Digital or traditional art?

Question

As artists, students or critics, what type of contemporary art do you admire the most, "classical art" (sculpture, acrylics, oils, watercolours...) or the more modern digital art? Do you think traditional painting is outdated? If yes, please explain.

Answer 1

Good question....

For me personally, i'm more into new age digital art. I say this because I'm broke and can't afford to keep resupplying art supplies for my habit. Digital art is much cheaper in the long run than traditional, but traditional is more comforting to do. Its like choosing CD's over Vinyl if your a hands on DJ. The feel of the brushes, pencils,chalk, e.t.c are soothing and much more relaxing than the cold stylus pen of a digitab. Although, now-a-days, traditional art is high class stuff, Digital art is more efficient and projects get done quicker. Digi is my vote for work, but as hobby, traditional is the bomb. :)

Answer 2

It doesn't matter.  Art is not DEFINED by it's medium.  It only categorizes it. (which in itself, limits artistic expression)

The digital hardware and software are, merely tools, no different than pencils, brushes, oils, acrylics, canvases, lights, colored paper, clay, plasticine, marble, photographic film and Exacto knives.

Is a charcoal figure sketch any less sophisticated than an oil on canvas?  Does it make any aesthetic difference if a line is drafted with a stick of pastel, or on a digital pad and stylus?

One of the common misconceptions about digital art, expressed here, on Yahoo Answers and other forums, is that, somehow, it is the computer that creates art and the "artist" has less to do with it than before.  But, it is clearly not true.  No software application in the world can, with a flick of a switch, turn anyone into an artist.

It takes a good artist to create good digital art.  A poor artist will create equally poor digital pieces.  Matt Groenig, creator of the Simpsons, is a talented cartoonist.  A genuine artist.  A website that will "Simpsonize" a character for you, does NOT create art.

I am a commercial artist, trained and practiced in traditional media.  Besides training and practice in fine art media, like oils, acrylics, pastels, watercolors, charcoal pencils, clay and others, I also studied psychology, color theory, marketing and a multitude of design disciplines.  I used to "cut and paste" when cutting was done with an Exacto blade and pasting was done with a pot of rubber cement.  But, with the introduction of digital tools, I discovered that I could work faster and more efficiantly, in most cases, by "going digital."  Why should I spend hours recreating an illustration from scratch, on paper, when I could make changes to, only, the specific problem area in minutes.

For my clients, it's the end result that they pay for.  They could care less about the process.  And, whether a piece is created in pigments with brushes, or, entirely on a computer monitor, guess what?  It all gets scanned and digitized for the printing process!

But again, it is the end results that count.  If an illustrator works in watercolor and gets the result he or she wants, while I may prefer to work in, say, Photoshop and I get the results I want, who's to say that the traditional piece is outdated?  Who's to say that my digital piece has less aesthetic value than the traditional work.

Even those that spend big money on fine art prints are STILL paying for a digital reproduction.  What hangs on their wall is as far removed from traditional media as something that never saw ink to paper until the print was made.

Again I say, It does not matter, except for that rare collector of ORIGINAL traditionaly created artwork.  That's just a rarified FEW individuals.  NOT like most of us.