CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:


I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

What about the artist that just uses the few basic Photoshop brushes and creates matte paintings in it from scratch? Digital painting does add or take away from talent at all. I can draw just as well with a tablet or with a pencil.

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:I don't remember what program it was, I guess. I just recall seeing a video of it.

For one who knows how to use the tool of Photoshop or any other digital painting program (it's not easy, by the way. Download a trial and try making the fantastic digital artwork you've see. No really, try it.), some things will appear very simple.
For example, had you seen a very skilled artist such as Monet or Leonardo Da Vinci work on a piece, you would have said much of the same thing. They knew tricks and shortcuts with a pencil and paintbrush that would make your jaw drop. How can someone do that so easily? Well, it wasn't easy to begin with] I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended[/quote] Talent is far from a requirement in art. Anyone can be an artist with enough work and devotion to the craft.
Granted, I've seen sad excuses for lazy artists who do believe they can use Photoshop to "draw for them", but it fails miserably since the person didn't take the time to learn about color theory, techniques in lines, etc.

Photoshop is much like a brush or pencil; it's a tool. It doesn't give off the toxic smell like oil paints do, but it offers a wide range of possibilities for an artist (who knows how to make the most of it) to expand on and experiment in ways a paintbrush would not.
On the flip side, a pencil, pen or brush can give results that Photoshop can only dream of giving. In fact, some of the best art is combining the two tools and using both to their full extent on a work.

Back on topic, I currently only have Adobe Elements (which, while very simple, let's me do all the basic sort of tasks). I dream of the day I will finally have the full version of Photoshop. *A*

goldenspines (post: 1506465) wrote: Talent is far from a requirement in art. Anyone can be an artist with enough work and devotion to the craft.

I just wanted to tell you, you're awesome for saying this. XD

I use all kinds of programs, most of them freeware, I'm a big fan of open source, gnu licensed progs like blender3D and brycePLE, you can get free versions of just about any program, If your a student you can get some very high end programs for free, I have ple and student versions of all the major programs out there. The only one that actually cost money is cinema 4D, which is my favorite modeling program, simply because it's so easy to use. but every digital pic I've ever done uses a combination of programs.

I use to think cg was cheating, until I actually took digital design in college. You need to be able to draw if you want to do good cg. I can create a complete pic on paper in as little as 30 min, but it takes me much longer to do a good cg pic.

The only exception is doing backgrounds, you can make amazing landscapes in minutes using software.

And I have to disagree on the talent issue, it takes some kind of talent to do any type of art, creativity is a talent in it's own right.

God gifts each of us with something unique. even if we can't see it ourselves.

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

I'm rather surprised that you can't understand how insulting a generalization this is, and how presumptuous it is to state that all digitally created art isn't as good or worthy of appreciation because you assume it uses some sort of assistance program to 'look as good as traditional'.

By the way, I've watched quite a few professional colorists and digital painters either livepainting or videos that they recorded during projects and cut together later. None of them so far have used any tool that resembles what you describe.

3dpenguin (post: 1506483) wrote: The only exception is doing backgrounds, you can make amazing landscapes in minutes using software.

This can also be done with traditional materials as well. It does depend on the effect you are going for.

And I have to disagree on the talent issue, it takes some kind of talent to do any type of art, creativity is a talent in it's own right.

God gifts each of us with something unique. even if we can't see it ourselves.

This depends on what you consider "talent". It could be true that those who have "talent" in art do become artists even if they don't believe they do have that talent (this is why I don't think it's a requirement to knowingly have talent).
Though, my main point was one should not rely on talent alone to create art. It can only get you so far. Hard work, devotion, and continual learning is what makes an okay artist to an awesome one.

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

I wasn't talking about beauty either. The idea that I was calling wrong is exactly the one that you wanted to get across.

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:

I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

Here is some digital art I made, just for your post.


By jadenmental at 2011-09-23

Direct link - http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/ultimatefacepalm.jpg/

ABlipinTime (post: 1506441) wrote:I'm not saying that the art doesn't look beautiful. I'm saying that I appreciate it less because not as much talent went into it. Get the gist? - Pun intended

That ad took my professor 40 hours to put together. And, no she did not just find a bunch of models and slap them on there. The two women were in bikinis before and the pizza guy had a different head. I know there were other modifications, but fully clothing the two women, and putting on a new head were the biggest things that I can remember. Someone without talent doesn't spend 40 hours editing something together almost pixel by pixel. There is no "computer doing your work for you". Sure there are magnetic tools in photoshop, but those can only take you so far. Especially when you are cutting out figures that can in no way show that you took them from somewhere else. It's impossible to get a magnetic tool to cut out every hair, you pretty much have to go in and make sure each piece of hair is included, by hand.

