# Do people actually pay attention to traditional artists?



## Amethyst star (Aug 16, 2014)

Just wondering because I know it's not as common as a digital artist,plus me being a traditional artist I wanted to know what attracts a person to the art itself so I can improve.


----------



## Blekarotva (Aug 16, 2014)

I sell a couple traditional art pieces when I open commissions.
What attracts people -in my opinion- is a clear scanned version and a not-rushed coloring/shading. That besides knowing the basics of realism and anatomy, the better the realism the more it sells. Unless you havea cartoony style which is well done.


----------



## Zenia (Aug 16, 2014)

I pay attention to it. Of course, quick little pencil sketches might not catch my attention. An artists skill level is what catches my eye. Crappy digital art is just the same as crappy traditional art to me. There are some really good artists on FA that use traditional media, like Kacey.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Aug 16, 2014)

I feel like people on FA in particular only pay attention to porn these days, regardless of what media its in


----------



## rjbartrop (Aug 17, 2014)

They certainly do.  Even in this day and age, there's still the lingering notion with digital that "the computer does it"


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2014)

Amethyst star said:


> Just wondering because I know it's not as common as a digital artist,plus me being a traditional artist I wanted to know what attracts a person to the art itself so I can improve.



Blotch/kenket is pretty much the most popular furry artist, and they are almost entirely traditional. 


Outside of niche online communities traditional art garners the most interest.


----------



## tisr (Aug 17, 2014)

It does seem that traditional media is dying out. Digital media is simply so much more accessible, and has more potential than traditional. I myself am trying to learn digital, but I don't think the feel of digital will ever match with the feel of my pencil. 

pencil makers pls invent an undo button


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2014)

tisr said:


> It does seem that *traditional media is dying out.* Digital media is simply so much more accessible, and has more potential than traditional. I myself am trying to learn digital, but I don't think the feel of digital will ever match with the feel of my pencil.
> 
> pencil makers pls invent an undo button



Nope.


----------



## Gerardson (Aug 18, 2014)

I actually like both, but I left the traditional because lack of space.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 18, 2014)

People pay more attention to digital artists because their production rate is much higher. Any mistakes can be easily corrected, and there are no consumable materials.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2014)

The only fields in which digital artists are more popular are in the media/graphics businesses and in online niche communities, whose images are most effectively distributed over the world wide web, rather than by galleries, television shows and art books. 

The preference for digital in those fields is forced by the fact digital media are convenient to distribute digitally.


----------



## tisr (Aug 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The only fields in which digital artists are more popular are in the media/graphics businesses and in online niche communities, whose images are most effectively distributed over the world wide web, rather than by galleries, television shows and art books.
> 
> The preference for digital in those fields is forced by the fact digital media are convenient to distribute digitally.



However, due to the sheer accessibility and efficiency of the digital medium, it continues to grow rapidly. Traditional media now remains in high art, and even then digital media is slowly encroaching into high art as well.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2014)

The weirdest 'high' art I've seen in an artbook was some 'elegant photography' of a couple of blokes in animal costumes [which were of such poor quality they would be posted in the 'horrific fursuits' thread] pretending to have a romantic picnic. 


It's those artists who always type 'ART!' and use the words 'spiritual' and 'emotion' a lot...and often incorrectly. 

How on earth they have dominance in the high-art circles, but lots of good digital art is confined to niche communities, is beyond me. I imagine they paid a lot to go to prestigious art universities and made friends in art-circles who were just too nice to tell them that they should give up on art.

[I'm guilty of this- there are friends I have who are studying art at uni, or are exhibiting, who are just pathetic. I do not have the heart to tell them and when they ask me I pretend I like their work. :\ 
The gobshites have no problems telling me what all my faults are though, because they have been deluded into thinking they are gurus.]


----------



## Godtier (Aug 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> How on earth they have dominance in the high-art circles, but lots of good digital art is confined to niche communities, is beyond me. I imagine they paid a lot to go to prestigious art universities and made friends in art-circles who were just too nice to tell them that they should give up on art.
> 
> [I'm guilty of this- there are friends I have who are studying art at uni, or are exhibiting, who are just pathetic. I do not have the heart to tell them and when they ask me I pretend I like their work. :\
> The gobshites have no problems telling me what all my faults are though, because they have been deluded into thinking they are gurus.]



