PDA

View Full Version : Multi-image portrait


philwms
10-17-2003, 09:19 PM
MY IMAGE(S):
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/10-17-2003/6215_m_pass2a.jpg


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/upload_spool/10-17-2003/6215_m_pass2a.2.jpg


GENERAL INFORMATION:
Title: Multi-image portrait
Year Created: 2003
Medium: Digital
Surface: Paper
Dimension: 29.4
Allow digital alterations?: Yes!

MY COMMENTS:
Created using Photoshop - a combination of photo-manipulation and digital painting. The final piece is a print that is 29.4" x 55.5" in size, which is intended to be displayed in a frame under glass.

One of the images displayed should give an idea of the picture's size as it is photographed with me standing next to it.

MY QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP:
My questions have to do with the quality of the piece and the viability of digital artwork.

jerryW
10-17-2003, 11:19 PM
just back from a conference out of town
this is the first thing I have pulled up. prob 'cause the name is so intriguing

this kind of natural cubism is very appealing to me.

the tool used to create it puts it into a new category of art
still not 'clearly' differentiated from painting or photography, but someplace between, and certainly desireable and admirable - especially when exploring such interesting alternate realities.

the one with your head is very fun

giniaad
10-18-2003, 03:00 PM
personally...how an image is created is not as important
as the image itself...

interesting play between hands fingers arms
and wing feathers
(extended "lines" throughout)
good echoing of colors and forms

philwms
10-18-2003, 11:16 PM
Here is a link to a <a href="http://philwms.com/eza.m_pass2a/m_pass2a.1.jpg" target="_blank">larger view</a> and a few details.<br>
<p><a href="http://philwms.com/eza.m_pass2a/m_pass2a.01.jpg" target="_blank">Detail 1</a> ... <a href="http://philwms.com/eza.m_pass2a/m_pass2a.02.jpg" target="_blank">Detail 2</a> ... <a href="http://philwms.com/eza.m_pass2a/m_pass2a.02.1.jpg" target="_blank">Detail 3</a> <br>
<p>The picture is quite large, so the reduced image above doesn't really show it off very well.

philwms
10-22-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by giniaad
personally...how an image is created is not as important
as the image itself...


Even though you wrote, "personally," I'd like to add that it does seem to make a difference if you are a digital artist - which I am, 100%. No scanning of hand work... totally digital from initial sketches and layout through the final picture....

If your creative tool is a computer, there still seems to be a "not art" stigma attached to it for many art lovers. It is easing up a bit, but being 62, I'm rather late in the game... Here's hoping digital artwork is better recognized in the future - my future, which I'm figuring to be another 40 years... :)

Fess up, art lovers - do you think digital is legit?

ArtyHelen
10-22-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by philwms
Fess up, art lovers - do you think digital is legit?


Not as legit as the good-old fashioned way.

( Just my honest and very unimportant in the grand scheme of things opinion. :) )

Helen

philwms
10-22-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by ArtyHelen

Not as legit as the good-old fashioned way.


Yep... there it is, on the barrel-head.

But why? With any medium there are good artists and bad artists. Do all the bad digital artists negate the good ones.

Helen... Why do you feel digital art is not legit?

ArtyHelen
10-22-2003, 11:50 AM
I suppose it's because I feel that software gives you so many shortcuts, so many things to 'cheat' with...

And I seem to give myself a hard time doing everything the hard way, so I expect others to do the same. ;) :D

It doesn't seem 'honest' to me. I realise it's not fully rational, but it's the way I feel about it.

Yes, of course there are good and bad digital artists. But I think a lot of whether they're good or bad depends on how well they can use a mouse or a tablet pen or a program, etc... to me, that's computer skills, which automatically puts it in a different area from art.

And I say all this but also accept and acknowledge that SOME of the requirements for digital art (good eye, shape, colour, form etc) ARE the same for traditional and digital art.

But it's not 'pure art' to me in the way that paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc are.

Helen

philwms
10-22-2003, 01:02 PM
...and that, in a nutshell, is the feeling.

And it is irrational. For example, the same feelings revolved around acrylic paint when it was first introduced some decades ago. The traditionalists felt that somehow the acrylic paint did the painting.

Take it back a bunch of centuries, as absurd as this analogy may be. When brushes were first used to create art rather than fingers. Do you think those anciet traditionalists felt the same way about the introduction of a brush.

The problem with all traditionalists is that for the most part, they just don't know that much about the new medium. I've been using Photoshop as my creative tool for more than ten years... and I am still discovering new ways of using it. It is a humongous tool, a brilliant creative tool, and to dismiss it without knowing much about it is indeed irrational...

I struggle as much, perhaps even more, with this medium than I did with traditional mediums for 30 years prior to my discovery of the digital medium... :)

kiteless
10-22-2003, 01:25 PM
if you think digital art gives you a lot of shortcuts and "cheats" you really haven't used the tools out there. painter and photoshop are both very complicated to use, i've been using them for at least 10 years now, and i still don't know all the ins and outs. digital art is more complicated than things like collages and screenprinting, both of which were popular with many artists. those are considered "real art". it takes me much longer to put out something digital that looks nice, than one of my acrylics. i won't get into a debate about this, but its just a shame that there are so many folks out there like phil that do beautiful work, and people refuse to give it as much credit.

phil, i love this work, it is beautiful. doing this all digitally must have taken you forever. i love the wings and the hands-as-wings. there is alot of movement! what type of printer was this printed on?

