This is another acrylic, painted a few years ago for THORGAL, ENFANT DES ETOILES, a TV series based on ROZINSKI & VAN HAMME's B.D. serial of the same name. The series didn't happen for all the usual reasons and so belongs now in limbololand.
yes boris, there is some blurring on the skyline ( in photoshop.) Andrei, I don't agree with you that artists lose their undividuality when working with computer software.
Riabovitchev; I think computer software gives you more options and liberty to create. Maybe sterile styles come from sterile minds. Nice blog you have, by the way.
The hand, the eye, the mind are the same...Of course the tool is different...So the work looks different. As it should. Artists who seek only to reproduce what they do in paint with digital tools seem to me to be missing the point. But what the hell..It's a free country, (as we used to say.) I've always loved graphics and print and especially appreciate the graphic quality of working in photoshop (Although I wish they hadn't given it such a silly name.) What I would like to see more often in computer generated movies - as opposed to Live action /CGI animation combos, viz: Kong - is an awareness of the discoveries of painting as science: the science of colour manipulation...And a more sophisticated graphic sensibility.
Thanks Andrei, for your generous remarks and for introducing a little controversy around here.
I would put a little defense to Andrei's argument..I use the computer and like it BUT it is true that a lot of spontaneity goes out in the over processing of works. I enjoy very much getting into trouble while working with traditional materials.
Well Oscar, you just enjoy getting into trouble anyway. I think that to some extent the suspicion toward computer generated artwork comes from a feeliing that it is 'inauthentic' and not real....Not actually IN the real world as a hand-rendered piece is. Where does it reside after all? It can be summoned in multiples on as many monitors at the flick of a switch....Where is the original?...The 'actual thing'. In the ancient world sculpture was esteemed above painting for its dimensional reality as opposed to the more ephemeral craft of painting which showed mere appearances on a surface.
Nice discussion here. I think that when you hold a brush or pencil, it is like an extension of your own body, from which your ideas flow, directly from you to the paper. Working in a computer, with windows and menus and mouse clicks and keyboard shortcuts, can seem like a bit of a detour and does take away alot of your raw energy and expression at first. Then you lose something in the work, yes. But once you master the tool, and don't need to think about what you're doing before and when you do it, there is no reason for your work to look 'sterile'. And of course different tools inspire different approaches and styles, and don't just emulate 'real' painting, whatever that means in this age.
I would like to say so much about it that now I don't know what to say. My most sincere opinion is that for ME is easyer paint in computer than the traditional way. I can do more than one finished work in an afternoon with the computer(mixing media),but with traditional painting I use to spend around a moth for a finished canvas... Technique is so hard and difficult. I believe there are also people who thinks that is not pure drawing if the artist use an eraser.
Alberto, maestro, Welcome aboard. Yes, honestly, it's easier to paint in the computer. You can crash around in a way that would reduce paint and paper to a sticky mess. I find working on the computer much more intuitive and experimental than what I prefer to call 'raw' paint. I'm still conservative enough to believe that you have to do both, although I'm ready to shed that preconception if someone has a convincing argument. THings on the cusp always have a vibration, a newness...the shock of the new. Alberto, your raw/CG combos are particularly vivid examples of this.
I seem to have opened a can of worms here!!! I didn't mean to offend anyone - I use the computer too! but still this has been a great discussion :) it's been interesting to hear everyone's opinion.:o)
Limbó..Today I went to the V&A and saw the Constable oil sketches. They took my breath away!!! and not a single "byte" of Photoshop, I must say! No to mention the unbelievably beautiful Arthur Rackham and Edmond Dulac watercolours!!!...A feast to the eye.
a shame that Constable could'nt keep the vivacity of his oil sketches in his 'finished' paintings, which seem to me to be hideous examples of the sticky mess I mentioned earlier. It is interesting that there have been significant artists, who have carried us into modernism, who were basically incompetent. Cezanne is the other major example. But after Vermeer, all painters are redundant. P.S. Before anyone gets the wrong idea...I am a convinced modernist.
Andrei, many thanks again for introducing us to this debate.
Don't worry chaps, technology is advancing so rapidly these days that within a decade drawing & painting on a computer will feel as natural as scratching your balls. Congrats on the EVA piece on CARTOON BREW. splendid article.
I remember the day when limbolo first used a computer. He barely knew where the switch on button was, but an hour later he created a piece of art digitally which was amazingly similar to him painting it on canvas. It is what you create as an artist and not the tool. Granted, there are lucky accidents happening all the time while painting traditionally that can give a piece an unexpected twist and you have to work around that with no step backward option. But eventually it is your choice and your talent that creates the image, no matter what tool.
24 comments:
Jesus Wept, what a picture!!
it's only acrilic?
I love it !I think when artists start using Photoshop and Painter ther are lose idividuality.
it's amazing, truely amazing! was it touched up digitally? looks like some areas are blurred to achieve more depth- very nice
yes boris, there is some blurring on the skyline ( in photoshop.)
