Your Opinion on Digital Art vs Traditional Art?

This is a big thing in the art community.

A lot of people seem to think digital art isn't art and that traditional art is worth more because it's 'harder'.

(which I think is bullshit. Both mediums have their challenges)

It's like the bloody argument that photography isn't an artform because anyone can do it!

Anyone can paint too!

A shit photo is just as bad as a shit painting.

What do you guys think?


0|1
6|17

Most Helpful Guy

  • I have met these brats who call themselves 'digital artists', and they are one of the most homogenous, ignorant and predictable groups I've ever known.

    Theyre all the same. Upper/middle-class suburbanite students, typically from the ages of 21 to 28, with metrosexual accents, square glasses, flat light-colored beards, handbag-style bags, who are rich enough to buy an expensive camera from a shop and therefor call themselves an artist.

    Typically consider themselves to be radical and cool - in a modestly understated, ironic, self-aware, modern, anti-hero way of course. Sarcasm and organic food, pretending to give a shit about the environment, idolising Steven Jobs, think Beyonce Knowles, Lily Allen, Kanye West and Arctic Monkeys are required listening - but trying to consolidate that with their - at least public - admiration of Radiohead and Sigur Ros. Members of Couchsurfing (when it became shit because they all joined), think that somehow being anti-commercial and being obsessed with digital technology aren't mutually exclusive, are rarely seriously into sport or even watch football. Scared of homeless and masculine men, defending the status quo, "positive discrimination" and Feminazism, pro-EU, pro-immigrant, hold their mainstream beliefs with an incredible self-righteousness, very pretentious - while trying to present everything at a self-aware slant. Obsessed with Facebook and think that somehow Facebook is 'cool'. Often their first Owns an Apple computer and an iPhone, "early adopter", likes drones and any other new sinister technology because (metrosexual accent) 'it can be used in good ways too!', and always thinks theyve discovered something cool (Burning Man, Couchsurfing, Flashmobs, Yoga, London, etc) before outsiders - whove known about them for years.

    Rarely can you be this specific about the type of people who make up a group. With 'digital artists' (lol) you can be.

    Oh yeah: they have absolutely no understanding of art whatsoever, although theyre often arrogant enough to think they do.

    Basically: someone who went to a shop and bought an expensive camera. Pointed it at something (however pretentiously). Calls themselves an artist.
    Takes a photo of La Sagrada Familia or Niagara Falls, and then attributes the beautiful architecture or nature to their own photographic skill, rather than to the internationally acclaimed architect and physical laborers, or natural force that actually made whats in the picture. Really arrogant faggots frankly.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 1mo

      Photography actually isn't considered to be digital art, a digital medium, yes, but not digital art as it's not done directly onto a computer. Photography is it's own category.

      And no, I completely disagree that you can box all digital artists into one category. The same way you can't box traditional artists, or sculpters, or singers or writers (all of which are artists).

Most Helpful Girl

  • I'm a huge fan of photography, yet I've been painting and sketching all my life. Why do I prefer photography? I'm impatient, I can't spend longer than a week on something without me losing interest. With painting, I'm spending a month or so creating an image. With photography it's done with a click of a button. I really love painting, and have respect for those who can create masterpieces. For example, the Mona Lisa (fine art) was done with about seven layers. That doesn't mean the Mona Lisa is somewhat more impressive than a famous photograph, for example the iconic eye. It's just about the fact that fine art takes a lot longer and lot more skills is needed.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 16

  • Both can create amazing art. For me there was never a distinction between digital and traditional art because for me they were the same thing. Growing up I was in the age of digital photography so I took photos and messed with them on the computer before I printed them out. When I drew a picture. I scanned it and played around with painting it different colors before I colored it so I would know what would look best on it.
    I can't draw on the computer. I'm awful at a waycom tablet and few people can really draw with a mouse. So I always had to draw on paper. After I finished I could bring it into the computer and fix it up or adjust it to my liking. Leaving me free to do what ever I wanted to the original. Because I could always print out a new one that was exacticually the same to the naked eye.
    I also sculpted things in reality and then scanned them into the computer where I could then produce a 3d print.
    There really is not much distinction between digital art and traditional art both can create great works of art and together they can enhance an already good work.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Different mediums. I think traditional art shows more talent. But in the end it's the results that really matter. I guess it really depends on how they are doing themselves, and how much the tools are doing for them.

