|
Post by spanky on Jan 6, 2009 14:24:01 GMT -5
I think another reason people might get put off by digital is there is no longer a "one of a kind" I personally don't care as long as it looks good. A print is just as good to me.....and I couldn't do s**t with a paintbrush or a computer without it looking as if a 5 year old drew it
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 14:47:11 GMT -5
acrylics/oil airbrush photoshop It takes just as much time and talent to painting in photoshop, as it does in any other medium. I'd be willing to bet that if done right, you couldn't tell the difference between a photoshop and an acrylic/oil painting. Just because something is done on the computer doesn't make it automated. You still have to paint every single stroke, like you would in any painting. I'm a fine artist too and have been teaching art for over 10 years in the public school system. I've taught pre-k to college art intro classes...I know the difference between a photoshop color piece and a fine work of art.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 14:49:13 GMT -5
...but, in the end there are some GREAT images in ANS 7, just don't look too close.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 6, 2009 14:53:36 GMT -5
It takes just as much time and talent to painting in photoshop, as it does in any other medium. I'd be willing to bet that if done right, you couldn't tell the difference between a photoshop and an acrylic/oil painting. Just because something is done on the computer doesn't make it automated. You still have to paint every single stroke, like you would in any painting. I'm a fine artist too and have been teaching art for over 10 years in the public school system. I've taught pre-k to college art intro classes...I know the difference between a lame ass photoshop color piece and a fine work of art. So, you're saying this is a lame ass photoshop color piece just bcause it was done on a computer?
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 6, 2009 15:05:16 GMT -5
I agree that from the standpoint of collecting art, painting digitally isn't as good, but the purpose of doing the artwork is to have it published as a card that everyone can enjoy, not just to sell the art to one person to make some money. You have the card to show for it. To me just knowing a real piece of artwork exists is cool. It has a bonafide tangible history other than some mass produced card that was never touched by the artist. I don't need to own it to like that it exists. Digital GPK can pass as cards as long as they look good but knowing they have no tangible source material makes them get a nice asterisk beside their number for me. Also, I really hate when artwork gets lost or destroyed because history is lost. Some people care and some don't. There will always be artists that actually paint though. Maybe not in trading cards but in other areas. There is just something that is impressive about taking a bunch of colored goop and turning it into something amazing.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 15:20:21 GMT -5
I agree that from the standpoint of collecting art, painting digitally isn't as good, but the purpose of doing the artwork is to have it published as a card that everyone can enjoy, not just to sell the art to one person to make some money. You have the card to show for it. To me just knowing a real piece of artwork exists is cool. It has a bonafide tangible history other than some mass produced card that was never touched by the artist. I don't need to own it to like that it exists. Digital GPK can pass as cards as long as they look good but knowing they have no tangible source material makes them get a nice asterisk beside their number for me. Also, I really hate when artwork gets lost or destroyed because history is lost. Some people care and some don't. There will always be artists that actually paint though. Maybe not in trading cards but in other areas. There is just something that is impressive about taking a bunch of colored goop and turning it into something amazing. Thank you Cory!! btw, I tried Photoshop Color in a summer workshop, it didn't take long to figure out...but all the figures and objects end up looking like plastic. It's lame and boring. Give me a real paintbrush ANY day!!
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 6, 2009 15:24:21 GMT -5
To me just knowing a real piece of artwork exists is cool. It has a bonafide tangible history other than some mass produced card that was never touched by the artist. I don't need to own it to like that it exists. Digital GPK can pass as cards as long as they look good but knowing they have no tangible source material makes them get a nice asterisk beside their number for me. Also, I really hate when artwork gets lost or destroyed because history is lost. Some people care and some don't. There will always be artists that actually paint though. Maybe not in trading cards but in other areas. There is just something that is impressive about taking a bunch of colored goop and turning it into something amazing. Thank you Cory!! btw, I tried Photoshop Color in a summer workshop, it didn't take long to figure out...but all the figures and objects end up looking like plastic. It's lame and boring. Give me a real paintbrush ANY day!! I don't think digital images are bad looking. I just like that there is something real to back it up. That's just me though. Not everyone cares. I can respect that.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 16:36:53 GMT -5
I'm a fine artist too and have been teaching art for over 10 years in the public school system. I've taught pre-k to college art intro classes...I know the difference between a lame ass photoshop color piece and a fine work of art. So, you're saying this is a lame ass photoshop color piece just bcause it was done on a computer? WOW!! I remember seeing this before Diaz! You truely are a MASTER ARTIST!!
