Art 2.0

[UltimateKirbyFan]

Lately, as I look through deviantart or even Smeargle's Studio, I've been noticing how digital art is taking over. It seems that traditional media has been "outclassed" and almost completely wiped out by their digital counterparts. This leads to the question... Have we transitioned to a new age of art? Art 2.0? Will traditional art become a forgotten trade in the realms of the internet?

discuss?

 

[Zacchaeus]

It's just like music. Our taste and preferences constantly change, so do our ways of accessing this music, and new songs and new styles are always being created and implemented. Of course the highlights of the older styles will stay around, but they will eventually become less and less popular until today's music or art is just as old comparatively

 

[Morm]

I really hope we don't open pandora's shit box (art style), but I'll contribute.

I think that classical art went through many mediums and styles. I'm sure when charcoal came out, it was utilized to its fullest and when oil paints came out it was the same...in fact, I've actually heard it was a revolution because the dry time was longer so they could be more precise.

I think that digital isn't "art 2.0", it's a case of an emerging medium that is both hugely aided by programs like photoshop (taking the need for precise skill out, sometimes) and also a one time cost. Hell, even MS Paint makes it possible...the point is that it's super accessible. With free online tutorials, especially in how to digital art, you have all the makings for an explosion. There is one other ingredient, I think, that you are thinking of when you refer to some sort of digital revolution and that is free uploading/viewing of all art, all the time. I'm sorry to say this but everyone in smeargles studio but myself and maybe like fatecrashers would not sell art on a professional level. So you're seeing an influx of art, whether it be incredible (me), mediocre (fatecrashers) or everyone else.

Art used to be about having a stick lodged in your ass and mastering a medium, a bit of privilege OR immense vision and skill. Now it's about internet access, a summer off and being 14 years old with a tutorial on youtube or even the program itself. It's also become more universally accepted, as we don't care if Bonerdragon6969 made it or Rembrandt; if we like it, we can view it on the internet.

It is simply symptomatic of art being made universally acceptable in this emerging medium. Not some rebirth of art, it's a skewing of perspective (art joke, we in the biz use these sometimes) on elements that were already there.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I think you are finding predominantly digital art because you are looking at predominantly digital sources. Also digital stuff is generally new, and newness has its own appeal, which is a big bias towards digital art for the time being, but that will fade.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mr. Hadwick]

I don't think digital art will ever completely replace traditional art mediums solely because it's not concrete, there's no substance. My girlfriend is a amateur water-colour painter, and I can tell you one of her favorite parts of painting is indeed simply the ability to change a sheet of water-colour paper that was once nothing into art, with nothing but her brush and paint. Then being able to hold her creation and feel the textures and see the colours in the sunlight. It's a simplicity that some people find sacred and won't go away any time soon.

I think that digital art has indeed made art easier to get into, and is thus bringing people into traditional art as they branch out into mediums they wouldn't have immediately jumped into as beginners.

Of course Digital art is great in it's own respect, the same way that water-colour and oil paintings are great, it's more variety for artists to take advantage.

Edit: also I agree with morm that the true revolution is how easy it's become to offer art to the public eye

 

[bombiron]

i hate how any of my traditional things dont go well into the computer, which really limits what i can do, publicity and presentation wise

 

[VKCA]

If you're looking at art via a digital medium, I'm unsure why you're surprised that so much of it is digital.

Well shit, hipmonlee put that much better than I did.

 

[iDunno]

Things that are digital art: Cartoons; Comics; Fanart; Hentai. If you stopped looking for art on the internet and went outside you would see that digital art isn't dominant.

 

[Mr. Hadwick]

You're just generalizing iDunno, I've seen tons of wonderful and interesting original digital art. Not to mention you're leaving out graphic design and market design as art.

 

[iDunno]

Yeah you're right, I completely forgot about graphic design, etc. I shouldn't have been so general in my statement. Digital art can be amazing. The THX graphics are beyond beautiful if you've ever seen them.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Another thing to consider is that art will always be at least somewhat dependent on technology. What you can do is inherently limited by what you have. If you don't have marbel and chisel, you don't have the classic sculptures. If you don't have paint and easel, well you are very limited to what you can paint. Even the quality of the paints, brushes and other materials are all different than they were a hundred years ago.

And technology only continues to advance at a greater pace, especially in other fields of art.

Look at photography. I can't help but find it ridiculous how much a "traditional" photographer will rack his brain over a little white dot in the middle of a black are. Just pop that sucker into photoshop and fix it!

