What makes a drawing real? This image was produced on a computer using a program called Painter and a Wacom tablet and pen. Is it any less real than if I created it on paper with pen and watercolor? I didn't copy anything or trace over a photograph. I drew it freehand. I encountered many of the same problems as would have occurred if I had used traditional media. I had to make all the same choices, but the fact remains that the work does not exist in the real world as an object. It only exists as a series of ones and zeros on a hard drive and now it exists on the Web.

Our notions of property and ownership are based on the fact that real objects are unique, can only be used by one person at a time, and are ephemoral. What happens when copies and originals are identical, when one item can be viewed by multiple people at the same time, and when colors do not fade? A virtual drawing is very different than a "real" one, but should it be afforded the same rights and privilages? Is it art?

Thats a good question ...and trust me you will get alot of different answers ..my thoughts on that kind of art .. well you drew it on the pad ...so it is your art ...some people just pull up a program and do different effects and create a image .. myself thou it is creative its still art but its not traditional art .. the kind from years back when it was created by the hands of the artist .. some may say that they created the computer art ..and that takes a talent also to do that so its not as easy as some may think .. but my husband can draw or make anything with the computer .. but to pick up a pencil and draw a picture .. well he just cant do that .. I think the kind of art that you set by a tree and draw the woods across the river or the rabit in the grass...to me thats the romantic side to art ..its personal .. but hey thats my opinion and you will get many others .... so I think if you drew it on the pad and its your art .. its art ....hope that helps lol
Kim

You created art by using an electronic medium rather than a traditional one. That doesn't make it an less 'real' than if you picked up pencil or pen and drew on paper. Its simply different.

As Kim said, some people simply manipulate photographs and call them art, but even that takes some skill. There are so many different interpretations of art and it is so subjective; no one can possibly say one is acceptable and another is not.

I have seen some amazing digital art and some really really bad digital art, but all have still been art. An individual has to guide an electronic pen or brush,choose and mix colours and judge placement of lines, the same way they would in traditional art.

Do we kick against the traces for the sake of 'tradition' or does technology scare us? I don't know the answer. Its a bit lilke the argument between traditional medicine and modern medicine. Which is right? Both are if they have a similar result.

you couldnt have said that any better .. I was worried to answer that question lol I did not want to offend anyone ..so I was careful .

i agree with kim and jeanette, especially that some people maniputate photo's. i think that manipulating photo's should have its own catagory or something, but drawing and painting your own stuff i think its another medium too because i have tried to paint and draw with painter and you have to know (in my experience) the techniques and basics of drawing and painting to do your own stuff. i would like to give it another try after i get drawing and painting the traditional way down. thats just my opinion.
Lori

I would go so far as to say that those who combine traditional drawing skills and the digital medium have to be even more skilled than those who use only traditional mediums. With digital art there's the added obstacle of knowing how to make the software produce the intended result, which is usually a lot more complicated than rubbing a pencil on paper. Digital art gets it's bad wrap from so-called "art" that is little more than the end product of a sequence of software filters applied to a photograph. "Artists" who work this way are not artists at all in my opinion; they are technicians who think they have cleverly circumvented the lengthy process of acquiring discipline in the traditional fundamentals of (to quote Andrew Loomis) placement, proportions, perspective, planes, pattern, conception, construction, contour, character, and consistency. The lack of these fundamentals is particularly evident to those who are trained in them.

Digimugs ....I do agree that if you have BOTH talents then of course you are more skilled .. if you know two jobs you are more skilled than to only know one job therefor have the advantage ...your comment "With digital art there's the added obstacle of knowing how to make the software produce the intended result, which is usually a lot more complicated than rubbing a pencil on paper." rubbing a pencil on paper ... hummm I disagree with that very much so .. saying one is harder then the other .. its a gift to be able to draw well some can not produce a straight line to save their life .. same as some people ( such as my husband ) were given a gift to do anything on a computer ..saying one is hard and takes skill and the other is merly rubbing pencil on paper ..look around hun .. if thats the case some of these pencil rubbings are outstanding .

Kim, I think you are thinking of something other than observational drawing. Yes, observational drawing can be reduced to simply "rubbing a pencil on paper" after you've conditioned yourself to see the shapes before you, simplify them, see them on your paper, and reproduce them correctly with your pencil. For skeptics, there's nothing more required for representational drawing than that, but getting to that level of skill requires lots of practice in seeing, simplifying, and becoming familiar with the pencil. I've seen it happen in my own classes and Betty Edwards gives accounts of it in her book, Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain. Kim, if you're referring to imaginative drawing, that's another topic altogether and is completely removed from the one I had in mind here.