Precisely why I ultimately decided against making art a career and going to school for it.  

Sure,  art is subjective. But there are dozens upon dozens of artists who  never learned how to take a critique even for simple things like errors  in anatomy or perspective. Artists get too attached to their work, in my  opinion. If people didn't get their feathers all ruffled over being  given an honest critique then there would be more overall improvement  for everyone. It's a skill, a technique, not some talent you're  instantly born with. It makes me sick that art colleges are all about the prestige - it seems like it most certainly DOES matter where you go and who you know, not your actual artistic skill. What a shame.

But, off my soapbox. Traditional work is harder to distribute and modify if there is an error, as has been said already. (traditional artists tend to....charge more, too. rightfully so. but you know how the average furry tends to be with commission prices.)


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2014)

Godtier said:


> Precisely why I ultimately decided against making art a career and going to school for it.
> 
> Sure,  art is subjective. But there are dozens upon dozens of artists who  never learned how to take a critique even for simple things like errors  in anatomy or perspective. Artists get too attached to their work, in my  opinion. If people didn't get their feathers all ruffled over being  given an honest critique then there would be more overall improvement  for everyone. It's a skill, a technique, not some talent you're  instantly born with. It makes me sick that art colleges are all about the prestige - it seems like it most certainly DOES matter where you go and who you know, not your actual artistic skill. What a shame.
> 
> But, off my soapbox. Traditional work is harder to distribute and modify if there is an error, as has been said already. (traditional artists tend to....charge more, too. rightfully so. but you know how the average furry tends to be with commission prices.)



Agreed. I was considering pursuing art to a higher level, and took a trial course which did not require university commitment. The teacher excused mistakes such as getting hands upside down, or with the wrong number of digits [no kidding] as stylistic and encouraged students to repeat them. :\ 

Luckily I got out of that and did sciences instead.


----------



## funky3000 (Aug 18, 2014)

I watch a few traditional artists, and I feel I have a stronger hand in traditional as well. The main reason I do digital is for the sake of cleanliness and control. But now that I'm getting back to sharpies I may buy more colors, fresh markers, etc. I'll have to deal with a camera phone for a while, I don't have access to my own scanner, and I would prefer to not trot through the house with furry art to scan papers, that would probably be considered childish. I dunno, but I have no idea what my stepmom would think of it, she'd also probably think of commissions as an excuse to draw instead of exercise.


----------



## tisr (Aug 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed. I was considering pursuing art to a higher level, and took a trial course which did not require university commitment. The teacher excused mistakes such as getting hands upside down, or with the wrong number of digits [no kidding] as stylistic and encouraged students to repeat them. :\
> 
> Luckily I got out of that and did sciences instead.



I had wanted to take art in school, but after taking for 1 semester, the teacher said my black and white final piece had 'not enough color'. I stopped taking after that. Also, we spent too much time analyzing the form and balance and emotion of a piece rather than learning to draw anything.

Well, I'd also assumed digital media is cheaper than traditional in the long run, if you're using an expensive medium such as oil. However for me, my pencils remain cheaper than getting a tablet and probably upgrading my shitty laptop.


----------



## Godtier (Aug 19, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed. I was considering pursuing art to a  higher level, and took a trial course which did not require university  commitment. The teacher excused mistakes such as getting hands upside  down, or with the wrong number of digits [no kidding] as stylistic and  encouraged students to repeat them. :\
> 
> Luckily I got out of that and did sciences instead.


Wow, that's amazing - like in the bad 'you can't be serious' type of way. Glad you're doing something that you're hopefully enjoying more/getting a better education in!



tisr said:


> I had wanted to take art in school, but after taking for 1 semester, the teacher said my black and white final piece had 'not enough color'. I stopped taking after that. Also, we spent too much time analyzing the form and balance and emotion of a piece rather than learning to draw anything.
> 
> Well, I'd also assumed digital media is cheaper than traditional in the long run, if you're using an expensive medium such as oil. However for me, my pencils remain cheaper than getting a tablet and probably upgrading my shitty laptop.


Perhaps they meant values and poorly communicated, or perhaps your professor was on something...recreational. The elements/principles of design are important but they really should teach technique first. It's like teaching someone to write poetry before teaching them grammar and spelling. *shrug*

Also, tablets are pretty cheap nowadays. But power to you for staying traditional! Personally, art programs are a mystery that I can't seem to solve so I'm pretty gosh-darn terrible. Ink and paper aren't nearly as cryptic.


