Digital Art frowned upon??

[bcarman]

Are you really going to compare making marks as a distillation of language to be read at another time to the direct mark making of a visual process where the end product is the physical piece on which one is working?

I really shouldn't have to explain this.

[Star Eater]

Just as a side note. Make sure when quoting a post, these brackets: [] have the word "quote" in them at the beginning of the post and the word "/quote" in the [] brackets at the end of the post.

Thanks, carry on.

[kev ferrara]

Digital art files only mimic real physical art. The direct hand of the author upon the plastic material is not there because pixels are not plastic material. Pixels are an illusion of plastic substance, just as a scan or printout of a man's signature is not his actual signature.

Digital Signitures do count as a legal signitures.

That's a different argument on a different topic. The point I am making here is as simple as the difference between:

1. Abraham Lincoln's signature on an envelope.
2. A digital scan of Abraham Lincoln's signature on an envelope.

1 is an authentic, highly rare artifact, and sought after by many collectors and museums.
2 is essentially worthless.

Only a sleaze would try to sell a scan or printout of Lincoln's signature as an item of historic value. And only a fool would purchase it thinking it has historic value.

[darkmagistric]

That's a different argument on a different topic. The point I am making here is as simple as the difference between:

1. Abraham Lincoln's signature on an envelope.
2. A digital scan of Abraham Lincoln's signature on an envelope.

I thought thats what you meant, I misinturpurted the print comment. You are correct, a copy/paste of signiture doesn't count, but the person has to actually sign.

[Chris Bennett]

The meaning of 'medium' in the plastic arts is not the same as the same term applied to the dramatic arts, including film.
In the plastic arts, the expression of the content is directly and vitally linked to the medium it is made out of. (Bill's just said that above)
In literature, say, sensitivity to words is of course vitally important and the story is conveyed through the 'medium' of words.
But words are not physical.
So what do we mean when we talk about 'medium' in the dramatic arts?
We're talking about something different, because it is not corporeal.

This is what is confusing people about digital (simulated) painting.
The actuality of the screen is not vital to the meaning.
The same goes for the screen of film.
The same goes for the stage of plays (read stage for screen).
But in the plastic arts the medium is vital to the communication. For instance, Michelangelo's David would be meaningless made of glass. (although pretty cool)
When we look at a painting we are looking at an object that is an illusion of something it is not. Therein lies the metaphorical communicating engine driving everything upon its surface.
When we look at a screen we look through a window.
The screen is transparent, innocent of content, neutral.
The surface with paint on it, is not.
And it is the non-innocence of the physical medium in relationship to what it carries, that is the foundation of sense in the sensation of experiencing the plastic arts.

[Shorinji_Knight]

There is something about looking at a large physical painting that is psycologically different than looking at a digital one. As an artist I find that I'm more in awe of a execellent traditional painter than I am an digital painter of the same apearent skill level. Maybe this is because I started out traditionally and have been around traditional painting my whole life (My mother is a wonderful oil/watercolors painter). I mostly do digital paintings myself now, so I do get the difference in the processes. I have to agree that digital painting is easier. Not because it requires less skill, but because everything is so much faster. For me, The reason I prefer traditional art is because I know so many digital artists use techniques that I find distasteful. So there is alway the question of how much actual skill the painter had versus the likely hood of cheap shortcuts being used. It is harder to take shortcuts in traditional work. The only reason this matters to me is because, as an artist, I appreciate the process of creation as much as I do the finished creation.
But I feel the finished art created by both traditional and digital artist are equally valid.

[Chris Bennett]

The destination is the outcome of the jouney.
Whether that journey was difficult or not is of no importance.
Only the fact of taking it.

There is no such thing as a short cut.
Because the short cut takes you to a different place.

[Candra H]

I've hired and trained lots of artists in the industry on the computer. The ones with traditional professional skills took about a month to get up to speed with digital. People without traditional skills never could cut it because their work was amateurish at best. The computer made them lazy and conviced them they had a skill when really the computer had the skills and they didn't. Is it possible to achieve the same quality with digital yes it is, but the chances are it won't happen; just like people who can't make change at a grocery store without a computer or can't tell time wihtout a digital clock. They rely on the computer to do all the parts that are too hard for them. Its not something to be proud of. If you know what you are doing, digital is easy.