I'm a confirmed digital PAINTER (as opposed to digital artist or photo manipulator or fractal maker) & all of my digital paintings are done from scratch.

Jeanette, I appreciate what you said about digital painting just being a different medium. So many times it's the artists who pooh-pooh digital painting and act as if it's something the dog dragged in. I have had a very good reception from the general public with my digital work but other artists have accused me of "cheating." I have known artists who give a fancy name to their digital art just to be allowed to enter certain art shows. Then there are the photo manipulators who claim their work to be digital painting when, in fact, it's photo-based & filters are used to make it appear to be a painting.

I tend to spend much more time on a digital painting than I do with traditional media as it's so easy to get carried away with the detail - something I despise doing in traditional media!

But, to get back to your question - in my opinion, a true digital painting (& even other forms of digital art) really is art. I mean, if someone can display urine & feces at a major art museum & call that art, how much more is something that an artist has put so much effort into?

J

I guess I do not understand what kind of art you are talking about .. in no way was i trying to say that digital art was nothing .. as i can not do it so trust me I am very sure it takes a skill to know how to produce a picture ....myself i draw .. pencil and paper kind of drawing .. not saying it is better than the other just saying that is the medium I use .. i have never taken a art class so i have no clue to some of the language you guys use ...so I am sorry if Dig or J took offence or anything I said ...from now on I will not comment in areas I do not understand . lol ..I will leave it to you guys with all the training .

J-Lynn Artists have told you that being a digital PAINTER is cheating." What the heck!! that must hurt you dont listen to them i have tried to use photoshop and i dont have a clue its very hard if you got the artists that told you that you are cheating to try out digital painting they would say sorry to you as they would NOT beable to do it as its very hard its Real Art as you are making the picture from strach

Well said UK .. I agree .

My kids get their pictures taken at school and soccer teams. The portraits used to look very nice until the advent of the digital camera. The reason they no longer looked good in my opinion is that they gave the cameras to just anyone and said here take a picture. It's cheaper to pay the guy off the street than the photographer. I haven't bought pictures in ages because they always look terrible. A photographer is an artist. This year whoever took pictures and set up the digital media is a true artist. The pictures this year were beautiful. The poses complimented the children, the manipulation of the pictures was very pleasing to the eye...croping etc. What I'm saying is that having a computer will not make you an artist. It is just another tool.
Having a paint brush only means that you can paint a room.
Hope that makes sense.
Paulette

Paulette that sounds to me to be the quality of camera .. they do make digital cameras that are very nice .. this new guy was most likely a far better photographer ...and that is a art also .. one must know how to capture the right shot .. I use to work as a photographer for sear portrait studios .. and trust me some people just dont have the eye for photography . lol glad the pictures turned out well .

Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone. I appreciate all your thoughtful responses and agree with everything said so far. I have been playing with traditional drawing and painting for 50+ years and I'm still learning. I've been digital painting for considerably less than that. I'm finding it a lot harder to draw with a pen and a tablet. I feel like a beginner again which is great fun. I haven't figured out yet how to achieve the subtle variations that are available in traditional media. I do enjoy being able to completely erase my marks, however, and there are techniques that are unavailable with traditional media.

I think that art is art regardless of the medium. A nice drawing is pleasant to behold, but a great work of art speaks to the soul.

Jim B.

My easy answer is that since poetry is art as well, you would have to be insane to think that poetry is only art when the work is read from its orginal script.
However, the work does lose it's -monetary- value the second it's reproduced and printed out with your HP Deskjet.

So my complex answer is that when it comes to digital art, a lot of people think two things.. First, that as it's nothing "physical" in the beginning, obviously the first physical form of that piece of art would be a "copy" already. Just a piece of paper with printed out by a machine. And secondly, a lot of people think that because of the power of today's computers, it can do a lot of things for you if you just click on the right buttons and select the right effects, that it's "too easy", and also maybe another important fact:
If you use "automatic" effects, the "artist" him/herself could go "Wow! That's nice!" rather than making a very personal decision of applying more color somewhere or adjusting some lines. I did not think of this before, but I guess that's a valid point from the digital art "haters". If the art is to show the artist's expressions, then that might not be the case if the artist himself goes "wow, that's cool!" rather than "yes, this is it".
But then again, this is a blurry line.. Because if an artist is to use "traditional" tools, such as canvas, brushes, paint/charcoal/blood/feces/etc.. If the Artist decides to use something else than a brush/pencil... Like throwing it all on the canvas, then he/she might need to do it a hundred times to get it "right", however, there will surely be times when the artist goes "wow, that's cool!" and keep it. So, it the true sense, that is not what he intended and not what he first felt to express.. he/she just got lucky.
And finally, who is to say that it's okay to use 20 different high-quality pencils and brushes and "perfect" paper/canvas (guess there's a wide range of those for different purposes) and not think that the only true way is to carve stone with another rock?

