It’s Digital, but is it Art?

[Mullanphy]

Back in the day, artists worked hard to create photo-realistic masterpieces.  It took a lot of skill, and some were so realistic viewers would ask, “Is that a photograph?”

Today, app users try to turn photographs into realistic paintings without doing anything more than choosing brush(es), a medium, and a support, then clicking on autopaint.  Is that any more artistic than showing the photo to someone like, say, Audry Flack, telling her what brush(es) to use, etc., and, finally, taking credit as the artist.

I’m learning to use Corel Painter 2020, and so many of the tutorials and so much of the user’s guide concentrate on recreating photographs.  Is this where art is headed?  ?

Save lives, mask up. ?

[John humber]

Digital art—in the sense that it is interpreted here—is not my thing. However, there’s a variety of digital work from the very painterly (in the manner of Hockney for example) to the ‘pick a filter, click OK’ type. I doubt that anyone could construct a solid argument that the former is not art, even though they may not like it. A similar argument concerning the latter would be easy to construct; it’s art only in the sense that it produces a piece of artwork in the very broadest sense of the word.

It’s interesting to reflect on how pre-digital art was considered ‘good’ if it imitated a photo and digital art is considered ‘good’ if it imitates a painting. Something of a generalisation I know but some truth there too I think.

I have—and occasionally still do—work with software, but not in the painterly sense; I work with digital text to produce prints. An interesting development of late is that I have recently met someone who has an old letterpress set up and I’m pondering on how I might be able to use that to produce ‘real’ prints along the same lines.

PLEASE how do I make these dreadful yellow things go away?

www.instagram.com/john_humber_artist
www.instagram.com/john_petty_letterform

[Elainepsq]

Apps that turn photos into paintings are like the classes where everyone paints the same picture and it comes out the same. I went to a watercolor class at a local studio and the instructor gave us a tracing on tracing paper of his painting to transfer. He said it would take too long for me to draw the still life he had on in front of me. I got the basic shapes mapped out and started painting quicker than the “tracers”.    Our local art association is trying so hard to combat both of those. Recently, we’ve found copies of obscure old masters’ paintings  showing up in shows.  It’s frustrating at best!

Elaine
www.sunflowercreativemedia.com

[LavenderFrost Moderator, Acrylics]

Whether something is art or not can be a complicated question. The important thing is that people are honest about it.

Elaine, I can understand why the instructor would do that though, if he wanted to focus more on painting rather than drawing. Some of us would still be drawing when everyone else is done painting. :rolleyes:

C&C always welcome. Michelle

mkmcreations.com
Every painting is a new adventure.

[Keith2]

I wonder if many artists in the past actually wanted to paint something that looked like a photograph. If you think about artists who are considered to be famous – paintings in galleries etc, references in books about the history of art – then there’s only one group that are well known – the Superrealists from the 1960s and 70s – Richard Estes, Chuck Close, Malcolm Morley, Audrey Flack and others.

If you use your artistic abilities to draw something using a digital app, it’s still art.

It’s interesting that people are using digital techniques to convert a photo, taken by someone else, into something that looks like a painting. It doesn’t seem very artistic to me.

But what if an artist takes a photo and converts it to a digital painting using software that does all the work. It might still be art because the artist made a conscious decision to choose the subject and take a photo.

But would it ever appear in an art gallery ?

How about a practical definition of art? – it’s something you see hanging on the wall in an art gallery, or standing on a plinth on the floor, or in a glass box with a don’t touch sign.

[desrat]

I look at the definition of art in its broadest sense.  It’s something that’s unique.  That is, it’s the result of your thoughts and hands, rather than something produced on some standard assembly line.  If not for your thoughts and hands, it wouldn’t exist, whether its results were on purpose or by accident.

Whether it’s a sawhorse that you made by hand to help you with woodworking, or a single ink line on white paper, or a complex abstract that grabs one by the heart, it’s art.  Of course, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you or anyone else likes it, thinks about it, or appreciates it.

So, to my mind, the question of whether or not it can be called “art” has little relevance if it was created with a person’s own thoughts and hands.  The more important question is, “What does it trigger in my own mind?”

Nelson. C/C always welcome. Art is a glimpse of the metaphysics of one's mind made concrete, the voice of one's philosophy and sense of life. Art is the human race's metaphysical mirror.

[tiago.dagostini]

All that comes from the fact that a lot, and by a lot I mean the majority of humans,  do not appreciate art. They appreciate a good looking image. They do not understand expression, gesture, composition and cannot appreciate the effort of creating something. These people think to make a perfect copy requires more skill than to invent a scene from your mind. That is why  human photo machines trive in you tube and instagram with thousand more likes than proper creation work.

