Wanna know a pet peeve of mine? People that say that they work “by hand” when what they mean to say is that they don’t work with a digital medium. Every single time I hear somebody say that I feel like whipping out my penis and pushing my digital pen around with it, since according to them, I’m not using my hands to produce any of the things I make (granted, I could’ve used my feet or any other part rather than my penis – but that’s not the way it goes around here).
If I had such a skill, I’d have a very different job. But sadly, I cannot paint with my penis – I’m sure there’s at least a couple of people in the world that can do it, but I’m not one of them.
If I had it my way, people wouldn’t say that things are “done by hand” or “digital”, because it doesn’t just imply that I’m not using my hands, it also insinuates that somehow I am not participating in the process as much as they are. It’s as if working in Photoshop didn’t take any skill at all, and somewhere in the menus there was a “produce image” function just waiting to be clicked.
Quite some time ago, I remember reading about Vanessa Mae (the violinist) and how she was responding to criticism towards her playing remixed versions of classical music with an electric violin. I can’t really quote her verbatim, but she basically said that if Bach had a synthesizer available back in his time, he probably would’ve used it.
All discussions concerning what Bach’s attitude towards progress might’ve been, I believe that Ms. Mae makes an excellent point that can be applied to any art form. Oil paints, pencils, paper, canvas, watercolors, Photoshop or even coffee stains – all these are just the tools we use to produce our art. All of them require skill and none of them do our work for us. But the truth is that some of them actually allow us to do more with them, in what perhaps could be considered a more convenient manner. I’d say that’s what progress is all about.
Every single time that I’ve gotten into discussions of this sort, I’ve observed that the person that’s against digital media normally comes from a mixture of misdirected nostalgia and/or simply not knowing how to work with whatever computer program they’re against. They’re the same kind of people that will try and argue that vinyl records sound better than digital formats.
I’ll admit, I don’t know much about music or sound production, but I’m pretty sure that the fuzz sound in the background wasn’t originally there. I won’t deny that there’s a certain charm in vinyl that is worth appreciating, just like I won’t deny that there’s a certain pleasure in feeling a sheet of paper or getting dirty with paints. But what will happen if some day we just run out of paper, probably because we cut down all the trees or something like that?
Will graphic arts then die?
Good hunting;
O
I was told in the same way:
“You should know since you are a real artist: Digital art doesn’t have soul, because there is a computer between you and your art, so it is not real art.”
I told her, that the brush or pen or pencil is the same as the computer: it is a thing placed between me and my art. Then I got called utterly stupid for this. People are funny sometimes..
Good comic, I feel really involved from my similar experience.
Hahah, good one!
Looking at different artists I usually see that if they are good, they are good both on paper and digitally. Keeping in mind for example your pencil+watercolor works, I think you don’t have any problem with that
No, the fuzz sound in the background is not originally there. It -is- true that analog recordings (aka, vinyl, etc) have a greater acoustic range in them. They can, and have, recorded the extreme highs and lows that can give a bit of extra dimension to playback. T hat being said? The vast majority of people cannot hear those highs and lows and most playback systems don’t play them anyways, which is why, to save space and enable better compression, digital audio cuts the extreme top and bottom of the audio spectrum out.
tl;dr Vinyl is better than digital, but you can’t tell unless you have a truly amazing ear and a ridiculous sound system to play it on.
O, I really like your art and also Vanessa Mae’s music (I’ve been known her music since a while, thanks Jango). You’re making a point. Actually, THE point.
But I was curious about this: we all know that Photoshop is amazing and all, but how much do its more advanced and recently developed technologies help you with your work now? I’m talking about, dunno, the content-aware filling or stuff like that (I’m no expert in Photoshop).
How many of them made you cry in joy: “It was about TIME that someone invented something like THAT!”?
shit, I use ink a lot because I cannot into digital :/
Mother of God, this is the very reason I don’t show my artwork to any old yahoo anymore. Especially, people at my corporate job, who have no idea how digital artwork works. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say “Oh, so you draw this on the computer?” I have to constantly explain “yes, it’s drawn digitally, but that doesn’t mean the software did anything for me. It’s still my hand scribblin’ against a tablet to make the pretty picture appear.
