iSpeak some iThoughts on an iPad Friday Fan Art
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a couple of wonderful watercolor renditions of a Spiderwick nixie and mermaid from Mason. Shortly thereafter, we received a follow up piece from him that, I think, is much stronger. The difference: he created this on his iPad.
Wow.
Normally I would move onto another submission of fan art for FFA, and fortunately, there is much here for me to choose from. And, though I’ve had computer-generated fan artwork here before, based on the simple fact that this was created on an iPad, I felt it needed to be shared. Its a nice segue to post my thoughts about digital artwork, something that can be quite a heated topic among illustrators.
I have a love-and-hate relationship with artwork created on a computer despite the fact that I use it regularly for many aspects of bookmaking. In fact, the majority of the Meno books were created entirely in Photoshop. Though, in truth, they started out like all of my illustrations – as pencil drawings, just like this sketch for the cover of The Wyrm King.
I love the freedom to explore a variety of compositions and palettes with the swipe of a mouse or click of a button. However, I am oft-times left with a longing for the original artwork that was touched, smudged, smeared and crafted by my hand. You know, something to cherish and share after a project is completed. (Or, if I am lucky enough, to exist in a gallery long after I perish).
The presence one feels when viewing an original piece of artwork does not exist in the virtual world of a computer. One needs only to visit a local art museum and stand before a painting done by Vincent Van Gogh, John Waterhouse or Norman Rockwell to know this to be true. But, as seen by Mason’s iPad artwork, it is becoming increasingly more enticing (and dare I say convenient?) to create art digitally.
I suppose at the end of the day, creativity is creativity no matter what medium an artist chooses. Like music and film, books have reflected our love and curiosity for the digital world. There are trends to be sure, but if the artist’s imprint is successfully relayed to the viewer, I suppose it doesn’t matter if it was done in hand-ground pigments or in pixels.
For me, the computer is no different than a pencil or a brush. Its what you create with it that speaks your truth. As to whether it will hold its allure, like an original watercolor wash by Arthur Rackham or a graphic gouache painting by Mary Blair, I suppose only time will tell.
Click to share thisClick to share this
Tony, I appreciate your veiw but I really hate digital works. As you say, there is no original to see or hold and hand done work does have a very diffrent feel and look than digital. Someday if everyone does digital there will be no museums with great art in them, only websites you can download! You mentioned music, many many musicians are anti digital/electronic music. They claim the electronic created stuff doesn’t have the soul or depth of something actually created by a human with an instrument and I agree! Digital for me is FAR from “just a tool” or “jest like a pencil or brush”. People who could not draw a thing if you gave them a pencil and poaper can do “art” on the computer thanks to prograhms that do most of the work for them! Making a decision about color and composition and being bound by it is part of what makes great art great! I would hate to see 12 versions of Sunflowers by VanGough, all slightly diffrent color variation but the same otherwise… anyway, as you said, it is a touchy sobject and many do feel pasionatly about it!
Please forgive all the mispellings, I am very dislexic and didnt have a spell check.
I love that you really take time to think about the affect of using digital media in your work. I think it holds up well in WondLa when used to emulate something that can no longer be attained.
Well, I finally let my curiosity get the better of me and I bought a Cintiq.
Most of my stuff is drawn with those Pigma markers so I don’t see a huge difference between a marker line on Mayfair and a digital line printed in a book., aesthetically I really believe the printed book is the work of art, more than anything. I’m loving the Cintiq so far, amazing freedom to make mistakes and try things I wouldn’t on paper. I love being able to move back and forth between digital and traditional so easily.
At the moment I’m trying out doing a comic entirely digital. It’s a total blast to draw.
And your work looks amazing whatever medium you’re using Tony. I’ll follow your work anywhere.
I suppose digital painting has been received and criticized much the same way as the camera when it was invented. Some argued using a camera was cheating, others embraced it wholeheartedly. Now, we take full advantage of the camera. I think that taking advantage of the technology available to us is sort of a necessity in our busy, fast-paced world–and as illustrators competing against one another at who can be the best and the fastest!
Unless it’s being shown in a gallery, do you think it matters if a painting is digital or traditional, since it will get printed on paper either way? Some of the brushes in PS and Painter are incredible at mimicking strokes–you can get very similar textures from it.
I love some digital art but it takes a special hand to make it truly amazing. I agree with you that even when it’s printed out, it simply doesn’t have the same presence as an actual painting–and it’s not as wondrous to see a work of art online as it is in real life. Haha, this conversation makes me want to go to a museum!
Good luck with WondLa 2. I absolutely *knew* you had to be making another one. You left me no closure when the first WondLa was done! It was a beautiful piece of art, both in story and in illustrations. Congrats!