/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4973974

Because pixels are limited to a grid and the brush marks are limited to the programing code while tradicional you can make all sorts of lines because the resolution is infinite.

>>4973974
because you need a brain to draw tradionally

>>4973974
I'M... I'M GONNA GRAB MY PENCIL AND DRAAAAAAW

>>4973985
Based loomer

>>4973983
your money dictates the res limit, also physics

Because traditional is legitimately so much harder than digital. I'd never painted digitally until recently i was fucking around in ms paint for a guess the scene thread on /tv/. in about 45 minutes with a mouse I shit out something that would have taken 3 hours and looked worse in gouache or oil.

The more time goes on the more digital art will be seen as lame and gay. Its getting to the point where you're going to end up pressing buttons and things will just pop up onto the screen. The entry level is so much lower because of this, and these people are doomed without their grug software, photobashing and fancy computers.

No one wants to see a man controlling a crane lift alot of weight, they want to see how much a human can lift. The further humans are taken out of the equation (AI, machine learning etc) the less the average person will give a fuck, and this is why traditional will always be seen as superior.

Someone like Jung Gi will always be seen as more impressive because of this. Take the trad art pill and give up on digital.

>>4974017

I like this metaphor a lot. I might have to use it to troll digital fags.

>>4973988
kek hit me with a boob ross

>>4974017
PYW

>>4974053
t/Digilet

>>4974065
>didn't phw
Ok beglet

>>4974053
>>4974069

maybe you should post your work first to prove OP wrong?

>>4973990
Make a line drawing on paper and scan it, then make the same drawing digitally and compare the two.

>>4973983
>the resolution is infinite
Planck length

>>4974053
Digicucks be SEETHING

ITT: Coping, skilless tradcucks whose identity as artists is based solely on what medium they use, furious that they are being left behind by artists that dedicate themselves to actually improving

>>4974329
>Coom artists who create disposable work like whores for the highest bidder are furious they are bring called out

>>4974329
didn't read, pyw

>>4974366

This is like saying grappling is better than striking or striking is better than grappling in the sport of MMA.

You can master BOTH just in case you d/ic/kheads forgot, you can even throw in pottery if you have magic autism to do all those.

>>4974361
>gets accused of coping
>copes harder
Well done.

>>4974412
Everyone with half a brain knows medium doesn't matter, but then no one ever said tradcucks have half a brain.
I use digital and traditional as it fits my mood, or depending on what I am trying to make, but people that obsessively compare their preferred medium to others are pathetic, insecure losers.

>>4973974
Imagine going to a museum and looking at digital art printed out on a canvas, all pixilated and shit. Cant even compare it to a real painting or drawing where the brush strokes can be seen. Also, a digital piece can be copied instantly, with zero effort. If you sit down and draw something, that's it. There is only one. Each piece is forever unique.
Digital art is fine for commercial purposes or practicing and whatnot, but it will never fully replace traditional.

>>4974017
I dont think so
I mean you can use digi as traditional without all the digital bullshit crutches

>>4974509
The shit you dumb luddites fantasize about is hilarious.

>>4974509
Wouldn't be pixilated if it was printed at the right resolution.

>>4973974
It's textures. Computers may be smarter than the average person but they lose hard against the beauty of nature. Dry media textures don't look nearly as good in digital and you cannot work with them on consumer grade processors, and wet media isn't even worth talking about.
There's a reason why people say that paintings look much better IRL.

>>4974536
>the beauty of nature
Paint isn't nature.

>>4974552
Anon, it is. The texture of canvas and the luster of oil look like they look because of the inherent complexity of nature, physics, and all sorts of things that cannot be simulated digitally, at least not now.

>>4973974
>>4973983
>they say while looking at a computer reedition of real traditional art

>>4974509
>pixelated prints
Stop ordering crap from China dumbass

>>4974509
>look you can see the brush strokes!
what a dumb meme
I don't give a fuck. It looks like shit in digital when people try to "leave in" a brush stroke. The real issue with traditional is it looks like shit unless you're at a distance since it's not meant to be looked at from up close.

>>4973974
>tfw you see another tradfag vs digital meme thread

>>4974569
Not those anons but... this is less than 1 inch of random pencil scribbling at 1200DPI.

>>4974584
Your point being?

