PainterFactory.com

I agree completely here Tom.  To elaborate further, artists have always used the tools at hand to create the finished piece.  It shouldn't matter how I got there, just that I did.  I take my photographs with the finished pieces already in mind, so there is a "creative process" that is gone through.  Can't you define that creative process as being artistic?  As you said, it's the finished piece that matters. 

Kevin

Tomsde:

We have similar difficulties in the 3D graphic world.  Some 3D purists believe that if a person creates pictures with preconstructed models then it is not "real" 3D art.  They insist that every object in the scene must be created from scratch my the artist--this is obsurd.  3D art is being used in everything from ads to book illustrations; some even are converted to a painted look by people using stock models--yet the way they are customized and lit makes the images unique and defintely personal.

I couldn't agree more!  As someone who sometimes creates his own 3D models, and sometimes does not.   I have heard purists down play my results when I've used pre-made models.  Especially Poser figures!!!   I will admit, that making and texturing your own models does result in a tremedous amount of satisfaction and pride when your complete, but unless it's a fairly simple model / texture, there's going to be huge amount of time invested as well...  Anyway, I digress...

The definition of "What is art?"  - should be, "Art is a subjective expression of ones feelings, ideas, and thoughts"  With the word "subjective" being key.   In otherwords, art is what you make of it - so have fun everyone, and to "heck" with the (often pretentious) purists out there.

im SO glad to have found this post/blog.I am an artist, and i use various mediums, alot of my work, i do free handed, with soft pastels and colored pencils, and alot of work, i do paint overs, as well, i do the human "nude form" to which alot of times, versus sketching the drawing ( creating the lines of the human form then coloring with soft pastels), i often use a photograph and get some carbon sheets, lay my paper down, then lay the carbon copy paper on top, then lay the actual subject's photo over the carbon and trace the lines of the human form..i consider myself, realy well and talented at doing the colors ie shadings etc, but actually free hand drawing, well, lets just say it never looks like the person thus id rather use carbon to trace my lines as a reference point..it also saves SO MUCH TIME haha..

Now, as far as "paint overs" i get ALOT of mixed views on this..my primary market is selling on ebay, and i do list them as originals, as well, i do inform my patrons they are paint overs..WOW the feedback i get from alot of folks telling me "THAT IS NOT ART, ITS CHEATING, AND ITS NOT ORIGINAL"..

well here is my thing: first, why isnt it "original"? i personally did it, i created it, there isnt another one identical to it, so, im assuming by all definitions , it IS IN FACT an original? as well, when they say it isnt art, its cheating, i simply ask them, "can you do it, can you create the exact same thing? if so, you can make great money on ebay ... my roomate, prime example, he loves my work, however, when i do a  paint over, he laughs at me, tells me as well, "thats cheating, a real artist wouldnt need to do that"..this is  a guy with NO ARTISTIC ABILITY, ( my roomate that is), i sat him down, told him after he became unemployed, " you can make some good money on ebay if you sat down, let me teach you how to draw and start out doing paint overs and practice"..

He was game for it, so we sat down, i printed two identical photos, one for me, and one for him, i gave him the soft pastel chalks and pencils, showed him how i do it, and told him to go to work!! he tried and tried and tried and tried, and could NOT do it, he was oblivous to shading tones, flesh etc. in the end, it looked like a coloring book page. So this example left me to my conclusion: " dont not disguard it as NON art simply by it being an over painting, it still takes artistic ability and some knowledge of toning etc", if you think its too easy, and its cheating, then YOU DO IT!

art is in the eye of the beholder, for god sakes, there is an elephant that paints on canvas, UGLY, however, those paintings go for thousands, art? not for me to say, only the admirers!

I have loved photography for many many many years.  I absolutely love digital photography because it allows me to explore more and take more photos with instant results.  Is my Nikon DSLR any less of a photo taking tool than my old 35mm Pentax camera was?  Are my photographs any less "art" than those that I developed?  I would think that the answer to both is very much no, the digital photo is as valid as the 35mm film photo.

This leads me to my art work done in Painter.  Yes I use my photos as models.  DeVinci used to reflect images off mirrors onto his canvases to assist him in getting his perspectives correct.  Was he any less of an artist?  I will use my photo to assist in perspective and then hand paint the image.  When I put 40+ hours of work I into one of my paintings am I any less of an artist than if I worked with brush on canvas versus stylus on my Wacom tablet in Painter.  I think not.

When some one looks at a printout of one of my paintings and asks if the image was computer generated I respond no, it was hand painted and is Randy generated.

I’ve just read thru all the postings here and it’s been an interesting discussion..... raising some provocative questions and providing a number of thoughtful replies.

Is it art? Someone mentioned a urinal on the wall presented as art... Warhol painted soup cans and presented it as art. Rauschenberg piled together a collection of found objects and presented it as art. There are endless examples. I, long ago, quit trying to define “art”. Art is what you say it is.. there is no meaningful definition.

