Digital artists - some lack of traditional art skill?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Strainger, thanks for the info. I had cruised a number of stereolithography sites - many of them offered a number of prototyping methods, including SLS and FDM. The part that gave me pause, and seemed relevant here, was something called “Stereolithography for Sculptors” - they did admit that the technololgy has a way to go, and that home use was certainly not right around the corner, but they did discuss the possibility of future use.

The primary current use you describe was actually very close to what I was researching - I have a friend who makes toys, and needed some 3D prototypes done quickly. Production models would be made from more appropriate materials, probably via injection molding.

It just made me think because I personally love to sculpt [sub] this is all about me, right? Right.[/sub] and, not being naturally all that gifted, I’ve had to fight to master technique. Probably always will. And all of a sudden my nitwit sister-in-law can produce “art” sculpture, if she is willing to pay the fees? The mind boggles. And Chas, I believe you that conventional methods are easier for a talented sculptor. Alas, I am a hack.

22

ChasE wrote:

Oh, this is so true, and SO wrong. One of my friends teaches ceramics at a major college in the L.A. area, where the students (majoring in Ceramics) are not taught about glazes, firing up a kiln, or how to throw on a potter’s wheel. The teachers (except for my friend) don’t want to influence the students with such technical stuff. My friend kind of “sneaks” information to the students about potter’s wheels and glazes and such. How insane is that? These are basic tools of the trade, why shouldn’t students know about them? Now, a lot of ceramists don’t use the potter’s wheel, but a lot of excellent ceramists DO, and to just eleminate that option from a college ceramics department is deplorable. A lot of these students are getting their degree so they can teach pottery. But who will hire a pottery teacher who doesn’t know how to throw on the potter’s wheel? (The answer is, in case you didn’t know, NO ONE.) It’s just insane.

Chas, thanks also for your input on the color books. I always liked this one color book (which I think it out of print) by Faber Birren. I’m sure there are PLENTY of other books out there that people can recommend!

Tygr, I’ll be dropping you an email, then! Thanks!

23

I think the computer is simply another medium. I don’t question that an artist can benefit from an educational background, but one can certainly be an effective artist without that background as well. A lot depends on what the artist is trying to achieve. There’s work I appreciate for it’s technical qualities, and work I appreciate on a more visceral level. The best work, IMHO, is that which appeals on both levels. I’ve seen very effective work which relies very little on schooled technique, and instead looks to the imagination as the source of it’s success. If I had to choose between technical ability and imagination, imagination wins hands down.

It depends a lot also on the reasons that an artist is choosing to create. Professional design work is more likely to require an art education than is work done solely to convey what’s on the artist’s mind.

It’s good to know how to use your tools. It’s not so good though if you allow a lack of experience or ability to keep you from trying to use them though.

24

seawitch, I can see a fringe group of artists embracing SLA for “sculpting.” However while the technology is impressive to me, artistically I have a much greater appreciation for traditional methods. Plus, regardless of how the technology grows, you’re still going to be limited by materials, size (especially with a “home model”), etc. This, of course, is my $0.02 and MHO. YMMV. XYZ PDQ.

Granted, I would have a significantly greater appreciation for an SLA sculpture rendered from a solid model created in a CAD package by the artist than I would for a sculpture rendered from a 3-D scan of an exisiting object.

25

Chas.E, after reading your last post, I would mostly agree with your opinions on art merits. And my condolences about your hand.
My reaction to your post was partly due to how many times I’ve heard other would-be artists bluff their way through a critique. “You see, the circle is me… and the line over there is, like, society… and I’m, like, resisting the pressure to blah, blah, blah…”
You know, the whole masquerading-lack-of-skill-for-high-concept-artier-than-thou B.S.

And to others concerns about mechanical means replacing conventional ones, I wouldn’t worry. There will always be a value placed on items hand-made vs mechanical means.
Both for the soul and uniqueness that comes from an actual human being creating the work.

26

As a computer artist myself, I really have to comment. I do computer art because when it comes to the hand drawn kind, I have the talent of your average moose. ( I really dont know how much artistic talent a moose has, its just the first animal that came to mind.) I LOVE art…I love creating…But I also know that without my programs and my computer, I would be unable to make anything of beauty. I use the computer and the programs because it is the only way I can make art. I admit it. I was hopeless in kindergargen…failed stick people 101. I am not ashamed of it, and I am never offended if someone says “man…you cant draw for shit.” It’s true. It is what I am. I am sure there are a lot of graphic artists out there who also have “real” artistic talent, I just dont happen to be one of em.

27

Tornado, there is more to artistic talent than drawing. I personally think it’s important, to ME. Some people draw, some don’t. (The main thing that gripes me is people who are too lazy to learn how to draw, but they still want to take credit for artwork that looks like they drew it, even though they didn’t.)

