Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Something about Digital
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
Message
Posted
This is going to be one of those change of era things that come with age. At the risk of being unpopular paint comes in tins, tubes or blocks ( when involved in art) and "painting" is the physical application of a liquid colour on to a surface, ie, using paint, therefore "painting" My dad "painted" the kitchen (always brown or green and cream. He "distempered" the bedroom walls, buit painted the doors, window frames and skirtings. He died many years ago ( may he rest in peace) without ever touching a computer and probably thought "digital" related to fingers and toes..
Digital work is undoubtedly art, and very highly skilled art in many cases, which no one can or attempts to deny, but the results are not those of painting where the finished product isn't on a screen for printing, but on paper, canvas or any other surface that can be handled physically, but not electronic ones. Paint is the stuff I constantly get in lumber for getting on my clothes. It isn't the method that's in question for me, just the description. If this isn't the case and they are the same, then why stipulate digital or manual? Many digital artists are far more skilled than I and I have the greatest respect for them, but they aren't "painting" but creating art of a different kind. In my recent "Green Door" scenario I used both painted works and conveniently named Microsoft "Paint" to create pics, but not in the painting sense. I have also used "Paint" to create tryptiques several times but never attempted to say otherwise.
Posted
Thanks to all for your responses on this subject. I was getting something of an anti-digital feel from other threads. CLEARLY I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT (excuse my shouting). I much prefer posts in the gallery to give the media used, many do...some don't, and that's not restricted to the digital users. I guess it's not that important, and I can always ask when I comment. As regards the semantics on the use use of the word 'painting'...I concede that 'painting' is done with a brush in normal usage. I tend to talk about pastels and coloured pencil images as 'paintings', and they aren't done with a brush. But that wasn't the point of this thread. I see digital as another medium, that's all. People will either like to use it or not, as with other media. What it produces is art. (We've moved beyond photo-manipulation being presented as 'painting'. That's bad. No argument.)
Perhaps digital is a little out of place on a website produced by a magazine that concentrates on, shall we say... the 'manual' types of mediums. But the site lists digital among its media, as far as I'm concerned that's for the good.
I just want to see interesting and varied art, however it's produced.
Lew
Posted
Following up on the subject of Skylar's work, they are digital, here is his reply to me below. I don't have any issues with that at all, some of his work is quite interesting and obviously requires skill, but I do think it should be stated as such.
Looking at the comments that he receives, and his replies, he is quite clearly giving people the impression that they are paintings, which they are not.
Digital can never be a painting, they are two entirely different entities. A painting uses wet paint and a surface such as canvas, pastel is a painting but applied dry - there are many variants and this is an extract from Google. I would call a pastel a drawing mind you. I don't call my drypoint etchings 'painting', I call them etchings, that's what they are.
I get the distinct impression that those who do create in digital format, for some reason don't want to announce this fact, which is puzzling to me.
Hi, Alan. I have just phased out saying how I create my images because , unless I say otherwise, everything I share here, is digital. My canvases are rarely shared.<cite style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 12.06px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Posted by Skylar Brown on Fri 03 Aug 22:14:51</cite>
Edited
by alanbickley
Posted
Skylar Brown usually says 'created/painted with Artrage Oils', or something similar. Artrage isn't paint, but software. So long as we all know that, I don't see a problem with his work.
Edit: I see this point was actually addressed, I still haven't properly woken up - too blessed hot. I think though, that without disparaging Skylar's work by saying so, his work is pretty obviously digital - the only ones that concern me at all are those which aren't obviously digital at all - but there are usually give-aways.
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
Not sure what you mean by that, Tony. When you post an image, among the list of media used they have 'digital'. I don't know if everybody ticks these boxes? This info doesn't appear with the post, I suspect it's only used to enable people to search for examples in various media. Entering 'digital' in gallery search will produce a whole raft of digital works. If you're suggesting a separate gallery solely for digital, I wouldn't be in favour of that. Perhaps you don't mean that. It's strange that it's there at all, the magazines don't do articles about digital artwork (as far as I know). Why would they? There are lots of digital mags out there.
The POL site seems to treat it as just another medium (as I do). However, I suspect no piece of digital art has ever won a competition in POL (????). That would be fair enough, I guess...given that the mags concentrate on 'trad' media.
Posted
Lewis, thank you. I had failed to spot the 'digital' box, but it is indeed there. I did a search using the keyword 'digital' and was surprised by how little I found. Only 7 from this year, and 5 of them are yours! I am now perplexed as to why people who use digital packages, like ArtRage, would tick the "oil" box and not the digital box. Digital painting is not anything to be ashamed of, though passing it off as something else is another matter. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that digital artists who tick the 'oil', or any other box, but leave the 'digital' box clear are doing anything other than knowingly misleading the viewer.
Posted
That's interesting, Tony. You say your search for digital produced only 7 for this year??? I'm certain there has been far more than that. Clearly people aren't ticking the box, as well as not mentioning it in their description. I occasionally use photoshop to add text to a 'normal' drawing, I don't tick it then, but usually mention that in the description. All very odd...that said, quite a few posts in all media say nothing anyway...you get a picture, a title and the artist's name.
Posted
Following this thread with a great deal of interest, and do agree with those comments that would place digital as a separate art form, worthy in its own right, but people should say. It is easy to pick with Skylar's but I am sure that I don't always identify digital. However I am now rather puzzled (shows I am not very knowledgeable about this new(ish) medium). Presumably the work exists only as a JPEG or similar file unless uploaded to a website - am I correct? And if this is the case, how does the artist monetise it? If it can be printed off somehow onto a surface - how would the purchaser know that they have the "original"? Or do artists treat these works similar to a limited print run or giclee? Or am I completely off track altogether and missing something?
Posted
Yes, you are right, Sandra. Digital only exists as a digital file on a computer...usually they wouldn't use the JPEG format. (Not a great format, used only because it's compact in size for websites like this). So the art would be saved in something like PSD or TIFF format...much superior to JPEG. (I'm guessing on file formats, others more knowledgeable than me may have other ideas.) I look at a lot of digital art on the net, much of it is for sale...they can only sell them as a prints...as you say, something like a limited run of giclee.