Eh not really...
Digital art has it's own style.
There are things you can do digitally that can't be done by hand.

Hardly a crutch. It's just a tool of the curremt age.

Look at the true artists that are producing quality pictures from scratch (I'm not talking about sigs or Backgrounds, that require some skill, but little effort aside from what you pick up from a tut or two and a mass of pre-fab renders and filter effects) those that produce consistent quality work, piece after piece.

Do you think they don't have the talent to draw something on a piece of paper, or paint something on a canvas? It's just a different medium.

The greats of history worked with the technology present at the time, and even tried to improve what they had to bring thier works to the masses. If Van Gough or Leonardo had the use of the computer, do you really think they wouldn't use it? The only reason not to would be a lack of audience that could view the piece by that medium.

All in all, the internet, and therfor the computer is the easiest way to reach the largest audience, and in the end that is what any artist that publishes work is trying to do, reach an audience. If they weren't they would just leave everything they make sitting on the easel at home and look at it in solitude.

Digital art is an upgrade to traditional mediums.

It lets the artist work faster and more accurately with better tools.

How good something turns out depends on the artists talent and knowledge.

Here's something I'm working on right now.

As you can see, the process is similar and takes a lot of effort to make the end product.

You have to keep working at it till it gets cleaner and cleaner. The same as you would with traditional mediums.

As a frustrated comics writer who is constantly at the mercy of pencillers, inkers, colourists and letterers -- I have to say, digital art is something of a blessing.

I don't think I'm yet able to produce professional quality works, but digital art at least opens up a possibility to produce work on my lonesome.
Likewise, in the hands of better trained and talented folks, it's simplifying and speeding up many elements of the process, while also opening new avenues to explore.

There are some people who are more inclined to rest on the advantages of CG artwork to the point where they're removing themselves quite a bit from the artistic process, and that's unfortunate, but on a whole, I'm quite fond of it.

http://springyninja.deviantart.com
Browsing my CG 'art' gallery, you can see that my competence with a mouse has enabled me to work very conventionally with photographic reference, where I would not be as able with a pencil.

I think when people are using graphic defaults to generate images based on photos you do start to blur the line a bit, but even that has artistic merit, if the images are being arranged with vision, and particularly if the photographic material is original.

Like anything, it goes both ways.
CG stuff is definitely a huge positive though. Coming from a comics reference, I'd throw up a guy like Alex Maleev as a glaring example of how fantastic CG can be in the right hands.

Let me say this... I can breeze through a traditional art piece 50 times quicker and just as accurately as I can in a digital medium. No, more accurately. I have to worry about where I'm going to place my shading, lines, add ins of things I may have forgot in the sketch... Traditional art may spell mayhem for alot of people, but so does digital. It takes me a long time to start something from scratch on the computer, and it takes me just as long, if not longer if I've got a scanned sketch infront of me.

I may be able to go back and fix my mistakes in digital art, but I also have a chance to make the mistakes. -_-

It depends.

For me, it is a crutch, because I have the drawing ability of a kindergardener. It's far easier to toss a few sprites into MS paint and get a decent end result than to spend two hours one a terrible-looking drawing.

Then there are people who create their own artwork from scratch on a computer. They have something I lack: talent. I can't say how much skill is required, but the end result of a skilled digital artist is good.

I love not having to worry so much about working messy or making mistakes on the computer, because I can fix it later without it turning in to a muddy mess.

In traditional mediums, I need to be a lot more careful not to make mistakes, which I end up doing anyway.

On the comp, I can fix / edit stuff that I would have to redo with traditional art.

Like if a face it crooked, I can use the liquify tool in photoshop to distort the image using a brush, to a point where it looks good.

In traditional art, I would have to erase and redraw to get the same result. I might have to do this several times.

Saying digital art is a crutch is like suggesting that artists shouldn't use pencils or ink. It's just another medium. If you don't like it, fine, but don't try and diminish its quality. I've seen a lot of digital art which absolutely destroys traditional art in terms of artistry.

If your talented enought to work without digital art and like it because its your style fine. But if your using digital art to make works you could only make on a computer that is only slowing down your learning process if you cant do it by hand don't do it by computer. The near future comes traditional art will be gone. Stupid little mooks will be able to surpass the greats and make michealangelo's great peices look like a toddlers scribblings in a color book. Art has a very rich history which the computer will destroy. Call me old fashioned, but creating a peice from your soul to your hand is alot more personal then using a computer.


