Sing it loud sister!!!! I'm singing alongside you and dying on that same hill!!!! I didn’t get a digital camera until 2009 or so. A laptop in 2015 or so. I didn’t get a smartphone until 2019. Nowadays I've been scaling back the already minimal time I spend with these digital devices. The phone is the hardest to minimize. I've even begun doing my paperwork the galleries require in handwriting. At most taking a photo of my handwritten exhibit statement (for ex). At my exhibit opening last night I explained repeatedly that I made everything by hand using ink, dip pens, fountain pens, btushes, gouache and acrylic paints. For my artist books I take photos of the original handmade artworks for reproduction - and I'd point to the physical art on the wall and then to the same art in a book, or on a card. I'd show how much nuance the original art has compared to the reproduction- tho the reproduction is good quality. I explained that I made reproductions because I'd made a storybook (for ex) or a greeting card which requires a certain form and they're intended to be affordable art so people can share them with other people. Etc. I saw the whole event as one of educating...
Anyway, I'm typing too much and I know you know what I'm talking about. I raise my ink bottle in your honor!
Linda Barry! Thank god someone else knows she’s a genius. :) She got me through childhood and my teen years intact. I absolutely support the drawing of a line between reproductions and original art. Spending a lot of time in various places of the world though, I’ve noticed that there are copies and copies and copies of all kinds of art that we consider significant and unique. How many original Rodin’s Thinker or Michelangelo’s David are there out there? A few! Rodin created molds for his pieces so they could be recasted. Copying a master was part of an apprenticeship during the Renaissance. There are hundreds of Muchas’ prints all over the world because he was a commercial artist, and the number of Dali’s international ad campaigns are hard to count. All this to say that I think it’s fascinating that mass production of art is both extremely problematic for creativity/creatives and an indispensable part of maintaining a creative ecosystem. AI can F all the way off, tho. 😛 Thanks for a fun read! You have new subscriber.
There are copies and there are copies. Many sculptors would do an edition of their bronzes, with the edition size set ahead of time. Like an etching or a Lino cut or other fixed plate forms of printmaking, they are what are referred to as “multiple originals. Each one is inked and printed by hand, individually, (or in the case of a bronze sculpture, cast and poured individually. I’ve seen it done, not totally clear on the process) so even though they are copies from a matrix (the plate or mold) they are individual with slight variations, unlike a photographic image which is an exact replica that never changes from image to image.
Master copies are a whole other ball of wax. I’ve done many over my lifetime. In fact I just finished one. You learn so much about how to make brush strokes and mix color. I love being able to re-create a painting I love.
It's not just a handy phrase. It describes traditional printmaking practice from as long as there have been hand pulled prints. The original (if anything is,) is the plate from which the prints are made, be it wood cut, etching plate, Lino block, or lithography stone/plate. But then each time you "pull" a print, the plate is inked by hand, the paper is placed on the plate, on the press, and an "impression is made. Because each print is inked individually, there can be slight variations from print to print. Yes, it is a multiple, but it is also an original. Some are even more so, because there is hand work done to the print outside of the printing process.
Prints are priced lower than one of a kind paintings, since the lion's share of the work is done in making the plate itself. But there is still quite a bit of work involved in printing each image from the plate. If you ever get a chance to visit a working print shop, I hope you will. It's really quite fascinating.
Oooh I'm so with you on this, couldn't agree more. Like you I trained at art school in the 70's and learned physical skills like darkroom processing and all our work involved paper and paint and the glorious tactile stuff of using our hands and bodies. We are very fortunate to have had that immersive experience at a young age, without other distractions - it's immensely precious. Of course we didn't realise it at the time. I wonder, I just wonder, if this is becoming more and more recognised now? Keep up the discussion, because the names we put to things really, really matter - it's not just sloppy use of words, it's the way we think about what we're referring to, and we very much need to respect and honour these things. Thank you!
The best digital illustrators have a strong grounding in traditional mediums. But still, it’s not only for artists that I say this. I know as someone who sells artwork, people want to know what they are really getting, and they don’t want long explanations about why you call something what you call it.
With the advent of AI, I think it’s more important than ever to name things what they are.
I agree with you, Anne. Digital art is NOT oil painting. It may emulate oil but it's neither oil nor is it a painting. It is a graphic drawing, design, whatever but certainly if there is no oil in a piece of art, how in the world can it be called oil, if no watercolor, how can we call it watercolor, if it contains no graphite, not a pencil drawing. Let us please call digitally created (even AI created) work what it truly is--digital art.
