JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 In chat it was suggested that I produce these digital artists that I sometimes mention are superior to "regular" (non-computer) artists. So, I went through a bunch of links (114!) I had saved a few years back, and I will say I am a little disappointed in the overall quality. Most of them I found through the digital art community CGSociety.org. During the chat, I went back to that site and found several artists rather quickly that were good, so maybe my links were just not that great. Either way, I went through them and tried to pick out the best. All of these artists used a computer (generally Photoshop or Painter, or a variety of 3D programs) instead of traditional paints. Feel free to express your thoughts on all of them, some of them, or your impression of digital art in general! Weird and a little morbid, Jiansong Chain Great with light and matte colors, Maciej Kuciara The very talented Alon Chou deviantArtist Artgerm. Many (perhaps adolescent) digital artists have a certain type of woman they love to paint. Most of them seem have exaggerated breasts. I could not figure out his name. His subjects are boring but I think he is good. My favorite, Craig Mullins. His site used to extensively feature his stuff, but he doesn't put a lot into it and it's constantly changing based on the updates of the web photo software he's using. He lives in Hawaii and works remotely as a concept artist for video games and movies. Awesome! Sasha Beliaev, cool style. Again, I couldn't find her name (my German is rusty) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Aleksi Briclot. Who knows why he paints what he does, but he's good (like I think of Dali) Anry Nemo Andrzej Sykut This image was composed primarily with 3D software, and probably touched up in Photoshop Dehong He Rodrigue Pralier Erik Tiemens Concept art for Star Wars Ep.II He also isn't half bad at real-life canvas painting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Natascha Roeoesli The web-popular Nicolas Bouvier (aka Sparth) Linda Bergkvist Sometimes there are illustrators I like, such as Matt Gaser Corey Loving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Thanks, Jaskin. From those that you posted the work of Shasha Beliaev stands out, for me, the most. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I have a few to share as well: Asghar Ghoncheh Melanie Delon Rado Javor Dan Wheaton James Paick Luca Bonatti Gary Jamroz Philip Straub Bing Xiao Benita Wincler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Some of these are really great, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I agree with myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Thanks for reminding me why I love digital art so much! I must say though that it's a little unfair to compare digital art to traditional art, atleast in terms of the artists skills. For example, a good artist could duplicate the statue of David in 3D in a day perhaps, while making it in stone is a whole different matter. Painting with oils on a canvas is also very different from using Photoshop or Painter. I'm not saying this lessens the digital artists achievments, just that the media is so different and working digitally you can do things that simply are not possible working traditionally. Regarding digital art in general I think this is where one would find most of the really talented artists today. There are of course still some really good traditional artists left, but I think we all know how that world is infected with post-modernist crap. In the world of digital art there's much less of that. The main reason is perhaps that alot of digital art is made comercially. I mean, it's kind of hard to work as a concept artist if all you can do is splash some paint and pee on a canvas. To make a living doing digital art you have to be (really) good because in that buisness talent is actually rewarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Here are a few pieces that I like, by Scott Eaton. What I like most is his understanding of human anatomy, but the winged lion is also a fantastic rendering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I agree with your second paragraph, Alfa. Many of these artists did not go to school, either, which is where a lot of the post-modernism comes from (my brother would give me ridiculous stories from Art School). Craig Mullins, the guy who painted the samurai on green, commented once that he could accomplish in Photoshop what would take him many times over as long to accomplish with oils on canvas. I thought that was interesting. Several of these artists still paint with oils, in addition to their digital work, though not as frequently. My brother says that oil paintings sell loads easier than digital paintings, as art, but most of these artists get their income through their commercial work as underlings of art directors, graphic designers, or some such, not as "artists." But, as Sophia had pointed out in chat, some of them never wanted to be "artists" at all, but just liked to draw fantasy worlds, or kick-ass characters, or space ships, which they can easily do for video games, movies, or book covers. So they are drawing what they want and making a living at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Another by Aleksi Briclot And by Sparth Victor Titov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 I agree with your second paragraph, Alfa. Many of these artists did not go to school, either, which is where a lot of the post-modernism comes from (my brother would give me ridiculous stories from Art School). Craig Mullins, the guy who painted the samurai on green, commented once that he could accomplish in Photoshop what would take him many times over as long to accomplish with oils on canvas. I thought that was interesting. Several of these artists still paint with oils, in addition to their digital work, though not as frequently. My brother says that oil paintings sell loads easier than digital paintings, as art, but most of these artists get their income through their commercial work as underlings of art directors, graphic designers, or some such, not as "artists." But, as Sophia had pointed out in chat, some of them never wanted to be "artists" at all, but just liked to draw fantasy worlds, or kick-ass characters, or space ships, which they can easily do for video games, movies, or book covers. So they are drawing what they want and making a living at it. It's unfortunately very true that most of the BS comes from art schools. One of the biggest art institutions where I live were recenty facing some controversy in the media because of student "artworks", featuring faking psychosis to get put in a mental institution(which is kind of ironic) and trashing a train with grafitti. A friend of mine who studied art got a lot of appreciation for one of his... ehrm, "finer" works that he had to do in order to get his exam. His brilliant work was to go home during lunch break, pissed off as hell, and nail a couple of boards together. That's the level of "education" in some places. No wonder so many artists are self taught. I'm not so familiar with oil