[AprilYSH]

quote:
If someone likes the image
and wants to see it in the gallery,
they should put something like "I vote
this image in the gallery" ...
If someone gets for example three votes,
it will be taken in.
end quote.

That sounds good, for the reasons given in the original post.

------------------

http://clix.to/vanity

[Affected]

yeah, though I think it would be good to gathersuggestions, and every now and then put up a page where people could vote for new submissons or something.

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

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[hennifer]

for anyone who wants to see my stuff, my site is www.spindexx.com/jpdesigns

danny: i can appreciate your viewpoint. and its nice to talk to people who recognize that a viewpoint isn't something set in stone.

anyways, if you look at my site, check out jayden.jpg in the 2nd gallery. that involved a pencil sketch originally. now i could submit that to a digital art gallery, and conveniently "forget" to mention the pencil sketch, and you'd never know the difference. this illustrates the futility of making up these kinds of rules. i'm of the opinion that the end results counts more than your method. (not including things like plagiarism )

anyways, i can see where you're coming from. but i don't think digital painting sums up digital art. some of my favorite digital art to view is in the realm of abstract photomanipulation.

keep in mind that if you're planning to make a gallery for digital artists, it should represent as many of those digital artists as possible, in order to give an accurate picture of what we all do.

one solution would be to have subsections in the gallery. one section for pure digital paintings, one for modified sketches, one for art involving photomanipulations or scanned textures. that would be more like a traditional gallery, which has room for both classical art, and modern art. after all, we don't need to pretend that all digital art is the same-- but we also shouldn't say that one kind is automatically better.

[Cos]

I noticed this post a while ago, don't get to visit/post on this forum as often as I'd like
to, as we english bastids have to pay for the internet *grrrrrr* and with college work and
all... well anyways, I have to say I'm with Heniffer on this one. I don't think that there is only one way to make a piece of digital art. Everyone has their own style, and uses their own methods on working, I don't think anyone should be restricted on this. As long as they're not copying/ripping other people off, then what is the problem?

For example,
I would prefer to scan in one of my old painting's, drawn from my imagination, work on that and then convert it to a digital piece. Would that not count? I mean in general, wouldn't people rather see something like that than a copied / altered photo digital painting? Even if it is painted totally digitally from scratch? I'm not knocking anybody, people have deadlines to meet, and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta doodoobopbop a doobopbop ;P. Anyways, what was I sayin? o yeah, shouldn't we be
looking more at originality and creativity in our art? instead of whether we are scanning
our pencil sketches to work on. I don't own a graphic tablet, should I struggle drawing
with a mouse instead of scanning in my pen/pencil sketches to work on, just so I can
keep with what ppl are calling "the way to do it". Everyones given the same tool's to work with in Photoshop. As long as we keep it original, I believe that is the main thing. I don't think it really matters and should not be excluded just cause it's not totally digital let alone digitally painted. Let's open our mind's people.... riiddee the
snakke...... the snake is longgg... sevahnn mileess... er..yeah so let everyone use their
own method's and as long as it's not a ripoff or painting over other photo's, I think it should be in the gallery. Otherwise I'm out on this! ;P

Cheers
Cos
www.freespeech.org/darkpathimages

[This message has been edited by Cos (edited March 05, 2000).]

[Muzman]

Right there with you ol' son! Count me as a linesman on this cause anyday. (You too Pigeon.)

Maybe folk do want to create a rarefied atmosphere of technicians and artisans. As far as I'm concerned, how someone creates a piece should have little baring on any assesment of its quality. Creativity must win the day. There's enough stuff around that's just variations on a theme already.
We live in pretty mercinary times I know. But that makes it even more important to put the auter on stage.
In a medium designed to increase the possibilities and reduce limitation the only reason I can see to be exclusive is to reduce volume. Anything too much more than that is basically elitism.

With regard to the site; the idea of nominations sounds pretty good.
And it's good to have this discussion; it'll be a recurring theme around here, so we should thrash it out at every opportunity

[ustorfixx]

Thank you all for your input, though I realize that the topic of "digital" has become somewhat of a hot topic. I think that digital means that it is, well, "digital". If it is not tangable, meaning on the computer screen, then it is digital, or at least in it's digital form. It's not in paper form, or anything else. It is digital, it is just a bunch of code on a computer that someone has organized in a program so that it is "art".

Tell you what, how about we make sure that it is possible to search for "digital art" and it will only show you the ones that are only digital and never in any other form? I agree that there needs to be a place for it, and this will be it, but I don't think we need to limit our view to only the digital because it is the "purest" form of "art" that is on you computer screen. Art is art.

--Ustor

[Affected]

Is it just me or are wee too blind to see beyond tehcnique? It seems it's appreciated a little too much here. I say (Yes, here I go again) originality comes first.
It's about beauty, not technique, isn't it? I can see how people can be annoyed if people use photos (Using photos taken by other people is, of course, totally unacceptable in this context) and claiming to have painted them, though, but it does sometimes seem pure technical skill is emphasized a bit too much in the digital field.

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

Knowledge is belief and belief is knowledge
http://affected.xs.mw

[B]

now that i'm a year older after reading the posts, i'll adde my cent and a half.

i believe we're confuing two very distinct points here,.. one is digatal the other is art,. we throw them together to mean a very generalized term. what is it we're really looking for? the pure digital image or the Art of the image,.. Danny is going more for the Digital, whereas everyone else seems to be going for the Art... there are Multiple image archive out on the net,. but they're all leaning, hell falling ont the art, more than the digital if you want to do something different i say we should lean way more to the digital, more than the art..

i say we need to set the archive up with 95% completely digitally drawn artwork,. and for those who like to scan their drawing, they need to provide the original scanned image, to let people know where they are coming from..

just my op.


b