Traditional Art vs Digital Art
Traditional art VS Digital art
Fri, May 15, 2009
News
Because we live in a century dominated by technology innovation, art itself has been offered new creative horizons. But these new advantages have not been considered so beneficial for the art by some conservative art lovers, who believe that if the art is not created using traditional tools (pen, oils, watercolor, etc.) that art cannot be considered true art (true in the meaning of recognizing it’s real values).
Even if the painting, the design or the sketch is created using traditional tools, just a pencil and paper, or a drawing tablet, both reflect in the same way the artist’s creative effort and talent. What is really offending nowadays, due to this technology, is that many people pretend to have “become artists” just because he/she can easily combine some Photoshop brushes. The main question that stands is: how much of that person’s talent is reflected in that resulting piece of art? That depends very much on the person behind the technology. If the person who wants to create ART using the computer is an ARTIST, the resulting piece of digital stuff is ART, without the artist, drawing and manipulating programs can’t do a thing. Sometimes it’ very hard to discern between the real artists and the ones who are just playing with the tools provided by digital programs. There are also some artists, who pretend their art is totally innovative, abstract or exceeds the limits of imagination by disposing mixtures of abstract elements and finally call it ART. The limits of deciding are actually fragile, because everything that is considered to be ART is decided to be valuable, innovative or absolutely worthless, by subjective points of view, and a design that is considered to be total crap for one might look absolutely amazing in some others’ opinion. That’s true concerning all kinds of tastes.
To that, many artists are still attached to those sensitive feelings that traditional art gives, that intimacy
Fri, May 15, 2009
News
Because we live in a century dominated by technology innovation, art itself has been offered new creative horizons. But these new advantages have not been considered so beneficial for the art by some conservative art lovers, who believe that if the art is not created using traditional tools (pen, oils, watercolor, etc.) that art cannot be considered true art (true in the meaning of recognizing it’s real values).
Even if the painting, the design or the sketch is created using traditional tools, just a pencil and paper, or a drawing tablet, both reflect in the same way the artist’s creative effort and talent. What is really offending nowadays, due to this technology, is that many people pretend to have “become artists” just because he/she can easily combine some Photoshop brushes. The main question that stands is: how much of that person’s talent is reflected in that resulting piece of art? That depends very much on the person behind the technology. If the person who wants to create ART using the computer is an ARTIST, the resulting piece of digital stuff is ART, without the artist, drawing and manipulating programs can’t do a thing. Sometimes it’ very hard to discern between the real artists and the ones who are just playing with the tools provided by digital programs. There are also some artists, who pretend their art is totally innovative, abstract or exceeds the limits of imagination by disposing mixtures of abstract elements and finally call it ART. The limits of deciding are actually fragile, because everything that is considered to be ART is decided to be valuable, innovative or absolutely worthless, by subjective points of view, and a design that is considered to be total crap for one might look absolutely amazing in some others’ opinion. That’s true concerning all kinds of tastes.
To that, many artists are still attached to those sensitive feelings that traditional art gives, that intimacy