Art is in the mind of the artist, whether it is of emotional or monetary value to someone else is irrelevant.

Oh, and a bit about digital drawing & painting. I have a wacom tablet too, and do most of my beginner drawings with it.. And what I use it for is to learn the basic techniques on "traditional" drawing and painting. Especially painting since I don't have any "real" paint tools around. I don't use any "filters" or "effects", just a "pencil" brush for pencil and that's it. I could probably get nicer lines and a better looking end result if I used different other tools, but that is not my intention. Is it because I feel like I'm doing exactly what I want and feel (art?), or is it because I'm just dumb and wasting time on something that could be done easier (Like those who call themselves "traditional artists", yet painting with fancy brushes instead of using their fingers only. ) ?

i hope people didnt misunderstand me-- i meant i tried painter with painter and could not do it--because i really didnot know what i was doing. i think someone has to know something about painting, drawing in the first place to know how to use it. for example--i didnt know which brush to use and for what. i think someone has to have some knowledge of painting and drawing and whoever said the use of the software is skilled--your very right. thats why if you dont know about painting and drawing the "traditional way" learning the software is a nightmare also. it was overwelming for me trying pick and choose what brush and the stroke and all that. like i said-- i love to draw, have for many years (i havent had classes either and i am sure that it shows) even though i love doing art the traditional way and i will always continue to do it that way but i also would like to produce some things on the computer also. my own stuff as opposed to manipulating photos which is difficult to do too. i cant even do that. heck i cant even make a grid!! i didnt mean at all that digital art isnt art--because i think it is-- photo maniputation i dont know--it does take skill and talent thats why i thought it should have its own catagory like oils have theres and watercolor have there's and graphite has there's. thats all.
Lori

Okay, now I think it's time for me to reveal the truth about the images I've posted on the member's gallery so far. I lied about the medium I used to create them because I wanted to see if they actually passed for pencil, pastel, and charcoal drawings, and I'm thrilled to see that they have. I created all of them on a computer, from scratch, freehand, without tracing, cloning, filtering, or "cheating" in any way, using a WACOM tablet and Photoshop software brushes. Over the years, I've discovered that using a WACOM has really improved my hand/eye coordination because I cannot watch see my hand as I draw, which enables me to focus my attention on the model, where it belongs.

The question I would like answered is, "Are these images any less valid as art because I created them digitally rather than with actual pencil, pastel, or charcoal?" Would a buyer of these images really care how they were created if the loved ones pictured were his/her own? When a professional photographer is hired, does the client usually inquire about whether the photographer uses what is considered "valid" equipment? Then why should the question arise with hand-drawn art? I believe art is and should be in the eye of the beholder nomatter whose signature is on it or how it's been done. Anyone agree? Disagree? Let's hear from you.

Thanks for your time.

I myself could tell the pictures in your gallery were digital. For one when someone usually puts a picture up with that much detail you can see eraser marks. None there. The pictures so to say came out a little too perfect and one of the drawings you used has been seen on another website. Just don't remember which one. I personally think digital art is cool, though I do not know how to use it. I do not agree with it being a real art for a Drawing Challenge Website. You are not drawing by hand persay, you are actually using your mouse which most often requires no hand movements or very little. I do not care if you agee with me or not this my opinion and sorry if I offend anyone. I think it takes skills and knowledge on both digital drawing and real life drawing ( a mere peice of paper pushing a pencil). You are right it is in the eye of the beholder and since I have voiced my opinion I have nothing further to say since I know nothing about digital art, nor do I want too.

I think you need to read a little more closely. I do NOT use a mouse and you apparently have not seen a WACOM tablet before, so you probably have no idea how they were actually done. Eraser marks? I don't use an eraser when I draw with pencil and neither should you. Erasers are crutches unless they are used to remove highlights. The drawings are a little too perfect? THANK YOU! That's the nicest comment you could make about my original work. I can easily dismiss your opinion about digital art when you obviously still have a lot to learn about it. Why is it that those who know the least about something always seem to be the most vocal about it?

Venus, I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, of all people. You're the one so ready to try new types of pencils, new papers, etc, yet here you are saying that in your opinion digital drawing doesn't belong on a drawing forum!

