Is this art? (print, day, paint, make)

[Lamplight]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Even though I am not a big fan of digital art, it fascinates me. However, most such art, is made up mostly of modified photographs and I think that is what has held it back as a flourishing art form. I see it's greatest benefit in assisting the artist in composition.

"Let's just take a photo of that sky and put a moon in there instead of taking all week to paint it in only to sand it down and go back to the old sky."

You are right to hone your drawing skills to razor sharp as you have done because it allows you to communicate what you intend, instead of what the limitations of your rendering skills allow. Its why all great art schools everywhere have always started (and sometimes ended) with rigorous drawing training.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of overly manipulated photos, although I certainly edit my own photos to correct colors and fix exposure issues (because it never comes out of the camera exactly the way I intend!). But drawing using Photoshop is interesting. With the tablet and stylus, the feel and look is remarkably similar to traditional methods, though I'm speaking strictly from a background in pencil and pen and ink. You vary the pressure on the stylus and it reacts the same way as a pencil does, it feels like a pencil or fine-tip marker on the tablet, and even the sound is similar, believe it or not. One could simulate the look of an oil painting or watercolor, but obviously the experience of creating would be very different in that case.

[Wilson513]

I assume you would recommend the Wacom tablet? Do you think a specific model would be better for a person used to a brush and oil as opposed to pen and ink? Regardless, what model would you recommend?

[Lamplight]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I assume you would recommend the Wacom tablet? Do you think a specific model would be better for a person used to a brush and oil as opposed to pen and ink? Regardless, what model would you recommend?

If you're used to painting with a brush, I'm guessing it would be a bigger adjustment for you, and I'm honestly not sure one model would make it easier than another. Mine is the Bamboo model, which is their cheapest. It definitely takes some getting used to, but after using mine for a couple of weeks it wasn't much trouble. Now, about a month later, it's so intuitive I hardly even think about it. What threw me off at first was the fact that I was drawing on a pad on my desk while looking at my computer monitor, instead of looking at the surface I'm drawing on. I'm used to it now, though. Wacom's high end models solve that issue by letting you draw directly on the screen where your picture is shown, but they're also very expensive. If you have an iPad or other tablet, I believe Wacom also makes a pen you can buy so that you can use your tablet the same way. I think that might be the way to go if a person already had an iPad.

[Wilson513]

Many thanks!

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Lamplight

I'm currently working on a similar bicycle picture using a Wacom tablet and my computer. You would think that would mean less work, but it's most definitely a lot more work. I'll post it when I'm finished. Here are a few detail shots:

Been there, done that.
Technically, the computer can create very accurate work, and it may be more suited to you than using traditional tools.

For me, it tends to become sort of frustrating, though- there is some stuff I've done with a tablet I like, but most of the things I see have an impersonality and predictability to them that takes out some of the soul (for lack of a better word).

For sure, the software gets better and better, but it also grows more bloated with auto-set functions, and those frustrate me. But I'm old school- I started out with Illustrator 3.3, before the Wacom was invented. I used the very first Wacom released, and still like the early version of Painter the best, even though I have to use it on a totally obsolete computer and an equally obsolete Wacom. I have a new tablet and much newer software, but they aren't as satisfying for me by a long ways.

I also enjoy the tactile elements of a good pencil or pen rendering on good paper a lot. The 'real-ness' of it is just more satisfying when I can see the little wavers in the lines, the drier or wetter spots, and all that stuff. The human eye and hand is still much more subtle than a sophisticated machine to me.

[Lamplight]

It's definitely not the same experience (or result) as using traditional methods. It does seem to be well suited to what I'm drawing, though, but I was also a drafter and used AutoCAD a lot, so for me, and for this drawing, it's sort of an in-between experience. Not quite the precision of a CAD program, but precise enough, yet it also has the tools for shading and coloring. It's definitely more precise than using ink and paper. Well, compared to the paper size I've always used in the past, at least. I could get tremendous detail using a giant sheet of paper and a quill pen, but I don't have a work surface large enough.

[Lamplight]

Finally finished this one. I may go back and change the color, though. Maybe even an all-chrome version.



Edit: I just noticed one minute detail I forgot. Guess I'm not finished!

[Cav Scout wife]

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

So, to me, that's craftsmanship. Not art.

Craftsmanship=art, but art does not always equal craftsmanship.

[paulklee53]

Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy
So, to me, that's craftsmanship. Not art.

Craftsmanship=art, but art does not always equal craftsmanship.

My rule for what is art is best stated by China Chow on the Bravo series Work of Art - "The only rule in art is what works."

I think Lamplight's piece is art. Why? Because it works. I like looking at it and I want to keep looking at it.

I disagree with DrummerBoy. It does exhibit an extremely high level of technical skill in creating a representational image. So much so that some people might not get past noticing anything but that.

I agree with Cav Scout Wife in that art is not necessarily craftsmanship. But craftsmanship alone is not enough to make something a piece of art. There are many pieces of representational art that don't do anything for me, even though it's obvious the artist who made them had mastered the skills required to portray things realistically.

By the way, I don't do work like Lamplight, so I'm not just here saying bravo to the kind of stuff I like to make. If I saw his stuff at an art fair I'd definitely go into his booth and look at everything.

[Lamplight]

Thanks Paul. I saw your work in another thread and I definitely liked it. I tried to rep you for the post where you displayed your work but it wouldn't let me.