Straightforward question. Are art photomanips (aside from ones for design purposes) mainly for people who aren't able to paint/draw or don't have the time to, or are they a valid and challenging art form of their own?
I'm kind of split on this. On one hand, I really enjoyed my few experiences with photomanipulation when I was setting up an image for a screen-print, but on the other I feel like if you could paint something, you would.
its a perfectly valid art form,its like all other styles-some people use more technical ability in their work,complex pieces-whilst the opposite end are people who do not put much of their own creativity into it-minor retouches,some might just do one retouch,it might not even look good from a technical sense-but thats art.
Photo manipulation requires a lot of skill and training before one is any good at it, the same as any other art form. The artist in question may or may not have any formal training in drawing, though It's worth nothing that the better manips tend to have a lot of subtle drawn elements added digitally.
I've got a healthy respect for some of the more skilled photo manipulators here. Frankly, they're a helluva lot better at it than I am.... and I hopefully don't sound too full of myself when I say I'm pretty damned good at 'drawing'.
I am absolutely sure that many people start doing photomanipulations because they think that it is a quick way to get the results they want. Just as some people start using 3d programs because they can't draw figures. However getting those images to actually look good demands a lot of practice patience and knowledge.
Many people can't see the basic flaws in a picture if the details are rendered extensively. When you use photography you get much of the rendering for free but without basic skills in anatomy, colour, composition, form, light and values the fondation of the picture will be weak and it will simply look bad. It is easier to learn these skills with painting, drawing and sculpture.
People who are good at drawing will most definately be better at photomanipulation than someone who is not but I am not sure that the opposite is true.
It doesn't mean that that person can't draw. It just means they have chosen a different artistic expression compared to the one you indulge in. Simple as.
I did a bit of both. Just as hobby, i'm not a specialist.. My feeling is that trad. work is more rewarding. It's fantastic to see the result while you know this was just a sheet of blank paper in the start. But on the other side it takes also a lot of time to make them and loads of practice.
Currently I do not have the time enough to make much trad. work So I started with some photo manip. It is really fun to do and it is possible to realize great results in a small amount of time.. But do they give me the same good feeling as i get by trad. art... i must say No Notwithstanding I gave great respect for some digital or manip artists here on DA!
That's just my opinion.
If art is not your job, I think everyone should do what he loves to do and enjoys most.
lol the short of it is it could be, i do them every once in a while, learned a lot about the programs i was using. a lot of sculptors, photographers, hell even a lot of painters cant draw for shit its just a different approach in my book
I'm kind of split on this. On one hand, I really enjoyed my few experiences with photomanipulation when I was setting up an image for a screen-print, but on the other I feel like if you could paint something, you would.