Am I really that out of the loop?

[Brazoo]

Yup,Yup and Yup.......it's not hard at all actually editing your work is just as important as doing the actual work.....

Yeah - sorry, I didn't mean to imply that YOU didn't know that - I know you do!

I was just making a general point - hopefully trying to encourage enyawd not to think of learning this stuff as such stumbling block.

[Brazoo]

Using photography as an example, I think you can learn about composition, use of light and shadow, colour theory - all the foundational concepts you need for any art medium. Like, you don't NEED to learn to draw or paint to be a great photographer.... Even though photography is modern technology. So I'm not sure if it's different than using digital mediums. Most digital mediums imitate or make use of other mediums to some degree - so it's hard to sift through for me.

[kingdom warrior]

It's not JUST about creating art digitally or non-digitally, I think if you want to work commercially, you need to network, market yourself, know how to control the quality of your work in print and online AND for your archives/portfolio...

And I guess someone could just get lucky and you could make enough to just pay people to do that stuff for you...

Personally, I think it's more practical to just get a computer and take a few hours and learn this stuff. Scanning art, making it look good - checking the colours and levels - knowing what kinds of files to use where - trust me - it's NOT that hard.

Yup,Yup and Yup.......it's not hard at all actually editing your work is just as important as doing the actual work.....

[Brazoo]

Scott sees it from the Pro view which I totally agree with. it's not easy to work with those tools BUT the fact that he WAS a traditional artist in the first place gives him the advantage that a young person or hack who has NOT dedicated to learning the traditional ways first.

I agree that you need a foundation before you can do great quality work. I think it would be hard to get a solid foundation if you started creating art with a digital medium. I don't know if it would be impossible - maybe I just lack the vision to see it.

[Brazoo]

I've run into too many ridiculously talented artists who just couldn't adapt... Including one chap I met recently that rattled off a list of jobs and clients that certainly impressed me to no end, being a huge fanboy of old school illustration. I just about wept when I heard that he's driving a bus... And no longer a professional artist. He even laughed his *** off at me when I asked him about original art.

Agreed! I have a friend who does incredible commercial illustrations - who should be earning 100 times what he is now and be a lot more well known - but he was such a technophobe for so long that it really held back his career. He actually does a lot of work with a computer in the art field now, but less creative work that he should be able to do.

It's not JUST about creating art digitally or non-digitally, I think if you want to work commercially, you need to network, market yourself, know how to control the quality of your work in print and online AND for your archives/portfolio...

And I guess someone could just get lucky and you could make enough to just pay people to do that stuff for you...

Personally, I think it's more practical to just get a computer and take a few hours and learn this stuff. Scanning art, making it look good - checking the colours and levels - knowing what kinds of files to use where - trust me - it's NOT that hard.

[kingdom warrior]

Methinks 200 years ago this would be an argument about artists who buy commercially available brushes and paints, and artists who make them themselves.

I think it's true that some people NEED to stand on one leg and cross their arms over their head and really struggle to create something they consider worthy - and I think sometimes people are genuinely more impressed by artists who take the long road.

When I thought Chris Ware did all his ornate decorations and crazy typography using a computer I liked it, but I was floored when I found out he did it all using non-digital techniques.

For some reason, that made a difference to me. So, while I'm basically on-side with MegoScott - despite my logic - I think I also can agree with kingdom warrior's instincts here to some degree.

I also agree with MegoScott that creating digital art can be just as complex and difficult as creating art in any other medium.

Also, for the record - I think you both make great art.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to designing a crappy website in Illustrator...

Scott sees it from the Pro view which I totally agree with. it's not easy to work with those tools BUT the fact that he WAS a traditional artist in the first place gives him the advantage that a young person or hack who has NOT dedicated to learning the traditional ways first.

[Brazoo]

Methinks 200 years ago this would be an argument about artists who buy commercially available brushes and paints, and artists who make them themselves.

I think it's true that some people NEED to stand on one leg and cross their arms over their head and really struggle to create something they consider worthy - and I think sometimes people are genuinely more impressed by artists who take the long road.

