Confessions of a Digital Art Snob! (or what I really think of some kinds of digital art)
Excerpt from a discussion on Red Bubble about what guidelines for the group Fine Art Digital Painters should be:
This is my opinion only, and I have since been booted out of the group as a co-host (without warning I might add), probably for my outspokeness, although that is not the reason I was given hah! hah! I was having trouble with some of the art being submitted to the group because it was done with programs like Digital Auto Painting, and many were obviously using filters and painting on top of photos. I have since removed myself from the group altogether because I can't compromise my principles about this. Although I never rejected submitted work that did follow the guidelines, even if I didn't consider the method of creating it consistent with the term Fine Art.
The thing is, it was no secret that I felt this way and to be honest I am relieved that my art will not be associated with digital art that is not painted on a blank canvas using digital brushes as the tools any longer. It's fine to call it digital art , but I disagree that it can be called Fine Art. I'll probably be offending a lot of my digital art friends saying this, but they should really read what I have to say and understand what I am saying.
I added this note later in the day because I realized my comments were pretty strong and could be misinterpreted.
* I didn't make myself as clear as I should have here. What I mean is associated with art in a group calling itself Digital Fine Art Painters when the art is created largely by the use of filters and cloning tools, rather than by the artists own hand and vision. This type of art can be very appealing and it does take a lot of skill and artistry to do it well, but I think it should be made clear that it is a different process than painting from scratch on a blank canvas.
Despite all my arguements and opinions about this, I have to say that it really is great to see so many people getting in touch with their creative selves and learning to express themselves in ways that were not possible before the digital software tools we have today came on the scene. It obviously brings so many of them a lot of joy and peace (myself included)...so whatever you do and however you do it, doesn't really matter ultimately as long as you are having a great time doing it!!!
" Hi Everyone,
My two cents worth…I agree with many people that it isn’t the software so much as how you use it that is clearly the defining point. People can do many things with Painter and Photoshop and with using them together as (name) does. If the artists intent is to create something original I don’t think it matters what program is used. It’s the intent as well as the process that concerns me. (I would like to see a group that only allows digital paintings done from scratch on a blank canvas with the source photo as a reference photo only, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon!)
That being said, I have seen some very creative and beautiful art done digitally which relies on incorporating a source photo into the work. It is manipulated and altered and imbued with the artist’s own interpretation of the scene. I know FADP accepts some work created this way and yet other pieces have been rejected. It is impossible to absolutely monitor each piece unless we asked the artist outright to show us how it was done! That would get a little nutty fast, don’t you think!
My understanding of our original intention in forming this group was not to disallow any work based on the program used ie: no Photoshop, but to disallow work based on the following criteria:
Fine Art Digital Painters Group Guidleines:
“No filtered imagery to simulate painting. Works submitted using obvious filters will not be accepted.
Works must show clear evidence of brushstrokes and be painterly.
No Pixel Art, Anime, Vector Work, Montages, Fractal or 3D
The use of cloning tools is acceptable as long as the result is painterly.”
“Works must show clear evidence of brushstrokes and be painterly.”
This is a guideline that leaves quite a bit open to different interpretations, and is really quite subjective. Some brushstrokes will not be obvious to the eye, but are definitely there, such as glazes in digital watercolour’s or air brush strokes in which case the process and intent are the defining factors. If the strokes are made freehand and the artist controls what mark is made on the canvas/paper then it is not the appearance of the stroke or strokes themselves that matter, but the end result of all the strokes.
“No filtered imagery to simulate painting. Works submitted using obvious filters will not be accepted.”
It’s the not so obvious filters and techniques that some people use to give us the impression that they painted something when all they really did was alter it so we wouldn’t know they didn’t paint it, that irk me. At first and sometimes second look I can usually tell if a painting is a photo manipulation of some kind or painted from scratch. Again, the artist’s intent is the defining factor. If it’s obvious that a source photo has been purposely included and the manipulation is the artistic expression then that’s a little different than pretending you painted something by doing enough brush strokes on top to disguise the original photo. To me, and I know some people will disagree with me, that is a kind of cheating that really doesn’t have a place in Fine Art of any kind, and is in my opinion one of the biggest reasons why “digital art” is looked down upon by traditional artists, and viewed with some suspicion by the general public. I am not saying that it doesn’t take a lot of real skill and artistic interpretation to do this well, just that implying that it was done otherwise (ie: from scratch) is where the credibility factor is stretched.
This is my opinion only and I realize I am in the minority here and therefore I don’t reject work for these reasons. I just wouldn’t invite someone to join the group if I felt this was how they created their art.
Fortunately, we allow for some differences of opinion in this group as hosts and moderators. The group does allow cloning tools if the result is painterly after all, despite my opinion.
Could we make it a rule that this isn’t allowed and enforce it? Obviously not. We would have to rely on the artist to be honest about how they created their art, which is what we are already doing for the most part.
I hope I have clarified my opinions on what I think our guidelines mean, and that I have not offended too many people with these statements. I am admittedly a bit of a digital art snob, but it’s only because I really want to see digital painting going on in this group, not just pixel twiddling!
I would really like to know what other artists in FADP think of this, and what they would like to see as our group guidelines. Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to get this off my chest while the discussion is open to debate.
Happy Digital Painting!" (end of excerpt)
I would love to hear the opinions of other artists (digital or traditional) on this subject! Please use the comment box and get it off your chest! If you disagree, tell me why. If you are a traditional painter, what do you think of digital painting?
Is the problem really that there are no standard definitions of the types of digital art and digital painting? Is this confusion one of the things hindering acceptance of digital painting as an art form?
Posted in Miscellaneous. Updated September 22nd, 2010. 7 comments so far.
Share on
StumbleUpon, Delicious or Digg.
Giesla said:
Tossing a filter on top of a photo is not even close to digital painting, nor is putting brush strokes on a photo to make it look more painterly.
As a digital artist who does montages, I have great respect for digital painters who paint with pixels because it's not easy to fit into the fine art world. Painting with pixels is every bit as much of an art as painting with acrylics or watercolors, if you're doing it from scratch as a traditional painter would be painting on a blank canvas. It just makes sense and I think people who are going to argue with you on this are going to have a more difficult time convincing people that what they do is art. Art is creating from zero, not adding to something that's existing unless you're collaborating on a piece.
I hardly think you're a snob. I think you're a great artist with a valuable opinion!
Keep up the great work!