Ouch. I've been scrabbling around on and off trying to learn digital for the last year. I guess that makes me either an incredibly slow learner or an eternal amateur...

[Shorinji_Knight]

The destination is the outcome of the jouney.
Whether that journey was difficult or not is of no importance.
Only the fact of taking it.

There is no such thing as a short cut.
Because the short cut takes you to a different place.

Yeah that makes sense... I'd have to agree with this.
Maybe I just don't like some of the destinations as well as others.

[bbbbethhhh]

I really enjoy working in traditional and digital media, but to me they shouldn't be compared with one another. I'm not really a fan of those who try to simulate oils and watercolour, to achieve that 'painterly' feel mainly because digital painting is a medium in itself, separate from 'paint'. If I had an idea that I thought would be better expressed through oils, I would use oils, but I wouldn't try and simulate the look of oils in painter/photoshop, that would just be a waste of time.

A while back I was doing research for an art project at school and I came across a piece by an artist who had used paint to create the look and feel of torn human flesh, he had thickened the paint in such a way so that the portrait became real looking, obviously you couldn't achieve this effect with digital paints but I don't see why someone would want to. (I'm annoyed I can't remember who it was now, but it really made me rethink the ways an artist can use oil...) But at the same time I do love using Photoshop to create portraits, I genuinly enjoy the technique of layering transparent strokes over and over until they become invisible, it's not because it's quicker it's just a different experience to me that achieves different effects. I remember my teacher suggested to me in the past to try an idea in several different media (including digital) to see which one worked best. I know it's all personal preference, but to me one doesn't cancel out the other, and it's a shame someone would look down on a well thought out piece of art just because it's in digital.

It's been really interesting to read this thread, the way people interpret real-life paintings, and I do really respect those opinions of the more professional artists on this site and I hope I don't butt heads with anyone.. Just my two cents :p I'm not trying to argue with anyone in particular, just wanted to express my opinion.

[JeffX99]

If you think its a bad analogy, by all means feel free to disagree with it, but please explain why you disagree.

Because you're comparing apples to camaros.

[JeffX99]

Guys, why can't we treat digital painting as just another painting medium? Why are some of you trying to present it as an opposite of everything good in painting so vehemently? It's a mystery to me, and it doesn't become clearer as I see this discussion go on.

I work in watercolor, acrylics (tempera style), marker, colored pencils, and digital. They all have their quirks and challenges. They all make some things easy and others hard. They all require a different touch and timing. They all smell, feel and flow differently.

Yet they all are based on the same fundamentals and the same principles of form, color and light. I don't suddenly forget how perspective works if I switch from watercolor to acrylics or digital. If you work with a painterly method, then it does not matter which medium you use. It is possible to produce a painting in graphite and a drawing in oil, the conventional distinctions of the medium aside. There are monochrome paintings and color drawings. It all boils down to the way you use light in your image.

I'd like to ask something from all of you who are singing very poetic praise to the physical experience of oil painting and how it all is absent from digital medium. Substitute some other medium in your philippics. Instead of saying that digital is worthless because it lacks the smell of turpentine and getting the paint consistency right and pushing it around with the palette knife and the delightful little randomness of paint thickness it all introduces to enliven the result, say that watercolor is worthless because it lacks the smell of turpentine and getting the paint consistency right and pushing it around with the palette knife and the delightful little randomness of paint thickness it all introduces to enliven the result. Maybe then you'll see that the whole argument is, frankly, ridiculous. That you love a particular experience does not mean that another experience is worthless.

It's just another medium, folks. Daubing viscous paste around the canvas, scraping brittle chalk on the tooth of board, controlling the drying of little pools of water, placing patches of pure light next to each other.

It's not WHAT you use, it's HOW you use it.