Andrei, I don't agree with you that artists lose their undividuality when working with computer software.
I respect you opinion.You are great artist.But moust artist lose something.They are look sterile .
Beautiful, limb!
Riabovitchev; I think computer software gives you more options and liberty to create. Maybe sterile styles come from sterile minds. Nice blog you have, by the way.
The hand, the eye, the mind are the same...Of course the tool is different...So the work looks different. As it should.
Artists who seek only to reproduce what they do in paint with digital tools seem to me to be missing the point. But what the hell..It's a free country, (as we used to say.)
I've always loved graphics and print and especially appreciate the graphic quality of working in photoshop (Although I wish they hadn't given it such a silly name.)
What I would like to see more often in computer generated movies - as opposed to Live action /CGI animation combos, viz: Kong - is an awareness of the discoveries of painting as science: the science of colour manipulation...And a more sophisticated graphic sensibility.
Thanks Andrei, for your generous remarks and for introducing a little controversy around here.
I would put a little defense to Andrei's argument..I use the computer and like it BUT it is true that a lot of spontaneity goes out in the over processing of works. I enjoy very much getting into trouble while working with traditional materials.
Beautiful painting! I love the colors and the wet-on-wet feel.
Well Oscar, you just enjoy getting into trouble anyway.
I think that to some extent the suspicion toward computer generated artwork comes from a feeliing that it is 'inauthentic' and not real....Not actually IN the real world as a hand-rendered piece is. Where does it reside after all? It can be summoned in multiples on as many monitors at the flick of a switch....Where is the original?...The 'actual thing'.
In the ancient world sculpture was esteemed above painting for its dimensional reality as opposed to the more ephemeral craft of painting which showed mere appearances on a surface.
Nice discussion here.
I think that when you hold a brush or pencil, it is like an extension of your own body, from which your ideas flow, directly from you to the paper. Working in a computer, with windows and menus and mouse clicks and keyboard shortcuts, can seem like a bit of a detour and does take away alot of your raw energy and expression at first. Then you lose something in the work, yes. But once you master the tool, and don't need to think about what you're doing before and when you do it, there is no reason for your work to look 'sterile'.
And of course different tools inspire different approaches and styles, and don't just emulate 'real' painting, whatever that means in this age.
I would like to say so much about it that now I don't know what to say.
My most sincere opinion is that for ME is easyer paint in computer than the traditional way.
I can do more than one finished work in an afternoon with the computer(mixing media),but with traditional painting I use to spend around a moth for a finished canvas...
Technique is so hard and difficult.
I believe there are also people who thinks that is not pure drawing if the artist use an eraser.
Alberto, maestro,
Welcome aboard.
Yes, honestly, it's easier to paint in the computer. You can crash around in a way that would reduce paint and paper to a sticky mess. I find working on the computer much more intuitive and experimental than what I prefer to call 'raw' paint.
I'm still conservative enough to believe that you have to do both, although I'm ready to shed that preconception if someone has a convincing argument.
THings on the cusp always have a vibration, a newness...the shock of the new.
Alberto, your raw/CG combos are particularly vivid examples of this.
Anymore?....This is fun.
I seem to have opened a can of worms here!!! I didn't mean to offend anyone - I use the computer too! but still this has been a great discussion :) it's been interesting to hear everyone's opinion.:o)
Limbó..Today I went to the V&A and saw the Constable oil sketches. They took my breath away!!! and not a single "byte" of Photoshop, I must say!
No to mention the unbelievably beautiful Arthur Rackham and Edmond Dulac watercolours!!!...A feast to the eye.
a shame that Constable could'nt keep the vivacity of his oil sketches in his 'finished' paintings, which seem to me to be hideous examples of the sticky mess I mentioned earlier.
It is interesting that there have been significant artists, who have carried us into modernism, who were basically incompetent. Cezanne is the other major example.
But after Vermeer, all painters are redundant.
P.S. Before anyone gets the wrong idea...I am a convinced modernist.
Andrei, many thanks again for introducing us to this debate.
This is beautiful and grand!
I think this las comment has illuminated the debate with clarity and eloquence.
...I meant "LAST".....
Don't worry chaps, technology is advancing so rapidly these days that within a decade drawing & painting on a computer will feel as natural as scratching your balls.
Congrats on the EVA piece on CARTOON BREW. splendid article.
Oh, my god O__O
Brilliant, mr Limbolo, Bravo
I remember the day when limbolo first used a computer. He barely knew where the switch on button was, but an hour later he created a piece of art digitally which was amazingly similar to him painting it on canvas. It is what you create as an artist and not the tool. Granted, there are lucky accidents happening all the time while painting traditionally that can give a piece an unexpected twist and you have to work around that with no step backward option. But eventually it is your choice and your talent that creates the image, no matter what tool.
Don't agree with any of this, Uli.
Miles Davis once said "Everybody's got to change man"...Amen to that.
By the way, How do you switch this thing off?
Post a Comment