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 16:59:04 GMT -5
I guess I find computer generated art so depressing, I guess I'll continue to grieve in silence.
I still think Braided Brooke is beautiful!
|
|
|
Post by jaylynch on Jan 6, 2009 17:27:32 GMT -5
My photoshop color Mineshaft cover is at mineshaftmagazine.com I got the link wrong when I posted it befodre.
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Jan 6, 2009 19:34:57 GMT -5
So, you're saying this is a lame ass photoshop color piece just bcause it was done on a computer? WOW!! I remember seeing this before Diaz! You truely are a MASTER ARTIST!! ok yes Diaz created this work of art but Mark Pingatore was the one that asked. then after this post you replay again and say that computer generated art depresses you.... THIS ART BY DIAZ IS COMPUTER GENERATED now that said, I don't care how the art was made, it's still art. There is so many ways you can create art......hell I can smear my leaky ass on a canvas and someone somewhere will call it art.....and I didn't use a brush or paint
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 19:40:11 GMT -5
Awesome Jay!! Looks great, now I can understand a magizine cover in photoshop, but for a little card... not really. It didn't take me long to paint mine, and I rarely use acrylics.
I think Ping took it personal, and made a smart ass remark about my piece on his thread. Come on Ping!! Ragging on an amatuer's GPK fan art? Silly s**t!!
See, all artists have a conflict deep down about using computers for art media!! ALL ARTISTS, and that's what makes many of us, myself included, sensitive to this subject. Thanks Jay and Diaz for being COOL about it!! We(GPK fans) can always count on you two, and you're a HUGE part to why this forum exists!! It's simple: great, original, fine illustration work from the hand, head, and the heart!
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 6, 2009 22:05:24 GMT -5
See, all artists have a conflict deep down about using computers for art media!! ALL ARTISTS, and that's what makes many of us, myself included, sensitive to this subject. Thanks Jay and Diaz for being COOL about it!! We(GPK fans) can always count on you two, and you're a HUGE part to why this forum exists!! It's simple: great, original, fine illustration work from the hand, head, and the heart! What do you mean all artist have a conflict about using computers for art? Can you elaborate on this?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 6, 2009 22:58:50 GMT -5
Awesome Jay!! Looks great, now I can understand a magizine cover in photoshop, but for a little card... not really. So you think digital art is ok for a full-sized cover where you can see more detail, but a card one third its size, it doesn't work? I think Ping took it personal, and made a smart ass remark about my piece on his thread. I take it personally whenever someone talks out of their ass and doesn't back up what they say. See, all artists have a conflict deep down about using computers for art media!! ALL ARTISTS, and that's what makes many of us, myself included, sensitive to this subject. Thanks Jay and Diaz for being COOL about it!! I wonder when you'll realize that Luis never commented on this subject, and Jay said nothing but positive things about painting art digitally?
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 23:03:04 GMT -5
See, all artists have a conflict deep down about using computers for art media!! ALL ARTISTS, and that's what makes many of us, myself included, sensitive to this subject. Thanks Jay and Diaz for being COOL about it!! We(GPK fans) can always count on you two, and you're a HUGE part to why this forum exists!! It's simple: great, original, fine illustration work from the hand, head, and the heart! What do you mean all artist have a conflict about using computers for art? Can you elaborate on this? Mark, throughout the history of art, new media was feared and shunned for a while before the aesthetic was realized and excepted. The most notorious example of this is Photography's rise into the artworld, which took DECADES. The impressionistic photographs in the early 20th century gave a whole new wave of art critics jobs. MANY people still have a hard time compairing those Impressionistic photographs to say..a painting by Corot. a lot of people can never get past that fact that the photgraph was taken by the push of a button, and to compair it to fine art painting? It can be a hard thing unless you're critiquing the plastic image!! And how can you stand in front a Van Gogh in person and judge the "image" and not consider the "painting". I guess growing up with John Pound has spoiled us GPK veterans. Long live the King! like Cory said, if JP and LD go 100% digital... then V might not collect ANS anymore! Seriously! Who are we kidding? I think Cory needs to do a serious POLL to see how the fans think about computer generated Garbage Pail Kids. Honestly, I don't want to argue with my heros anymore about their art Gris, you included brother!! I your work. Let's do a poll so anyone who cares can see for theirself, how the fan feel about computer and GPK. I need to appoligized to Brent for starting? this! I was just stunning that Twisted Tammy was 100% photoshop. I knew last year in other threads that computers were used, plus it's obvious!! I just hate that it's only an image.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 23:31:20 GMT -5
Brent, what about Coral Carson? is it 100 percent too? still amazing work, photoshop is a DEEP program, I hardly stratched the surface before I quit. I still have that cityscape saved on a disk somewhere. It was zombie-filled . I just hated the textures and sitting in front of a computer for hours! It makes your eyeball fugging hurt too!
