Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Photographs or paintings?
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
There's a world of difference between manipulating a photograph and pretending you painted it, and producing digital art - which I'd do myself, if I weren't too mean to buy the necessary equipment; although I'd never desert the pencil, brush, charcoal and paint.
I don't seriously mind if people trace, or use light-boxes or any other aid - but I do think they're in danger of getting stuck with their accessories, and not laying them aside as soon as they can: a bit like learning to walk without crutches. The loss is theirs, really - and it's hard to increase confidence if you fear you can't let go of external forms of help.
But how far do you take this? On a good day, I can draw a straight line or a circle - only because I've done it a thousand times before. But for whatever reason there are days when I can't do either: I wouldn't hesitate to reach for a ruler, or find a suitably sized coin to draw around, or use a template. I wouldn't think of that as cheating. Would I use tracing paper? Well, I never have - not since I left school, I think; but freehand drawing perhaps comes more readily to some of us than to others - it would be wrong to deny people the pleasure of painting or drawing just because their freehand drawing lets them down (but I agree with Sylvia about drawing - and we're both in good company, because Ingres called drawing "the probity of art"; the big problem isn't that people can't draw, but that they're not being taught how to draw - there are a few who'll never get there, but most people could if only they had good tuition).
Even so, I don't need to batter on about this - I agree that people posting in the Gallery should, please, let us know the dimensions of their work, and how they produced it: it makes it that much more interesting apart from anything else. But for the rest - digital art is here to stay; cheating is playing about with somebody else's photograph in Photoshop - and it has happened here (I remember accusing/questioning someone about this - their image disappeared from the site in record speed and they weren't heard from again, which rather confirmed my suspicions, not that it wasn't obvious anyway: there's no excuse for that, it's an attempt to deceive). So I think Splosh identified a real problem, but probably mis-identified an artist he thought guilty of deception - I think "R" has just got fed up with repeating himself every time, because all his work is made the same way; but I do think he adds value to the site.
There! Oil on troubled waters - or have I just put a match to it.....?
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
It's at this point I say "I like a frank exchange of views", and sidle quietly out of the first convenient door....
Sylvia, no more than I, doesn't believe that the primary purpose of art is to be therapeutic - because for us, it isn't; that's not why we do it (although it probably helps to ward off depression, for example, that's not the main reason for my engaging in it).
But that's a personal matter - I certainly know of people who paint because it relaxes them and helps them with various issues. Art therapy is commonly used in the NHS - indeed, I was peripherally involved with that when I volunteered with the NHS, which I stopped doing last year after 13 years of it: somewhere or other, I have a DVD produced by my local hospital which is full of material promoting the arts right across the board as therapy for mental illness, for stroke, for rehabilitation after serious injury. Some of it, I have to say, does strike me as a touch happy-clappy, but then I'm getting old and cynical.
But my great aunt had never picked up a paint brush until encouraged to in her care home - at the age of nearly 90, she produced some excellent paintings - a talent was unlocked which had always been there.
What's wrong with that? Nothing. It's actively good. But some of us get cross in Sylvia's case, restive in mine, if the therapeutic side gets too wrapped up with the creative element to the extent that people assume we're doing it because we have issues which art helps us to resolve. People will speak of Van Gogh in this context, but the fact that he needed to work doesn't mean that he worked in order to feel better, or even that he felt better when working (though he probably did).
These are very deep waters, which we're not going to resolve here. Art used as therapy can develop into something viable as art in its own right - I think my great aunt was getting towards that, the sadness is that it was left so late - but that doesn't mean that art is by definition therapy, and I don't think Adele was arguing that.
The fact is a) that we've wandered well off-topic, and b) that this site welcomes people of all abilities, even if that's sometimes a slightly uncomfortable mix perhaps, provided only that no one is trying to lead us down the garden path into admiring work which owes far more to software than it does to them. Creativity, as Michael says, is the key - the way we actually express that, and the degree of proficiency with which we can do so, is of less importance. I do think it's worth adding, though, that Hockney wasn't trying to belittle the abilities of those artists of the past who may have used the camera obscura and other aids to composition and construction - he wasn't trying to justify "cheating", but to demonstrate that "cheating" is a misnomer in their case.
(This could easily turn into a book, so I'm going to stop now and make my breakfast!)
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I agree entirely David and unfortunately this was the main topic of this posting and it was lost in the ensuing difference of opinion and I will apologise for that.
