| |
Community
Magazines
Book Clubs
Book Stores
|
|
 |
 |
| Your interactive artists' community |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Artists Network
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
 |
| 01/04/2008 7:46 AM |
 Alert
|
Ok, so I'm wondering this...Is it a painting if the artist uses a computer program to paint it? Or should I say, "enhance a photo" through a computer program? I realize that it is art, afterall art is contrived of all kinds of mediums and technology, but is it a 'painting'????
I'm from the old school and paintings are done with a brush, pallet knife...a finger or rag or stick of pastel, spray equipment or any tool used to "APPLY THE PAINT TO A SURFACE." Not a mouse or joy stick on a computer, that allows a photograph to become a 'painting' through a designed program. 
Sure, it still takes artistic abilities to somewhat perform the task. But, to me it is NOT a painting. It is a computer enhanched photograph....
Mike |
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Rick Givens
Posts:29
|
| 01/04/2008 2:10 PM |
Alert
|
Mike,
I don't think it's a particularly sensitive issue. I'd agree with you that the term "painting" generally should be reserved for a process that involves the manual application of pigment to paper or canvas. That said, check out the work of Karin Schminke on her website:
http://www.schminke.com/index.html
In her excellent book, "Digital Art Studio", she describes processes that she uses that definitely blur the boundaries between digital prints and paintings. She's printing digital files over supports painted with watercolor or acrylics, or doing gel transfers of digital files onto mixed media pieces, printing on metal sheets,...etc. It certainly seems like more than a "computer enhanced photograph to me". |
|
|
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
|
| 01/04/2008 4:11 PM |
Alert
|
Rick,
Maybe I went the wrong way with this?
I actually meant when a person takes a photograph and manipulates it with a computer program to make it look like a painting.
I've seen some oil paintings (or what are described as oil paintings) that are really just manipulated photos printed onto canvas.
What I'm questioning is the paint programs that are out there, used to 'make' paintings out of photographs...they're NOT what I call paintings.
What you've shown me is different than what I was talking about, and absolutely artistic and creative. Not at all a computer enhanced photograph...
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Rick Givens
Posts:29
|
| 01/04/2008 4:39 PM |
Alert
|
Mike,
I think I understood what you meant in your original post. I absolutely agree with you about photographs that are altered using filters in Photoshop to resemble paintings. Although people can get pretty creative about those types of digital endeavors, I don't see how they can be considered anything more than edited photographs. I just wanted to point out some of the truly creative work being done with digital techniques that, in my opinion, definitely does fit within a fine art definition.
Rick |
|
|
|
MTillie
Posts:36
|
| 01/04/2008 6:24 PM |
Alert
|
Isn't this digital artwork? DEFINITELY none of this stuff should be called "PAINTING" Even it looks like a painting, it is still computer product and so would be called such.
Printrs are created with photo porgrams and these prints are sold,but I believe they are identified as computer prints? There are other computer programs that can be used to create art without photographs; that too is computerized/ digital artwork but it is not an edited photo,but a construction of the artist's design.
Labeling artwork is necessary and the buyer should know exactly what is purchased. |
|
|
|
one who sees
Posts:508
|
| 01/05/2008 7:53 AM |
Alert
|
i consider anything created with a computer, digital art....
meaning, it was created on a monitor,mouse, tablet, and printed out....
any kind of photo manupulation is also digital art...it no longer is straight photography and cant be exhibited as such, it has its own category....
and my thinking goes along with the rest here...one needs to take brush in hand for it to be called painting, though many pastelists, oil pastelists, call their work paintings too....i dont have any qualms about that, though i normally would call those drawings, they are just in color, with a different medium...
just as i consider my cps to be drawings....but if someone wishes to call em something different? s'fine with me....i just quietly disagree....hehee... |
|
~I am always doing what I cannot do yet, in order to learn how to do it~
Vincent Van Gogh
www.bettyannlemist.com |
|
jdean
Posts:27
|
| 01/05/2008 4:57 PM |
Alert
|
Hey Mike,
Thought I'd weigh in on this one as well.
It
struck a particular chord in me... early last year I was warned
(wisely) by the curator of an art center to be careful - a couple of my
paintings looked exactly like what you've been talking about -
photographs that'd been run through photo-editing software using a
particular effect. Familiar with the use of such software, I was
instantly hearing what he was saying about the perceived value of my
work.
Unfortunately there seems to have been a great deal of
dilution as far as what's considered "art" the past couple of decades,
(stores selling posters as "art prints," etc.), and since the reading
of 1984 copies of The Artist's Magazine to present day
copies, there's also been a major, yet seemingly, perfectly-acceptable
shift in what's understood as 'good practice' regarding how artists
create their paintings. (I'm talking the use of grids, tracings and
projections to get an image onto the canvas - something my art teacher
would've had a hemorrhage over way back in the late 60's - or computer
manipulation of a photo to paint from.) On one artist's website, I even
read how he's painting directly on top of a photo printout to create
his "paintings." (To his credit, he's making no bones about it, but he's
selling!)
Anyway, so I really wasn't surprised by your question.
At
the risk of being called a 'purist,' digital art is in its own realm
and seems to have its own set of rules; fine art is in another and has
its. And like others have said, I believe a painting is a painting when
you use P-A-I-N-T to create it… (Not digital paint either.)