When I thought Chris Ware did all his ornate decorations and crazy typography using a computer I liked it, but I was floored when I found out he did it all using non-digital techniques.

For some reason, that made a difference to me. So, while I'm basically on-side with MegoScott - despite my logic - I think I also can agree with kingdom warrior's instincts here to some degree.

I also agree with MegoScott that creating digital art can be just as complex and difficult as creating art in any other medium.

Also, for the record - I think you both make great art.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to designing a crappy website in Illustrator...

[kingdom warrior]

But I don't understand how is it a cheat? Sitting down to learn oil painting techniques and sitting down to learn Fractal Painter are different sides of the same coin. It's just learning to manipulate a medium. The fundamentals of drawing don't change from paper to digital tablet, the fundamentals of color aren't limited to tubes of acrylic paint.

Again for the Hack it's a Cheat, as an Illustrator I have come across tons of artist who take a pic, scan it then change it to a line drawing and then color it and say I'm an artist......really???? How so is that?? I have a good friend who's an Art Director.....one of the things he does to guys who ports are weak is he pulls out a piece of paper and tells them to draw something gives them about 20 minutes to come up with something.

He wants to evaluate their drawing skills with a pencil and paper and coming up with Ideas on the fly.......a Pro who knows how to work quickly can do something an amateur cannot plain and simple. it's nice that you have 15 nice art pieces....now how long did it take you to do them? and show me the process of how you came up with it.....I want to know you can come up with something in a few days not 6months. He told me you'd be surprised how many guys can't draw to save their lives and they're coming in for positions working on big time accounts, He said I'm not going to hand a Kid who can barely draw an account that's due in the morning if his computer goes down, I have to be assured that he can deliver hardcopy if need be, how's he gonna do that if he has no art skills to begin with?

[megoscott]

I took a stab at coloring comics. Even with a computer it's a STAGGERING amount of work. It may not be to everyone's taste, but it's pretty impressive what those guys can pull off under ridiculous deadlines.

Actually, the computer has made that work way more intense than it ever was because of what you can do. I'm sure the publishers want all the bells and whistles, all the FX they can get out of the artist.

[samurainoir]

I dunno, I'm kind of a hack myself. I have to admit that 15 years in digital art has killed my traditional chops. Plus doing background painting and color design is kind of a weird specialty. I'm constantly painting other people's pencil drawings. All that time I spent learning to draw...

But still I'm good at what I do and it's fun and satisfying to be part of a creative team.

But my understanding is, that just like the finished interior colour work in monthly comics, no one paints colour traditionally anymore unless you have a grant from the National Film Board of Canada, and even then they think you are nuts. (all the animators I know up here are all in the 3-d game).

Unless you're name is Alex Ross or similar, and even then I don't think there is anyone currently in comics who does the labour intensive task of traditionally painting 22 pages of mainstream comics a month.

Getting work In the monthly grind these days means colouring digitally if you are a colour artist. Otherwise you don't get the work, you don't get paid. You don't get to call yourself a pro.

Pro gets paid
Amateur doesn't
By definition.
Tools put money in your pocket or they don't.

Commercial artist is professionally paid to deliver a work that is generally consumed as reproduction. The fact that a market has sprung up on original comics art is gravy... For that particular industry. Try asking for you art back in advertising, commercial design or storyboarding after you've delivered it to your client... And better yet, try and Turn around and sell it on ebay and see what your client thinks given that they paid you for that art already. (again though, digital has changed the rules)

Anyone who's ever seen Greg Horn at a convention sees how many prints he sells at twenty bucks a pop. He says it's like printing your own money. On top of that, have you seen how much of his images grace product? The royalties on that far outshines whatever he would have made on original art... and there are plenty of examples of his traditional art out there, but his career did not take off until digital. No amount of railing against digital erases the fact that he has a portfolio of clients that would make most ad agencies wet themselves.

Given that Blue Meanie tastes run towards the vintage art and period. I would hazard a guess and say that those pieces he's most interested (outside of convention sketches) have most likely left the hands of the artists long ago, and it's the art dealers that are the ones making the real cheddar off of it. It's an all too common story, which is why many older artist are finding a market in making recreations of work they are most associated with.

