There is no
denying that "digital" is flourishing. Digital
is the original all-digital product ie in a traditional computer without paint
and canvas or other support, or a hand-painted screen that is scanned and
digitally enhanced in a variety of software packages (eg , Painter, Photoshop). Even
digital photos enhanced with artistic effects within this broad concept, and
fractal art, which is automatically generated with little human intervention.
The tools needed to produce the digital have been around for many years but have undergone a revolution over the last 10 years and now is rich in features that allow digital artists to create works that were previously impossible. Manufacturers and digital art tools defenders could emphasize different and unique effects they can create, but in fact they promote the similarities with traditional media.
But
digital illustration are creative without any doubt, and they can be original,
evocative, intriguing, beautiful. But
there continues to be debate and controversy over the "digital" art
is "real". It
is the ability and talent to handle a computer piece of software comparable to
a real artistic talent?The tools needed to produce the digital have been around for many years but have undergone a revolution over the last 10 years and now is rich in features that allow digital artists to create works that were previously impossible. Manufacturers and digital art tools defenders could emphasize different and unique effects they can create, but in fact they promote the similarities with traditional media.
And should not the art of communicating something to the viewer? Some forms of digital (as fractals) are randomly generated images. In this case, if nothing then communicates how the work can be considered art?
Just as it has been shown that the most attractive human faces have small imperfections - so maybe small human errors on a canvas to create a subconscious appeal to the viewer that is missing from digital works.
It is also important to distinguish between art art "true" and "good." Just because a painting is created with traditional media does not make it art "good" rather than digital is "bad" art.
Take a look at these five reasons for and against the classification of digital art as (the rather nebulous term) Art "real."
AGAINST:
1. Although in theory, computers now have an almost unlimited range of colors, if the artist really wants to print the job, to show that there are restrictions on color printing process. Even using the best color management techniques, there are also differences between the colors displayed on screen and printed on canvas or paper.
2. Ability and talent are needed in the paint mixing and applying paint with a brush.
3. Digital art is limited by the size of a computer screen and a usable file size not grind your machine off.
4. No engaging and captivating paint smell (although it will be soon to a computer near you - check "Scent Digital Technology")
5. Digital works are visual interest and tactile experience of texture.
AT:
1. Digital art is a creative process, as well as creating a video artwork or installation art, which are the forms of contemporary art accepted.
2. Some incredible images were created digitally, and if it causes an emotion in the viewer, then it is true art.
3. Art is the soul of the artist for the artist still has the imagination and talent to be able to turn this idea of something real.
4. Digital Art Tools has a versatility and power to create effects and combine techniques that could not be done with traditional media.
0 komentar