This is something that’s been in my mind for a long time. Back when I started making etchings (acid etched zinc or copper plates, all made by hand, and printed by hand one at a time) high quality reproductions started being available. What would really make me mad was when reproduction companies would create a PLATE MARK (the indentation the plate makes in the damp paper as it passes through the press) in the reproduction. I always felt that was a fraud against the consumer.
Once upon a time I thought I might want to get into the reproduction market, but the practices like fake plate marks and the like put me off and I didn't do it. There is always someone looking to take advantage of less knowledgable consumers.
You haven't stepped on my toe, that's for sure. I know someone who teaches art at The School for Visual Arts in Manhattan. She says her students "paint" with magic markers. I'm not making this up.
Seconded. It's not the same. It never will be. I have friends who do digital art, some very talented and accomplished. But I can't help but see it can be redone and refined indefinitely while art on paper or canvas (or any material) has limits. It requires skill without the luxury of infinite corrections. Digital art can look nearly "perfect" in that way. But I don't believe that that's the best thing...
I have many friends who are highly skilled at digital illustration. ( I consider “illustration” as a neutral designation, because anything can be used to create an illustration, which is generally meant to be used as a reproduced medium, like magazine Illustration or children’s books. Alas, it was not enough to corner artists into working digitally because of the strictures that are increasingly in place in children’s and editorial illustration. Now we must contend with AI, which steals from visual artists and writers alike.
By naming things what they are: painting, drawing, ink drawing, etching, monotype, digital illustration, we make it harder for purveyors of AI to muddy the water of what people are buying and consuming.
As someone who was taught to draw, paint and illustrate traditionally decades ago, and does so digitally now as well, a digital painting is just as much a painting as a digital photograph - to use your own distinction. My traditional weapons of choice are graphite and oils, followed closely by pen & ink.
The process is absolutely the same - the medium is different, certainly, using pixels instead of pigment, but you are still physically making those marks. I'd agree that a digital painting is not an oil painting, or watercolor, or gauche or acrylic, but I will go so far as to argue that the digital painting is closer to "real" than the digital photograph is, because the digital artist is hands-on throughout the *entire* process - from beginning to end, unlike the digital photographer who takes merely a second to snap a shot.
Additionally, the digital painting skills - the core skills of composition, color theory, proportion - are backwards compatible to working traditionally. And, it is a very short jump from stylus to pencil or brush.
I would further put forth that your umbrage with digital artists be redirected to the real culprit of our age: AI imagery. There I will give no quarter, and *THAT* is a hill I will die on. AI imagery is not now, nor ever will be, real art.
If you read carefully, you will see that the only "umbrage" I express is for people who call things what they are not.
I know you have worked hard at both traditional mediums as well as digital. I know your work as excellent. I also know that the current realities of children's publishing and illustrating in general put constraints on how much time you put into a project which reflects on how much money you are paid. While the initial time spent between traditional media and digital might be similar, making publisher initiated changes, or even your own revisions, are more quickly done digitally by an experienced digital artist than they can be by an artist working in paint and paper who might have to start from scratch for each revision.
I believe the best digital artists have learned their chops from traditional media and you are right: color theory, composition, value structure, those are the same in all media and are well learned no matter what medium you choose as your own. I am not by any way saying that creating digital art doesn't have both it's own skill sets or overlapping skill sets with traditional media.
You are also right that AI is a villain and I have plenty of umbrage for that.
AI steals from visual artists and writers alike.
By naming things what they are: painting, drawing, ink drawing, etching, monotype, digital illustration, we make it harder for purveyors of AI to muddy the waters of what people are buying and consuming. My essay is not and was not meant to be: Traditional media good; Digital Media Bad. It is a plea for naming things what they are, so that the purveyors of AI can't muddy the waters further. It's not only, for even primarily for the artists doing the work that this is important. It's for the people who buy my work or any artist's work, so they can be sure of what they are getting.
I'm with you, all the way. I've always been in awe of artists, especially those who paint. To be able to take a tube of liquid color and turn it into a work of art that speaks to the viewer is a talent very, very few people have. The first time I saw a photo of one of your paintings, I thought, "Damn, I wish I could do that", but of course, I can't even draw stick figures very well. I once tried to draw a portrait of my favorite aunt, and when she saw it, she nearly disowned me (I had made sure to show every single wrinkle and laugh line ... ).
I'm also in awe of photographers who can create thought-provoking pictures, whether through film or digital, but I'm saddened by the fact that anyone with a smartphone thinks he or she is a photographer. There really is a difference, as you pointed out. I enjoy seeing the work of true artists - looking at smartphone photos by everyone else just doesn't do it for me.
