By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Computer Art vs. Traditional?

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by Ted Wakowski, Apr 6, 2002.

  1. Ted Wakowski

    Ted Wakowski Guest

    I'm still having a hard time accepting art done on a computer. I like some of the graphic design stuff I see certain people doing but for the most part I'm just not into it.

    I guess the main reason is the really perfect, plastic, generated feel most computerized artwork gives off. It looks good when I see it mixed with traditional, hand drawn/painted/whatever-type shit. Maybe I'm just not seeing what attracts people to it.

    How do other people feel about this shit?
  2. I do both, meaning that technically i got pretty much decent skills on both. I spend 3 years of intense hand drawing and then i spend another 3 experimenting with photoshop(mostly)...I use it to make my life easier. However it aint easy or it aint easier than drawing, if you get over the computer stuff clishes (effects and all the fancy stuff) you see that in the end its the same thing that applies in both hand and 'computer' drawing. People sometimes give to much importance to the medium used, the 'style' a medium generates...thats all crap in my book, mediums are tools that help the designer do whatever it is that is to be done, i always search for the easier and most effective way...i aint having fun when i have to redraw a whole thing just to place it a little on the left.
    Having said that, i dislike the very much 'computer' art in the cliche meaning of the word just beacuse all they reflect is the medium. In the same way i dislike charcoal foggy drawings that only reflect just how nicely charcoal creates atmosphere...
    I use whatever i can get my hands on and i always mix the hell out of them...
    Still i aint got a problem with 'dedicated' traditional or hitech people, anyone that uses his head before his hand or proccesor leads his self into Aclass results.
  3. +

    I got a little carried away and off subject there^,
    So , to answer your original question...The benefits from using a computer aint only the perfect-plasticity it generates...Imagine composition and color schemes for example, when going with hand you have to perform with excelence while still uncertain of what exactly you want to do. You have to make dozens of sketches on differnt color combos and different placement...things that consume way to much time. While using photoshop you can rearrange and reevaluate your material fast and without being bored or tired of the process...to sum it up, you focus on the essense.
  4. And to make a conclusion out of my ramble, dont make that mistake...there aint no 'computer art' nor 'traditional art'
  5. Ted Wakowski

    Ted Wakowski Guest

    Re: +

    There's this Batman book that came out in '86, done by this guy Frank Miller with a colorist named Lynn Varley. The book was fucking good and the hand drawn/colored art gave it its own look and feel -- really cool shit.

    A sequel to that book just came out, done by the same two people, and the computer coloring just kills it for me. The story doesn't even feel like it's connected to the old one. I think it's something to do with how "perfect" it looks. The "character" hand colored art brings out says a lot more to me than stuff done on a computer. I get into the way it bleeds and moves and gives things texture. I just don't see it from hitech stuff.

    I've also fucked with photoshop and illustrator a bit and I think they're cool -- best for manipulating photos, fucking with text, doing ads for people, stuff like that -- but I really have yet to see much original work created on computers that grabs me. I think it's just me and what I prefer, I'm not trying to put down people who are into the digital stuff. Plus it's still a new medium and needs time to grow.

    I know what you mean but I can't agree with it. I've done some drawings by hand where I did know exactly what I wanted to do, from start to finish. And sometimes the little technique "mistakes" become blessings in disguise.
  6. Ted Wakowski

    Ted Wakowski Guest

    Art is always art, I just wanted to make what I was specifically talking about clear.
  7. your all gay

    your all gay New Jack

    Joined: Mar 27, 2002 Messages: 79 Likes Received: 0
    computer art is gay, any talentless fuck could do it.
  8. Re: Re: +

    Yeah, the thing is that the handrawn batman is refering to a specific era, you (and i) dislike the digital form of batman mostly because, 'it aint batman if it aint handrawn' and thats the truth...however its a bit irelevant also, i'm totally against 'bastardising' things. Same thing goes with Disneys 'fantasy' and 'fantasy 2000' the new clear and clean version just aint 'fantasy'.

    The thing is that when you say 'photo manipulation' retouch and funny stuff come to mind while the money is that you can actually 'draw' things on a photograph, untill now photography was a proof of the truth in a way while drawing was a more 'personal' view on a scene/whatever. That changed, you see stuff that you really cant decide if they are originaly shot or added, some people thing thats a fraud, i think of it as a very interesting thing that puts things under a whole new perspective.

    As far as flaws go, i use them in photoshop all the time, i just can get rid of things i dont like easier.