>>4974509
digi(friends) hated him because he told the truth.

>>4974591
The point is that in no way you will get this kind of texture with digital brushes, no matter how beefy your computer is.

Because the future isn't as romantic as the past

>>4974584
Wow, that looks terrible. Scanning it into digital clears up all this useless and ugly crap.

>>4974584
>1200 dpi
You dumb sack of shit lol

>>4974600
Then why has digital tried so desperately to emulate traditional media for the past 15 years?

Digital fills the distinct need of quickly producing consumable media which uses artwork as a vessel to tell something, be it video game, comic, or show. It does this very well.

>>4974569
Unless you go pixel by pixel you'll never get the same results even when traditional art is digitized, this is one of those things you eventually realize when trying to emulate traditional.

This is digital, it can get close enough for some techniques.

>>4974556
Anon, it isn't. Paint is not nature, it is artificial, technological, man made.

>>4974631
nature looks like paint, not the other way around. You're just too much of a beta to realize we're the masters of our own domain

>>4974632
What a stupid thing to say. Nature doesn't 'look like paint'. You are trying to justify an irrational attachment to older media, and you are doing it badly.
'Natural' is not a virtue even if you were right, so your whole argument is senseless fluff.

>>4974632
>tradcuck calling someone else beta
That's rich.

>>4974620
I don’t like this
>>4974630
I like this

>>4974620
Who cares?

>>4974640
There are things I like and dislike about both.

People that try to act like their medium is somehow better, more artistic, more serious etc. than any other medium are enormous faggots who base their identities on their medium because they lack the skill to compete.

Dhe Eternal Spider-Man:
Dhe Devil ensnaring sinners; dhe miser bleeding dhe poor∴
WEB: Denotes dhe snares ov dhe world, ov dhe Devil and human frailty, also dhe malice ov evil-doers∴
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4X-rtLgYN0

>Dhe Death Ov Gwen Stefani

>>4973974
You can't even articulate why OP pics appeals to you, yet you the gall to make sweeping pronouncements about digital art. It's 100% texture, lost edges, merged shapes, composition, mood, qualities not unique to trad. Nothing so mystical. Remember, it's people like this, who just discovered Bouguereau last night while browsing pinterest, who are spouting all these shit takes.
There are guys doing things digitally that you just can't replicate in trad. This idea that digital artists are just trying be worse trad artists is something only a tastelet and beginner could believe. Maybe if you all would seek out such artists instead of looking exclusively at big titty anime girl gacha twitter trash, you'd find them.
Either way I'm going to appreciate art in all its forms. OP is going into my pencil artists folder.

>>4974693
Good post, agreed 100%.

>>4974693
Taste is taste, but scans or photos of trad art still look better than digital.
That digital style of picture you posted is actually just a replica of painting with masks, which looks better in trad, pic related.

>>4974607
Traditional painting will always be a reference point until we can emulate it perfectly with digital tools. I think we'll get there within 20 years or so. The shitty stamp based brush engine really needs to be replaced asap.

>>4974717
I think this style is 100% replicable with digital tools today.

>>4974726
The gradations and subtle texture will never look as good.
The same artist now works in Photoshop for backgrounds and you can tell the difference.

>>4974722
>taste is taste
>but my taste represents objective truth
Idiot.

>>4974717
Exactly how does it look "better"? There's so little in the way of texture, I can't even tell for certain whether it's digital or traditional. Google says it's Samurai Jack, which was definitely at least a partially digital production. How do I know this isn't totally or partially digital? How do you know?

Regardless, I do like that piece. Truthfully there's probably no effect you can't achieve in any medium given enough time and dedication and a willingness to experiment. You could probably make acrylics look like oil, but some media are just more conducive to certain looks. But the visual language of abstraction is universal. Not being able to see what all art forms are communicating in the same language is a worrying sign for any learning artist.
Humans don't actually perceive detail in infinite resolution, so I find this repetitive digital "stamp" argument kind of bogus. We perceive surprisingly little actually, that's why shape merging and lost edges work. The gestalt effect is what really matters.
Any decent digital artist will introduce enough variety into the composition doesn't so it doesn't look too repetitive.

