stumbles through. I think that’s the crux of it.

I do think that good artists come in all forms, and I definitely don’t think that all “real” artists should be able to draw and paint. If they don’t intend to do anything remotely representational, no real need to learn how to draw! (But being exposed to the skill is certainly not a bad idea! And personally, I really think that if an artist is sincerely dedicated, they should at least take one drawing class!) Basically, I believe that all artists should have some grasp of design, color (if they are going to use color) and so forth.

7

My SO is a highly trained artists who studied under some very talented people. She is starting to show decent improvement in using the computer to create art, but is still far better using paint, pencil, etc.

I am horrible at using the traditional methods. I find it difficult to draw a passable circle.

On the other hand, I am well-versed in color theory, and usually have a very detailed idea of what I’m trying to create. I do sometimes make changes to the image in the middle of the process, but how is that different than an artist that adds a touch of blue to part of a cloud that they wish to make “whiter”, or even starting over with a cleaned canvas?

I’ve always understood that art was an idea, emotion, feeling, etc., that was presented for: expression, communication, or interpretation. It can also be any combination of the above.

Purely as a fan, I usually prefer to look at those pieces created traditionally, but I still consider what comes off of a printer to be art.

8

I was thinking a little more about your statement, and I think there is a difference between an amateur digital artist, and an amateur tradtional artist. Usually, an amateur traditional artist is going to deal with mixing paints, drawing freehand, learning how to render with a pencil or brush, and choosing the subject matter and representing it with pencil or brush. (However, some amateur artists merely trace everything, which is a rant I will get to later.) But usually, they are more “hands on” in their art, and have to deal with the more traditional nuts-and-bolts skills of art. And, their efforts are not hidden behind the slick interface of a software program - traditional art techniques are far less forgiving than digital art. (Which is something I love, and hate at times!)

By contrast, an amateur digital artist can do the “rasterbator” thing, (thanks Chas.E!) randomly picking this and that effect, until they get something they like. Because the digital art program does so much of the rendering and effects for them, they can eventually come up with a passable, slick-looking image without the same amount of effort and conscious decision-making that a traditional artist (even a bad traditional artist) has to do. The digital program does some of the “hand holding” for them in creating the image, and that’s not so much the case with a traditional amateur artist.

And getting to my small tracing rant: (pardon the hijack, but it’s somewhat related.) This has been something that has griped me for a while. If a person is not interested in creating traditional, representational art, I can concede that honing their drawing skills should not be a big deal. I still think most artists should be at least exposed to drawing, but art comes in many forms, and not all of it is about drawing. But what I can’t figure out is that when a person wants to create a representational, rendered image, but doesn’t want to learn the skill necessary to actually DO IT THEMSELVES. They trace photographs, and then pass that off as their own work. It’s just lazy. And sooner or later, they reach a brick wall, because eventually someone will expect them to draw from life, (which they can’t do, since you can’t trace from life). Or, they’ll be expected to “tweak” an image freehand, which, once again, they can’t do, since you can’t “tweak” anything if you can’t draw freehand.

I think this artistic mentality is still alive and well today, sadly, and has manifested itself in many areas.

There, end of small rant!

DMC:

Sure, I do too. I have taken a long time to do some of my drawings in Photoshop and Illustrator, and they sure are “art” to me, dammit!

9

Professional computer graphic designer checking in.

Excellent points have been made here, although this thread has served to increse my own insecurity about my skills…

So help me out!

I’ve got certification in computer graphic design, but no art training. I know enough to make a living, but I get the feeling that there’s a vast field of knowledge out there that would greatly help my artistic endeavors, not to mention make my design efforts be more artistic. What should I do? I’ve neither the monetary nor the time resources to invest in a four-year Fine Arts or Design degree. What else is open to me? Intro to Art classes at the community college? I’ve got a slight familiarity with color theory (can’t really be a full Photoshop professional without it), but would a CC art course give me the depth of knowledge I need?

I’ve been dabbling in 3D modelling for the past several years. Discovered I was interested in it when I found RayDream on my machine in my first design job out of school. I don’t know how other, more heavyweight 3D apps do their rendering, but RayDream’s modelling space is actually set up like a photo studio - you have to place lights and render through a virtual camera. However I reached a point where I knew I’d have to learn some things on my own, since I knew nothing about how a real (non-point-and-shoot) camera works. Depth of field? What’s that? So I am planning on taking a photography course, hopefully one that covers black and white and color photography as well as developing.

So tell me, what is it that I don’t know that I don’t know?!? …or rather, where is the best place to learn?

