PDA

View Full Version : Using Tubes- Still painting or cheating?


gigih
03-06-2006, 11:59 AM
I'm pretty new to digital art. I was having a discussion with someone about using tubes, they said it was cheating, like cutting out pictures and using them. I said many collage artists use pictures and the tubes are simply a shortcut. Any thoughts out there. I would never dream of replacing all original work with tubes, but a blend of both seems ok to me. here are a couple of examples using painting techniques and tubes together. What do you think?
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/06-Mar-2006/71803-gorilla.jpg Gorilla (only tube used was the actual gorilla itself),
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/06-Mar-2006/71803-sleepyswamp.jpg Sleepy Swamp (tubes used for butterflies)

Skinny
03-06-2006, 01:42 PM
Works for me! I don't really care how an artist gets to their end result...I just want to enjoy that work. Tubes are only a problem -- to me -- whenthey scream "stamped".

Chiers
03-06-2006, 02:25 PM
It isn't a matter of "cheating". But it isn't "Painting"! There is nothing wrong with using tubes, filters, effects, etc, but when you are using them you are not painting. The only time using such methods might be considered "cheating" is if you use them, then claim to have painted whatever the product you got from them. And then the proper term still wouldn't really be cheating, it would be dishonest.

Kristen, as a learning artist do you really not want to know how other artists achieved the final product? Especially if you really like it and want to learn how to do the same yourself. When I see artwork I really admire, I would love to know every single step and even more love to see with my own eyes exactly how it came about. Thats how I learn, along with practicing myself of course.

In my opinion, the better question might be why are people so hesitant to admit to using the above mentioned methods? What is so hard about saying I used a tube or I used a filter? It doesn't take any longer to say that, than to say I painted this. I just don't get it. Many programs come with some very cool, and useful stamps/tubes/pictures etc. There are times I do use them. But when I do if I went around saying "I painted that" I would be a fake, and a liar. That I think is why digital painting is often discredited among other artists.

Skinny
03-06-2006, 06:05 PM
Sherry....I am interested in how something was done as a fellow artist. Many times I've asked a fellow artist to tell me how he or she did something. All I'm trying to say is that what matters to me is the final product.

Many of us have made "tubes". How many times have I heard someone working in PSP say, "Yes, it did turn out well...think I'll tube it."

For a long time now, I've had a Painter file on my computer in which I tried to paint water droplets streaming down a window during a storm......nothing else. I'm waiting for inspiration as to what the rest of the view out that window should be.

No doubt, I'll one day look at one of my paintings and think, "Now wouldn't that be interesting if seen across a drippy window. I'll call up that file, copy the layer and try it on top of my painting.

Perhaps I'll even find it useful a second time. I'll call it up, maybe rotate it horizontally...resize some of the droplets...move others, etc. DOES THAT MAKE IT A "TUBE"?

If I have a hundred rocks to paint, I start by painting a rock surface. I may spend hours trying to get that surface just right. Then, I'll vector select bits of the texture, copy and adjust my rock to suit....are my rocks a "tube"?

What I know, is that I am a DIGITAL artist. I don't work like a traditional artist.

beautifulfreak
03-06-2006, 06:19 PM
The only problem with using third party tubes(ones you did not make yourself) is you never know if you have the legal right to use the images used in the tube. I see many people grabbing images from off the web and making tubes and then offering them up for free downloads on their website or in forums. Remember everytime you use someone else image(be it a tube used in your image or their image alone) without their expressed permission and post your work online, it is considered publishing and is a clear copyright violation. Making your own tube from your own image is no different than copy and pasting. Even the great masters recreated parts of own images over and over again in different works.

Elvira
03-06-2006, 06:48 PM
In Painter they are called nozzels. LOL And I get a bit tired of the idea that if I don't create and idea from nothing it may be called cheating, art is often the elevating of the mundane to an other level of existance. I have come to the decision that the only thing I will call a painting are the ones I actually use my pigment paint and brushes on, my digital images I call only image or pictures because I want the freedom to use the tools at hand to express my ideas without having to explain every little nit pick. Here where I am the chance of selling a digital print is far to expensive to eve consider, any way.
Edie

Skinny
03-06-2006, 06:51 PM
You make a good point, Beautifulfreak. It never even occurred to me to "tube" someone else's work! Unless the tube image is legally your's, it CAN'T be used.

jhercilia
03-06-2006, 11:16 PM
With or without tubes, you did great! I love the environment on both. Good work!