Ironically, I’m not against natural media. I’ve made some pretty cool comics happen with just ink and markers. I just get annoyed when other people don’t have the slightest clue what digital media entails.
@MaxArt: Most of those “content-aware” features and such in Photoshop are for editing photos, and while I don’t know how to use any of them I’d guess they’re pretty useful if that’s what you’re aiming to do.
The program has added a couple of things throughout the years that have made me go “it’s ABOUT TIME!”, but they’re rather simple details like being able to rotate the canvas or scrubby zoom – nothing that would really change the final result much.
Reminded me of this post 10 Incredibly Bizarre Painters and their Weird Techniques – http://www.oddee.com/item_98091.aspx.
I’ll always remember a class I took called “Understanding Visual Art.” The teacher I had summed up the current art community quite well in her behavior. First day of class she asked us to list our favorite artists who are currently alive (apparently to point out how unappreciated artists were). All the artists I listed are web-based digital artists or photographers. She refused to accept this as these people had not been exhibited in a gallery. Her logic stated that unless someone had been exhibited in a gallery they had not been recognized by the community and thus were not artists.
I used to be one of those who advocated art by hand over digital, but as you say, it was precisely because I didn’t understand how digital art worked. I would hear about comics copy-pasting an image and I thought the ease of replication somehow lessened it.
Then I met a friend who did AMAZING things with her digital art, things I could never do on paper or at least never be able to afford all the paint and supplies to continue to make images in that vein. I completely changed my mind about digital art, but still didn’t have any skills with a tablet, and so cautiously avoided it.
I then started in webcomics, and just printed outlines, used pen and pencil o draw and then scanned in it. I consistently wished I could do more and make my images sharper when they made it to the web. So, in short, I myself am switching to digital medium very soon! And yeah, it’s one purchase and then your resource consumption is over! phew!
@Lilyheart: Awesome list, but sadly missing the painter that gives himself paint enemas and then… uhm… “expels” the paint on the canvas.
If you want to see it, keep in mind that it is supposedly NSFW (although I hate the concept of “nsfw”) and definitely not pleasant or even tolerable for the weak of stomach. But still, here you go: http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/11/paint.html
Oh, you use a Tablet? Sorry i just plug cables into my brain and do the drawings in my mind.
In the future, it will probably be:
“A thought converter? I only use Photoshop.”
There are many artists who paint with their hands, but as far as I know only one uses exclusively his penis. I give you: Pricasso http://www.pricasso.com/
Sorry, had to blurt that out. Carry on.
O´ could use his bald head to paint!
And i mean the one that has a brain, mouth, nose and stuff
you created a mental image that is seared into my now scarred psyche…pushing your pen around with your penis, indeed.
screw them. you’re a talented artist, full stop. you could out-draw them with a stick and a pile of dust.
Hey O!
Here’s what you’re talking about in your rant about man using their penises for art:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2sL3MKQIARA
O, if you could paint with your penis, it would be with about 3ml of paint at a time, and the only colour available would be white. And you’d need a break between spurts of painting.
Having gotten that terrible pun off my chest, I agree with your comments fully, and understand your annoyance.
Shit. Try working in 3D. Unless you create you own meshes, you’re forever doomed to be looked down upon and mocked by “real artists”.
Teaching graphic technology and visual art (instead of, you know, graphics and art, because the New South Wales Board of Studies doesn’t seem to like the idea of justifying a creative subject if it doesn’t have TWO words in its name), I come across this attitude surprisingly often.
Not so much from the students – they’re usually cool with whatever’s presented, and if anything are more enthused by the digital arts side (for some of them this is because it’s ‘easier’… It’s my job to prove them wrong). It’s the other teachers. I’m cool with teaching all about the classic artists and using ‘traditional’ mediums, but not to the exclusion of new ‘technological’ mediums (I’m pretty sure a paint brush is a form of technology, but hey, I’ll just sit over here and read graphic novels while that’s being debated). Of course, this is partly beause it takes time to learn these new mediums, and that just won’t do.
I can’t wait until artistic and graphic technology evolves to a stage that I’m too old and crotchity to want to update my own knowledge.
In short: I know where you’re coming from, buddy.
