Shopping centre visitors

These are very good Keith: well observed with good movement. Why not put your work on the Gallery? 

Nice sketches Keith.  Though I suggest you look at the wheel chair one again. Poor guy you have well stranded him. It is free to post on the gallery and you should get more comments. What is your opinion re digital art ?

Hi Keith  Only just noticed your reply above. So, yes Sylvia is correct, no charge for showing on the gallery and you will indeed get more comments than here.  Digital art has its place and there are a few people here who post it clearly labelled as such, whose work I like, and some that I don’t, and the latter I just don’t comment on. I liked the fact that you started with live pen sketches which appeal to me more than digital.  Basically I love painting and drawing with real paint, pencils etc.. the connection with reality appeals to me whereas drawing on a computer etc just doesn’t have the same attraction. Get your fingers messy! It’s also healthier for your brain.

Couldn’t agree more with Tessa’s comments… for me personally, nothing can beat the smell of oil paint and turps permeating around the studio, it’s life’s blood for me! Indoctrinated from my college years I suspect! Or, get covered in charcoal and pastel dust as I have been earlier this morning, you don’t get that sitting at a sterile computer! There are a few digital artists on here as has already been mentioned, the only one that has anything serious to offer in my opinion is Dennis Roberts with his Seago style landscapes! I do like Hockney’s iPad plein air landscape drawings, I’ve seen them first hand at the RA, but he’s an exceptionally talented artist, and knows what he’s doing! They are often used for working up larger paintings back in the studio, so no problem with that.

The trouble with most of the digital art I've seen so far is that it offers nothing that couldn't be better done with physical paint - and lacks the individual touch which paint offers (and in fact demands).  It may be skilfully executed - its conception may be imaginative and original - and it offers a means by which artists who can no longer cope with the physical demands of traditional painting methods can carry on working.  I think it deserves a site, or section of a site, of its own.  (And in passing, I agree that Dennis Roberts takes it to another level.  I don't wish to denigrate other exponents of it, though.) Whenever I see digital work, two things happen - if it's a landscape, I may want to recreate that (in my own way, obviously) in real paint: that occurs on the few occasions on which a digital painting has inspired me: e.g., with Dennis's landscapes, or Skylar's flower paintings - which are well worth including here because of the intensity of colour he achieves.  Eric, using a different system I suspect to those employed by Dennis and Skylar, achieves subtle colour: I haven't always cared for his subject matter, but that's largely down to a dislike of fantasy art and its dependence on exaggerated physical stereotypes: I wouldn't like it carried out in physical paint, either. The other thing, though, and this happens far more often, is boredom with the cheesiness of it  - irritation with its smoothness, lack of texture, and slickness.  It doesn't have to look that way, just by being digital; but it so often does; a computer-generated and designed interface has come between the artist and the viewer - digital programmes have been described as "just another tool for artists' use", but they really aren't anything of the kind; you can't compare an Ipad to a stick of charcoal, or a mouse button to a human hand even if it's manipulated by a human hand (who, in that case, is manipulating whom?  You have brought a new creator, the software designer, into the equation).   The results digital artists achieve are too often bland and facile - this may be a very good tool for illustration, although again, I don't see any character in most of it, but so far as I'm concerned, that's its absolute limit.   Art it may be - painting it isn't; painting is what we do with paint, not bytes and pixels.

Your sketches are good Keith. Personally, I see no point in copying them to a computer when a bit of watercolour or acrylic, done by hand is far better in building traditional skills in art. I do like some digital art and do comment on it sometimes but it's not something I'm interested in doing myself. As to why there are very few on the forum, well, that's anyone's guess. Traditional and digital artists are all welcome on the site. It could be that there are other sites better geared for the digital artist but that's just a guess.

Here are two images of mine done some time ago with the programme Brushes as used by  David Hockney. I did them  sitting looking at the view  no photographs...all my own observation.  I enjoyed the experience and used the  brushes and colours from the programme.   But give me the traditional brushes , the paint and that is my choice so I have used it. Still interested in your view Keith.

I like these Sylvia, nice lines and great colour.  I also like Keith's figures too, they don't look flat or contrived like some digital art is. Agreed he could do well on a physical surface with all or any if the mediums available. I tried to get hold of Brushes when Hockney first mentioned the app.  But as I'm on Android devices, it's not available.  I've tried the equivalent on my tablet, but I just don't get any pleasure in doing it.  It feels too much like work, for a retired IT bod like me.