Chiers
03-07-2006, 04:12 AM
Sherry....I am interested in how something was done as a fellow artist. Many times I've asked a fellow artist to tell me how he or she did something. All I'm trying to say is that what matters to me is the final product.
Yes, I get that. The title question of this thread though is "painting or cheating". and that is the specific question I was addressing. As far as where the tubes come from...if you create your own or are they someone elses, etc can be broken down ad infinitum and will only serve to confuse the issue more. I could be wrong but when the "cheating" accusation comes in it's usually in reference to the tubes/nozzles etc that come with programs or are made for programs by other people.

What I know, is that I am a DIGITAL artist. I don't work like a traditional artist.
One is not necessarily exclusive of the other. I am a traditional artist, and a digital artist who works digitally with the same methods I use traditionally.
And there are digital artists who know nothing of traditional art and don't use traditional methods.

I have come to the decision that the only thing I will call a painting are the ones I actually use my pigment paint and brushes on,
Probably a good idea for you if you don't want to mention the use of filters/etc. I would not even consider posting a digital painting in a medium specific forum and just call it a painting. And if I use a tube in a digital painting it does not bother me in the least to say I used a tube, any more than if I did a traditional watercolor to reveal I may have added pastel, or ink to it. The point being, among artists, at an art site, those are the normal kinds of things we share. It is only in the digital art area that it seems to bother people so much to do so.:confused: What are we doing here if not to get inspired, learn, and grow in our art. And that is the reason to share what we do and it can be done quite simply without nit picking details.

The general population, well thats something else all together. Most won't care, or ask.



At any rate...this is at least the millionth time such a discussion has come up, and I am sure many more to follow...:D

Yako
03-07-2006, 05:31 AM
It's a pitty the images are so small, i would have liked to see more details! What a great aid is the tube (or nozzle), it spares a lot of time doing details like grass and folliage!:)

Jin
03-07-2006, 07:39 AM
gigih,

You're right that artists often use existing images to create collages. Sometimes they paint those images themselves or if the images are photo based, they shoot the photos themselves and all of the work is that artist's from start to finish.

It's also true that (I'll refer to Painter's Nozzles of which I understand PSP Tubes are the equivalent), Corel Painter artists sometimes paint their own Nozzle images to be used with the Image Hose brush variants to paint parts of a painting that may include painting with brush variants from other brush categories.

How could the final piece not be painting if the Nozzle images used to paint with Painter's Image Hose were painted by the same artist who does the painting?

It's that artist's painting from start to finish.

Using Tubes or Nozzles is not cheating whether or not the artist painted the Tube images or Nozzle images themselves. It's just using one of the tools provided by the program, PSP or Painter, and that's the artist's choice entirely.

Last but not least, I think you've created some lovely images. I like the second one especially. The composition is nice, and the colors are lovely.


On other related subjects brought up in this thread:

Anyone who thinks they're using traditional methods when creating digital art is forgetting something pretty obvious.

Digital art, at best, is a simulation of traditional art and no matter how much we attempt to mimic the methods used in traditional media, we're only simulating them by using the tools digital art programs provide. Sure, order of some of the steps involved may be the same. For instance painting a background then painting the middle ground, then painting the foreground, or blocking in large areas of color, then blocking in large details, then painting fine details. Still it can't be said as a blanket statement, or even a statement that applies to any digital art piece that an artist using digital media uses the same methods they do, or might, use in traditional art.

There is no brush, pencil, chalk, charcoal, or other drawing or painting tool in a digital art program. There is only programming code that allows us to pretend we're using those tools and make marks that look similar to marks made by those traditional tools.

There is no paper, canvas, linen, or other material on which we paint, only images made of pixels that appear to be those materials.

There's no oil paint, ink, watercolor, graphite, or other medium in digital art. There are only pixels used to display color (including texture), and selected for this use by programming code and mathematical calculations initiated by choices the digital artist makes.

On and on....

gigih only asked if using Tubes was cheating and did not ask anything about lying or telling an untruth. That subject was introduced by someone else.

This question dishonesty, lying, or telling an untruth when introduced in relation to another person's art is negative, more than a little tiresome, and it does nothing to promote creativity, much less a feeling of friendliness, relaxation, and enjoyment among artists who come to forums such as this one to learn, share, and enjoy each other's company... in a positive atmosphere.

And as I've said before, it's insulting.