Isn't that what I said here?
Self quote:

Different media have different possibilities, limitations and expressions. I think it is silly to try to make one be something else is all. Can't get much impasto in a watercolor for example, and oils don't do washes very well. Why on earth would someone "draw" on a little plastic slate for example, instead of enjoying the physical nature of drawing? Especially with interesting physical media like charcoal or conte? Just a mystery to me.

Your arguments run counter to themselves in many places arenhaus - on the one hand you say different mediums are different but then want digital=painting. Can't have it both ways.

You're also ascribing to "us" opinions and comments we just haven't been making...that somehow digital painting is the "opposite of everything good in painting"...or that "digital (and other media or experience) is worthless". Far from it. I've tried substituting nearly every other medium to make the point they are all unique. Which is your point I gather, except when it comes to digital media, which you seem to want to be the exception and regard it as real painting.

And again, you're choosing to ignore: process, scale, artifact, surface, logevity and evidence of the hand - not minor differences. I tried really hard to demonstrate those factors in the images I posted. As Kev said to deny the differences is absurd, and basically makes the argument moot.

All image is not the same. I realize that is becoming something not well understood in today's society, which is in part why I feel this is important. Why isn't photography painting then? Why isn't a still frame from a film painting? Photographs deal with the same fundamentals: composition, form, light, color (in color photgraphy obviously). It's just image - deals with the same fundamentals?

I certainly haven't said any one medium is better than another, I love them all for what they do. And you're right, digital is just another medium...but don't claim it is something it isn't.

The entire discussion revolves around the question of why digital is frowned upon in the traditional arena. Many of us have explained why, and I've even tried to point out that it isn't at all, except when you try to say it is the same thing. Completely OK of course if folks don't want to acknowledge the differences, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Really the funny thing is why is there even a question if they're the same and it doesn't matter?

[Liberty]

Liberty,
You realize everyone subscribed to this thread gets mailed a copy of your post. I won't embarrass you by reposting your remark, but really save your ignorant hyperbole for DA.
I know people have an issue with my delivery of information and opinion and thats fine, I don't really care if you do or do not like it, I'm not here to make friends. But really unless you are wiling to refute my arguments or present your own counter arguments, you have no business in the discussion.

You are right and please forgive for the intrusion.

[Ragnarsson]

Inevitably there is more intuition and "soul" within traditional mediums as they, for example oils, has a life of its own and behaves as it does thanks to it being a physical matter with its different qualities. Digital "paint" does not. (or rather said, it may not be as explored as other mediums, therefore people know less about these unique qualities and how to utilize that.)

This may sound a bit bizarre but bear with me... In traditional art You have to understand the medium, and learn to cooperate and dance with It. Contrary to that, which in this case is digital art. The medium, being a computer, has to understand You. And he does! He will do exactly what you tell him to do, (eg. by drawing with a tablet) and he demands nothing in return. "Command" him to simulate oil brushstrokes and he's up for the task. The end result may look exactly like an oil painting. But it isn't. It's a mere projection of the computers interpretation of an oil painting, based on the info you gave him.

Nevertheless, you can create stunning pieces of art with digital mediums. Though I believe one can accomplish that more effectively by "commanding" the computer to do something which traditional mediums cannot. If you want to create a picture which looks like it was made with watercolours, for the sake of setting a certain mood, I'm certain you will be able to send that emotion to the viewer more effectively by painting the picture with actual watercolours.

Maybe that's why traditional painting is oft valued more highly than digital. Digital painting lacks that visible spark which occurs when a human being is interacting with a physical medium. Take action painting for example. How well would that stand digitally? (Now that I've run this post through numerous times I remembered, seeing a video with someone doing what looked like live action painting on-stage, but with a tablet and new piece of software which created interesting shapes & forms based on the users input or something... does anyone know what I'm talking about?)



NOTE: First I'd like to credit those who contributed to the thread, very interesting read. Also, I'm aware I MAY make a complete fool out of myself here by stating something that could sound like total humbug. But I'll stand for that, I'm a young art-student with my own perceptions on art and questions on the subject also. I have to try my voice sometimes, and get punched under the belly for doing that a couple of times too.