Also, you profess to know nothing about it and say flat out that you don't want to. Well, your statement reinforces your statement about lack of knowledge as digital drawing is done exactly like traditional drawing!

Most artists who draw or paint digitally don't use a mouse ( although some do) but use a pencil-like device that mimics a traditional pencil or pen or paintbrush very well. However, even with a mouse, there is hand movement! There has to be or you will end up with a mark just in one place!

I'm not offended with your post but, as I said, I am disappointed with it coming from you. Unfortunately, that's the attitude of most artists who have never tried digital painting/drawing. I've been drawing/painting for over 50 years & I can assure you that the same artistic skill needed for traditional art is needed for digital work. In my case, digital painting was very freeing since I felt able to paint to my heart's desire without worry about "wasting" all that expensive paper & using up those expensive paints! Also, I didn't have to worry about clearing the kitchen table (my "studio", lol) in the middle of a painting just so we could eat dinner.

I'm sorry your mind is made up about digital art, I feel you're missing a lot by not exploring it. I know my traditional art has benefited greatly because of it. And I'm sure you're judging the art that I post here, but I can assure you that I never post anything online that I really care about because I know that there are also many misunderstandings about the copyright issue & I don't particularly want to see any of my saleable art plastered all over the internet.

J

Oh my gosh you guys STOP lol ....he lied .. ok DIGIMUGS lied to us he posted pics saying he did then by hand ..I have seen a tablet like he is talking about and I would concider it tracing if he went over a picture .. no one is saying Digital art is bad ....it was the comment about pencil rubbing that was not nice I agree with venus and to tell you the truth if I ran this site and he brought in fake work and lied .. he would be banned from this site .. myself and venus were just talking lastnight .. we new the drawings were not with pencil .. we are not stupid .. we are ARTIST for goodness sake . lol you cant fool us .. I see others out there also but i dont say anything because you know who you are .. and I know what i see . lets stop going back and fourth with this .. people are getting way too serious about this .

J-lynn I am sorry if I disappointed you with my comments being as how I had no idea what Digimug was referring to when he was talking about digital art. I never said it wasn't an art, I said I didn't consider it art in the aspect of drawing pictures or atleast that is what I meant. I also spoke to soon just for the fact that I thought Digimug was very arrogant with the way he addresses his points about digital art for me to say that I would never consider trying it. I actually after all was said and done on my part from this forum earlier went and researched digital art and being as how I am planning to go into illustration considered it, but that doesn't nessisarily mean that I have to agree to the fact that it is the same as pencil and paper. Kim is right though there is no point arguing over what is real and what isn't. I think both are art just not the same thing.

Thank you for sharing your heart felt opinions. I like a lively discussion with different points of view. I'm sure you can tell that the two drawings in my Gallery were done digitally, but I also think it's evident that I'm just learning how to draw with this new (for me) medium. I would welcome a chance to learn from artists who are more experienced. Some of what I need is advice that is universal to all media and some is related to the specific medium that I'm using.

I'm new to this forum so forgive me if I'm missing something, but I haven't found any guidelines posted about limiting the site to certain media. The name of the site (Drawspace) implies that it's not for painting or photography, but it's unclear whether digital drawing is okay. I guess that's why i asked the question, "Is a digital drawing real"?

I could totally understand if Brenda or others were to prefer to limit this forum to traditional media. It's much easier to support a targeted discussion. If that's the case then I'll happily limit the drawings I post to ones done with real pen and pencil and charcoal. From what I've read, however, there seems to be a group of digital enthusiasts who would like to share and learn from each other. If people would rather not mix media in certain topics (such as the Challenges for instance), then perhaps we could request a separate thread for digital drawings. Personally I'm interested in seeing what everyone is doing regardless of the medium and would prefer to look in one place per topic instead of two. I believe diversity is a good thing and that we all can learn from each other as long as we're open about what it is we are doing and tolerant about different points of view.

Jim B.

Kim, I totally agree with you about people lying about their methods of creating their art. It's one of the things that makes me hot because the photo manipulators, filter users, etc who claim to have painted something add to the confusion about digital painting from scratch & make people think that the computer does it all.

However, while I don't condone Digimugs lying about his gallery images, he did say that he did them all from scratch, no tracing, no cloning, no artificial means of creating them. And this is what I've been trying to point out. That digital painting/drawing is done exactly the same way that a traditional artist would do a work. Yes, Digimugs could be lying about the fact that he did his drawings from scratch, but in the real world, there are artists who claim their work is from scratch too but they have actually traced it or even used the ever-so-acceptable grid.

