"real painting takes much more work and effort than digital painting. this makes it more of an art form."
Doing a quality traditional painting and a quality digital painting... are hard in their own ways. Each one is different, requiring different techniques to produce something. Theyre all different tools. Its like saying "painting with brushes takes more work and effort then airbrushing, so its a better art form" Your comparing two different tools. Art is hard no matter what tool you use. It may be easy to mess around with art, but to challenge yourself and take your art to a professional level, Is hard no matter what medium your using.
The amount of time working on something is irrelevant. Each piece requires a different amount of time to create. Their is no set time with art. Sometimes it takes a long time sometimes is doesnt. Its art.
Soriyns-KnightFeatured By OwnerNov 24, 2012Student General Artist
Art has such a broad definition that I don't think it's possible to classify something as real or fake, because literally anything can be considered artistic. I could take a crayon and scribble on my wall for a bit and someone, somewhere will think it's a masterpiece.
I think art is creating something new or representing something that already exists from a different perspective, no matter what the media.
Some photography doesn't take effort, and I don't think of it as art myself, I just find it amazing. But you have probably seen some wildlife photos, some people almost kill themselves (not literally) to get a good shot of wild animals. I admire photos of frogs the most. I couldn't take a good photo of a sleeping cat, imagine taking a photo of a frog on a leaf from up close? Those things are fast as hell.
Blackrosekane89Featured By OwnerNov 24, 2012Professional General Artist
The reason I started considering photography a real art is because I learned the term "sketching the light". "photography" actually comes from the term "painting light". It really is what you're doing. You have to adjust how the light hits, effects and paint your subject with light in order to get a good photo. All of the camera settings (ISO, apeture, shutter) and everything having to do with "getting a good photo" has to do with adjusting and manipulating the light (aside form composition). Just thought I'd share heehee.
Blackrosekane89Featured By OwnerNov 24, 2012Professional General Artist
Unless you get heavy into photo manipulation or filters I guess.
I'm a hobbyist photographer, but I actually agree with you to some degree. It's very very difficult to be an "artist" with photography. Although we are painting with light, most (including myself) are more of documenters rather then artistic. I consider for myself photography to be more of a fantastic documentory skill then anything.
I guess the kind photography "art" you're looking for are surrealist photographers. They don't limit themselves to reality. It's not just a photoshop skill because a lot of film photographers were able to do the same thing. For example, my uncle did a double exposure. He took a photo of a seascape and a seperate one of a ship. He exposed them on the same film strip so it looked like the ship was floating in the sky.
Art is hard to describe. It's mainly a personal matter if someone believes one of their pieces is artwork or not. People who observe other people's art can't exactly say that "This isn't Art". It's what the creator believes in and because he/she chooses to share their art with you or others doesn't give you the right to say that this isn't art. It's your own opinion for whose Art you think is better than others but please don't say that one form of art is harder than others.
"for example, real painting takes much more work and effort than digital painting. this makes it more of an art form."
No. This is false, which you can see for yourself with a little bit of thought.
First off, people who are bad at a skill have to spend much more effort than people who are good at a skill. Let's take two artists who have studied for the same number of years. One seems to learn painting much easier than the other. They spend 6 weeks on a painting, while the other artist must spend 6 months on a similar quality painting. If effort = "more real" art, then you are saying that it is more artistic to be a plodder who has to work at everything than someone who is smart and quick and can make beautiful paintings easily. Which is really silly.
Second off, you can make art arbitrarily difficult. You say that painting is harder than digital art so it's more of an art form. Well, painting with your toes is more difficult than painting with your hands and painting with your toes while upside down in the dark is more difficult yet. Why aren't our revered masters all upside-down-toe-painters? If more effort = "more real" art why don't we think pointilist painters, who must place thousands of tiny dots on a painting to be more wonderful than alla prima painters who finish a painting in one sitting? Many people will easily say that the pointilist painting is much more impressive, but then they will go out and buy something quite simple to actually hang on their wall. Why? Because effort doesn't translate directly into quality or beauty or meaning and it's a mistake to think that it does.