[JeffX99]

Take action painting for example. How well would that stand digitally? (Now that I've run this post through numerous times I remembered, seeing a video with someone doing what looked like live action painting on-stage, but with a tablet and new piece of software which created interesting shapes & forms based on the users input or something... does anyone know what I'm talking about?)

Sure - Android Jones is the guy you're likely thinking of: Android.

Edit: Actually I think action painting holds up quite well in the digital realm and is a medium probably better suited to the concepts of action painting than paint and canvas. But interesting to think about what Pollock might have done with Painter...

[darkmagistric]

Take action painting for example. How well would that stand digitally? (Now that I've run this post through numerous times I remembered, seeing a video with someone doing what looked like live action painting on-stage, but with a tablet and new piece of software which created interesting shapes & forms based on the users input or something... does anyone know what I'm talking about?)

I think this is the video your referring to. He's using an Intuos4 to control the show being projected on the Sydney Opera House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOFuzE42z58

[Flake]

I'm a young art-student with my own perceptions on art and questions on the subject also. I have to try my voice sometimes, and get punched under the belly for doing that a couple of times too.

Seems fair. I like that you are questioning anything.

I would suggest you try out actually painting in a physical medium.

Oil, gouache, acrylic, poster paint mixed with housepaint?

Not watercolour. Many people think it's ideal for beginners, they are idiots.

[Wilson38115]

I think the reason some traditional artists frown upon digital art is that the computer has become the middle man and it interprets your actions. The experiences are quite different and there seems to be greater satisfaction from actually painting rather than doing one digitally.

Its kinda like being at a football game versus watching it at home on your TV.

my 2 cents

[Flake]

I think the reason some traditional artists frown upon digital art

Nobody is frowning upon digital art. Most of the grumpy old dinosaurs use PS daily.

I like digital, it's cool. I wouldn't own a wacom otherwise.

I DO think it would be a really shitty way to learn the basics of drawing and painting.
/2p worth

[JFierce]

To the topic of which holds more power or "soul" standing in front of a physical painting or a printout of a digital one. That depends a lot on the painting, the imagery, the artist, and the person viewing.

To the average viewer there is little distinction imo. A good image is a good image to them.
Though, this dives into the purpose of the art itself.

If it's fine art someone wants, they want fine art and a physical painting, often they want an original work that no one else has. However, if someone likes an image I know plenty of people and even businesses like restaurants that frame up a high quality print of the art they like. (kinda know more people with prints than paintings nowadays personally). There's obvious difference in value, one you get an original which is hard or impossible to reproduce or even scan depending on the images source the other can be copied infinitely.

If someone wants concept art though, I'm not in the industry at all but I imagine most couldn't give 2 shits whether you give them a painting, print or pdf since the main purpose is the imagery and design used to create something else (2D drawing to help create a 3D model etc). Since many of the Concept artists around here I've subscribed to on different sites often do more digital than traditional both professionally and in practice (though most do both regardless for practice). If someones freelancing to game company I doubt anyones going to pay something like 10,000 for a single fine art painting (insert link showing the salaries of freelance Concept artists proving me wrong, thats not a challenge btw. Just have a feeling someone was going to lol).

It's a different purpose entirely with different value, for different price ranges and audiences. Though either way the actual image is all that matters. (or historical value in many cases)

[JeffX99]

To the topic of which holds more power or "soul" standing in front of a physical painting or a printout of a digital one. That depends a lot on the painting, the imagery, the artist, and the person viewing.

To the average viewer there is little distinction imo. A good image is a good image to them.
Though, this dives into the purpose of the art itself.

If it's fine art someone wants, they want fine art and a physical painting, often they want an original work that no one else has. However, if someone likes an image I know plenty of people and even businesses like restaurants that frame up a high quality print of the art they like. (kinda know more people with prints than paintings nowadays personally). There's obvious difference in value, one you get an original which is hard or impossible to reproduce or even scan depending on the images source the other can be copied infinitely.

If someone wants concept art though, I'm not in the industry at all but I imagine most couldn't give 2 shits whether you give them a painting, print or pdf since the main purpose is the imagery and design used to create something else (2D drawing to help create a 3D model etc). Since many of the Concept artists around here I've subscribed to on different sites often do more digital than traditional both professionally and in practice (though most do both regardless for practice). If someones freelancing to game company I doubt anyones going to pay something like 10,000 for a single fine art painting (insert link showing the salaries of freelance Concept artists proving me wrong, thats not a challenge btw. Just have a feeling someone was going to lol).