    On the other hand, I consider digital photography cheating. And no, not everyone can do photography. The best professional camera will give crap pictures in the hands of an amateur unless they get lucky.

    Personally I like pencil drawing. I get totally envious when I watch people do that.

    I'm terrible at art. The closest I come is technical drawing (drafting). With drafting I did it by hand before CAD systems came out. I considered it more creative to do it by hand. I thought designs were better when it was done by hand. But that stuff is only art if you really stretch the definition of art.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      Most of my art is done digitally, but it depends on what I'm drawing.

      If I'm doing something abstract or just sketching, it's done traditionally. But if I'm designing a character or doing something that requires colour, I do it digitally.

      I find that people say painting takes more talent than photography, but honestly, photography has a narrower range on what they can accomplish (in my opinion) painting is not restricted to real life images. You can make whatever you want, however you want, and it will be art in the same way a photo of a flower is.

      It took my grandmother the same amount of effort to take a picture of a blue wrenn about to take flight, as it does me to draw anything onto my computer, I can't draw nearly as well as she can shoot.

      (that photo came out so phenomonal that it was the very last photo she shot on that camera, before it conked out and she had to fork out 700 bucks for another of the same kind)

    • 1mo

      Well the problem is that it gets into semantics. Many people will think of "talent" as physical talent and skill. By that definition traditional art requires more talent. But if that was the only thing it required I'd be a good artist because I have good fine hand skills. But I can't draw worth a crap. There is something more.

      Photography is a good example of a broader definition that doesn't require physical skill. I don't see how anyone can look at an Ansel Adams photo and not see it as art. His use of light and contrast is just amazing.

      I even call something like landscaping or gardens a form of art. If someone creates it, and it's pleasing to my eye, then I call it art.

  • Digital Art is tough as fuck, though what exactly is digital art? Is it modeling? Texturing? Matte paintings? Any art done digitally?
    Anyone that says digital art is easy should try to 3D model a freaking spaceship, do the UVs, add the textures, the lighting and render it, and then come by to see if they still think it's easy.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Art is when visuals (that required effort to make) inspire people to think. For that reason I do not consider a canvas painted in just one colour to be art - no matter in what way you put it. And neither is a peace of crumpled paper art.

    But both traditional and digital art can do it's job.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Art valuing is 'bullshit' to begin with. A 6 year old can paint a piece of bullshit, the difference is the artist sells it for 6 million dollars. When you said digital art, I figured you meant actual drawn on pc art. Photography is different in my opinion, some people take amazing pictures, but it's worlds apart from a paintbrush.

    0|1
    0|0
  • of course that's bullshit.

    I only judge by one thing: do I like what I see?
    That's the only thing that matters. I don't care if it's digital or traditional. There are many different kinds of art and no one is forced to like them all. Just don't do as if you were something better just because your thing has existed for a longer time

    0|1
    0|0
  • I prefer traditional art due to the fact that I can't gat my hands on a wacom tablet :'(
    But personally I hate liars and digital art is very easy to steal. A friend of mine came over and he had the tablet, I drew his girlfriend and later his girlfriend showed me the drawing telling me how good of an artist my friend was. Because I'm awesome and didn't give a fuck I didn't say anything. Digital art looks really cool and u can do lots of stuff u can't do with traditional art. But for me I prefer traditional art. That's why games have concept art to let people see the original sketches.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The thing about art is it's open to interpretation. I try to be open minded about it. Anything can be art, literally anything. To be opinionated about what art is and isn't to me just feels ignorant and close minded.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Art is subjective so that's not something I'm going to try to argue but I have a shit ton more respect for traditional artists over digital artists. The margin for error is so much smaller when it comes to traditional art so that's why I lean towards them

    0|1
    0|0
  • Physical art is more valuable because there exist an original, which has a quality of uniqueness that is impossible in digital art.