Sad to say, but money talks and is the only measure between whether you deserve to call yourself pro and am, not tools.

I've run into too many ridiculously talented artists who just couldn't adapt... Including one chap I met recently that rattled off a list of jobs and clients that certainly impressed me to no end, being a huge fanboy of old school illustration. I just about wept when I heard that he's driving a bus... And no longer a professional artist. He even laughed his *** off at me when I asked him about original art.

[megoscott]

But I don't understand how is it a cheat? Sitting down to learn oil painting techniques and sitting down to learn Fractal Painter are different sides of the same coin. It's just learning to manipulate a medium. The fundamentals of drawing don't change from paper to digital tablet, the fundamentals of color aren't limited to tubes of acrylic paint.

[kingdom warrior]

>the difference between pro and amateur is that you get paid for your work.

No, the difference is you take pride in learning your craft, can take a critique (without crying when your art directer rips apart your work) and you can deliver on time to meet tight deadlines.

That's a Pro

Even a Hack can get paid for a bad job done....look up Rob Liefield....

[ctc]

>What I was saying that if you are missing the skills or don't know someone who can convert your hardcopy into the proper digital file, the piece is unusable for the project.

True; and I think a lot of the rift between traditionalists and digitalists does a disservice to both in this regard. As an artist, you always want to be ADDING to your repitoire. The more techniques you master, the better the finished product.

As a comic guy, I find one of the great things about digital is that anyone can produce a comic and get it out there for folks to see. No publisher, no printer, no real cost. (Except bandwidth.) 'Course that means a lot of really, REALLY bad stuff gets out there; but that's more than made up for by the good stuff that would never have been seen otherwise. Even the bad stuff can have merit too. I've seen a lot of comics with awesome ideas, characters, scenes.... even though the person doing them is a horrible artist, or cruddy writer.... or both!

Don C.

[kingdom warrior]

Where can I get that software? Sounds awesome!

Seriously, it's not like there's a button in Photoshop that makes stuff look great. (Although we all know LENSE FLARE makes everything better...) If you have no sense of color or composition or proportion or whatever the computer doesn't help you. You are either an artist or you aren't, the medium doesn't matter. And when you can do something 100 times faster on a computer doesn't that help with the whole creative process?

I have a turn of the century travel poster on my living room wall. I stare at it all the time and marvel that it was done without Photoshop layers. The artist was undoubtedly talented and his technique with his materials was amazing, I could never touch it. And if he was working today he'd be using Photoshop and blowing people's minds.

I'm paraphrasing a friend of mine here: Anyone can learn to draw. Drawing is just a skill. It takes talent to do something good with it.

Scott, I was being sarcastic when I said that little Rembrandt thing lol. but I'm pointing out artist who without that software come nowhere close to doing what they do on a piece of paper or Canvas. for me. that's a cheat. Yes i understand that it's another tool, but if that tool did not exist either that artist strings along as a hack or really sits down and learns his craft the hard way by drawing and painting all the time..........

I'm not in any way speaking of the Pro who decides to use digital software

[kingdom warrior]

In this case I believe Bergeron's digital work is for commercial gigs - so I don't think his intention was to sell original art for this stuff - but I get your point.

Obviously digital art has to be printed, so to me you have to compare it to print media art, not originals. I don't know if Roberto is interested in anything other than original art - he might not like ANY kind of prints (lithography, woodcuts, letterpress, screenprinting, etching...)

I think you're really underestimating the art market that exists for high quality digital prints. There's a huge and growing market for giclée prints.

Do I personally like giclées over other printing techniques or originals? No. Actually most of the art I own is screenprinted - and even then I prefer work that was created FOR screenprinting and printed by the artist.

My point being that everyone has personal likes and dislikes for different mediums. I know people who LOVE giclées, because they can't afford original work, but they love that they still have collector value - they're not just mass produced offset posters.

I hear ya, giclées are high end prints when you can't own the original.....but if you're an art collector you will never be satisfied with this.....but i get you...