It's a different purpose entirely with different value, for different price ranges and audiences. Though either way the actual image is all that matters. (or historical value in many cases)

*EEEENNNNHHHH* (giant annoying buzzer sound). Just couldn't be more wrong with those statements JFierce. But thanks for playing! And yeah, we're not talking about concept or production art or what restaurants and hotels feel like decorating with.

[dpaint]

Nathan Fowkes is a concept artist god and for a few hundred measely bucks you can own an original sketch...
feast your eyes on these babies
http://nathanfowkes.blogspot.com/p/a...originals.html

[JFierce]

lol well don't want to play the 'explain it to me' card. But in all reality explain it a bit?


Because every single person I know that has no art experience at all, doesn't distinguish based on anything more than if they like it. Unless it has some historical value, or their buying it as some sort of investment I don't know anyone that buys or displays something they don't like. No one puts up a painting they hate in their house opposed to a print they love.



(Also should just throw out there my mom loves to go to auctions and buy random art for cheap, has no idea what she's doing. But their are a lot of decent quality prints in the mix that have been in their house where people have no idea on the difference. To this day there have been barely anyone I've seen that even says it's a print. Heard many times "Oh that's a nice painting on the wall who did it?")

[JeffX99]

lol well don't want to play the 'explain it to me' card. But in all reality explain it a bit?


Because every single person I know that has no art experience at all, doesn't distinguish based on anything more than if they like it. Unless it has some historical value, or their buying it as some sort of investment I don't know anyone that buys or displays something they don't like. No one puts up a painting they hate in their house opposed to a print they love.



(Also should just throw out there my mom loves to go to auctions and buy random art for cheap, has no idea what she's doing. But their are a lot of decent quality prints in the mix that have been in their house where people have no idea on the difference. To this day there have been barely anyone I've seen that even says it's a print. Heard many times "Oh that's a nice painting on the wall who did it?")

It's a difficult thing to explain if there is no awareness or experience on the part of the individual. You're absolutely right that most people probably don't know the difference, don't care and don't miss it. It's hard to miss or care about that which we don't understand. However, that doesn't change the thing itself or the experience, it simply means the individual doesn't have any connection to it.

Judging art on the basis of whether we "like" it is the best litmus test imo as well, though sometimes a deeper searching for context can help us "like" something that may seem challenging at first blush. Or as you pointed out we may also "like" something simply because it is interesting historically.

If someone can't tell the difference between a print an original work so be it, that is a reflection of their limited awareness, not a conclusion that the things are the same.

The world is bigger than a 22" monitor...and so is art.

(btw - I appreciate the fact that many times I see you take a jab well and in the humor it is intended - gold star my friend!)

[JFierce]

Oh no, I was by no means saying a print is the same, the two are very very different. (Although I hate to admit I've been fooled a few times without the use of a magnifying glass. Used to have no idea about prints at all)

I was just trying to attempt throwing out the view of those non artists in the mix as they view the art too, same as everyone and are often the ones that 'consume' it the most. Experience as you said has a big impact on connection.

Kind of like how I remember back before I learned anything at all about anatomy, I wasn't bothered half as much by wonky broken arms and things that make no sense lol. Now I see drawings and paintings I remember liking years ago and thinking '....wow.... that was not how I remembered it'.

[Ragnarsson]

Sure - Android Jones is the guy you're likely thinking of: Android.

Ah yes, exactly! Thank you

Seems fair. I like that you are questioning anything.

I would suggest you try out actually painting in a physical medium.

Oil, gouache, acrylic, poster paint mixed with housepaint?

Not watercolour. Many people think it's ideal for beginners, they are idiots.

I primarily work traditional and I agree with you on that point, watercolour is a really difficult medium to handle well in my opinion. I like the feeling though. And digital painting is just something I work with a little bit on the side. For now at least.