10

Tygr, if you’re good enough to make a living, you obviously have a lot talent going for you! I would love to converse with you sometime about being a professional graphic artist, since I am trying to make the transition from traditional art to digital art. I’m sure you would have lots of good advice for me!

As far as your request for help in educating yourself with more art training, I think a good start is books. Books books books. Classes are good too, and I’m sure others will have excellent advice for you, but start with books. You can’t go wrong with books!

“The Elements of Color”** by Johannes Itten, Faber Birren
The color theory book I used in art school. A classic. Other books by Faber Birren, Itten (and also Josef Albers) are also worth looking into.

Amazon is being damned slow so I won’t give you a link, but for basic drawing, I always recommend Betty Edwards’ “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain”.

I can’t think of other books right now, but I know that other Dopers will come up with some great ones!

11

Silly Chas.E. YES I have taken color theory, and YES I have been taught how to mix colors on a pallette. I also have studied abstract art AND realism. My point of my previous post was that I found I could explore a far greater number of color solutions/ variations more quickly and with less frustration in Photoshop than I could ever using traditional means. In fact, I believe that my experience with Photoshop has actually improved my color sensibilities in my painting.

To which I could ask you: Didn’t anyone ever teach you how to render? Didn’t anyone ever teach you figure drawing? And to your argument:

I would have to disagree. Can a simple representational portrait not be a great work of art? Is a still life not as meritable as an abstract work with lofty ideas behind it?
Not that I don’t appreciate more conceptual work, just after many years of art school, both as a teacher and a student, I’ve come to realize that often good intentions in artwork are unintentionally made into something really quite ugly. And this includes all forms of artwork from super realism to abstraction and even performance art.
There are many, many criteria to which artwork can be judged and to place greater importance on a solitary factor seems foolish and short sighted. As a well crafted portrait can be boring and lifeless, a conceptual abstract work can be a trite eyesore with no relevance except to the artist.

(sorry for the cranky hijack)

12

Funny how dopers seem to know what I’ve been thinking. As much as I’m unsure about digital art, here’s something that really floored me - stereolithography. Have any of you seen this yet? This is a fascinating technology. Basically, it takes a 3D rendering - any CAD software will work - slices the image, then prints each slice. The printer itself generally uses a waxlike substance, or a photopolymer, and uses inkjet-style printing to build up successive layers. The end result is a three dimensional solid object. Currently the machine is very expensive, and is used primarily for prototyping, though there are already discussions about home use (order something online, pay, download the file, and have it pop out of the printer). How Jetsons is that?

Here’s where I start to squint a little. One of the current uses is by sculptors. Forget digital 2D art - now you can scan in a picture, translate it to 3D, make any adjustments you want, and print a solid object. Without ever touching clay, granite, plaster, or any other sculpting medium. It may be just my view, since I tend to work in 3D when I do artwork (up to my elbows in Roma Plastilina #3), but this seems even more divorced from artistic technique than the digital drawing is.

Is the agony I spend in getting skin texture on a sculpted bust useless? Is it still artwork if I just select the appropriate texture from a pull-down menu? Will hand-made items be rarer and more meaningful, or just crude approximations of the artist’s vision, devalued by flaws?

13

I think we’re running into the argument of “what is art?” While there is a definition for art, there isn’t general agreement of what is “real” art and what isn’t.

When photography was invented, many artists said that photography wasn’t art. It took no skill to make an image, so where was the expression, the soul? But all you have to do is compare your vacation snap shots to an Ansel Adams photo and you can tell the difference.

Digital art is no different. There are pieces that are art, and pieces that are simply images. Just being able to make an image doesn’t mean you’ve made art. But at the same time, it doesn’t mean all digital images are not art.

I’ve seen a surrealist/abstract painting of blue spheres hovering over a glowing green background. It was expressive, emotive, and beautiful. The same image, done in a ray tracer, would take five minutes and be largely ignorable. Why? Simply because it’s easy? Or is it because those kinds of images are a dime a dozen in that medium? Does it violate our current “tradition of the new”?

I’m always amused by some of the great masters’ paintings. They were photorealistic paid portraits. Commercial photorealistic portraiture done today is rarely considered fine art. Weird, isn’t it? Was it the advent of the camera that did that?

It all brings us back to the same question; What is Art? I have no answer.

14

blush Gawrsh…

<Self-deprecating comment made 'cause I don’t know how to take a compliment> Naw, I’ve just got 'em well fooled…</self-deprecating comment>

Drop me a line via e-mail. I’d be happy to toss my swine before your pearls. (See, there I go again.)