I’m (trying) not to dis people who only take pictures with their iPhones (like me) but I don’t call them photographs. I think people should make art/pictures/express themselves with whatever tools they have at hand. But neither should they either have pretensions of what they are making by calling them by stolen names. OOO! I said it.
But again, I know illustrators that work solely digitally and many of them do great work, which is mostly meant to be reproduced as printed illustrations in books. It may be good, but it is not a painting.
There is a lot of benefit in doodling in a sketch book, even if you can only draw a stick figure. We have all skill levels in the sketch group I go to. Everyone has different goals.
Yes, I take photos of my work too. The gallery needs them and I use them when applying for grants or residencies, along with having a record of everything.
I used to spend lots of money having slides professionally taken, but then people quit requesting slides and only want digital images for everything. I have slides going back to the 1970s. I don’t know what I’m going to do with all of them.
Now that my photographer retired, I take my own records, mostly with my phone. They are pretty good for on the computer, but would not be good enough for more than a post card.
AI is not for me at all. I've looked at AI generated pie recipes, as baking is my field in the arts, and yes, you would make a pie but I can't say there would be anything memorable about it. And, keep on stepping on toes, Anne!
I can’t imagine all the ways an AI generated pie recipe could go wrong. From my understanding, AI specializes in making things that SOUND right, but aren’t necessarily right. I can think of many ways this would go wrong with making a pie.
I would go even further in differentiating different mediums. A watercolor is not an oil painting, but there are techniques and knowledge that cross over between different media, but that doesn't make one thing another thing. As someone who has worked in many different media, I love that the knowledge I acquire from creative cross training enables me to make creative decisions I might not have made had I solely worked in one medium.
Sing it loud sister!!!! I'm singing alongside you and dying on that same hill!!!! I didn’t get a digital camera until 2009 or so. A laptop in 2015 or so. I didn’t get a smartphone until 2019. Nowadays I've been scaling back the already minimal time I spend with these digital devices. The phone is the hardest to minimize. I've even begun doing my paperwork the galleries require in handwriting. At most taking a photo of my handwritten exhibit statement (for ex). At my exhibit opening last night I explained repeatedly that I made everything by hand using ink, dip pens, fountain pens, btushes, gouache and acrylic paints. For my artist books I take photos of the original handmade artworks for reproduction - and I'd point to the physical art on the wall and then to the same art in a book, or on a card. I'd show how much nuance the original art has compared to the reproduction- tho the reproduction is good quality. I explained that I made reproductions because I'd made a storybook (for ex) or a greeting card which requires a certain form and they're intended to be affordable art so people can share them with other people. Etc. I saw the whole event as one of educating...
Anyway, I'm typing too much and I know you know what I'm talking about. I raise my ink bottle in your honor!
There is so much that gets expressed in hand drawn and painted mediums that is not impossible, but difficult to replicate when working digitally.
I am in no way saying there is not exquisite art making done digitally, I'm just saying it's not a painting.
Now, more than ever, I think it's important to call things what they are.
Linda Barry! Thank god someone else knows she’s a genius. :) She got me through childhood and my teen years intact. I absolutely support the drawing of a line between reproductions and original art. Spending a lot of time in various places of the world though, I’ve noticed that there are copies and copies and copies of all kinds of art that we consider significant and unique. How many original Rodin’s Thinker or Michelangelo’s David are there out there? A few! Rodin created molds for his pieces so they could be recasted. Copying a master was part of an apprenticeship during the Renaissance. There are hundreds of Muchas’ prints all over the world because he was a commercial artist, and the number of Dali’s international ad campaigns are hard to count. All this to say that I think it’s fascinating that mass production of art is both extremely problematic for creativity/creatives and an indispensable part of maintaining a creative ecosystem. AI can F all the way off, tho. 😛 Thanks for a fun read! You have new subscriber.
There are copies and there are copies. Many sculptors would do an edition of their bronzes, with the edition size set ahead of time. Like an etching or a Lino cut or other fixed plate forms of printmaking, they are what are referred to as “multiple originals. Each one is inked and printed by hand, individually, (or in the case of a bronze sculpture, cast and poured individually. I’ve seen it done, not totally clear on the process) so even though they are copies from a matrix (the plate or mold) they are individual with slight variations, unlike a photographic image which is an exact replica that never changes from image to image.
Master copies are a whole other ball of wax. I’ve done many over my lifetime. In fact I just finished one. You learn so much about how to make brush strokes and mix color. I love being able to re-create a painting I love.