 

That said the  digital art practice of photo bashing is still very valid way to increase productivity. When you are producing content whose focus is not originality but to illustrate something as fast as possible, then it is  an amazing tool that shaves time. Ther jsut need to be honesty, if someone ask.. ” did you do it all by yourself?”  one must answer.. ” no.. I  made a composition of other images and edited them to work together in this image”

"no no! You are doing it all wrong, in the internet we are supposed to be stubborn, inflexible and arrogant. One cannot simply be suddenly reasonable and reflexive in the internet, that breaks years of internet tradition as a medium of anger, arrogance, bigotry and self entitlement. Damm these internet newcomers being nice to to others!!!"

"If brute force does not solve your problem, then you are not using enough!"

[UltraStyle]

Art modification tools are not the art itself, but the art itself is the art modification tool.. or something like that.

I make websites. Contact me for more info http://thewebdesignhut.com

[Aledin]

Tools don’t define what art is, they never have and never will, or else art would just be murals. Oil on canvas was the new tech in the Renaissance. Photography was just a tech experiment in the 19th century.

So what defines art is more complex and changes with culture and times.
Now that we live in post-modernism we have got accustomed to the idea of art as individual expression, unlike centuries ago. And that’s fine. So given that premise, clicking on a Photoshop filter doesn’t per se produce art. What matters is the spirit of the gesture and context. Remember Duchamp and his “fountain” in the museum? After 100 years that gesture has caused an earthquake in the art world and we are still discussing what art is or isn’t. Was the urinal art, or did it become art by being manipulated and placed in a museum?

Personally, to me art is not the artwork. Art is the spirit of such work. It can be there or not. When we learn stuff at school we are concerned with technique and learning, therefore there’s no “voice” in the work: there’s neither the embrace of a tradition nor an individual discovery. It takes time to mature our spirit to the point where we embark on a journey which defines how we work.

So going back to the question of filters: scripts don’t create art, nor clicking on a button. But if I do that as a provocation and place it in a museum (Duchamp’s fountain) it’s no longer about the filter but about the concept. That’s different, see? Might be met favorably or not but there’s already an extra step to it, which is not tech related.

linktree.com/alejandrodini

[gozza53]

We all have a view on what is, and what is not art because we are, as human beings, diverse in terms of our level of skill and understanding of art. As someone who is returning to WetCanvas I have a background in amateur photography, traditional art, and digital art. My view is simple: using a photograph and simply using software to alter/modify that photograph in any way, to produce whatever outcome, is manipulation. The decision-making is more mechanically driven or automated than it is a human creation.

The acid test is that two or more people pressing the same buttons will get identical results.

Using that same photograph as a reference in digital art software – to produce a tracing, pick colours, identify shape and form, tone and composition, etc – allows this to be art when no part of the original photograph remains a part of the finished piece. This is because the skills, techniques, application of whatever digital medium in art software is used, will be an individual choice so will differ if two or more people use the same photograph and even the same software.

I use Krita and ArtRage, which I rate highly, and use both with a XP-Pen Innovator 16 graphic display tablet. The developers are incredibly talented and brushes (for all types of media) can be modified to meet personal need. They are great for certain art styles, and they are improving every year, but they cannot currently replicate (IMO) traditional watercolour and pastel. It probably won’t be long though and I’m aware of a growing number of traditional artists who, for their style/genre, are finding digital art software the way forward commercially.

[Keith2]

I agree that traditional water colour can’t be replicated by digital apps, (I’ve tried Art Rage and Procreate). It could be some time before convincing imitations of watercolour can be developed. The other limitation with digital is that it’s hard to judge values and colours on the screen when painting outside on sunny days.

[Ohmo]

Revisiting my own thread after nearly two years of piddling with Painter then taking an online/video class and actually learning how to use the software.

I haven’t changed my opinion, but I have added to it.  I still think that using the software to copy or auto-paint a photograph is, somehow, a cheat, but digital art isn’t all that different from traditional forms of creating paintings, drawings, and other 2D art. The artist must learn the basics of composition, color theory, how to use their brushes/pens/paper/canvas, etc., an practice, practice, practice.

Digital art is not intended to replicate or replace other forms (oils, drawing, watercolors, etc.), but is just another art form in which an artist can create.  Digital art is as different from, say, oils as oils are from watercolor.

Skill is nothing more than talent practiced relentlessly.

[Sonjaya]

Ohmo wrote:

Digital art is not intended to replicate or replace other forms (oils, drawing, watercolors, etc.), but is just another art form in which an artist can create. Digital art is as different from, say, oils as oils are from watercolor.

Wait until digital art (and associated technology) is getting better than traditional painting, the bubble will burst.

Why would you want to own an expensive Van Gogh’s if using high definition camera and TV (which will be cheaper and cheaper) you can have more beautiful Art on your wall (except for money laundry). Everyone will have an equally better Van Gogh’s for a fraction of the price (by projecting the photograph of the real Van Gogh’s).

And when the digital art software get better, you don’t need paint and camera anymore. Just create it directly in digital form and hang it on your wall through your high definition TV.

I’m sure I won’t be around when it happen, but I’m sure it will happen. Bad moment for Fine Art.

[Author]

Posts