A TRUE DIGITAL

[nonarom]

Hello everybody, this work is exclusively digital. I've started from white computer screen and I used different
ushes, layers, emboss, etc., trying to obtain a painting. I will deeply appreciate all your inputs, comments and critiques.
Thanks,
Nona

[BAReam]

Love it; very organic and ancient feeling. Always been a fan of sea green and cerulean blue.

all the best... Bruce

[william]

Hi nonarom,
The image projects the feeling of sinking. It took me a minute when I first looked at it, but it has a aged appearance and your description can be seen in the work.

[nonarom]

Thank you very much Bruce and William for your comments.
Nona

[DLKeur]

good work.

[Danny Heim]

Very nice, but what's a "true" digital? I suppose you are saying it was developed without photos or anything like that. I've done that many times myself, but I'm not sure that makes them anymore digital than simply altering the
ightness and contrast of a photo of my dog. It's all art in the end, but many people don't see it that way, as if we have some how cheated using the computer and therefore not valid art, have you found that? Sorry to use your very good post to make a point. I just missed getting into a pretty nice gallery because the director was afraid the public wouldn't understand the computer thing. The city was very traditional regardng art. The owner of the gallery was ready to go, but director got scared in the end. I submitted about 15 pics and only one of them was from a white screen, he could not have diguished it from any of the others I'm sure. I had a piece on here last night but I took it off this morning because I want to do something else to it, I called it "a false digital" after seeing your subject (just poking fun, don't take it wrong) because it was taken from two diferent physical pieces, a pencil and an acrylic. Is it truer art because it originated from tradtional mediums and not a photo? I'd rather not distinguish it because we have so much predjudice to overcome in the first place, see what I mean? Hey, good piece, thanks for letting me get on my soap box, hope you don't mind. Danny

[william]

Danny, there's one for the artist talk forum.. true digital, 100% made on computer no? And for both of you, the computer is just another tool... the time tested forms are paints and charcoals, so if I draw with a ball point bic pen am I making a "false drawing"? take no harm in this...

nonarom, your image is very textural, and with my oppinion of computer generated art, I've really enjoyed viewing your work...let's see more.

[Danny Heim]

Danny, there's one for the artist talk forum.. true digital, 100% made on computer no? And for both of you, the computer is just another tool... the time tested forms are paints and charcoals, so if I draw with a ball point bic pen am I making a "false drawing"? take no harm in this...

nonarom, your image is very textural, and with my oppinion of computer generated art, I've really enjoyed viewing your work...let's see more.

no harm taken, it's a good subject and no you are not making a false drawing with a ball point pen, in my opinion.

[william]

Just busting hump Danny

But I think that we're on to something, classical vs. modern day.

Be good.

[nonarom]

Thank you all for developing such interesting debates starting from my work. It's so good having different oppinions, that's why this forum is not boring. You are perfecly right Danny with your story about that director of the gallery and I can tell you a similar story related to "classical vs. modern" matter: a guy opened a small gallery with some great artist's reproductions - there were some good copies of DaVinci, Cesanne, etc. Somebody came with a perfect reproduction of Monnet, but ...it was a digital (you know that there are some softwares with special
ushes which imitate some classical techniques - this was a Monnet
ush in points). Very enthusiastic at the beginning, the guy ended up with "Oh, I'm sorry, this is computer made..." SO WHAT??? It was a perfect copy...
And I'll tell you now why I used the expression "true digital", may be I couldn't make myself understood; it took me about one week to make this work, as I said, starting from white screen; I am sure that if I would have started from a photo, probably I would have finished in an hour or so. Here comes my question: is it a work more appreciated depending on the time and effort invested in it? Or only the final result counts? My opinion is that the RESULT is important, no matter if you spent five minutes or five weeks, if you use real
ushes or digital, if you start from a photo or not...
Cordially,
Nona

[william]

You make a good point, I did
ing it up in the art talk forum to some extent....I'm still impressed with the image, I'm not all that good at using the computer as a tool, so for me, as a painter, I find the digital images intriguing.

[Danny Heim]

Yes Nona I totally agree. It is the end result no matter how long, 10 minites or 10 days, it doesn't matter. And it also makes no difference how it is made. If someone can make a million bucks off using chicken shiit and fish guts why can someone make that from adobe photoshop? And it seems art collectors agree with this most every time, but underneath there is a particular attitude towards the computer that you won't find with chicken shiit. It's a "ya but" thing.