If you don't like another artist being reserved about explaining how their art was created, move on. There are plenty of other posts to read.

If you suspect, or believe, another artist is lying, move on. It's no one's business but the artist who's telling an untruth. It does no harm to anyone but that artist and they are the one who has to live with having told an untruth.

If you don't like the methods another artist uses, move on. There should be plenty of other threads to read where the methods will be more to your liking.

Do your own art and if you feel like commenting, make it your business to encourage, uplift, and give other artists a feeling of good will and acceptance. The old saying, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything." is good advice and it applies here as it does anywhere else.

Forgive me, Edie,

If it seems I'm putting words into your head but I feel it's important to say this and it's my view only, not to imply that I'm able to read your mind:

Knowing Edie for as long as as well as I have, my strong guess is that the reason she has decided to call only things she actually uses her pigment and brushes on a painting is related to what she said earlier:


And I get a bit tired of the idea that if I don't create and idea from nothing it may be called cheating,....


... and....


because I want the freedom to use the tools at hand to express my ideas without having to explain every little nit pick.


Not because Edie wants to, or ever does, hide anything, but because (as I've known Edie), she's a mature, sensible, kind, generous, honorable, and peace loving person who simply wants to enjoy art and other artists.... without contention, insult, accusation, and suspicion.

If I'm right about Edie, she and I agree! I suspect many others here do as well even if they say nothing because they, too, are peace loving people.

Now, can we have some peace on the subjects of cheating (unless it's a question you bring up about your own art and others answer only that question without adding other possible "sins") and the subject of dishonesty, lying, or telling an untruth... entirely?

Again, I hope we can.

Skinny
03-07-2006, 07:49 AM
Hallelujah and pass the wacom!

Elvira
03-07-2006, 08:15 AM
Jin you said it so well!
Edie

Jin
03-07-2006, 08:36 AM
Skinny and Edie,

Read my next to last paragraph again. I was editing the post when WC decided not to let me make a connection. Luckily, it got it's act together before my hour was up and I got back in time.

I wanted to make sure gigih didn't feel the need to apologize for asking about cheating.


"....pass the wacom!", Skinny? :D

How 'but a big cup of coffee instead? I ran out a couple of days ago and I'm getting real tired of drinking green tea. It's just too darned heallthy!


Glad it was OK with you Edie. Thanks.

gigih
03-07-2006, 10:08 AM
Thanks everyone. for all the input,evidently I brought up a subject that has many diverse opinions. I think the bottom line is, Using tubes you make youreslf is not cheating, but using third party tubes without their permission is not only cheating, but probably illegal, like taking a picture of someone else's painting and claiming it as your own. As far as what is "painting" Jin is right, all of this digital stuff is in cyber space, but we are capable of printing out our images so we have a "real" piece of art in our hands. Digital art may not be considered "traditional" art, but neither was using acrylics when they first came out. In any case, in my opinion digital art is still art, it just may not be traditional yet, but in 20 years there will be something new out there and digital art will be considered one of the old "traditional " techniques.

wiscojaydub
03-07-2006, 10:31 AM
" In any case, in my opinion digital art is still art, it just may not be traditional yet, but in 20 years there will be something new out there and digital art will be considered one of the old "traditional " techniques."
And i hope i am one of those using the "New"!:lol: jaydub:thumbsup:

omniartz
03-07-2006, 02:51 PM
I find myslef avoiding using Painter's nozzles. I just don't feel that comfortable using them. But that is just me! I see no reason not to use them, I just look at the details of them and feel that if I can't produce those details then it is someone else's work. But I will use textures! so go figure! LOL!

I think that both your examples are lovely and have a unique feel to them!! :)

Chiers
03-07-2006, 03:16 PM
" In any case, in my opinion digital art is still art,:

It surely is...no question or debate about that!:thumbsup:

Chiers
03-07-2006, 04:12 PM
Anyone who thinks they're using traditional methods when creating digital art is forgetting something pretty obvious.

Digital art, at best, is a simulation of traditional art and no matter how much we attempt to mimic the methods used in traditional media, we're only simulating them by using the tools digital art programs provide. Sure, order of some of the steps involved may be the same. For instance painting a background then painting the middle ground, then painting the foreground, or blocking in large areas of color, then blocking in large details, then painting fine details. Still it can't be said as a blanket statement, or even a statement that applies to any digital art piece that an artist using digital media uses the same methods they do, or might, use in traditional art.