Cheers!
Jeff
www.JeffreyJeromeDean.com
|
|
|
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
|
| 01/06/2008 7:13 AM |
Alert
|
I'm happy to see that more of you believe as I do! When I posted this question, I thought that I would get a lot of grief, hense the "sensitive question" subject line.
It's not really that big a deal I guess, but it is disturbing to me for someone to try and pass their work off as paintings when they are not. I guess 'cheaters' have been around since grade school, so I should be used to them by now.......so I should be used to them by now.
Mike |
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Enchanted
Posts:16
|
| 01/06/2008 10:04 AM |
Alert
|
When it comes to purchasing art today, the old saying "buyer beware" has taken on much more meaning. It becomes ever more confusing as time passes and time-worn designations evolve to describe new and sometimes totally unrelated forms. The terms "print, printing and fine art prints" were some of the first to suffer multiple meanings. And many if not most people viewing poster art haven't a clue how the product was derived, and possibly don't care (as long as it's affordable).
Recently I purchased a "ceramic" piece as a Christmas gift for a friend. That's how the artist who made it represented it - as "ceramic." It appeared to be painted ceramic to my uneducated eyes. But in actuality it turned out to be made from the polymer clay that is popular nowadays with hobby artists - the kind that hardens when placed in a kitchen range's oven. While gift boxing it, I broke it in three places! I was able to glue it back together, but never would I be able to give it to someone as a gift, so I now have a piece I'd never have purchased for myself.
|
|
Greetings from Land of Enchantment, USA
|
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
|
| 01/08/2008 8:27 AM |
Alert
|
Yep! And the worst part is that these 'paintings', 'prints' are not always so affordable. They are sometimes sold for lots and lots of dollars!!!
Oh well, whata gonna do? As long as some 'artists' continue deceive, there will always be those 'paintings' and other 'art' out there...
It's really a shame that some gallery owners are more interested in making money than they are in the validity of the art in their galleries.
Mike |
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Rick Givens
Posts:29
|
| 01/09/2008 11:07 AM |
Alert
|
While I agree that digital art is not a "painting" in the sense that most of us attach meaning to that term, I don't agree that digital art is without validity and shouldn't be hung in galleries. And as for the sellling price of digital pieces, or any other art for that matter, anybody who's ever tried to sell art knows that there's no direct correlation between the medium used, the number of hours the artist spent on the piece, the size of the piece, the subject matter, or any other directly quantifiable variable and the price that the artist is able to sell it for. Value is in the eye of the purchaser.
|
|
|
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
|
| 01/10/2008 7:50 AM |
Alert
|
Rick,
I'm only saying that the validity lies in the what the piece is described to be. If the gallery owner claims it to be a painting and it is a digitaly enhanced photo, then there is deception.
The point I'm trying to make here is that some artists and gallery owners are deceiving people by saying that these pieces are paintings and in my definition, they are not.
I agree with all that you've said here.
Digital art is creative, beautiful, appreciated and respected by me, as are all other art forms. I just want it called what it is.
What's the reason for deception? Will it not sell if described as it is? Will the price be affected? Are people looking for 'certain' types of art? What is the artist trying to tell us?
I just wonder the reasons for this deception...
Mike
|
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Expunge
Posts:1
|
| 02/03/2008 11:57 PM |
Alert
|
The case you outlined in the OP would definitely be photo manipulation – and not very good photo manipulation, at that. It's especially galling when the base photo is photographed by someone else, then used by the wannabe-painted without permission and profited off of. Unfortunately this happens quite often, and a lot of photographers get really upset about it (and rightfully so!).
I definitely differentiate between photomanips and digital paintings (the latter being done with a tablet/mouse in a way that mimics "real" painting as closely as possible as can be done with a computer, and usually doesn't involve a photograph beyond a standard reference). I have a lot of respect for digital painters, because I think it requires a lot of the same skills as traditional media and a lot of the time, these artists work with traditional mediums as well as digital. |
|
|
|
Realist2
Posts:32
|
| 02/14/2008 5:12 PM |
Alert
|
Art is art, no matter how it is achieved.
A lie is a lie, no matter how it is told.
|
|
|
|
Lung Tom
Posts:212
|
| 03/04/2008 5:32 PM |
Alert
|
| I have wondered about some of the watercolors posted that look to me to be photographs enhanced by a mouse more than true photo-realism watercolor on paper. |
|
Lung Tom |
|
357Lady
Posts:94
|
| 03/04/2008 10:17 PM |
Alert
|
I agree with you Mike on your stand. But I like Realist2's reply the
best. Succinct & to the point. 
Josi |
|
|
|
mikec@pols
Posts:877
|
| 03/05/2008 8:50 AM |
Alert
|
Yep Josi, Realist2 pretty much summed it all up!
Mike |
|
"You either grow or regress...nothing stays the same...." (unknown)
"A man may fall several times in life, but he is not a failure until he says that he was pushed..."
www.portraitsoflifestudio.com |
|
Mrs Willow
Posts:103
|
| 03/05/2008 3:46 PM |
Alert
|
I agree with you Mike...
Although I appreciate digital art for what it is ...and some of it is extremely creative, I personally like a painting to be a painting in the traditional sense.
Realist2 sums it up well.
Sandy |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|