Even amongst digital artists-- I've gotten a negative comment here or there because I like to use filters (especially the water color filter), and also make full use of whatever tools I know how to use. "It's cheating". To me, this seems ridiculous to me though. To some cave man with berry dies in era whatever, Michelangelo would be cheating with oil paint. Art evolves with the tools-- if you don't make full use of the tools available, someone else will. What matters is the final product.

Art is destined to change with technology, and new technologies will always be born with new arts.

My favorite art? Planted Aquarium Design.

This is an aquarium I designed 4 years ago. I really like it. Fact of the matter is, it wouldn't exist without:

-High powered florescent light
-Pressurized CO2
-CO2 delivery system including diffuser
-Filtration system
-substrate system
-fertilizers
and on, and on and on. You can't have tropical plants and fish from all over the world in your aquarium, unless you have planes, delivery systems, and aquarium industry to bring you the goods.

Point being, this type of art could simply not be done 50 years ago. Art is, to a degree shaped by available technology. If the average person had the same tools at his disposal as Pixar, art would change drastically still.

There's no point in thinking that this is anything new-- art has always continued to change, and continued to evolve along side of and be shaped by technology.

 

[Morm]

who coulda guessed your favourite art would be a planted aquarium!

speaking of digital stuff, would video games and michael bay films count? They are entirely digital or worked over by a computer.

 

[Alchemator]

Hi! I'm going to keep this relatively short.

I regard digital tools not as a successor to fine art, but as a catalyst. While I'm not sure if Morm is right in what he says about oil paintings, I believe that the same principle applies here.

Also, you will likely see more digital art not only because of its miscellaneous artistic advantages, but because it's easier to get onto the internet in terms of simply drawing and uploading files, rather than drawing then scanning then uploading.

 

[Yaridovich]

I don't think digital art will ever completely replace traditional art mediums solely because it's not concrete, there's no substance. My girlfriend is a amateur water-colour painter, and I can tell you one of her favorite parts of painting is indeed simply the ability to change a sheet of water-colour paper that was once nothing into art, with nothing but her brush and paint. Then being able to hold her creation and feel the textures and see the colours in the sunlight. It's a simplicity that some people find sacred and won't go away any time soon.

This is being underplayed a bit. I feel that as much as we develop technology, in general, we still be drawn back to what is physical. I find it a lot more preferable to read a physical book or magazine article than to look it up online. There's something aesthetic (perhaps the better word is natural, I'm not trying to sound poetic) about holding a book in one's hands. The feeling associated with making something on a canvas as opposed to on a computer is very much the same sort of difference to me.

Not like that's the only factor in play. The benefits of digital art are really awesome and it will only continue to get better as quality technology becomes further developed and is more available. Physical art could very well become outdated one day though, Socrates condemned the development writing and look how that turned out. Times change. That said, I agree with the guy above me about digital art being more of a catalyst than a replacement.

 

[Mr. Hadwick]

speaking of digital stuff, would video games and michael bay films count? They are entirely digital or worked over by a computer.

Hide

I find the whole videogames and movies not being art a little silly, it doesn't mean they have to be good art, I'm not saying micheal bay is a new shakespeare, but it is art. As unsophisticated as it may seem.


Also Chou I love your aquariums, are you the guy who had a whole thread about them in cong? I loved that thread.

 

[tup]

I guess all the main points have been said by now. Digital art will never fully replace real art, because it's not physical. And anything that is not physical will never fully be able to replace anything physical. You would have thought that between emails and facebook and all that people would have stopped using fax machines or sending letters, but it hasn't happened. Granted, the usage of these means of communication has gone down drastically, but it's yet not fully been replaced.

The same thing's happening with art. My mother is an artist, she holds exhibitions rather frequently. Her style of painting involves making real objects colourful, with lots of colours. The style is called fauvism or something. Anyway, you won't find many fauvist paintings through digital means. Nor will you ever be able to fully replace water colours, oil paints, acrylics or even sculptures. The fact that you can hang them on a wall or place them somewhere in your house openly for people to admire is enough for the survival for these means of art. Everyday I pass through the area near an art gallery, and there are literally dozens of young artists setting up their works on the footpath waiting for them to be sold. And people actually buy it; it's brilliant.

If digital art ever were to replace actual art it would be because of some sort of shortage of materials, or a lack of skill. The majority of photoshop artists adopt their method of creation because they'd pay only once, and you'd require a much less time to master it. Also, I'm not entirely sure how many people actually make digital art. Most of what I've seen comes from DeviantArt or some other online art collection. And DeviantArt consists mostly of teenagers and the younger generation. So as long as old people are there and are willing to buy art, I don't see it being replaced by digital media anytime soon.

Also Chou I love your aquariums, are you the guy who had a whole thread about them in cong? I loved that thread.

No, that was Morm.