Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Digital Painting
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Anyone interested in digital painting should see this.
Posted
Which they probably wouldn't in most cases!. In my opinion we are being deliberately duped by some of the digital artist's, why else would they not state the medium, no other possible reason as I can see. Fortunately, I can tell digital work at a glance usually, but clearly others can't if their comments are anything to go by.
Posted
I've been offline for a few days, and only just caught up with this. I'm not liking it. A separate place for digital art, just because one or two people may be passing off photos as art?? I hope that's unworkable. Whole swathes of people give no information about their posted art, POL would have to sift through stuff about to be posted to find the 'offenders.' Despite your assurances about admiring digital art, I'm getting an anti-digital feeling from this thread, reinforced by the fact that you want it segregated into a separate place. What will it be called 'cheats/digital art'? It's like we're all being tarred with the same brush. Just in case you get your way I'm going to bung whatever remaining digital art I have on the gallery. In the unlikely event that POL agree to your suggestion, it'll be goodbye POL from me.
We all have our likes and dislikes. If you don't like something ignore it, or make a comment. A completely separate section for digital art just to get at one or two cheats is a bad idea.
Lew.
Posted
I can see both sides here (and agree with both, if that's not too much of a contradiction). A jpeg is such a poor way to view artwork that it's essential to have basic info. such as size, medium. Additional info. about technique, background, etc. can greatly add to the appreciation and understanding and I fail to understand why so many people appear to be so unwilling to disclose such things when they upload artwork.
I also agree with Lew, that if one doesn't like something, just ignore it and don't comment. I sometimes get a slightly uneasy feeling here that there's something not a mile away from a dictatorial/proprietorial stance amongst some.
A delcate hand perhaps would be that if appropriate boxes about size medium were not ticked, then a message "Please indicate…" would result. But as size is not in the tick-list this would require a redesign of the site which I doubt would happen.
Posted
I'd like people to post the size and medium: that would be useful.
But as for digital art, some are quite open about it - if 'open' is the right word, it makes it sound a bit like a confession - and that's plainly what they do; they're not pretending otherwise. Some leave us to guess - and it's usually obvious. But that's just not labelling your work. And some post work which they pretend is oil on canvas, watercolour, or whatever - and it isn't. Some yet again post pictures which have been enhanced digitally. The only category I have real trouble with there is those people who pretend that a digital piece has been produced with real paint and brushes - I don't see the point of it - they won't be able to sell their paintings, other than by printing them, so I assume they're just desperate for praise.
As for those who enhance paintings - well, provided what you've done is improve a bad photograph so that it looks more like the painting you've produced, I don't actually have much of a problem with that. Again, it won't help you sell it, because sooner or later, someone's going to have to see the real thing.
This was raised though in Katherine Tyrell's Making a Mark blog - I don't remember the details, but she'd been to an exhibition in which the paintings on the walls didn't bear a lot of resemblance to the photographs submitted to the judging committee - and again: what's the point? Getting your work into an exhibition, and it being sub-standard .... not something you're going to be able to keep secret, really.
Then again, how many people are doing any of these dodgier things on POL? I know we have two regular contributors who always post digital artworks; and I judge them as artworks - there's Skylar Brown with his Artrage oils (which is a digital programme); and Dennis..... senior moment, name escapes me, but I know his work is digital too. And if I comment on either, I do so assessing the work as a piece of art, not by the tools used to create it. Creating a separate category for digital art, when there's no entirely discrete category for anything else (ie, you can specify if you want to, but don't have to) would surely signify that digital was in some way not real; or was second-class; not to be taken seriously - I would have thought. So (long windedly!) I come to the view that while I don't like pretence, I'm aware that there are skills involved in creating digital artwork and I wouldn't want to see it segregated. If we have cheating going on, well it's going to go on going on, surely? If someone is determined to pretend that a digital painting, or a tarted-up painting, is actually an oil on canvas, the intention is to deceive, and they'll carry on deceiving no matter what categories are imposed.
And besides all that, I'd hate to lose Lew.....
Posted
I agree insofar that a gentle encouragement for artists to identify the size and medium (especially the medium) along the lines suggested by John Petty would be good, but of course a site redesign is unlikely. Pity that a lot of artists don't as it does enhance enjoyment of the work. And only a small percentage of POL artists read the Forum to know how we feel about more information. Some of the background descriptions are just delightful, too, but of course that couldn't be made mandatory. I don't have a firm opinion about the separate category issue so will keep out of it, except to say we'd all hate to lose Lew.
(Robert, it's Dennis Roberts).
Posted
I think this is being overcooked, we're not exactly swamped by people passing off photo manipulation as art. Having a mandatory category for digital art, and nothing else, is conferring some kind of second rate status on it. Grossly unfair. It's also unworkable...at lot of people supply NOTHING about their artwork...it would require a major rewrite of the POL software to ensure that people HAD to supply full details on media etc. So I don't think it will happen. And should it?? What we have here is a relatively small number of people trying to impose their opinion on others. I don't like people who cheat, but, unfortunately that's part of life...so let's not go over the top with this and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's clear some people are suspicious of digital art...or just plain don't like it. It has baggage. We've got Robert talking about being 'OPEN' about digital art...as though there's something wrong with it. In fairness he admittedly qualified it, but he wouldn't talk about being 'open' about painting in watercolour. And then DavidG4YVM talking about 'digital stuff being passed off as real art'...it IS real art, there's some wonderful digital art being made. I HOPE he's talking about the cheats and not people genuinely trying to make their own art using digital media.
We're all entitled to our dislikes, but come on, let's have a bit of moderation here.
Lew
Posted
There won't be a separate section for digital work, it just ain't going to happen, so let's put that idea to bed and move on. It was mentioned earlier by John Inkson who was expressing an opinion, and he is entitled to that opinion, as we all are on this forum.
All I have asked for is simple clarification of the medium used, and the size is always useful to know. That medium covers the lot, watercolour, acrylic, digital, I am not targeting digital users, I refer to everything. Of course it's obvious at times. For instance, I don't imagine any of us could mistake Dermot's watercolours for anything else, but other work can be less clear. I don't think it's asking too much of the artist to furnish that basic information, but there are a large proportion than don't give any information at all, not even a title! - something that won't change, and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2