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 6, 2009 23:36:25 GMT -5
I think another reason people might get put off by digital is there is no longer a "one of a kind" I personally don't care as long as it looks good. A print is just as good to me.....and I couldn't do s**t with a paintbrush or a computer without it looking as if a 5 year old drew it come to think about it spankygurrl, there's a pile of ANS 2 paintings that I'd prefer to be 100% photoshopped! ....or deleted for good .
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 7, 2009 1:03:03 GMT -5
I guess if you can't tell, it doesn't really matter does it? I have quite a few original GPK paintings and I have kept them all. The wife loves the original Billy Bling above the fireplace.
|
|
|
Post by jaylynch on Jan 7, 2009 1:20:24 GMT -5
Aren't John Pound's Tokyo Popstar GPK covers done totally in Photoshop? I am pretty sure they are. You can't tell the difference. I don't think any artists ever use those Photoshop textures. That's just for the hobbyists. Kind of like macromae or something. Last month I spent $200 on a few dozen sheets of Strathmore paper. Gouache used to cost 60 cents....now some colors are $7 a tube. Photoshop or Adobe illustrator is the only way to do this stuff these days. Otherwise, we'd have to get $7000 a painting to make a profit. Plus, you can fix mistakes in Photoshop in seconds....and you can magnify at the click of the mouse without hunching over a magnifying glass...The computer is quicker and better than the old methods.
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 7, 2009 2:36:35 GMT -5
I agree Jay.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 9:15:53 GMT -5
Aren't John Pound's Tokyo Popstar GPK covers done totally in Photoshop? I am pretty sure they are. You can't tell the difference. I don't think any artists ever use those Photoshop textures. That's just for the hobbyists. Kind of like macromae or something. Last month I spent $200 on a few dozen sheets of Strathmore paper. Gouache used to cost 60 cents....now some colors are $7 a tube. Photoshop or Adobe illustrator is the only way to do this stuff these days. Otherwise, we'd have to get $7000 a painting to make a profit. Plus, you can fix mistakes in Photoshop in seconds....and you can magnify at the click of the mouse without hunching over a magnifying glass...The computer is quicker and better than the old methods. Quicker, cheaper and cleaner? Yes. Better? No. Digital art is fine to look at but there is no real value in it. It'll just end up being another worthless picture in the long run, much like photography. Look at this piece of art that Zoop owns, done by Luis. This is a fantastic piece of artwork. However, if it was just a photo that someone took with their camera and played with in photoshop it instantly becomes less cool. Really the only reason it's awesome in the first place is because it's art. If it were just a picture it'd be looked at and forgotten just like every picture like this in a newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 9:50:14 GMT -5
It just comes down to how you view art. You value the actual physical object, and I can also value the work that went behind any piece of art no matter what medium is used.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 11:36:28 GMT -5
It just comes down to how you view art. You value the actual physical object, and I can also value the work that went behind any piece of art no matter what medium is used.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 11:45:59 GMT -5
It just comes down to how you view art. You value the actual physical object, and I can also value the work that went behind any piece of art no matter what medium is used.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 11:54:21 GMT -5
Ping, you're alright! I seriously do love the concept sketch I have of yours! I was being 100% serious! I was just trying to make a connection, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 7, 2009 14:09:08 GMT -5
I'm just surprised that people find art work that was created digitally not a legitimate medium. In all my years in the art scene I have never come across a person who has ever said that digital work was a lesser art medium or that accepting digital work would take some getting use to. I know many artist that work exclusively in photoshop and illustrator and create amazing pieces. By them doing it digitally does that make them less of an artist? In some way are they cheating? It takes a lot of skill, hard work and time to create a piece in photoshop. Creating work in photoshop is not automatic. You don't just press a couple of keys on the keyboard and get this... There is a human creating pieces like these. They put their time and heart into it. Why can't people just like the image? Why does knowing a pieces was done digitally lessen your enjoyment of it? I can enjoy an image with seeing the stroke of the brush or the texture of the paint.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 7, 2009 14:25:42 GMT -5