And yes, Lynda Barry is a certified genius!
Multiple Originals. There’s a handy phrase 👍👍 cheers
It's not just a handy phrase. It describes traditional printmaking practice from as long as there have been hand pulled prints. The original (if anything is,) is the plate from which the prints are made, be it wood cut, etching plate, Lino block, or lithography stone/plate. But then each time you "pull" a print, the plate is inked by hand, the paper is placed on the plate, on the press, and an "impression is made. Because each print is inked individually, there can be slight variations from print to print. Yes, it is a multiple, but it is also an original. Some are even more so, because there is hand work done to the print outside of the printing process.
Prints are priced lower than one of a kind paintings, since the lion's share of the work is done in making the plate itself. But there is still quite a bit of work involved in printing each image from the plate. If you ever get a chance to visit a working print shop, I hope you will. It's really quite fascinating.
Oooh I'm so with you on this, couldn't agree more. Like you I trained at art school in the 70's and learned physical skills like darkroom processing and all our work involved paper and paint and the glorious tactile stuff of using our hands and bodies. We are very fortunate to have had that immersive experience at a young age, without other distractions - it's immensely precious. Of course we didn't realise it at the time. I wonder, I just wonder, if this is becoming more and more recognised now? Keep up the discussion, because the names we put to things really, really matter - it's not just sloppy use of words, it's the way we think about what we're referring to, and we very much need to respect and honour these things. Thank you!
The best digital illustrators have a strong grounding in traditional mediums. But still, it’s not only for artists that I say this. I know as someone who sells artwork, people want to know what they are really getting, and they don’t want long explanations about why you call something what you call it.
With the advent of AI, I think it’s more important than ever to name things what they are.
I agree with you, Anne. Digital art is NOT oil painting. It may emulate oil but it's neither oil nor is it a painting. It is a graphic drawing, design, whatever but certainly if there is no oil in a piece of art, how in the world can it be called oil, if no watercolor, how can we call it watercolor, if it contains no graphite, not a pencil drawing. Let us please call digitally created (even AI created) work what it truly is--digital art.
This is something that’s been in my mind for a long time. Back when I started making etchings (acid etched zinc or copper plates, all made by hand, and printed by hand one at a time) high quality reproductions started being available. What would really make me mad was when reproduction companies would create a PLATE MARK (the indentation the plate makes in the damp paper as it passes through the press) in the reproduction. I always felt that was a fraud against the consumer.
Totally understandable because of course it is a fraud against the consumer.
Once upon a time I thought I might want to get into the reproduction market, but the practices like fake plate marks and the like put me off and I didn't do it. There is always someone looking to take advantage of less knowledgable consumers.
You haven't stepped on my toe, that's for sure. I know someone who teaches art at The School for Visual Arts in Manhattan. She says her students "paint" with magic markers. I'm not making this up.
Love your paintings.
Also, you're an inspiration.
aw shucks
sigh…
I would concede that these are drawings, but not painting.
My bad.
Not your bad. ;-)
Seconded. It's not the same. It never will be. I have friends who do digital art, some very talented and accomplished. But I can't help but see it can be redone and refined indefinitely while art on paper or canvas (or any material) has limits. It requires skill without the luxury of infinite corrections. Digital art can look nearly "perfect" in that way. But I don't believe that that's the best thing...
I have many friends who are highly skilled at digital illustration. ( I consider “illustration” as a neutral designation, because anything can be used to create an illustration, which is generally meant to be used as a reproduced medium, like magazine Illustration or children’s books. Alas, it was not enough to corner artists into working digitally because of the strictures that are increasingly in place in children’s and editorial illustration. Now we must contend with AI, which steals from visual artists and writers alike.
By naming things what they are: painting, drawing, ink drawing, etching, monotype, digital illustration, we make it harder for purveyors of AI to muddy the water of what people are buying and consuming.
I agree. Completely.
As someone who was taught to draw, paint and illustrate traditionally decades ago, and does so digitally now as well, a digital painting is just as much a painting as a digital photograph - to use your own distinction. My traditional weapons of choice are graphite and oils, followed closely by pen & ink.
The process is absolutely the same - the medium is different, certainly, using pixels instead of pigment, but you are still physically making those marks. I'd agree that a digital painting is not an oil painting, or watercolor, or gauche or acrylic, but I will go so far as to argue that the digital painting is closer to "real" than the digital photograph is, because the digital artist is hands-on throughout the *entire* process - from beginning to end, unlike the digital photographer who takes merely a second to snap a shot.
