This journal entry is dedicated to
my opinion about the whole debate about "Traditional art vs Digital art". I don't care if you start flaming me. =\
Please see previous post for commission information
[link]
---
I've been wandering through DA, as usual, and I couldn't help but notice that there appears to be a division in the community: people who accept all forms of art and people who passionately believe in the one "true and real" form of art - traditional art.
But first, let's make a distinction - are you willing to believe that this is art [generalisation]:
A. an image that has been "photoshopped" by using a standard filter, is saved as a bad quality jpeg and has some writing in a generic font on it
B. a pencil scribble on a piece of paper that depics an anime character copied from a picture of the official art
I believe that these things cannot be classified as art. If it was done "on purpose" by a real artist, it would be. However, if these images are produced as a result of a lack of skill, effort put in and actual "concept" created by the artist, it is not art.
These people, aka "passionate believers in the traditional art being true", use the example that "Da Vinci's art was more valuable and valid rather than any art produced by a digital artist". It is true that Da Vinci was a genius in art [and a number of other areas too], and that is what makes his artworks masterpieces. He was just very, very good at what he did.
However, I'm sure that if they had computers back then, Da Vinci wouldn't hesitate to experiment with a new type of media. Saying that digital art is "useless" and "invalid" is just as saying that painting is better than photography or sculpture.
What impresses me most is that people who claim that "traditional art is better than digital art and anyone can do digital art" are simply not Da Vinci. They only produce "art" of type B, or of that sort. They confess they do not use any programs such as Photoshop or Painter, because they've "tried using MS Paint but it didn't work out".
So I don't get it. Why make such radical conclusions and get protective if you haven't even attempted to improve your "drawing skillz" or learn to use Photoshop? Why use Da Vinci as an example?
Yes, digital art IS convenient because there's the "undo" option and you don't need to go through the trouble of mixing paint together. What's wrong with that? How does that make you less of an artist? When they started manufacturing paint in tubes, it didn't make your art invalid.
And guess what? The belief that "anyone can draw on the computer and make art using Photoshop" is stupid! It takes just as much effort to produce something digitally as with real paints! It requires the same amount of planning and deciding, as well as talent and ability not to "overdo" something.
There are many wonderful digital artists, and by saying that "digital art is not art because it doesn't require as much talent and effort to make as traditional art" you are insulting their abilities, their art, the time they have spent and their profession as a whole.
Digital art and traditional art can enhance each other if you try to practise both. Also, if you are skilled at either of them it doesn't make you less of an artist.
Keep in mind that digital art is not all anime and not type A. If you generalise digital art like that, it's just as stupid as saying that all traditional art is like Da Vinci's work. I think that this sort of behaviour is immature.
This is not a personal attack, just a mere expression of my opinion.
~K.
Moving account - please read [EDIT]
- - Featured Artist --- 
]. 