There is no brush, pencil, chalk, charcoal, or other drawing or painting tool in a digital art program. There is only programming code that allows us to pretend we're using those tools and make marks that look similar to marks made by those traditional tools.

There is no paper, canvas, linen, or other material on which we paint, only images made of pixels that appear to be those materials.

There's no oil paint, ink, watercolor, graphite, or other medium in digital art. There are only pixels used to display color (including texture), and selected for this use by programming code and mathematical calculations initiated by choices the digital artist makes.

On and on....

Jin...I said methods, not tools. And anyone who thinks you can't use much the same methods in digital painting as they do in traditional painting either has never painted traditionally, or has forgotten how. And to state the obvious about the difference between digital tools and traditional tools serves only to confuse what I actually said.
"meth·od
A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something:Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end: random efforts that lack method.
The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge: ."

gigih only asked if using Tubes was cheating and did not ask anything about lying or telling an untruth. That subject was introduced by someone else.

This question dishonesty, lying, or telling an untruth when introduced in relation to another person's art is negative, more than a little tiresome, and it does nothing to promote creativity, much less a feeling of friendliness, relaxation, and enjoyment among artists who come to forums such as this one to learn, share, and enjoy each other's company... in a positive atmosphere.

And as I've said before, it's insulting.


If you don't like another artist being reserved about explaining how their art was created, move on. There are plenty of other posts to read.

If you suspect, or believe, another artist is lying, move on. It's no one's business but the artist who's telling an untruth. It does no harm to anyone but that artist and they are the one who has to live with having told an untruth.

If you don't like the methods another artist uses, move on. There should be plenty of other threads to read where the methods will be more to your liking.

Do your own art and if you feel like commenting, make it your business to encourage, uplift, and give other artists a feeling of good will and acceptance. The old saying, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything." is good advice and it applies here as it does anywhere else.
Again you misconstrue what I have said! You are giving the impression that I have called someone in particular a liar. First I want to make it very clear that I in no way insinuated anything about anyone in particular. Especially Gigh who aske the question I answered. She was quite open and honest!
When I refer to dishonesty it is not because of being "reserved" about telling methods it is about intentionally giving mis information.
At this point Jin, I will echo your words, "move on" if you don't like what I have to say, or get upset by this particular subject. It is a subject not likely to go away, nor am I likely to change my opinion of it. Which by the way, there really is no reason for anyone to take offense to as it is simply my opinion about the techniques of digital art.

Forgive me, Edie,

If it seems I'm putting words into your head but I feel it's important to say this and it's my view only, not to imply that I'm able to read your mind:

Knowing Edie for as long as as well as I have, my strong guess is that the reason she has decided to call only things she actually uses her pigment and brushes on a painting is related to what she said earlier:


Quote:
And I get a bit tired of the idea that if I don't create and idea from nothing it may be called cheating,....


... and....


Quote:
because I want the freedom to use the tools at hand to express my ideas without having to explain every little nit pick.


Not because Edie wants to, or ever does, hide anything, but because (as I've known Edie), she's a mature, sensible, kind, generous, honorable, and peace loving person who simply wants to enjoy art and other artists.... without contention, insult, accusation, and suspicion.
without contention, insult, accusation, and suspicion.
Again you are attempting to misconstrue. My response to Edie meant simply that she is right to do what she feels comfortable doing. And further to explain my position about it. I have the utmost respect for Edie. and quite frankly don't understand your reason for even bringing it up in the manner you did.
I would certainly hope that Edie understood, and if not could ask me directly.

Now, can we have some peace on the subjects of cheating (unless it's a question you bring up about your own art and others answer only that question without adding other possible "sins") and the subject of dishonesty, lying, or telling an untruth... entirely?
Again, you need not participate in threads you do not like.

Chiers
03-07-2006, 04:33 PM
Thanks everyone. for all the input,evidently I brought up a subject that has many diverse opinions. I think the bottom line is, Using tubes you make youreslf is not cheating, but using third party tubes without their permission is not only cheating, but probably illegal, like taking a picture of someone else's painting and claiming it as your own. As far as what is "painting" Jin is right, all of this digital stuff is in cyber space, but we are capable of printing out our images so we have a "real" piece of art in our hands. Digital art may not be considered "traditional" art, but neither was using acrylics when they first came out. In any case, in my opinion digital art is still art, it just may not be traditional yet, but in 20 years there will be something new out there and digital art will be considered one of the old "traditional " techniques.
Many opinions for sure Gigih! But since your question was Painting or cheating, I will comment on the fact that one can make a tube themself but that doesn't mean its painting either unless they actually painted it. Most tubes are made from photos and generally that is what comes to mind when tubes are mentioned.

jhercilia
03-07-2006, 05:37 PM
There's no oil paint, ink, watercolor, graphite, or other medium in digital art. There are only pixels used to display color (including texture), and selected for this use by programming code and mathematical calculations initiated by choices the digital artist makes.

