Is digital art "real art"?
Are using computer programs like Adobe Photoshop and Corel Painter examples of cutting edge tools for creation, or are they merely hollow forms of cheating; lifeless comparisons when standing up against traditional media?
Is a digital painter as talented as an oil painter?
Is one or the other's work more beautiful?
More original?
More creative?
Here is my answer:
Digital art is real art.
It's just as genuine, inspiring, and emotionally moving as anything created with traditional methods. Just as photography is a very different beast than traditional painting, digital media is yet another avenue for pursuing creativity–but just as deserving of being admired.
Digital artists are often made to feel ashamed–as if we're not true artists–especially when using photography as reference. Even more so when using stock photos or other photographer's work as reference.
Because my digital portrait paintings look very much like traditional work, people often seem a little disappointed when they find out they're actually digital. It's an attitude that says, "The portraits are nice, but just imagine how great they would be as real paintings."
I am a digital painter and photo manipulator, and proud to be. A good chunk my work is based off of either stock photos or other photographers work, but I am still a real artist.
Actually, half the fun of doing what I do is the hunt for photos to use as reference, and asking other photographers if I can make paintings from their work. It's like getting the chance to look through the eyes of another person, and inspiring your own meanings through their vision. There's a magic to it that I wish more people could experience.
Well that's enough ranting from me lol!
What does everyone else think? Am I full of it?
Prints available at Society6