You said that people are getting too serious about this but you have to understand that it IS serious to us who are digital painters using traditional methods. People don't understand the process & never will unless we explain it to them.

One example comes to mind that you will probably understand. Up until fairly recently, colored pencil work was considered an inferior art form. Colored pencils were used by children, not serious artists. If you were ridiculed for doing some of your fabulous work in colored pencil, wouldn't your feelings be hurt and wouldn't you be just a little angry that your work wasn't acceptable just because of the medium? Wouldn't you be just a little teed off not to be allowed into art shows just because your medium was considered juvenile? Wouldn't you be pretty quick to tell people that colored pencils were no longer just for children but were being sold in major art stores and that more and more serious artists were beginning to use them?

The digital medium is like that for me. I consider it a serious art form & want to explain it to those who think that it isn't. I use my stylus and tablet just as you would a pencil and paper. The computer does nothing automatically. I have to make every stroke, I have to mix colors if I'm painting. If I make a mistake, I have to use the eraser (or some people use the undo button.) If it turns out well, I take the credit for it - if it turns out lousy, I take credit for that also. I can't blame it on the computer because the computer did no more than a pencil and piece of paper just lying on the table by themselves. Just as the pencil and paper take a human to turn them into a drawing, the computer takes a human to make art also. Most people don't understand that - if you had been doing serious colored pencil work 30 or 40 years ago, you would understand my need to explain. You would have been something of a pioneer in colored pencil art. Digital painting is gaining in popularity all the time but it's still not considered a mainstream medium. I love doing it, it's convenient but it's still something that I've spent years learning & still don't know it all. I've invested a lot of time, money &, most of all, heart, into it.

I don't care whether anyone likes the medium or not. I don't defend it to try to persuade someone to like it. I am vocal about it in instances like this because most people have no idea of what it's all about and it's a shame that they decide to oppose it without knowing about it.

You mentioned that there were other digital artists here on this site but I don't see why that should be a problem. When the challenges were first started, someone asked if they could participate using the digital medium. It was agreed that they could but no tracing, no cloning - it had to be done in a traditional manner. There are no rules that everyone here has to use a pencil and paper. Of course, a digital artist COULD trace but so could a traditional artist.

I guess my beef in all of this is that you're (meaning the opponents of digital work) equating digital work with cheating and that's the reason I'm so defensive about it. For some reason, people just don't pay attention when you tell them that digital drawing is done in the exact same way that traditional drawing is done. Again, yes, some digital artists could trace or manipulate a photo but a traditional artist could also trace.

You may not have any graphic software on your computer but if you have a PC, you probably have MS Paint. Just for an experiment, open it up & tell it to draw one of the challenges. I imagine it will just stare back at you with a blank screen. Now, get your mouse, click on a color & start drawing. I think you'll see that the artist has to input every stroke.

I'm just trying to explain that digital uses the same process as traditional (for me anyway) and it's just the medium that's different. If you're a great artist with traditional media, you'll be a great one with digital with a little time & effort. If you're a lousy traditional artist, you'll be a lousy digital artist. But just as it's not the pencil that makes an artist good or bad, it's also not the computer and that's what I wanted to say.

J




J

Well, while I was writing my essay on digital painting, I see that Venus & Jim have posted. lol

Venus, I have nothing against you & I so totally support your right to like or dislike any medium. As I said above, my defense is addressed to the misconception about from scratch, totally hand done, digital drawing or painting. I just have to explain what it truly is.

Jim, digital drawing is acceptable for the challenges but as I said above, no tracing or cloning.

J

Jim .. no worries .. of course it is real .. and as long as you post it as digital that is fine ...and trust me some can be wonderfuly put together and that takes a talent to do that ...same as pencil and paper .. or taking pictures (photographer)...or sculpting a figure .. it is all art ..I dont think I have said anything different ... but this is to everyone who reads this ....He lied... Digimug tried to trick everyone .. or did he .. i think he had all intentions of keeping that posted as pencil art until he was called out on it ....I for one e-mailed him privately and asked .. so i know i was not alone in thinking this was not pencil art . I myself dont have time for people who lie .. or cheat ... so nuf-said on my part .
Jim I agree i am also interested in seeing peoples art in all forms .

J-lynn i totally see your point of veiw about digital art. If you were to start from scratch with a picture that is fine BUT I also know that there are programs you can use to enhance alot of work which is why I don't nessisarily agree with it being considered works of art like pencil, pens, paint ect. I KNOW alot of work goes into it. My stepson likes to play with different programs and do the same thing. Basically what I am saying is using a computer to make art is not the same thing. It is my opioion though and I am far from condoning anyone that prefers digital art over the other art. Like I said though Digimug is very I don't know just didn't "click" with his way of presenting himself to the forum or the way he voiced his opinions.