Art's not my main creative focus, but I think I know enough to post further in this thread.

3dpenguin (post: 1506483) wrote:And I have to disagree on the talent issue, it takes some kind of talent to do any type of art, creativity is a talent in it's own right.

God gifts each of us with something unique. even if we can't see it ourselves.

Like Goldy said, it depends on what you mean by 'talent'. If by 'talent' you mean essentially the same thing as 'skill', then I agree.

However, for reference, talent isn't quite the same thing as 'skill'. Wiktionary defines 'talent' as:

3: ...A marked natural ability or skill.

This means, if you tried to shoot some hoops in a friend's backyard with no prior basketball experience and managed to do well, you have a talent for it. But that talent won't get you into the NBA. To get that good, you need to practice, practice, learn techniques, educate yourself, and practice.

A person with no obvious talent can get just as good with a little added practice. At a certain point, it doesn't matter who started with talent and who didn't.

It's the same with art: to become very skilled, you need practice and knowledge, not 'talent'. And you need just as much practice and knowledge to make art using traditional methods as you do with a digital art program. To say digital art takes less 'talent' or 'effort' or 'skill' is to cheapen the hours people spend working on their computers to make beautiful pieces. That's why so many people are insulted by what ABlipinTime's been saying, and that's why Goldy's awesome for saying talent isn't a requirement.

FllMtl Novelist (post: 1506676) wrote:Art's not my main creative focus, but I think I know enough to post further in this thread.

Like Goldy said, it depends on what you mean by 'talent'. If by 'talent' you mean essentially the same thing as 'skill', then I agree.

However, for reference, talent isn't quite the same thing as 'skill'. Wiktionary defines 'talent' as:

This means, if you tried to shoot some hoops in a friend's backyard with no prior basketball experience and managed to do well, you have a talent for it. But that talent won't get you into the NBA. To get that good, you need to practice, practice, learn techniques, educate yourself, and practice.

A person with no obvious talent can get just as good with a little added practice. At a certain point, it doesn't matter who started with talent and who didn't.

It's the same with art: to become very skilled, you need practice and knowledge, not 'talent'. And you need just as much practice and knowledge to make art using traditional methods as you do with a digital art program. To say digital art takes less 'talent' or 'effort' or 'skill' is to cheapen the hours people spend working on their computers to make beautiful pieces. That's why so many people are insulted by what ABlipinTime's been saying, and that's why Goldy's awesome for saying talent isn't a requirement.

I suppose once again I was quite ambiguous.
To add to that, I didn't ever say "talent", whatever I meant by that when I first made the post, was a requirement for art. There are no requirements. All I did was state my opinion: I appreciate some digital art less knowing the tools that were used to make it. Good grief. So I have an opinion. [edit by myself: now that just sounds like I'm adding insult to injury]. I suppose I shouldn't make it sound like I don't appreciate digital art. I do. But I appreciate some of it LESS. Granted, alot of hard work can go into work. It's usually these works I appreciate. They are or it least can be beautiful. I am confused to some extent, though, what people are arguing about against me. Leave it to me to state something and start a argument.

(As for the videos posted earlier: no, those aren't what I had in mind, though frankly (that means, on a non-serious note), I did see the preview to CS5 vid before)

Anyways...
I do believe I drove us all off topic. My apologies. To recompense (if that's even the right word), let come back on topic by talking about any new software that we might be interested in buying, shall we.

ABlipinTime, I don't think that post of Fu's you quoted was directed to you personally. She was quoting 3dpenguin.
You also must understand that stating your opinion on a public forum requires you to defend it if possible. This will happen wherever you go, though.
Thank you for apologizing for your derailing of the topic.
If any of you wish to continue this discussion, you can either do so by making a new thread about it or via PM.


I am reminded that I also have Corel Painter. It came with my tablet. I really like it since you have the ability to mix colors on a "palette" and choose from a variety of different brush-like tools and pens to give different effects. I'm still learning to use it as well, AliveforHim. Have you used it much since first creating this thread?

Corel Paint? Nope. I still haven't figured out how to use it. I would like to though. I just bought Adobe Illustrator CS5. I love the nice and smooth vector lines it creates. I use it for lineart and color in my stuff on Photoshop. I can easily blow off all my $$ on digital art software. If someone can show me how, I'd love that person forever.

I should mess around in painter again. I liked that program. It does great charcoal, without all the mess of the real stuff.