Additionally, the digital painting skills - the core skills of composition, color theory, proportion - are backwards compatible to working traditionally. And, it is a very short jump from stylus to pencil or brush.
I would further put forth that your umbrage with digital artists be redirected to the real culprit of our age: AI imagery. There I will give no quarter, and *THAT* is a hill I will die on. AI imagery is not now, nor ever will be, real art.
If you read carefully, you will see that the only "umbrage" I express is for people who call things what they are not.
I know you have worked hard at both traditional mediums as well as digital. I know your work as excellent. I also know that the current realities of children's publishing and illustrating in general put constraints on how much time you put into a project which reflects on how much money you are paid. While the initial time spent between traditional media and digital might be similar, making publisher initiated changes, or even your own revisions, are more quickly done digitally by an experienced digital artist than they can be by an artist working in paint and paper who might have to start from scratch for each revision.
I believe the best digital artists have learned their chops from traditional media and you are right: color theory, composition, value structure, those are the same in all media and are well learned no matter what medium you choose as your own. I am not by any way saying that creating digital art doesn't have both it's own skill sets or overlapping skill sets with traditional media.
You are also right that AI is a villain and I have plenty of umbrage for that.
AI steals from visual artists and writers alike.
By naming things what they are: painting, drawing, ink drawing, etching, monotype, digital illustration, we make it harder for purveyors of AI to muddy the waters of what people are buying and consuming. My essay is not and was not meant to be: Traditional media good; Digital Media Bad. It is a plea for naming things what they are, so that the purveyors of AI can't muddy the waters further. It's not only, for even primarily for the artists doing the work that this is important. It's for the people who buy my work or any artist's work, so they can be sure of what they are getting.
I'm with you, all the way. I've always been in awe of artists, especially those who paint. To be able to take a tube of liquid color and turn it into a work of art that speaks to the viewer is a talent very, very few people have. The first time I saw a photo of one of your paintings, I thought, "Damn, I wish I could do that", but of course, I can't even draw stick figures very well. I once tried to draw a portrait of my favorite aunt, and when she saw it, she nearly disowned me (I had made sure to show every single wrinkle and laugh line ... ).
I'm also in awe of photographers who can create thought-provoking pictures, whether through film or digital, but I'm saddened by the fact that anyone with a smartphone thinks he or she is a photographer. There really is a difference, as you pointed out. I enjoy seeing the work of true artists - looking at smartphone photos by everyone else just doesn't do it for me.
I’m (trying) not to dis people who only take pictures with their iPhones (like me) but I don’t call them photographs. I think people should make art/pictures/express themselves with whatever tools they have at hand. But neither should they either have pretensions of what they are making by calling them by stolen names. OOO! I said it.
But again, I know illustrators that work solely digitally and many of them do great work, which is mostly meant to be reproduced as printed illustrations in books. It may be good, but it is not a painting.
There is a lot of benefit in doodling in a sketch book, even if you can only draw a stick figure. We have all skill levels in the sketch group I go to. Everyone has different goals.
Ooo! I love your Island Gate! As you often do, the light is just gorgeous!
Thank you! As you well know, light has always been my thing.
Anne - I need to contact you regarding Sketchers. Would you please email me at cfuller@whidbey.com. Thanks.
will do!
Oh yes! Totally agree! I do take photos of my drawings if I sell them or give them away, just to remember what they looked like.
Yes, I take photos of my work too. The gallery needs them and I use them when applying for grants or residencies, along with having a record of everything.
I used to spend lots of money having slides professionally taken, but then people quit requesting slides and only want digital images for everything. I have slides going back to the 1970s. I don’t know what I’m going to do with all of them.
Now that my photographer retired, I take my own records, mostly with my phone. They are pretty good for on the computer, but would not be good enough for more than a post card.
AI is not for me at all. I've looked at AI generated pie recipes, as baking is my field in the arts, and yes, you would make a pie but I can't say there would be anything memorable about it. And, keep on stepping on toes, Anne!
I can’t imagine all the ways an AI generated pie recipe could go wrong. From my understanding, AI specializes in making things that SOUND right, but aren’t necessarily right. I can think of many ways this would go wrong with making a pie.
stomp stomp stomp!
I would go even further in differentiating different mediums. A watercolor is not an oil painting, but there are techniques and knowledge that cross over between different media, but that doesn't make one thing another thing. As someone who has worked in many different media, I love that the knowledge I acquire from creative cross training enables me to make creative decisions I might not have made had I solely worked in one medium.