TScottDove
10-22-2003, 01:37 PM
Back when getting my BFA in graphic design the first computer programs for graphic design were becoming available. I remember a discussion on how computers would effect design. Well we all know now that they are essential to a designer anymore - but the consensus then still holds true: If the designer understands and practices good fundamentals, then the computer is yet another available tool and a great aid. If the designer is merely (forgive the expression) a computer nerd with no knowledge of basic design, then the computer - with all it's wonderful functions - doesn't help. [Usually these pieces can be identified in that they contain every design element known to man - every bell and whistle and kitchen sink - screaming "look what I can do!"]

I think the above holds true for digital art as well. Just because the computer "can" doesn't mean it "should."

Likewise, I consider what the digital artist began with; did he take someone else's photo and just run some sort of filter on it to make it blurry or whatever? I'd less consider that art - or his art, but I can see arguments otherwise.

All that said - I like your piece a lot. It clearly exhibits your knowledge of composition, color, design AND the computer.

ArtyHelen
10-22-2003, 02:42 PM
When brushes were first used to create art rather than fingers. Do you think those anciet traditionalists felt the same way about the introduction of a brush.

But brushes don't do the bulk of the work for you in the way that software can. If you could watch a brush try to do what some programs can do at the touch of a key, you'd be watching it for an awfully long time...

I struggle as much, perhaps even more, with this medium than I did with traditional mediums for 30 years prior to my discovery of the digital medium...

That's one good thing then. ;) :D

But really I feel you're becoming more adept at using a computer than at making 'art'. I mean, if I spend years learning all about C++ and then make a brilliant program with it, is that art? No, it's creating a program (as opposed to an image file) on a machine... I feel you're displaying how far you can push software, rather than how far you can push yourself.

Helen

philwms
10-22-2003, 05:35 PM
Helen,

I don't want to sound rude, but you clearly are not understanding what you are writing... Using a computer to write a computer program as opposed to creating artwork is akin to using a brush to paint traffic lines on a road as opposed to painting a beautiful picture. There is nothing to compare. And as for your comment about what a brush can do... have you ever worked with a digital brush and tablet... Believe me there is a whole lot of skill involved in the control of that tool.

There is a world of beautiful artwork being created using the computer and its software as creative tools. There is also a lot more computer junk being created in the name of art... but, I must say the same holds true for people using traditional tools as well.

I guess, knowing both worlds, having graduated in the 60's from the PA ACA. of Fine Arts and the Grad School of Art at the U of PA, being an artist and portrait painter using oil paint for many years and then a digital painter for many years, I have a pretty good sense of the different media. As kiteless said above, for the sincere artist, the computer is not easy. The struggle is just as hard, but in very different ways... just as you approach a subject differently using water color as opposed to pastel, the same holds true for the computer - You approach the subject in the unique ways the tool has to offer, but the final output, assuming sincerity, is 100% artwork.

It is astounding to me that a person with your ability and obvious sensibilities can not see that. I think you must look at the work of a few bad digital artists and assume that all digital art is therefore bad... It just isn't so.

ArtyHelen
10-22-2003, 05:42 PM
... Using a computer to write a computer program as opposed to creating artwork is akin to using a brush to paint traffic lines on a road as opposed to painting a beautiful picture. There is nothing to compare.

The point I was trying to make is that the art doesn't actually tangibly exist until it's printed by yet another machine... (Just like software is non-existent without the computer to 'host' it.) There is therefore a big barrier between the artist's hand and the resulting piece of work. Art should be more 'hands on', IMHO. Yes, it's just another tool, but it's a tool that helps the artist so much that the work seems too far removed from him/her.

Helen

ArtyHelen
10-22-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by philwms
I think you must look at the work of a few bad digital artists and assume that all digital art is therefore bad... It just isn't so.

Not at all. I've seen some beautiful digital work. But I still find myself admiring the artist's computer skills more than his artistic skills... I find myself wondering how they would cope in oil, pastel, whatever... because I just can't accept a computer as a 'pure art' tool.

I suppose what I'm really saying, more than anything else, is that I don't think I could ever feel as moved by digital art as I do by some more traditional art. It seems a little... sterile? simply because of the way it was created.

Helen

Mikey
10-22-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by philwms


Even though you wrote, "personally," I'd like to add that it does seem to make a difference if you are a digital artist - which I am, 100%. No scanning of hand work... totally digital from initial sketches and layout through the final picture....

If your creative tool is a computer, there still seems to be a "not art" stigma attached to it for many art lovers. It is easing up a bit, but being 62, I'm rather late in the game... Here's hoping digital artwork is better recognized in the future - my future, which I'm figuring to be another 40 years... :)

Fess up, art lovers - do you think digital is legit?

Hi Phil,

I had been using the computer for graphic art commercially, but mostly just paint with brushes these days. It's going to be a matter of opinion, but since there is a good market for Giclees these days what's the problem. One argument is that the print cannot be an original, so Ok you sell more for less at a price people can pay. I guess things may be lot different in my town in the UK where they want something replaceable when the wallpaper is changed. It depends how you want to place your work. From what I've seen in Rugby, UK, digitally produced work is gaining momentum as fine art.

Mikey