I do, however, agree with John Derry when he talks about the vocabulary of painting being different than the vocabulary of photography. And if you accept that as a truism then I think it must also be true that we are in the process of creating a new vocabulary.. a new language, if you will.

To me the computer/software combination is a tool just like a brush is a tool. Every tool has a range of possibilities and limitations. Regardless of what tool you are using the creative process is the same. It’s a series of aesthetic decisions. And the final outcome is a result of the decisions, not the tool. 

Everyone who is at all interested in this discussion (and if you’ve read this far you must be) will be fasinated by this example of impressionist painters and their use of photos. 

http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2006/11/famous-painters-copied-photopraphs_06.html

Jim

Even though I haven't been around much lately due to time constraints and teaching commitments, I have followed the progression of this thread with interest.  It has taken a course that has warmed my heart.  Everyone has brought up great points from DaVinci's use of mirrors to the Camera Oscura to film vs. digital.  Technology can be a cruel master in the art world.  It makes me wonder what the inventor of the buggy whip felt like when Henry Ford came tooling down Main Street!

The only thing left to say is that even though I cannot define art, I know it when I see it! :-)

Warm Regards to All,

Steve

I'm brand new to the Factory, but have been using Painter on & off since v.2. I'm  trained traditionally as a artist and am self-taught in the digital arts.

Photo-painting has been around since the invention of photography. Color tiinting photos (painting over photos) was an industry in the early 20th century. Artists who create montages to paint over are just as valid as Andy Warhol's serrigraphs of soup cans and movie stars. Manipulating a photograph is part of the creative vernacular. So why the controversy? No doubt because tools like Painter allow anyone to "be an artist".

Can clicking on filters and smudging pixels really make someone an artist? Not anymore than publishing an occasional church bulletin makes someone a graphic designer, or editing family videos ranks as a tv producer. It's perfectly fine to dabble about. I think difficulties arise when people change a career path to suddenly become an artist because the motivation is money rather than the simple joy of creating.

It's not about the tools. It never was. It's about the creative process. But when that process is reduced to cerebral decisions with no physical media or kinetic immersion, controversy ensues about authenticity. After all, painting digitally is just a collection of ones and zeros that need to be specifically translated on a computer to reveal an image. It will never replace actual pigment on canvas, nor (I believe) will it ever become more valuable (collectable?) than traditional art.

For those not wanting to committ a lifetime of discipline to hone skills needed for artistic success, or do not want to get their hands or house dirty, tools like Painter are terrific. For artists who have used traditional art for comercial illustration, Painter is a blessing.

It's said "when it comes to art there is no accounting for taste." I say when it comes to manipulating photos there is no accounting. Period.

EYEFUL POWER:

I'm brand new to the Factory, but have been using Painter on & off since v.2. I'm  trained traditionally as a artist and am self-taught in the digital arts.

Photo-painting has been around since the invention of photography. Color tiinting photos (painting over photos) was an industry in the early 20th century. Artists who create montages to paint over are just as valid as Andy Warhol's serrigraphs of soup cans and movie stars. Manipulating a photograph is part of the creative vernacular. So why the controversy? No doubt because tools like Painter allow anyone to "be an artist".

Can clicking on filters and smudging pixels really make someone an artist? Not anymore than publishing an occasional church bulletin makes someone a graphic designer, or editing family videos ranks as a tv producer. It's perfectly fine to dabble about. I think difficulties arise when people change a career path to suddenly become an artist because the motivation is money rather than the simple joy of creating.

It's not about the tools. It never was. It's about the creative process. But when that process is reduced to cerebral decisions with no physical media or kinetic immersion, controversy ensues about authenticity. After all, painting digitally is just a collection of ones and zeros that need to be specifically translated on a computer to reveal an image. It will never replace actual pigment on canvas, nor (I believe) will it ever become more valuable (collectable?) than traditional art.

For those not wanting to committ a lifetime of discipline to hone skills needed for artistic success, or do not want to get their hands or house dirty, tools like Painter are terrific. For artists who have used traditional art for comercial illustration, Painter is a blessing.

It's said "when it comes to art there is no accounting for taste." I say when it comes to manipulating photos there is no accounting. Period.

 

Very well said!

Is something art when I say it is or when I’ve captured it?

Do we confuse execution with intent?

Capturing images that communicate isn’t tied to the amount of effort that was required.

Only artists will say things like “I admire their control of the medium” what the….@#!

Painter and digital art is here to stay, use it and set yourself free.

 my 2 cents worth.. I've been using painter since version 9, and I've been mostly scanning my own drawings, or using my  photographs by using quick clone, and then drawing/tracing  over the digital photograph.    I think the problem many people who don't understand the process, is often I have heard comments that people believe that the piece was created by using a quick photoshop filter, with minimal input from my creative process other than choosing the best look from the filter.  

I have seen painted art works where the artist's process was to blow up photographs, and then trace over them, transfer those to canvas, and then paint them with acrylics. using the quick clone and trace feature of painter, is  at the least similar to that process, and often merely a jumping off for a completely different work.