LOL Something similar to traditional paint: instead of being a bunch of 'pixels' used to display color, we could also say that traditional paint is just a bunch of atoms and molecules bound together to form what we call 'traditional paint'.

I think it is more appropriate to call 'DIGITAL paint' to 'paint' used on a Digital PAINTING, and TRADITIONAL paint to 'paint' used traditionally. The point I am making is that: both are paint.

I am too looking for the soon to come era when digital paint also becomes a 'traditional medium'.

Michael
03-08-2006, 04:19 PM
Interesting thread.

One point, though. Here at WC! we tend to define digital art in our own way. The creation of an art work starting from a blank canvas using only the tools that mimic real world media.

Strictly speaking, digital art is defined, by the major encyclopedias, major museums and galleries, as ANY work that creates art the the means of computer manipulation, whether from scratch, or from and existing photograph, or photographs.

The reason we ended up with a different definition here is because we also have a Digital Manipulation Forum here that deals with the manipulation of photographs, painting, etc..

So, speaking strictly within the definition of digital art, no, tubes are not cheating, speaking within the definition here at WC!, you have found a grey area. You are working on a project that contains no elements of an original photograph, so it does not belong in the DMD forum,also, by the accepted definition here at WC! it is using something that does not mimic real world media. However, that said, from what you do with your work, this would still be the most appropriate forum for this type of work.

After that diatribe, I really have to say, these are two wonderful works of art!!

Bytemebabs
03-08-2006, 04:30 PM
WOW I was planning on reading this until I found it to be a "5 Million page" scroll so I am going to put my 2 cents in before I read it and am taking the chance I will offend people. Whelp that is life.

Now that I typed that ... I Will go read LOL.

Bytemebabs
03-08-2006, 04:34 PM
Nope I can't comment now, but I will soon. My apologizes!

Chiers
03-08-2006, 05:21 PM
Hey Byteme, WOW I was planning on reading this until I found it to be a "5 Million page" scroll
Can you explain that? Only two pages here that I see, I'm wondering if you are having format problems? Or did someone hide some pages? LOL

My apologizes!
For what?

Chiers
03-08-2006, 05:27 PM
There are no methods, or tools, in digital art that is cheating! Just different and should be represented for what they are.

wiscojaydub
03-08-2006, 05:35 PM
Chiers..the bottom line is that each digi, when it is filed away is unique, an artist/designer put some time, thought, and effort in creating the art work/design, that no one else has done.

Chiers
03-08-2006, 06:16 PM
Chiers..the bottom line is that each digi, when it is filed away is unique, an artist/designer put some time, thought, and effort in creating the art work/design, that no one else has done.

Yes, true. But that statement in this context is like comparing apples, or the techniques that we use to get to the end result, to oranges, the end result. Both are fruit, but totally different.
For instance, I cannot enter a watercolor painting in an oil show or visa versa. That doesn't mean one is valued any more than another just that they are not the same even though they are both paintings. If I ask a painter what medium they use, and they reply "paint", then what have I learned. The information being requested in that case would be what medium, ie oil or....

Could not filters, effects, tubes,paint etc be considered digital mediums, the same as oil, pastel, watercolor, etc are considered traditional mediums? Digital art should not be lumped all together any more than anything else. We define everything in our lives. How else would we know a car from a truck, or a house from a barn. Definition is how we make sense of the world.

wiscojaydub
03-08-2006, 06:42 PM
"Could not filters, effects, tubes,paint etc be considered digital mediums, the same as oil, pastel, watercolor, etc are considered traditional mediums? Digital art should not be lumped all together any more than anything else. We define everything in our lives. How else would we know a car from a truck, or a house from a barn. Definition is how we make sense of the world."
With the number of new programs being developed and marketed increasing, along with more artist's using them, coupled with the incredible potential for creativity..the lumping of digital art will be no more.......