I personally do not paint digitally ( I'm much more of a traditional artist) but that doesn't mean that it isn't art. I don't really enjoy digital art as much as I enjoy traditional art, and I feel that art looks more authentic when created by means of traditional mediums ( acrylic, gouache, watercolor, oil, etc...) but I don't dismiss digital as not being art. It is art, and there's MANY talented digital artists here on dA. Digital art takes as much knowledge as traditional art does, color theory, composition, art history, tone, etc. You can sit at a canvas or panel for hours with a bunch of tubes of acrylic paint and create a painting that is amazing to look at, and you can sit at a computer for hours and create an amazing piece in Adobe Illustrator. You can slob a dot of acrylic paint on a canvas, but you can take hours and maybe even days and create a beautiful end result. You can draw a line in a cheap painting program or you can spend hours or days, refining and creating a masterpiece in Illustrator.
And photography definitely takes effort. Finding a good location, getting the correct lighting, getting the right angle, etc.
I'd say you should be a bit more open-minded about what you consider "art", you're becoming dangerously close to being anti anti art and Stuckist.
i think the reasons you enjoy traditional more is because deep down in your soul you know it is art, while with digital it is a just for fun pretty picture. thats why digital cant be real art, it doesnt get to you like traditional does.
That may be true for myself, but maybe not for others. We're talking about MYSELF here. Traditional art gets to me, digital doesn't. I'm not the only human being on this planet, others may prefer digital over traditional, others may like both!
Art is, in my opinion, about evoking an emotion in the audience.
So how long it takes to make, how much skill it took, how long it took you to learn that skill, how easy, or how difficult it is to make is less important that the emotion it evokes.
I personally find many photographs amazing, and if you take up photography, you discover how much more than "point and click" goes into spotting the right shot, and lining it up, and knowing your lighting and your angle.
Digital can be just as emotion evoking as traditional painting, and I have seen traditional painting done just as quickly as digital, by and experienced artist.
The only things I consider "fake" art. Tracing, no skill involved, it is passing off someone else's art as your own. Flat out stealing and passing off someone else's art as your own.
Doesn't really seem like you spent too much time with the kinds of art you are saying are "less art".
There's a huge difference between creating a simple piece of photography by just making a snap shot of whatever is around you or planning a complex concept, organizing all the stuff like location, model and whatnot and turning that into an artwork. Drawing a simple digital doodle also isn't the same as creating a detailled, high resolution artwork with difficult light and shadow settings. Yes, mostly anybody in developed learns how to write basically but it's a whole different aspect of how to write in an excellent way that can really cause people to feel something.
I hope you understand what I try to say. ^^' Maybe learnining about what is behind creating all those art forms other than traditional paintings would help you understand them better.
Wow, thanks for that really detailed answer... Not.
It's not just about bringing stuff somewhere, it's about thinking about what to express and everything that belongs to that. But seeing your other replies here, it's useless discussing something like that with you anyway... Kay thanks, I prefer spending my weekend more productively. :3
Anyone can paint, anyone can take a picture, and anyone can put down lines and color with a mouse and keyboard. It takes knowledge of composition, color theory, and that inherant sense of harmony to make it art. Art isn't confined to any media. You have to keep in mind that, in the modern world, art isn't restricted to the traditional sense and notion anymore. We have things like performance art, postmodernism, hyperrealism, etc. It's all art.
Not true. If you look back at art history, there are many cases where pieces are declared to not be art by the public (Impressionists, Van Gogh, Pollack, etc.). It doesn't matter whether it's called art or not, as it's still art. Art is any expression of aesthetics.
I disagree with you almost completely. First off - digital artwork requires quite a bit of knowledge of color theory, composition, lighting, and anatomy, just like "real" painting does. To me, it's the success-fulness of those elements and how well the painting/photograph communicates to it's audience that makes it real art. Photography requires knowledge of lighting and composition and contrast, and generally a good understanding of how to use a camera as a tool for creating art - like how a painter uses a brush to make art. Have you seen artwork created through double exposing film and all the early photography centered around telling fantastical stories or creating unrealistic scenes (like these for example: [link])? Anyhoo, I feel like I've already taken too much time to answer this - I think you need to open up your mind a little about your definition of art.
?? So if I grab a paintbrush and just slab some paint down on a piece of paper it's art. But if I take time and effort to set up a photograph that portrays something unreal it's not, because ultimately all I did was click a button. That's some sound logic.