There is endless debate regarding traditional image making (drawing, chemical photography etc) versus digital imaging.
Is one better than the other?
Does the issue come from "traditional" artists who think that the computer makes talent too accessible? Or that it means that others can magically produce images it took themselves 30 years to learn?
Or a million other reasons...
I'm not sure if there's any resolution to the issue, but I'm quite prepared to say that I feel a genuine pang of guilt when I produce a digital image in a traditional style (see above).
As mentioned before, I'm fairly impatient when it comes to waiting for paint to dry, so this digital format suits me as I don't have to wait.
On the other hand when I do complete a "real" painting I have an enormous sense of pride and accomplishment when I am done.
It feels more like real work.
Perhaps the issue with me is that digital images (in my case) are a little more disposable, and perhaps even cheap, and that I have some idealised concept that painting and drawing using real pens and paint is somehow noble and more important.
Then you have a chap like Brad Bird who is a terrific animated film maker (quite possibly the best at the moment) who took a team of traditional 2D animators and took them to Pixar to make The Incredibles - which is one of the best animated movies ever.
Everything in that movie is "noble and important" yet it's all digital.
The debate is interesting if you're a four eyed, squinting animation type dork like me, but not too important to anyone else...
Also, take the time to visit www.elliotelliotelliot.com
Sunday, April 10, 2005
at 3:07 AM