So, if I understand it, you think I should look for some books? :wink:

Actually, the one you suggested sounds like an excellent place to start. If it’s good enough to teach from I might learn something if I’m not careful.

Y’know I’ve thumbed through this one at the bookstore - always looked like something I should own. Well, no present like the time…

But this reminds me of something I’d forgotten until just now. My very first project in design school was to sketch a still life object, scan in our sketch and use the scan as a bkgrd. template while drawing it in Freehand! Sink-or-swim, learn as you go approach to learning vector-based drawing techniques did the trick for me! And I still get complimented on my resulting piece - people think I rendered it in a 3D program.

(BTW - the object I chose to sketch was my roommate’s laptop, in the open position. It was a real bear drawing all those individual keyboard keys, both in the sketch and in Freehand. But my instructor insisted that all our projects have a real-world application - no bowls of fruit.)

So, I guess that at one time I did have a little illustration aptitude. I’ve just been doing text layout stuff for so long that I’d forgotten I’d done it before. Methinks I’d best find something to draw quickly before the right side of MY brain withers from lack of use. (Yeah, yeah, I can hear y’all now: “What, it hasn’t already?” - Wiseacres. :stuck_out_tongue: )
seawitch that really sounds fascinating, but I don’t think that will reduce the value of hand-made sculpture, anymore than photography has de-valued hand-painted art. Actually, IIRC, many painters moaned and wailed when photography was invented, certain that no-one would want their work any more. There will always be appreciation for things made from a person’s own hands.

15

Warning: Extensive, probably rambling, hijack in response to seawitch’s post coming up. Note to moderators: My links are not intended as an advertisement, but merely to further illustrate my post. It is my (admitedly biased) opinion that our webmaster did a good, thorough job on these pages. If, however, you find the links to be inappropriate, I’ll understand

seawitch, you mention stereolithography, but it sounds like you’re talking about 3-D printing, where a plastic thread is heated and extruded through an injector to build up a model layer by layer. It’s very similar to Fused Deposition Modeling. This is the one that’s most likely to end up in people’s homes first. However, this provides no substitute for sculpting. You have a limited choice of colors (white), although I you can paint the model. The big problems I see are the resolution and durability of the final product. The layers are quite evident in a 3-D printer rendering, not something that would be acceptable in a work of art, in my opinion. The models also break apart fairly easily, normally fracturing between the layers. The material is much weaker and flimsy than clay, stone, wood, etc. The target market for the 3-D printer is companies who do a lot of 3-D visualization of designs, e.g. to determine if a component will fit in an assembly, show and tell at a design review, enhancement of communication between team members. The only home use I see would be for, say, a small industrial design business being run out of the home, where the business owner would use it to aid in the creation of 3-D models for customer presentations.

This provides an excellent description of stereolithography (SLA–no I don’t know what the ‘A’ stands for). I can’t imagine it being used in the home; it’s way too expensive and could also result in a mess if you spill the resin. Also, you would have to keep the machine away from ultraviolet light (i.e. in a room with no windows and lit by a yellow light bulb). The resulting product has a much finer finish than the 3-D printing and is much more durable. It’s also better with small features, such as cooling holes in a turbine blade. But, besides the expense and potential messiness, the artist would also have a limited number of colors (goldish-brownish) and the layers, while much finer, are still visible.

We have actually done a Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) model for an art professor. I’m not sure what the end use for his model was. If I had to choose the best 3-D rendering system for creating works of art, this would be it. However, the expense of the machine, combined with the expense of the materials, makes this possibility of this unfeasible. Aesthetically speaking, most models created with the SLS machine have a grainy texture because of the powdery material used; the finish isn’t quite as fine as with SLA. We do have a number of “artsy” SLS models around here, but they exist mostly to show off the capabilities of the system.

(BTW, thanks for the book recommendation, yosimitebabe. I’ll have to check it out.)

16

skipping the laborious quote stuff… sorry…

>Silly Chas.E. YES I have taken color theory, and YES I have
>been taught how to mix colors on a pallette. I also have
>studied abstract art AND realism. My point of my previous
>post was that I found I could explore a far greater number
>of color solutions/ variations more quickly and with less
>frustration in Photoshop than I could ever using traditional
>means.

