[Dthind]

Jaydeman... funny....Have a drink on Me.

*...requests another round from the pub owner for everyone present...*

------------------
Ich habe keine Idee, was ich mich befasse

[Lunatique]

It's not just my tongue that's trying to slip in. . ..

Oh!!

That was a good one.

[Jaydeman]

...warned y'all he was a sick bastard...

[Affected]

Well, I'm a bit late hre, but I'd like a clarification on this:

"GreenPeach's posting of artwork was a good example, in my mind, since even though it was illustration, it took full advantages of the intrinsic (couldn't resist, Impaler ) values of the medium by being so clearly and obviously digitally rendered."

Would you like to explain why, exactly, the medium has intrinsic value? I fail to see what difference it makes how an image was made, what matters is whether it conveys anything or not. If what Greenpeach posted was actually a couple of paintings that look digital, would they be less valuable to you then?

[Jaydeman]

Gah I thought this discussion was over...
okay then let me clarify what I meant to Affected...
What intrinsic value of a medium means to me is those values specific only to that particular medium. Oil paint has very specific qualities...translucency, luminosity, texture, a mix of both physical and technique-related properties. Acrylic paint has its own range of instrinsic values, such as the flatness and opaqueness of the paint, and its own textures, etc. Digital Art was a title that I was referring to as a medium and genre, rather than as a broad category, which was the thesis of my argument, but which no longer matters at any rate...
Greenpeach's postings showed heavy use of computer generated rendering with pixels, light, color, etc. Sure, it might have been duplicated in a canvas painting...but then the whole point of it would have changed. This is not saying that any one medium or effort or intent is less "valuable" than another. If he had done it on canvas and paint, I really don't think it would look quiiite the same, but let's suggest that it does. It would not be considered digital in any way since there was no computer manipulation/creation used in the process. However, does that really matter since the images look exactly the same? You bring up an interesting argument which leads back to my own opinion that digital arts needs more than just illustration to differentiate itself from digital illustration. Following that line (no groans, please, just exploring a thought thread), if it is digital illustration, then what differentiates it from regular paint, if both can be manufactured with the same result?
I'm not going to be the one arguing that point, since I haven't yet decided exactly where I stand. This echoes back to debates on Lichenstein and Warhol, not to mention photorealism. I do think that attempting to duplicate another medium with a different medium seems pointless, if that is the entire intent...if anything, I would see it as an exercise of technique and talent. But that's just my opinion.
And no, I'm not trying to spark anything else...anyone with comments or coherent observations, feel free to make your marks.

------------------
The Jaydeman sez...
"That was Zen, This is Tao."

[Dthind]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaydeman:
...I do think that attempting to duplicate another medium with a different medium seems pointless...

---

{Small snip of very large original statment}

I Agree ! *..Stands and Applauds..*

[Affected]

Of course, one might ask why you would wish to differentiate between digital "art" and "illustration"...

------------------
Affected

Democracy is a lie

http://affected.xs.mw