>Yes there is, there are Professionals and there are amateurs.
I disagree and agree with this. I think there are pros and amateurs, but I don't think the hardware seaprates them.
>an Amateur clicks and uses cheats to get his work done
True; but I think it shows in the work. That's why it's important to separate the ideas of "good" and "enjoyable." People tend to confuse them, so anything they like is de-facto good.
>a Pro critically thinks what he needs to do to make his design work.
THAT'S the key! There's a plan and a vision.... but I don't think it's how you get to your end-state that makes the dif; it's where that end-state is. Dip pen, computer, markers, finger paints.... it doesn't matter if it gets you where you want to go.
>Learning how to traditionally do art is how you understand how the Masters did it.
Yeah, but it's not a religion. You don't learn colour theory or rotations or perspective or which end of the pen goes in the ink because of some moral imperative or dogmatic tradition: you learn them becuse they work.
>once you master traditional you can then work in Digital if you so choose to do it.
This feels so bad to me 'cos I don't like computers, but.... there isn't a heirarchy of tool use. I don't have to master acrylics before being "allowed" to use watercolour or oils. They're different techniques and you can do them in whatever order you want, depending on what you hope to achieve. They share a lot of universal ideas.... like the aforementioned colour theory.... but they're not one interconnected whole. Oil is different from watercolour. Computer art is just another tool, separate from the rest.
I think part of the problem folks around here have with the CGI is that you've never seen any that doesn't suck. Overwrought movie effects and crappy comic colour that makes everything look plastic are the norm. I've seen some great computer stuff. (Mostly from Japan and Europe.) I've also seen how readily it becomes a crutch too.... but I've seen that with other techniques too. (Remember the 90's, where "draw like Jim Lee = success?")
>The end results may be the same
I don't think they are, but I don't think the tools or techniques denote that.
>but in the end the Pro will always do better because he can do IT ALL THE TIME over and over
Maybe; but everyone has an off day, or dries up.
>he or she is trained to come up with new ideas that the amateur can not do
THIS I disagree with a bunch. I think a lot of pros suffer from the need to do things "right," and end up doing the same things over and over. But this goes to the heart of my point: it's the underlying idea that I think marks the worth of the work.
Don C.
I disagree and agree with this. I think there are pros and amateurs, but I don't think the hardware seaprates them.
>an Amateur clicks and uses cheats to get his work done
True; but I think it shows in the work. That's why it's important to separate the ideas of "good" and "enjoyable." People tend to confuse them, so anything they like is de-facto good.
>a Pro critically thinks what he needs to do to make his design work.
THAT'S the key! There's a plan and a vision.... but I don't think it's how you get to your end-state that makes the dif; it's where that end-state is. Dip pen, computer, markers, finger paints.... it doesn't matter if it gets you where you want to go.
>Learning how to traditionally do art is how you understand how the Masters did it.
Yeah, but it's not a religion. You don't learn colour theory or rotations or perspective or which end of the pen goes in the ink because of some moral imperative or dogmatic tradition: you learn them becuse they work.
>once you master traditional you can then work in Digital if you so choose to do it.
This feels so bad to me 'cos I don't like computers, but.... there isn't a heirarchy of tool use. I don't have to master acrylics before being "allowed" to use watercolour or oils. They're different techniques and you can do them in whatever order you want, depending on what you hope to achieve. They share a lot of universal ideas.... like the aforementioned colour theory.... but they're not one interconnected whole. Oil is different from watercolour. Computer art is just another tool, separate from the rest.
I think part of the problem folks around here have with the CGI is that you've never seen any that doesn't suck. Overwrought movie effects and crappy comic colour that makes everything look plastic are the norm. I've seen some great computer stuff. (Mostly from Japan and Europe.) I've also seen how readily it becomes a crutch too.... but I've seen that with other techniques too. (Remember the 90's, where "draw like Jim Lee = success?")
>The end results may be the same
I don't think they are, but I don't think the tools or techniques denote that.
>but in the end the Pro will always do better because he can do IT ALL THE TIME over and over
Maybe; but everyone has an off day, or dries up.
>he or she is trained to come up with new ideas that the amateur can not do
THIS I disagree with a bunch. I think a lot of pros suffer from the need to do things "right," and end up doing the same things over and over. But this goes to the heart of my point: it's the underlying idea that I think marks the worth of the work.
Don C.

Comment