Your never going to get any better if all you know how to do is point and click it may seem like it but dare yourself to do it the hard way. The strokes of a pencil creating your feelings on a particular scene is a magnificent feeling. I'm not the greatest artist in the world as you will see soon enough but i will nurture my ability without photo shop. I guess im just depressed the old ways are dying. Artists didn't need computers in the time of da'vinci and that looney bastard who cut off his ear. We certainly dont need them now.

That's the stupidest line of reasoning I've heard.

If artists like da Vinci and Van Gough (the "looney bastard" who cut off his ear) had computers to use they *would've* used them. Real artists don't restrict themselves.

I fully respect and admire artists who use digital work, but as a traditional artist (I can barely navigate Paint BBS, let alone Photoshop), I can't help but feel jealous of those with the money and patience to do digi-art - a lot of which blows my hand-drawn, hand-colored stuff outta the water. But all artists should feel free and comfortable to use whatever medium they choose, and work to become better in that medium.

More on this later, I have to do homework.

They didn't need cars, electricity, mass produced food sources, firearms, television, 500 thread count sheets, plastic, advanced medicine, NIKE, telephones, beer, airplanes, cameras, radios, CDs, video games, or the likes of other moderna amenities, and we don't need them now to live either.

But I'll be damned if I'd want to give it all up and live like it was the 1600's again.

Evanji Axu, returning to report on art.

NOTE: This is coming from a traditional artist who's been drawing seriously for 4 years, so it might be biased. But I'm probably right ;P

I find it interesting that while I and my fellow trad-artists try to color so smoothly and richly that it looks computer-done, some amibitious, talented CG artists make work that resembles traditional media like India ink, watercolor, or oils.

There seems something more personal and down-to-earth about a traditional piece, though, for me. Maybe it's because no two hand-done pieces are the same, or because your hand and the oils of your skin have actually touched the paper. It seems a far more appropriate medium for a gift, whereas digital art is better for something that's mass-produced, like a comic book or a gaming guide.

It all boils down to a matter of taste, really. I prefer traditional art because I like the feel of a pencil in my hand, I'm paint-program illiterate, it feels more personal, and I can take it with me to school, on trips, up people's butts (kidding!), etc.

Of course there are those who are talented in both, like my dear friend Racheal. And O how I salute them~!

Let us travel back to the time of Johann Gutenberg, a German Goldsmith who invented the moveable type printing press. He ushered in a new era. Suddenly, books could be mass-produced cheaply and quickly. Whereas prior bookmaking techniques required the publisher to carve out each page backwards on a piece of wood in order to get the job done, now it was possible to arrange words at will on your press.

I imagine this would've been met with some backlash at the time, had Johann ever achieved success with his invention while he was alive. Think of it; people who didn't have the time, resources, or carving ability could suddenly have their book mass produced at a price low enough for the common man to afford. -Gasp!-. Since storywriting now was about how good of a writer you were, rather than how good a carpenter (or how skilled a carpenter you could hire), it was possible to disseminate information faster. For example, Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation, wrote his theses on moveable type and spread it around.

Now, this metaphor is not perfect, as creating images on computer requires more ability than arranging letters on a press. However, the key thing is, it allowed greater efficiency for the publisher, just as digital media allows a digital artist greater efficiency with his work. And as said before, it takes an investment of time and skill in order to come up with passable digital art.

So no, if the person can create something truly original with his computer, it is not a crutch.

As I have said before, it is a crutch for me, because I have no artistic ability, drawing or on the computer.

"point a click"

Lol if only it was that easy.

When photography was first introduced, it was shunned by the art world for a long, long time. Photography is now regarded with the same respect that all other conventional mediums get. I think this situation is similar.

People will always be skeptical of things that are new, in effect, things they they are unfamiliar with.

If their understanding of these digital art programs was deeper they'd realize that the process for making art (in my case anyway) is very similar to the process used with non-digital mediums. The differences are mostly just related to convenience... no clean up, more versatile, and your art is output ready (if your work is being published).

Because of these conveniences I find myself experimenting with different techniques for color and modeling. Sometimes I'm not as brave with an oil painting for fear of not liking the result of my experimentation. If you try something in Photoshop and you don't like the result, you hit undo. It's very nice.

The bottom line is that these programs don't make you "good". They simply take some of the little annoyances and risks out of the creative process.

Most artists will ALWAYS stay close to their pencils and brushes because in many ways they are still the foundation for 2-D art. Personally I feel using both digital and non-digital mediums in conjunction with one another is the key to making the most memorable pieces.

Art programs should not be feared, but explored. Then, after you've gained some understanding of how they work, you can determine whether they're right for you.

I do both. I draw traditional art and I create digital art. I prefer making traditional art but I also love making digital art. A person's choice in whether they choose to do traditional or digitial doesn't affect my opinion of the artwork or the artist.