Just an excuse to draw another naked ass.
Once I finally get my copy of Scurvy Dogs, I’ll imagine O’s penis drawing the art every time I flip a card now.
If he had drawn the art for Settlers of Catan, then “Got wood?” would have a whole new meaning in the game.
An image spring to mind of comparable scene in other venues of art. Especially in light of last comic’s discussion (I think it was the last one. The one about practice and the daily sketches. ), of writers.
I can see how in the future someone would say to fellow writer how inferior he is with his books since he use machines to quick type everything that’s being said. “I, on the other hand, use a pen!”
How ridiculous that would be.
What constitutes the original when art is created digitally? There’s nothing but 1s and 0s that require translation by hardware and software that may not be readable in 50 years. Or five. Make hard copies! Save frequently! It’s odd; when I work in traditional media now a little voice in my head screams “save!” when I complete a stage in the process. The same voice howls “undo undo UNDO!” when I make a mistake. But that button is a tiny cork bobbing on a sea of sorrow.
I work in traditional media when I want to create an art object, a singular creation.
i like how the charcoal drawn horse is pooing.
Hmm but “great” “art” that which stands the test of time (with a lot of love, care and money) will never be in the form of digital art – either it will be forgotten on a hdd/ssd that is rusting/wasting away or it is lost over time in the infinite spaces of the “internets”.
Even when it is printed the preservability of the end product is really bad.
So virgin blood man totally looses vs. everyone else – and tempera is way more resilient than “standard” oil, so yes he deserves to be a little bit arrogant.
I love this one. Very funny.
O, on the second pic, did you draw Jan van Eyck as left handed on purpose ?
I just read that, according to some scholars, he was painting with the left hand. The only sources I found are in French, but I suppose they saw it on the mirror facing the painter between the Arnolfini.
If you didn’t know it, then it’s a lucky guess, and we both learned someting about Renaissance art today.
Technically, people talking about vinyl having better sound reproduction are correct. That’s not to say that every vinyl record is of high quality – much like CDs, it depends on how it’s produced. That said, vinyl is analog, rather than digital, meaning that it can represent sound more accurately.
Personally, I grew up on CDs. I can hear the difference between 14000 kbits per second (CD quality) and 320 kbits per second (high-end mp3 quality). I have a much harder time hearing the difference between CD quality and 4000 kbits per second (FLAC) – so that’s usually what I use when I rip audio to my computer.
That said, I also tend to buy audiophile quality equipment – not ridiculously high end, but equipment that audiophiles wouldn’t scoff at. Grado headphones for my laptop and a $200 700W Onkyo receiver with $800 JBL speakers in a 5.1 surround system for my gaming computer. I also spent the money to get a very high end sound card, to make up for the fact that I didn’t get a particularly good receiver (right now, the receiver is just there to pass audio from my sound card to my speakers).
I would agree that on lower quality speakers (e.g. a $30-$50 5.1 or 7.1 computer audio system), FLAC quality probably doesn’t sound much better than high end mp3.
So if you went to an audiophile’s house – someone who had spent $5000 per speaker in a 5.1 surround setup – and they played a recent vinyl record (yes, many good bands still release vinyl) produced by a good company, you would probably notice the difference between that and CD quality.
Reddit brought me and I’m going to stick around. Awesome comic!
I actually get shit going the other way, being that if I’m not animating, I don’t work digitally. I don’t have a problem with digital work, just people who think it can only be one or the other.
“How dare you not use all this technology?”
Actually, this time I have to say the joke has been done, many years ago, in print. I remember the article talking about writing where the two writers try to outdo eachother, I don’t use a computer, the typewriter is so much more authentic, typewriters no, the flow of the pen, not pens, I only write with chalk on shovels in my garage, well i scratch my work in the walls of caves etc etc. The point still is that it is not the similarities that count but the differences, and your comic gives different dimensions to the subject. Over the years you have expressed concern that others may have preempted you, well, should we not paint a nude figure because it has been painted before, should we not take a photo of the sunset because sunsets have been done to death? No two images or creations are the same, they are all unique, unless you really make an effort to copy, so as far as I’m concerned, just paint and damn the rest of them.