>>4974754
>Humans don't actually perceive detail in infinite resolution, so I find this repetitive digital "stamp" argument kind of bogus.
It's not about detail it's that digital brush strokes are inherently very repetitive with the stamp based approach. A cheap brush and some ink can give you more variation than thousands of Photoshop brushes. Digital offers many possibilities but loose spontaneous mark making is where it suffers the most.

>>4974782
I don't really disagree, just never seemed like as big a deal as people make it out to be. To me. But I'm not going to say you're wrong, maybe that aspect just comes down to taste. Here's a random digital painting I like that has texture and brushstrokes that feel nice to me, but I don't know, maybe someone will find fault with it. Seems fine to me but what the fuck do I know. I like the overall effect of it and I guess that's enough for me.

>>4974782
>digital brush strokes are inherently very repetitive with the stamp based approach
1. Most people in most situations won't even be able to recognize individual stamps in paintings like >>4974630
2. Even if you could: so what? Who told you that repetition makes a piece bad? Is pointilism bad because it uses a 'stamp'? What about hatching? No, it doesn't look exactly like impasto oil brush strokes, but so what? All media have different traits and attributes that a skillfull artist can use to their advantage. Different media have different visual characteristic, and none are inherently any better than any other.
This shit is like saying circles are ugly because they don't look like squares, it's complete hogwash.

Might be good.
https://realisticpaint.com/por/index.html
https://youtu.be/5DJ8IBxojQk

>>4973974
The textures are natural

Meanwhile op's art

>>4974805
I can't argue with your subjective preferences, you may prefer one thing over the other, but it really doesn't have anything to do with taste since it is more of a technical issue. Digital painting's main strengths are it's speed, flexibility and predictability, but the same predictability means you get less expressive marks, texture and happy accidents. I don't think of it as a defining factor of digital art per se but more of a technical limitation with the current generation's software. It may be inconsequential to you but those things are pretty central in a lot of people's work. It's not even necessarily about emulating physical brush strokes either -I think completely abstract mark making would benefit from a more procedural approach as well.

>>4974905
>I can't argue with your subjective preferences
>it really doesn't have anything to do with taste
The fuck are you talking about? That is precisely what taste is.
And what do you mean my 'subjective preferences'? I didn't express one iota of my personal preferences in that post.

> but the same predictability means you get less expressive marks
This is ignorant as hell. If your medium makes your marks more 'expressive', then your marks aren't expressing anything at all.

>It may be inconsequential to you but those things are pretty central in a lot of people's work
What things? Do you mean texture? Because there are plenty of digital painters that have a very textural style. If instead you mean the exact texture that can be made with X traditional medium, then sure, it's a different medium. Again: so what?

>>4974935
I am simply asserting the fact that marks made with traditional physical media are more varied in their shape and texture compared to marks made with a digital stamp based engine. Yes, digital mark making is less expressive for this reason.

>>4975205
>marks made with traditional physical media are more varied in their shape and texture compared to marks made with a digital stamp based engine.
Sure, but not by a significant margin.

>Yes, digital mark making is less expressive for this reason.
No, retard. The artist makes expressive marks, not the medium. For a mark to be expressive, it has to EXPRESS something from the artist. Variety is not expressive in and of itself.

>>4975401
Not him, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe a medium that affords a wider RANGE of expression (more variety), in this case in terms of mark making, as being more "expressive" in that regard than another with a smaller range. Seems like semantics to me.

>>4974580
>real issue with traditional is it looks like shit unless you're at a distance
Not True Anon

>>4974581
>tfw you can do both

>>4974632
On behalf of all traditional painters I just wanna say Brian is not among us.

>>4975519
pyw

>>4975622
you have to be a patron to see my WIPs, and my finished works are circulated online can't risk that shit

>>4975441
And if you want to play that game, digital gives you a much wider range of possibilities than traditional.
It's an idiotic thing to latch on to, only a knuckle dragger tries to argue about a medium being 'more expressive' than another.

>>4975739
>nooooo you can't just care about the medium you use!!!
>a-all media are made equal, y-you KNUCKLE DRAGGER!
eat my cum digifags

>>4976222

The age of the didfags is OVER!

>>4976222
The age of the Digifags is OVER!

>>4976222
>eat my cum
Dilate tradcuck tranny

>>4976222
You're not retarded because you prefer one medium to another, you're retarded because you think your medium is somehow more artistic than others.
And stop with the stuttering, you spastic faggot.