Have you studied design, and color? Do you feel confident in these areas? I think it is great that you are getting such enjoyment out of your computer, but I have a feeling that you have some artistic talent which you are not acknowledging. Or, if you need to educate yourself more in some artistic areas, do it! It’ll make your whole creative experience on the computer all the more fulfilling. It is always worth the effort.

28

Funny what side I am one- I am the one who refuses to throw pottery on an electic wheel!

I recently saw a segment on TV (or something like that…I don’t remember) that featured a person that used some sory of 3D printer to carve on wood. Most of his work that was shown was renderings of waveforms and other scientific phenomena. They were stunning and organic looking. I thought this was a beautiful comment on technology and nature. It showed artistic insight that I doubt your aunt would be able to produce with her home SLA machine.

Another thought that occured to me is that we see more bad digital art. Distribution for non-digital art is rather selective. It takes work to get a showing, and even more work to make sales. Digital art, on the other hand, is often easily distributed on the Internet, via self-publishing and free-for-all pages. In fact, bad art of all forms is easy to find on the Internet. I have read more bad Internet poetry than I have ever read in books. I have seen more bad films on the Internet than I have ever seen in theaters. But, along with easy distribution comes economic freedom, and I am willing to wade through the waste to find the occasional gem.

Perhaps as we see more digital art we will develop a better way of understanding it. Apparently the general public is still impressed by ultra-slick Bryce renderings, something which people exposed to digital art long ago grew bored of. As we see more digital art, the tricks and shortcuts that people use will become apparent, and we will see a general rise in quality.

Think back to the beginnings of film. At first people were impressed just by seeing moving images. It took them a while to figure out how to edit, frame and use the mise-en-scene (and other filmatic techniques) to create a deeper work of art. A film language that facilitates both understanding and critism has developed. I think that digital art is going through the same process.

I wonder what you would all say to my friend, a disenchanted lit major, that is now majoring in art. He is starting with little to no artistic skills, but is dutifully taking all the foundation classes, and enjoying (and learning from) them, despite his lack of inate talent in painting, sculpting, etc. He is, however, a phenonmenal digital artist. His whole life he has been expressing himself through his computer, and he is using his skills in exciting and skilled ways. I’ve seen him work for months on a single image, with wonderful results. Is he to be critisized because he found his medium and his medium is digital? Or is he okay because he is giving traditional methods a good shot? I don’t really know what to say to him myself, except for “good luck and go for it” because he is doing what he loves. I do cringe, however, every time he has to explain to his (drawing, sculpting, painting, etc.) teachers “Yes, I am an art major, but no, do not look agahst because I am doing digital art and I am honestly a lot better at that than I am this.”

29

I’ve seen A LOT of bad traditional art. Ever been to a local craft fair? Student or community art show? Oh my word. Often almost anyone can get in those things. And, there are plenty of “traditional” artists scanning their drawings and putting them on the web. Both traditional and digital amateur art is easy to find, on the web, and in real life.

I think the difference is that a BAD traditional artist will look REALLY BAD, because they don’t have as much hand-holding during the creation process. But an equally BAD digital artist can sometimes look a lot better, because of the slick software they use. You are right, though - the more people get used to the sameness of this certain slick interface, the tougher it will be to pass such work off as competent.

If he really is grasping basic things like color, line, design, then certainly not! The kind of “wannabe” artist I am talking about is someone who basically has no clue, is just “rasterbating” their way through, with the help of a slick software interface. Your friend is putting in the effort to educate himself, to expose himself to the core elements of art. Yeah, that means something. It deserves respect.

30

Tygr,

Have you heard of the American Institute of Graphic Arts?

http://www.aiga.com/

I am a professional graphic artist as well (though to use the word “art” to describe what I have done in my career could be really pushing it, depending on what your definition of “art” is), and I joined AIGA early in my career because I was the only artist at my place of employment and I wanted to be in contact with other people who were in the field. I found it very valuable to talk not only with people whose jobs were similar to mine (everyone does their stuff differently, it seems, and you can sure pick up tips for making your own stuff better), but to others whose jobs were quite different. “Graphic arts” seems to cover an awful broad spectrum.

It’s expensive to join AIGA, unfortunately, once you’ve been in the field awhile, and they don’t have chapters everywhere, but if you could get yourself invited to a meeting or two you might find it interesting in terms of learning about techniques you aren’t well versed in from the other members. If you like it, then you could consider paying to join.

I started off in the field before computers, and I’ve found them to be a blessing in a production environment. In the pre-computer days, changing something often involved doing the whole thing over. I also did a lot of technical and schematic drawings back then, and it’s reallllly nice to be able to make modifications using electrons instead of the rapidograph and the electric eraser …