painting but from what I understand it takes forever for the paint to dry, so there's probaly an enorumous amount of work to put all the layers down, go over it with a palette knife etc. It must be a very long process. In Photoshop etc. it's probably not all that different but it can be made so much quicker. Of course, it still takes a great artist to make great artwork, but the speed is unmatched. I suppose this is also a reason why the value of oil pantings is much higher. What Sophia pointed out perfectly describes alot of the people in my class. The typical student is someone why just wants to make "cool stuff" and make some money while they're at it. Although i'm personally more interested in making art I really enjoy the uncomplicated, carefree, attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted April 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 [...]I really enjoy the uncomplicated, carefree, attitude.Likewise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhuge Niu Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Dihtyarenko Nikolay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Likewise! [.img]http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g17/194117/194117_1134393238.jpg That one made me laugh - love it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Two more of Melanie Delon's (that Sophia fearured in her post) that I like: I like the French title of the next one she did for a French novel: "Dechainee" (which means, I think, "unleashed")(look at how her wrists suggest, to me visually, having the chain/cuffs on for some time because of the indentations) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 (edited) Likewise! I love this one. Thanks for posting! I showed it to my son and he asked me if I could find this book for him to read. Edited April 5, 2009 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 I love this one. Thanks for posting! I showed it to my son and he asked me if I could find this book for him to read. Please let me know if you ever find that book. I'm going to put that picture as desktop bakground so I can enjoy my morning coffee with a big smile on my face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 The primary purpose of art is to concretize an abstraction, so it doesn't matter what medium is being used. What matters is the abstraction and how well it is being concretized -- i.e. made real to our visual abilities, since we are talking about graphic arts in this case. The only thing I would say makes it non-art is if someone took a photograph and modified it or the background, because photography is not art (though it can have artistic elements, some selectivity involved on the part of the photographer). I consider most of the digital art presented so far to be good to excellent, but I noticed that a lot of them focus on fantasy (dark or light). I think that shows we still have a ways to go culturally. While there is nothing wrong with fantasy per se, it is not as reality oriented as a full blown renaissance of reason would portray. They definitely have good talent, however, and their images are presented in a very recognizable concrete manner. I don't know what the theme is for some of them, though, which takes away from my enjoyment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 While there is nothing wrong with fantasy per se, Please explain - since fantasy does not deal with the real... for the love of the technical aspects, this is really pandering to social metaphysics, claiming that the real world is, somehow, less than the fantasy one... no, it is not imaginative - that is different, reality oriented, and extrapolating to life enhancing possibles - fantasy is wishfulness of the non-real, perhaps once excusable eons ago when the world was not, for most, much more than drudgery, and the desire to escape to 'another world or realm' was the means of coping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Please explain - since fantasy does not deal with the real... for the love of the technical aspects, this is really pandering to social metaphysics, claiming that the real world is, somehow, less than the fantasy one... no, it is not imaginative - that is different, reality oriented, and extrapolating to life enhancing possibles - fantasy is wishfulness of the non-real, perhaps once excusable eons ago when the world was not, for most, much more than drudgery, and the desire to escape to 'another world or realm' was the means of coping... Well, I'm not talking about fantasy in the sense of being completely disconnected from reality or in the sense of fantasy explanations of natural causes (i.e. the gods made the heavens roar). I'm talking about fantasy in the sense of imagining the world as it might be an ought to be, but maybe not fully concretized down to romantic realism. For example, I assure you that a short story fantasy I wrote has to do with real events that happened in my life regarding women. Actually, it's a fantasy with respect to the ending, but I was conveying life as it might be and ought to be in a sketch format. I don't like magic stories per se, though I love science fiction. In a way, science fiction is fantasy as, say, we cannot move faster than the speed of light -- aka Star Wars and Star Trek etc. -- but so long as the artist has captured some aspect of living life qua human then it has good elements. Also, there is nothing wrong with fantasizing in the sense of longing for something better out of life -- i.e. a better girlfriend or a better job or such -- so long as it doesn't remain a fantasy and one works towards achieving those values. In that sense, I'm using fantasy as more like an active imagination centered around reality, only maybe one cannot convey it as succinctly as romantic realism. By the way, the image of the castle and the downed dragon struck me as strange because I couldn't figure out what that orange thing was in the foreground. It's a weirdly distorted dragon! But I though it was a tree or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Please explain - since fantasy does not deal with the real... for the love of the technical aspects, this is really pandering to social metaphysics, What are you basing your conclusion on? Can you expand on your reasoning here? I do not follow. claiming that the real world is, somehow, less than the fantasy one... fantasy is wishfullness of the non-real, and the desire to escape to 'another world or realm' was the means of coping... Not necessarily so. There is nothing wrong with fantasy or sci-fi as a genre. A lot of it is quiet romantic. Galt's motor was a sci-fi element! I am strongly annoyed with your rationalizations regarding art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 claiming that the real world is, somehow, less than the fantasy one... Claiming? Name someone's real world, and I can come up with a better fantasy. And I don't see what's wrong with coming up with it, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Yes lets imagine a world without any aspects of fantasy... I'll start... Macbeth and Hamlet without their ghosts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.