Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting with brushes, paper, canvas and colours.
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
When viewing the gallery I'm becoming a bit confused as to what is daubery (like what I do, the stuff that persistently gets me in lumber with the wife for applying itself to clothes etc) , and stuff described as oil on board and various mediums etc, which are actually digital pictures done on a pc, laptop or tablet using various assisted programmes. I can find no mention of Van Gogh, Monet or Singer Sargent having such items. Both, granted, are a form of art and require talent, the difference though is an obvious one. Anyone else confused?
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
Don't get me going on this! It is infuriating, when artists do not describe their work accurately. Most do, but their are the occasional ones who don't. However there are some fine digital artists on here who in my view are different to the ones who take a photo and then manipulate it on their PC. Digital artists start from scratch in creating the work and the process is no easier than using physical brushes and paper or canvas. Indeed the process is often very complicated. The forum has talked about this a few times before.
Posted
The majority of my work is described as 'oil on board', that's because it IS... There is a fair bit of obvious 'photographic' or 'digital' work feeding through which as Jim has rightly pointed out, is not acknowledged as such, often described as 'oil on canvas' and so on.
Most of us I'm sure, accept that digital work is a form of art, although I'm not particularly excited by it. Hockney does some interesting ipad sketches, generally plein air stuff, and I do like those. The difference here though, is that he tells us the medium used, he's not hiding it under the ridiculous guise of using paint.
I can spot them a mile off, many obviously can't, because I've looked at the comments, and they generally do attract many of them. saying what a fabulous painting and so on... what a fantastic likeness is my favourite!
Posted
I have no issue at all with digital art - it's not something I'm a big fan of but that's beside the point. Why do people feel the need to create something digitally then describe it as 'oils'? Because digital is frowned upon? I really don't see the point of lying about the method of creation.
Posted
Lest my original post be taken wrongly, I have no issues with the subject, folk do as they will; I asked questions, not passed any judgement. Years ago, when I first worked for a computer firm, I discovered the joys of Microsoft Paint and such (I always found Corel Draw confusing despite having access to it. It was all too "space age" for a pen, notebook and pencil devotee like me). That digital art requires its own skills is beyond doubt, but the two mediums, manual/electronic, are unique and seperate and I have a view they should be kept or at least stated that way. Before finding this site I found a couple of other that were Deviant Art and decidedly digital. They weren't what I wanted and I moved on. One of the things I find hard is judging people's progress when medias are mixed and not stated as such. What does it cost, or at least matter, in being honest. A tailor doesn't make something from paper and describe it as cloth, so why be enigmatic (or in a few odd cases, guarded) about what you do. There's nothing wrong with being different, just put the right labels on the tins.
Posted
Time to be honest.
I do not like digital painting. I know it may be competent, inventive, an art in its own right, but I have zero interest (generally) in pictures created with pixels. I want paint, charcoal, pencil, ink.
There are one or two artists here, however, whose work I like - always correctly identified. Dennis Roberts, Skylar Brown, leave no one in doubt that their work is digitally created - and I couldn't do it. I wouldn't want to do it, either, but that's a matter of choice.
If there are those presenting work on the gallery which is digital but not acknowledged as such; or is touched up with various applications - as soon as I find out, am tipped off, observe it for myself, I never look at them again or comment on them.
Posted
I agree Sylvia about a separate category for digital, seeing that the works are created differently. I'm not sure that I can always pick, either, although I do know that is how both Dennis and Skylar create theirs. I agree with the other comments about describing a digital work as "oil on canvas".
It's my photo of my grandson, plus some free-to-use photos....manipulated.
Digital art is something else...so is 'cheating.'
Bye,
Lew.
Posted
Ive changed my mind recently i wasnt going to say so, but since you asked...i think this site should be for actual physical media only. ONLY. No digiart AT ALL. It it wasnt made by adding a colour you can drop on the floor to a surface you can chuck in the garden, its not allowed.
Thats not to say anything about digital art, just that I come here to see and discuss physical media...it is called PAINTers on line after all and without wishingnto enter a battle of semantics, we all KNOW what that means.
David
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2