However before I personally put this matter to rest and because I think other artists might have grasped the wrong end of my arguments I will just reiterate that I am no "do gooder" standing on my soapbox. On a wonderful site like this, I would like ALL true artists, whatever their subject and in whichever style they choose to paint (as long as it is a painting of course), and for whatever reasons, to be accorded proper respect. You do not have to be Pollyanna Sylvia and neither do I. But it is one thing to offer critique, and this is what a lot of us put up our paintings for, not just for a pat on the back. But it is entirely another matter to sit and pontificate because, to my mind, if you do that, you had better be pretty d......d perfect yourself. And with that, for me this discussion is over.
Robert, you can come back into the room now, my dear!
Posted
http://www.painters-online.co.uk/gallery/art-view,picture_173161.htm
It DOES look like a photograph - and I dont mean photorealistic. The artist has been asked what medium but has not replied. Im not knocking the man or his work, but if it is a photograph it's being slightly disingenuous and if it isnt then what IS the medium?
D
Posted
I know it is. And as someone said earlier, there's stuff in there that look like artefacts of a photograph but which have no meaning in a painting and contribute nothing.
Anyway, this thread isnt a critique of Dennis' enjoyable work, nor a discussion of what is art, just a question about whether, IF Dennis work is photographic, should it be here at all. We seem agreed that it should not, but if it is it ought to at least state that it's a photomanipulation OR clearly identify the medium (even if digital). Now lest we all fall out, or worse, upset Dennis (which we do not intend), it perhaps ought to end here.
D
Posted
The whole subject is a difficult one. Maybe in digital art an actual brush isn't used but in banning digital art on these grounds we could be opening a can of worms. There are many sketches and drawings posted in which the brush isn't used. Should they also be banned? It strikes me that my cartoons aren't strictly painting as they are done with a pen. Conversely my little sculptures which I've posted in the past have acrylic paint applied to them with a brush so if this stance was adopted they would pass the test and I could continue posting them.
However I do baulk at digital manipulation of photographs but I can't see a way of identifying this practice and banning it without also banning what I would call genuine digital art. I also agree that it would be so helpful for some means to be adopted whereby every post has to identify both size and medium used.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
OK - got all that. But what Dennis, who has now been identified, does is not manipulating photos: I agree entirely that this isn't what this site is about.
He produces art on - whatever the Hell it is: an Ipad? I don't know, I haven't got one and am not really very interested in using one. But those who do explain that brush strokes can be replicated digitally, and there's as much skill in that as lies in squeezing paint out onto a palette and pushing a brush into it. Or a different skill, anyway.
Are they right? I don't know, because I don't do it: but I'm prepared to take them at their word and I don't wish to see people pushed off the site because some of us don't accept this as painting. I don't see any point in getting angry or defensive (or offensive) about it: I enjoy Dennis's paintings, I think they ARE paintings - as were Skylar Brown's - and there's room on the site for this approach, surely?
So long as we're not asked to accept photographs as painting, which it isn't and doesn't normally seek to be, I don't see the problem. I DO understand that many of us believe the physical act of applying actual paint to a real, not virtual, surface is what painting is and should be about. And indeed so far as I'm concerned, I do believe that - it's what I've been doing for three quarters of my life so far, after all. But is there not room for digital creation, as opposed to manipulation? Surely there is.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I think the only question is whether the works are photos digitally changed not digital art itself, which is a bona-fide art form, like it or not, and which an increasing number of artists are turning to. However it is very hard to know for sure and, as Robert points out, such a lot of other artists enjoy his work, so I would say that in those circumstances the benefit of the doubt should be given and as it doesn't seem to actually be having a detrimental effect on any other artist's work, then we should just accept it.
Posted
I don't want to bully anyone, just know what it is I'm looking at. I use photo-manipulation for my photos, but have never posted them here, because they are photos - different art form.
Digital painting though is a very difficult discipline, due to the complexity of the Photoshop application and the dexterity needed in using the drawing tools. It is unfortunate that digital painting seems to have been hijacked by the Fantasy gamers. I would like to see more digital painting on this site as the potential is enormous. It would be lovely in the hands of true artists.
Posted
Interesting posts Pat. I have used Photoshop CC, but not used an iPad. I think Sketchbook is similar to iPad. Photoshop CC is very complex, perhaps too many option. It is also only availble on a subscription basis (Very Expensive). However Photoshop Elements is a bit simpler and can be bought outright. Corel Draw is quite popular, but I haven't used it.