digital art - what do we think?

I saw Hockney’s Ipad drawings at the ‘A Bigger Picture’ exhibition at the RA back in 2006. Drawn at the scene as a reference for later paintings and I was impressed. Mind you, I’m always impressed with his work, whatever the subject or medium! Yes Sylvia, photo manipulation is definitely a no no, pointless and has been posted on the gallery on more than one occasion, passed off as a painting! I like the tactile look and feel of an oil painting, you can see brush marks, raised areas of paint, not to mention the energy that the artist felt, digital is flat and lifeless.

Not in my book Stan.  But it’s acceptable for what it is . I’ve seen some lovely pieces of work done by photo manipulation some look amazing...but they are still photographs.   Art to me is to sit in front of a subject look at it ,think about it and then interpret it using a creative medium  pencil , brush , pen and yes ,digitally but from a blank starting  point.  

That's it in a nutshell for me " create from a blank starting point". What is meant here by " honest photo manipulation"?

What Stan is describing here shows that there is effort, and skill, in creating digital images.  A friend of mine couples 'proper' painting with digital work - not to make it look better, or turn it into something it isn't, but in order to create an interesting image.  And she's very good at it.  I've never tried it to her level, or to Stan's - I don't know if I could or not, but I've no interest in trying to (might have had thirty years ago, though).  I don't despise or decry it, it just doesn't appeal to me other than as something to look at - too much of my time is spent gazing at computer screens, and I don't want to produce artworks by the same method. I don't feel any sense of threat from digital - perhaps some do.  It's there, in its own right; so is the practice many of us enjoy - I don't see the one detracting or distracting from the other.  There's a world of difference between creating a unique piece of art, and trying to fool people by tarting up a painting on Photoshop to make us look like the Rembrandts of our time: a deception that can only work on a screen (and it's usually perfectly obvious even there) and so has no real point.   On our gallery here, Skylar Brown uses 'ArtRage oils' - a digital system; and another (do I mean Dennis Roberts, or Dennis Rounding.... well, YOU'LL know!) also uses, and makes no secret of, digital composition.  I appreciate some of these more than others, but it's all straightforward and honest work: and better that, by miles, than the paint-by-formula stuff which some have been fooled into thinking is good painting.

Good points Robert, I actually think we are all singing from the same Hymn sheet....well,I think we are .  Both Dennis ( which ever)  and Skylar are up front and I always admire their stuff so back to in the eye of the beholder. 

We've had this discussion before, I've no doubt we'll have it again.  An interesting read, and I liked Stan's work.  Some people seem to have a mental block about digital art, thinking that everybody who uses it must be some kind of cheat.  Not so.   Cheats will cheat whatever they do.  It's another medium.  A wonderful one.   I used to try it on a ancient version of Photoshop Elements.  As I'm into illustration and fantasy stuff it's a great medium.  Wish I could do more, but I'm getting too old and doddery to spend too long in front of a screen. Here's a pic I did years ago.  It's exactly like the stuff I do with pencil and paints...except it gave me a few extra options that I enjoyed.  I was able to use the same dragon several times, the sky is a photo I took, I was able to move stuff around, undo things, and you can read the text...dirty cheat that I am. I LOVE digital art.  It's just like traditional art...the stuff you admire...you admire.