J-lynn, I can totally understand why an instructor would discourage a beginning student from using tracing paper to make a completed drawing. The result usually looks stiff and uncomfortable because the student's concentration is on following an existing line instead of on making a smooth, confident mark. On the other hand, I think it can be very helpful for an artist to use mechanical methods such as tracing or projection to establish or check proper perspective, proportion, and scale during the construction phase of a drawing and I see nothing inherently wrong with it. The artist Jan Vermeer is said to have used a camera obscura. Is his art any less great because he used mechanical methods to get his perspective right?

So, I can see why in a beginning drawing challenge tracing or cloning would not be recommended for beginners, but I don't understand why it would be totally banned if it's used as an aid to drawing. Are all drawings supposed to be done freehand? Are you not supposed to use a straight edge or protractor or a ruler to measure distances or angles?

I like to use tracing paper in a digital drawing to layout landmarks on the page. I then turn it off to do the drawing and then turn it back on again later when I'm done to check the accuracy and make corrections. It's an extremely helpful learning tool.

I'll respect the rules, however, and not use these aids in any drawing I do for the challenges.

Jim B.

It's funny you should bring this up. I had done a sort of "inner questioning" post about why some methods of getting an accurate image were more acceptable than others but decided not to post it. I figured it would just stir up another heated debate.

But, in it, I asked why a grid was ok to use & tracing was not since they produce pretty much the same results. I also had an instructor who allowed tracing for beginners & he always said that you could give a reference to 10 different people, allow them to trace it & he contended that you would still end up with 10 different paintings. I guess tracing is frowned upon and a grid is ok because it's a lot of work & if you really work at something, then it's ok, right?

I also said that I used the visual reference points method of getting an accurate drawing & wondered if that made me superior because I neither grid nor trace.

Anyway, rulers have been mentioned as being needed more than once here when a member had some crooked lines in a drawing. And I also brought up the fact that many of the old masters apparently used some sort of projection device in their work. In our day, the famous illustrator for the Saturday Evening Post, (I can't think of his name!) purportedly used a projector for much of his work.

Anyway, there's a quote in one of my art books that goes something like this - "In the years to come, no one will ask how long it took or how it was done, they will only ask, Is it beautiful"

So, I understand what you're saying but I also know that if tracing were allowed, there would be people who would take advantage. My biggest pet peeve is dishonesty when it comes to saying how a work was done, especially with digital work. If new artists see a work that is very well done & the artist claims to have done it from scratch when in fact it's a clone, then it's very disheartening & discouraging to them. They think they can never learn to do work as good as that. If it's done in the general population to deceive the people, then it really ticks me off because it gives genuine digital painting a bad name.

Those are just my thoughts on it all and Brenda & Jeanette have been teaching for a long time & I'm sure there are reasons for the rules here. I know that tracing can become a crutch and drawing skill will never be developed if it's used all the time.

J

PS - I forgot to say that at one time when I was learning digital painting, I did use the tracing paper feature. It was a wonderful help & gave me confidence & I do still use an overlay if I'm having a problem figuring out where I'm off in a painting. It just feels better to do as much of a painting on my own as I can but I'm not ashamed of, or opposed to, using good help when I need it.

I've read the posts here with interest and can see both sides of the argument.

As for my personal opinion, I think digital art is simply another medium, such as pencil, oils, watercolour, etc. There is a steep learning curve to doing it well, just as there is in traditional art.

I don't care if Digimugs created his images digitally or with pencil and paper. The fact remains that he did create them and I can respect that. If there are shortcuts that someone wants to use to create an image, that is their choice, but by doing so they don't help themselves to learn and grow as an artist.

There are no guidelines for mediums in this forum that I know of, so I would say anythng goes as long as it pertains to art. Would it be beneficial if separate threads were set up for each medium so that people could discuss and post work specific to say digital art or watercolour or coloured pencil? That way, it is clear that the specific thread is about that medium and those who are interested in that medium will hang out there.

I have a digital tablet and photoshop and have tinkered a little but haven't had time to do much with it in depth. My hat goes off to those who can create something beautiful digitally and equally, those who have mastered other more traditional mediums have my respect also. Digital art is a new medium and not well known or perhaps appreciated in traditional artistic circles. Often art contests won't allow submissions of digitally produced images. This is likely because the public doesn't understand it or demand it and as its usually not presented on a canvas with tangible brushstrokes, it is dismissed as unprofessional. Its a matter of education and exposure to the art form that provides acceptance. As J-Lynn said, coloured pencil only recently was accepted as a new medium and taken out of the sandbox perception - and just look at the numbers of people using cp as a medium now.