Quicker, cheaper and cleaner? Yes. Better? No. Digital art is fine to look at but there is no real value in it. It'll just end up being another worthless picture in the long run, much like photography. Look at this piece of art that Zoop owns, done by Luis. This is a fantastic piece of artwork. However, if it was just a photo that someone took with their camera and played with in photoshop it instantly becomes less cool. Really the only reason it's awesome in the first place is because it's art. If it were just a picture it'd be looked at and forgotten just like every picture like this in a newspaper. I agree taking a photograph into photoshop and just throwing a filter on it is not really impressive but, creating a piece 100% from scratch in photoshop is just as much impressive as painting it. I just don't think that the naysayers on this board know what photoshop really is and what can be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 7, 2009 14:31:08 GMT -5
Aren't John Pound's Tokyo Popstar GPK covers done totally in Photoshop? I am pretty sure they are. You can't tell the difference. I don't think any artists ever use those Photoshop textures. That's just for the hobbyists. Kind of like macromae or something. Last month I spent $200 on a few dozen sheets of Strathmore paper. Gouache used to cost 60 cents....now some colors are $7 a tube. Photoshop or Adobe illustrator is the only way to do this stuff these days. Otherwise, we'd have to get $7000 a painting to make a profit. Plus, you can fix mistakes in Photoshop in seconds....and you can magnify at the click of the mouse without hunching over a magnifying glass...The computer is quicker and better than the old methods. Quicker, cheaper and cleaner? Yes. Better? No. Digital art is fine to look at but there is no real value in it. It'll just end up being another worthless picture in the long run, much like photography. Look at this piece of art that Zoop owns, done by Luis. This is a fantastic piece of artwork. However, if it was just a photo that someone took with their camera and played with in photoshop it instantly becomes less cool. Really the only reason it's awesome in the first place is because it's art. If it were just a picture it'd be looked at and forgotten just like every picture like this in a newspaper. I agree with Cory 100%, I love knowing that it wasn't easy to create something the skill and technique that goes into something is what makes it cool. And then at the end of the day I love to hold something that is real & look at all the different layers and slight imperfections, I think this is what gives something handmade real character. At the end of the day I'm sure young kids wont mind what happens ( we keep getting told GPK's aren't for us anyway) I just think it would be sad if the artists went 100% digital, it wood be like if they decided to do away with cards all together and the only way you could view them was on your i pod or cell phone. I love handmade art thats just me.
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 7, 2009 14:41:12 GMT -5
Man this thread has run all over the place. It's like that game we used to play in Elementary school where you sit in a circle and whisper something in your neighbors ear....and it keeps going around the room. By the time it gets to the end of the circle, it isn't at all what the first person said. Apparently discussing the use of Photoshop vs. hand-painting a GPK is done, and now we're saying that Photographs aren't as good as Photoshop? Or are photographed GPK's not as good as finger-painted GPK's? Or...wait - I have no idea what anyone is saying. Time to put this fuggin' thing to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 14:45:33 GMT -5
I'm just surprised that people find art work that was created digitally not a legitimate medium. In all my years in the art scene I have never come across a person who has ever said that digital work was a lesser art medium or that accepting digital work would take some getting use to. I know many artist that work exclusively in photoshop and illustrator and create amazing pieces. By them doing it digitally does that make them less of an artist? In some way are they cheating? It takes a lot of skill, hard work and time to create a piece in photoshop. Creating work in photoshop is not automatic. You don't just press a couple of keys on the keyboard and get this... There is a human creating pieces like these. They put their time and heart into it. Why can't people just like the image? Why does knowing a pieces was done digitally lessen your enjoyment of it? I can enjoy an image with seeing the stroke of the brush or the texture of the paint. That's a fine image. Reminds me of Constantine. I don't mind digital art in the slightest, it just pains me to think that what I see on my screen is it. There is no piece of physical artwork that makes the screen image look terrible. A physical piece of artwork that is proof positive that this is what the artist intended. No print will accomplish that. Who's to say that your screen is even set up to view the art in the proper manner? Is my resolution right? Are my colors set up right and do I have the right scale? Is my brightness correct? Was there degradation of the image due to scaling to fit the screen? What size is it even supposed to be? And so on. There is more to art than the image to me. There is a story in the art as well.
|
|