If that’s so, you just haven’t learned how to work a pallette. I can put two dabs of paint on a pallette, and with two smears of a pallette knife, make a greater range of colors more easily than in Photoshop.
This really is a fundamental issue, you can study color theory all you want but until you see someone mix colors properly, it is very hard to get under control. And for years, it has been a policy of most art schools to not teach fundamental techniques so as not to “contaminate” students with the biases of their teachers, and allow them to discover techniques on their own. Fortunately this is changing.
I’ve seen this problem endlessly. If you look at most entry-level college oil painting classes, even the students that have previously studied color theory tend to make all their colors muddy and brown, or else they use them right out of the tubes and they are garish. Most students don’t get their pallete under control until they’ve done about 2 years of classroom work. Despite my own expertise in Photoshop color correction (my former job) and color photography (developing and printing, not just taking pictures), as well as intensive color theory studies, I struggled with controlling my pallette for about a year in painting classes, and then I mentioned my problems to a visiting painter and he said, “oh really, didn’t anyone ever tell you blah blah blah…” and mixed a couple of colors on my pallette. My color control problems were solved in about 30 seconds. Shortly after that experience, I shocked my painting teacher by making a flip pronouncement that “all the problems of painting are solved at the tip of the brush.” She’s gone around repeating my statement for years now, I guess I hit some fundamental truth by accident. It’s true. You have to work at it to get results. If you didn’t get your color pallette under control, you just gave up before you got it under control.
Someone mentioned Itten and I like his works, but his theories are absolutely destructive to your color control abilities if you encounter him before more traditional methods. I still think Albers is the best, but his theories are the hardest to study. The best discussions of color theory (ironically, in books printed entirely without color) are by Rudolph Arnheim, books like “Art and Visual Perception.” His books go through the toughest concepts like “subsidiary tertiaries” (!!?!) in a fairly clear form.

>To which I could ask you: Didn’t anyone ever teach you how
>to render? Didn’t anyone ever teach you figure drawing?

Of course they did, drawing was even my minor concentration in my BFA. I just that the fingers on my right hand are a bit mangled due to an accident and due to the loss of dexterity, I’ll never have the facility that some artists do. Fortunately, “la patte” is no longer the determining factor in the quality of artistic expression.

>Can a simple representational portrait not be a great work
>of art? Is a still life not as meritable as an abstract work
>with lofty ideas behind it?

There is nothing “simple” about representationalism. All art is abstraction, even the strictest representational work is 100% abstract. It is merely the level of ideas carried in that abstraction that makes the final work live or die. Go compare a work by Caravaggio to one by Lucian Freud. Both of them are representational, but both have serious attention to the abstract issues involved in the abstract ideas behind HOW they represent the subject.

>There are many, many criteria to which artwork can be judged
>and to place greater importance on a solitary factor seems
>foolish and short sighted.

I didn’t sale SOLE factor, I said PRIMARY factor. But in some cases, it can be the sole factor. It is not even necessary to use ANY tools to create art, not even a paper and pencil, as long as the IDEAS are good.

17

I will make a statement that is usually used by artists as the ultimate putdown, but not as I am about to use it:

It’s been done.

In the late 1980s, David Hockney did a series of stereolith sculptures that were produced through one of the great ateliers, Gemini GEL. The resultant artworks were so fragile and the finish was so poor that the whole series was destroyed. Stereolith has not advanced that much since then. The sculptural properties that sculptors seek are not available in that medium. Maybe it would make a good model for subsequent castings (this is the conventional use for stereolith) but I haven’t seen anyone do this yet. It’s easier for a good sculptor to use traditional methods.

18

So true. I have a friend from college who is a professional graphic artist. He does mostly CG web stuff with Photoshop or similar tools. The thing is, he knew how to paint and draw using traditional medium before he got into the CG stuff.

You can teach someone how to use all the tools Photoshop offers, but if they have no sense of style, color, perspective, or composition, they wont create jack $hit. Just like you can teach someone watercolor techniques but that doesn’t mean they can create a work of art.

My biggest complaint about using tools like Photoshop or Bryce is that the drawings can sometimes end up looking too polished. A lot of the work I’ve seen seems to lack depth or character. Its like “insert mountain here”, “add perfectly rendered sphere there”. It LOOKS computer generated.

I’ve also seen some very visually impressive stuff done with computers as well.

While I’m thinking about it, does anyone know any good web sites with fairly advanced Photoshop tutorials?

19

oops, let me clarify that last post… The stereolith results were so poor that Hockney made the decision to destroy the series.

20

Absolutely. When I get into this sort of argument, I usually trot out one of my old art books, and show a certain Rembrandt portrait. The sitter is wearing a gaudy, jeweled necklace and it appears that each jewel is rendered in microscopic detail, and they practically jump off the canvas at you. But my book has an extreme enlargement of each jewel. They are just a single splot of paint from the tip of a large round brush. Ha!