A Case for Digital Art
It was only a matter time after the invention of the personal computer before artists discovered a way to use this new tool to make art. As technology continues to improve, digital art becomes more intricate and beautiful than ever. However, artwork made entirely on the computer tends to be disregarded by a large part of the art community as a trend of the younger generation that does not require true talent. But does the replacement of the paintbrush with a mouse truly mean the absence of artistic talent? Perhaps to answer this we should first take a look at the process of creating a digital piece.
Traditional artists seem to be under the impression that with a series of a few simple clicks, a digital picture can be completed. This is not how great digital works are made. The artist must first draw an image—some prefer to do this by hand and then scan it onto the computer, while others are skilled at drawing directly onto a blank digital canvas with either the mouse or a tablet. Once the preliminary sketch is ready, the artist must then “paint” in colors with various brush sizes in the same way that a painter fills in color areas with paint. One of the main differences is that the digital artist does not have to physically mix the colors. Any color imaginable is available in programs like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, and Corel Painter. The color selection is no less important, but it is much simpler, and does not require the time and materials wasted in trying to mix exactly the right shade with paint.
The process of filling in color is meticulous; the digital artist must outline the edges of each shape on different layers and then color them in with a harder brush. Then, once these flat color, or what I like to call the “under painting” is complete, the artist can lock his different layers and shade them independently. Locking means that no matter how far over the line your brush strays, it will not affect anything that is not on that specific layer. For example, if the skin tone of a figure is on one layer and his shirt color is on another, the shirt will not be harmed by a large brush running over the canvas with the intent to shade the skin. Shade and highlight colors must be selected and applied attractively, which requires taste and experience on the part of the artist. There are certain digital effects that can be applied, but the results are difficult to control, and so most digital artists prefer to apply all desired effects manually by way of color choice, design, etc.
Some convenient advantages to painting on the computer are that drafts of each piece can be saved in multiple stages, allowing the artist to try different things without harming the original piece. Layers can also be turned on and off to see which sorts of things look better; for example a certain object or color can be turned invisible to see how the piece would look without it. This is a huge advantage over traditional painting, which is much more difficult to change once a decision has been made. If the artist’s hand slips and a mistake is made, it is simple to click “undo,” or travel a few steps back in your actions on the “history” bar (in Photoshop). It is things like this that are considered “cheating” by many traditional artists, but I have to wonder how much of this resentment is due to jealousy. If there was a way to take these same short cuts in traditional painting, I have a feeling that painters would want to take them.
Digital art allows for more options in its creation, but is no less time consuming. True pieces of artwork are long projects that take just as many hours to produce on the computer as they would with physical paint. I point to artists such as Nene Thomas, who wields rich colors, intricate designs, and meticulous attention to detail in order to create breath-taking digital compositions. Like other digital artists, her works are available for viewing on her website, www.nenethomas.com, where print-outs can be ordered by admirers. This is another advantage of computer art: through the internet, millions of people can see the original composition in the very medium in which it was created.
I am not suggesting that digital art will ever replace painting. There will always be those who prefer the brush to the mouse and vice versa. However, just as there will always be painters, draftsmen, sculptors, welders, and many more, so will digital artists continue to develop as technology advances. The computer needs to be considered as a valid medium in its own right.