    Other than economic terms... One of my favorite pictures is digital art, but it does lack the texture and complexity of a physical creation. When you look at a great painting, you experience the texture, which digital art lacks this. Digital art is always two dimensional; it's always a copy. In this way, traditional art is superior.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I agree it is the image that is important not how it was made.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's beautiful. To me it's just as impressive as having a steady hand.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Digital art has its own advantages over traditional art. I like both.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Every original creation is art.

    You can just as well say digitally recorded music isn't music.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      Digitally produced music may still be music. Difference is, the producer doesn't call himself a guitarist when he adds a sample.

  • I've never heard anyone say digital art isn't art. when you look on deviantart or conceptart. org almost everything is done in photoshop these days. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who paints traditionally on those sites.

    the argument that digital art isn't art was made back in the 80's when computers began to be used by artists or what passed for digital art was fractals.

    and if you're talking about gallery art, gallery art is mostly shit anyways so who cares what they say.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      The musical equivalent of "Adobe Photoshop Art" as you would call it, is pressing the screen on Garageband, or the buttons on a Guitar Hero controller, and calling yourself an instrumentalist.

      Utter duckshite.

      PS. 'Gallery art' is everything from the unknown to Salvadore Dali, Boticelli and Waterhouse. Its quite difficult to keep artistic credibility with such a generalizing statement.

    • 1mo

      @DonRomeo gallery art TODAY, not 75+ years ago.

      i suppose anyone can use photoshop and produce paintings like these that were made in photoshop right?

      pre06.deviantart.net/.../...s_by_daroz-d7kuqyu.jpg
      www.resourcesfx.com/.../pirate.jpg

      maybe you should know what you're talking about before you compare it guitar hero. photoshop is a tool, not a video game.

  • What is it with this"it's not art". Or "you're not an artist"crap I swear people take this shit too seriously

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I know!

      But there are a couple hundred 'traditional vs digital art' videos on Youtube and I've been going through a LOT of art related videos lately, and come across more than just a few of these.

    • Show All
    • 1mo

      @DonRomeo mehh I think "snob" is the right word here

    • 1mo

      Should have read your comment first, my mistake

What Girls Said 5

  • I don't know, its like reading a book online versus reading a book on paper. Traditional art is more real, more down to earth, and in my opinion it takes more skill, with traditional art on canvas, paper, etc, little details are harder to do because you don't have a zoom in/zoom out option, and color is by far extremely important and mixing colors to get a certain color takes skills and with digital art, the device does it for you. There's something more realistic, more classic and humble about traditional art. I'm not saying digital art is not an art, but the two are very different and traditional art takes the cake in my opinion.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm a "traditional artist" & I like SOME digital art, I've seen some incredibly creative artoworks created with the help of digital art but I've also seen some shitty as hell pieces, it's just as controversial a topic as contemporary arts, especially abstract, I suppose.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      In my opinion, if it was made to be aesthetically pleasing, or to evoke emotion, then it is art.

      That's my definition.

    • 1mo

      But not all art styles are made to be ecstatically pleasing or to evoke emotion - a good example would be Bauhaus architecture which was more about functionality and simplicity than anything emotional or on another higher even

    • 1mo

      *aesthetically haha omg what happened there..

  • I'm a Graphic designing, Multimedia and Animation student and I will personally choose traditional over digital art. "Old is gold."
    Digital art isn't as easy as we think they are. In digital art we need to make models, texture, light and render them with calculations. Whereas in traditional it's the effort that we make to make it beautiful.
    I enjoy and find traditional drawing more easier then digital.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I like both types of art. I love all art mediums. Each and every art medium has their own artistic elements and techniques that make them unique. No type of art is worth less than another because we all have our own style and our medium that we enjoy the most.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm more of an traditional artist but I consider both forms as real art.
    (And I find digital art harder to make than traditional art.)

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...