[Birkeley]

I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art). Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).

I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another. Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus. Now, I am an artist who started out with digital and transitioned to traditional materials (though I still use digital as well) and I certainly agree with much of what has been expressed here - I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium. Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both. OK... digital is a medium more tempting to "cheat" with and that is a pity, but the cheaters will never become professional artists because they lack the artistic skill to create sophisticated work and a real artist who is serious about learning techniques and theory will do so and produce great work whatever they are using. Because I went about it backwards from most people, I'm using techniques I learned in digital painting in my traditional work - because they are universal art techniques, not digital tricks. Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.

But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.

[JeffX99]

I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art).

Yep.

Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).

Probably. But then: reproduction and print. And what about scale? Try printing those Mucha paintings...or using a 3D printer to print a Frank Stella or a Richard Serra? Why not just paint...or sculpt?

I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another.

I think you're confusing techniques with principles.

Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus.

...or a camera? A photo is the same thing as a painting? Neil Peart=drum machine? Same thing...music theory, composition, percussion.

I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium.

Exactly...so...

Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.

Really? Make this case. Make it for color mixing...painting on location...using a brush with a 14" handle and making paint dance from the corner...or a palette knife scraping or applying paint at the touch and whim of the artist...

Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.

I have yet to see a digital artist who doesn't already have their chops down with traditional media.

But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.

Yep. Again, the thing is, they're just different...let each do what it does best. Trust me...I like my digital giclees just fine too...they're radically different from my oils...why I would want them to be a second rate facsimile of my oils I don't get.

[bcarman]

Originally Posted by Birkeley
Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both.

After all that's been said you can't seriously believe this?

[dpaint]

I've found this thread interesting and wanted to point out something no one else seems to have... Painter has the technology to simulate textured canvas surfaces, visible brushstroke textures and impasto techniques like traditional oil or acrylic paintings (the lack of which has been pointed out in this thread many times to be a failing of digital art). Which just leaves the problem that they can't be printed into something tangible... but is that true? 3D printers are rapidly dropping in price and expanding in their capabilities and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already possible to do this. I think it is highly likely that in the future creating textured art prints on canvas will not cost significantly more than creating a high-quality giclee print of an artwork. This gives us interesting possibilities for reproducing the texture of classical masterpieces down to minute brushstrokes using surface scanning technology, but also means that it would be equally possible for a digital artist to use the dimensional techniques a traditional artist would and frame a high-quality canvas print which incorporates them. And you can certainly sculpt digitally (and print the sculpture, if you have access to a 3D printer).

I think people on both sides of this debate are generalising a lot. While they are certainly different mediums, an artist can apply the exact same techniques with mediums which are different to one another. Artistic knowledge (such as colour theory, knowledge of anatomy and composition, etc) span all art mediums, and it doesn't make a difference if the artist is holding a brush, pen, or stylus. Now, I am an artist who started out with digital and transitioned to traditional materials (though I still use digital as well) and I certainly agree with much of what has been expressed here - I'm currently learning to oil paint and one thing a computer can never simulate is the tactile sensation of creating a work of art. From the artist's perspective I am sure the two can never be comparable and nor do I think traditional originals are replacable in value. But I'm baffled by the idea that creating a digital painting "takes less skill", especially coming from other artists who know exactly how much skill and knowledge is required to create great artwork whatever the medium. Artists who use both digital and traditional are using exactly the same skills and knowledge for both. OK... digital is a medium more tempting to "cheat" with and that is a pity, but the cheaters will never become professional artists because they lack the artistic skill to create sophisticated work and a real artist who is serious about learning techniques and theory will do so and produce great work whatever they are using. Because I went about it backwards from most people, I'm using techniques I learned in digital painting in my traditional work - because they are universal art techniques, not digital tricks. Generalising about "cheating" and "laziness" is unfair on a lot of very good digital arists.

But I guess a lot of people are saying that already.

To prove how ignorant a statement you've just made about digital being just like traditional and how little you actually control when using digital; Rotate your wacom tablet or mouse 180 degrees, keep it right side up and try to paint with it. It doesn't even mimic two axis effectively let alone 3d space.