As for the question of 'tools' to assist in drawing like gridding or tracing. Sure. Use them in the beginning if they give you that boost of confidence that your drawing is accurate. But don't rely on them solely as you won't train your brain/eye/hand to observe and translate that onto paper or canvas. You can provide a person with an outline that is traced or gridded but they still will not have the skills to complete the details to bring that image to life unless they have the training and skills to know how to do so.

There is no 'cheating' unless you are forging paintings or drawings and selling them as originals. Even the forging of paintings is a creative process in which talent and ability must be present to create the image effectively enough to pass for the original. Manipulated photographs using predesigned effects aren't cheating, they're using a program to work for you. They likely won't sell in the art world, because there is no skill involved in creating them. Use whatever method provides you with the result that you want to achieve.

Do you ask the baker if he uses prepackaged flour or if he goes to the fields, cuts the wheat then grinds it? Which would be the better loaf of bread? You have no way of knowing and as long as you receive your loaf of bread that, in your eyes, looks and tastes like bread, you are content.

Neither do you ask artists how they created their images. If you like it, if the method and image pleases you, does it really matter HOW it was created?

As I said before, yes, I did create the portraits digitally but NO, I did NOT trace over photos to create them. I don't know who first decided that I had traced photos but, whoever you are, please take note. I use photos to obtain proportions but I do NOT trace over them. This will be my last comment about this topic because debating this issue with people who aren't familiar with it, and too prejudiced about it to even be curious, is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Good day.

Using computer as an artist and not the copy/paste art.
I have sought the answer of the question for myself.
This is my little experience:

When I trained myself to render a glass ball in a photoshop tutorial
http://www.lunacore.com/photoshop/tutorials/tut009.htm. I followed the
artist's instruction step by step and finally got the result as good as real
as he did. After the end of the tutorial, there was a advice which was about:
If you want to take a step further, study the real object.

This is the advice of Lunacore, the digital artist:
http://www.lunacore.com/forum/index.php?topic=22.0

I know many digital painters drawing with the traditional technique. This is
some of their art works:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=137

Thank you, Kenny-Yu. The original work displayed at http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=137]http://forums.cgsociety.org/forumdisplay.php?f=137[/url]
makes mine look like a beginner's by comparison.

Wow ...sometimes i am impressed and other times very disapointed in what some of our people have to say .
Jim ...In my opinion tracing paper is wrong to use when trying to draw a picture .. unless you want to put that the drawing was traced .. then thats fine .. if thats the way you did it then it makes it ok by telling how you did it and not let other think you did it by hand with no tracing paper ...projection is tracing no matter how you look at it .
J ... Yes he cheated and he lied ...and when you support his other words how can you be sure hun that he is not lieing .. he has already lied and cheated .. in my book I wash my hands of him .
Jeanette .. This is kind of disapointing .. when i hear from you a women I repect very much because i know your skill is real .. and it has not been touched up or played with or traced ....you say one is not cheating unless they forge a painting ...what about lieing and saying i did this with pencil see how nice it is .. and when the heat is turned on you confess that you did not do it with pencil you did it digitaly .. doing it digitaly is not the peoblem its lieing thats the problem ...come on people if this was one of our kids we would see it for what it was ...furthermore to add seperate threads for tracing and digital and so on .. is a waste of time .. just tell people your medium ... if you trace it say i traced the outline but filled the rest in on my own .. some of us who do not trace could really offer good advice..maybe help them not trace as much .. if it is done with a computer .. be HONEST and post it .. people will still enjoy the work .
Dig .....I know I did not say you traced it .. I dont know who did ..I said you cheated ...by the way of lieing to us and saying you drew it .. your words are offensive to some people .. of course you will have no more to say about this ...IF I were you I wouldnt either .. how some people can still support your art ..is beyond me . I know IF I were a teacher and you were my student and i was lied to .. you would be out of my class .
Just my thoughts .. I dont care how it gets done .. trace it .. project it .. how ever you want ... just be honest how you did it .. it will not lessen the comments .. you will still get attention ....just be HONEST about you ART ... lie to us .. your lieing to yourself .. that was not hard to say its the truth .. and I wish the people running this forum would draw the line somewhere .. cause it makes people who love coming here just want to walk away if we will allow lieing and cheating people to come through our doors .

Kim, I DID draw them, but I used a stylus on a pressure-sensitive WACOM tablet instead of a pencil and paper. That is the only difference. So, no, I did not lie about having drawn them but I did misrepresent the medium I used, but only to see if anyone could identify the medium from the images themselves. Nobody said anything until I let the cat out of the bag. Well, guess what? Not all of them ARE digital. I "lied" again, Kim. Can you tell which one of the 4 images I've posted wasn't done digitally? For those of you who think I'm playing a perverse game here, I'm actually attempting to get your unbiased reactions to the images themselves, but without your knowing what medium I used to draw them. The only way I know how to do that is to "lie" about the medium I used because, as we've seen on this forum, there are people who dismiss digitally-drawn images as "cheating," probably because they imagine how they were done rather than knowing.

I thought you said you were done with this .... hummm looks to be you lied once again ... I swear if the members of this forum read what you just said .. and support you way of going about your little lies .. I am so out of here ... no threats .. no needs to say oh dont leave ... i dont care .. you are a poison to this ARTIST here and you are lethal to any new commer or beginner . shame on you who all support him ...I will not explain myself to those of this forum being most of you know who I am and what my thoughts are .
Kim

well now i have a question on gridding. as alot of people know i just started using grid for portraits that i do. is that cheating? i was really bad with porportions, but will i get that trained eye by using them? because i do want to train myself to do everything free hand. i dont use a grid for the shadow and highlights or details, i just use it to get the porportions right. is this okay and if so when should i stop using a grid. or should i stop and if i want to do something digital, is it cheating if i use a grid on the program. i am so confused now.
i have experimented with painter and i know for me, you do have to know how to draw and paint, you have to know what brushes to use, what stroke and pressure and everything. you can create some beautiful work with it.
Lori

Lori, it really is a personal choice to use a grid or not. It, it my mind, is not 'cheating'. It is a tool to help you acheive a likeness and is used by a number of artists.

However, I would not use it constantly and rely on it solely to obtain an image. You need that freehand drawing to train your mind/eye/hand and over time, with lots of practice you will achieve the drawing that you want without a grid.

Personally, if I have a really really important commission, where it is very important that I get a perfect likeness, I use a grid to put in my basic points, such as eyes, nose, mouth, jawline, then take it from there.

I see grids and tracing as simple tools to help beginners gain confidence and for professionals to achieve the results they want. But they should not be a crutch and used sparingly otherwise you jeopardize your ability to draw well.

May I share a web tutorial that was a tremendous help for me to learn to sketch without grids? Lori, this may also help you a little with Painter although the tut is for the original version which had no layers nor the extensive features of today's version.

http://www.3dluvr.com/content/article/44

You may have to copy & paste that link but I think you'll find this tut very helpful. Not only do I use this method for my digital work, I also use it for traditional sketching & drawing. To me, while a grid is helpful (& NOT cheating in my opinion, especially for a beginner), I think they're a hassle & too time-consuming for my tastes. (Who knows how much time any of us has left but I know I probably have less than most of you & I like to do things FAST! lol) This method is somewhat like a grid but faster.

Hope this helps.

J

Neat link J-Lynn, thanks for posting this. It may be a good candidate for the 'How do I....' thread.

Lori,
Using a grid is a perfectly fine way to train your eye to see shapes. To train more effectively, start with a fine grid, one that has small squares. As you do more drawing, increase the size of the squares, which will reduce the number of squares in the grid. This has the effect of forcing your eye to see more of the shapes in broader areas. If you practice in this way, you will soon be able to see proportions without the aid of a grid. This is all about seeing shapes, and the best way to do that is not to draw the features you can identify, but draw the negative space that surrounds them. Seeing negative space will turn off your left brain, the side that confounds your efforts and rejects what your eye actually sees. If you're curious about this, Betty Edwards' book, Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain is an excellent reference.

thanks everyone for clearing that up for me. i was worrying there for a minute. thanks j-lynn i will go there and check it out.
Lori

I've come in late in this thread..

I've seen some INCREDIBLE digital artists, and some incredible pieces of digital art. In my mind, digital artists are just as talented as those traditional ones. It took me far longer to get the hang of photoshop and my WACOM than it did for me to get the hang of my pencil (and in both cases I still have an awful lot to learn).

I would be very insulted if anyone told me my digital paintings (some can be seen in my gallery, most can be seen on my site, see my signature) were not 'real' art. I trace nothing, I use no filters, and I approach it similarly to how I approach traditional media.

As to whether the value of digital art decreases with reproduction.. well, I don't know about that. To be honest, that debate doesn't interest me. I don't expect my work to be hanging in galleries.