----------



## MischievousPooka (Aug 19, 2014)

I find a lot of people that like traditional.  I do both traditional and digital.  And when I go to conventions (furry and non furry) my traditional art sells as well as my Digital.  Even on Deviantart, my traditional inked vulture is still the most faved and viewed piece in my gallery.  For on the internet, as long as you get it scanned or photo well and looking just like you see it offline, people will still like traditional just as they do digital.  Also, sometime the subject matter also helps in getting attention.


----------



## FireFeathers (Aug 21, 2014)

Would they not????

If the art's good, no one cares if it's digital or traditional. Also there's ways to make traditional art as accessible as digital - Usually by using a scanner or a great camera and correct lighting.  I don't understand how you guys think traditional is reserved for High art, while digital's gotta scrounge it's way to some sort of standing.  Good digital art tends to look like traditional art- Digital art's less expensive to use (in some regards) but that doesn't make it any less of a way to express yourself. They're literally equal. 

Personally I like that Magic artists tend to go back to traditional, only because they can sell their oil paintings for many thousands of dollars. You can't do that with digital.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2014)

I think your comment answers the question. High art has an extensive history of exclusivity, a small number of objects for a very big price. Low art is, by contrast, the mass-produced subject matter that average people had the opportunity to purchase. 

Digital, which can be quickly and perfectly mass produced, fits the latter category much better. You cannot get extra fees for reproductions very easily, or charge an inflated price for the original, as is the way in High art, if a computer algorithm makes perfect and indistinguishable copies of the original.


----------



## JerryFoxcoon (Aug 21, 2014)

Bright-coloured pictures seemingly sell more in the fandom, SFW or not...

For my own art, handling physical medium feels more "real". I've never been able to do anything both quick and precise with my hands without looking anyway, no matter how long I keep practicing. So I kinda have to stick with traditional methods for sketching. When it comes to line art GIMP's path tool saves the day but I want to move to real ink and brushes on bristol eventually. And for colouring, I feel I'll be able to use my tablet.

Plus when I look at many professional artists that's what I often see: traditional sketch, traditional ink and digital colouring. There's no reason I can't do the same!


----------



## Gnarl (Aug 21, 2014)

I do traditional art only. Mainly because I predate digital art in almost all of its current forms. I have no idea if I am actually any good at it, as most people look, and don't comment. Oh there have been a few and those have been only positive but I don't really do enough these days to be considered. 
I did narrative realism at a time when most of the universities were still teaching ... squirt guns and water balloons and found garbage glued to a board.
I have, however, found that many of the really good digital artists seem to have a background in the traditional. The skills involved in drawing on paper are just as important in drawing on a digital tablet. The ability to see is very important in both forms, or rather all forms. Even in digital art if the proportions are off, it is apparent. I guess it all depends on what you are trying to do, to portray, to say, to communicate. I pray that digital will never try to replace the traditional art but rather grow and be accepted as an equal form. While many of the Grand Masters paintings have been around for hundreds of years I wonder, in what form will the digital art of today be around in say 100 years? Perhaps these furry creatures of ours will evolve into Holographic 3 dimensional images or even creatures you can interact with in some kind of holo-deck sort of thing. Yet the paintings of yesteryear will continue to age and deteriorate.
We still have available some works done by human hands that are ten thousand years old, but what will exist of the digital art of today in ten thousand years?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2014)

You 'predate' digital art...you follow it around and try to eat it?


...oooooh, sorry- brain fart.


----------



## Saph-Fire (Aug 21, 2014)

*


monochromatic-dragon said:



			I feel like people on FA in  particular only pay attention to porn these days, regardless of what  media its in
		
Click to expand...


Well said.  XD*


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2014)

I think that's an excuse rubbish artists use to console themselves- myself included.


----------



## FireFeathers (Aug 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think your comment answers the question. High art has an extensive history of exclusivity, a small number of objects for a very big price. Low art is, by contrast, the mass-produced subject matter that average people had the opportunity to purchase.
> 
> Digital, which can be quickly and perfectly mass produced, fits the latter category much better. You cannot get extra fees for reproductions very easily, or charge an inflated price for the original, as is the way in High art, if a computer algorithm makes perfect and indistinguishable copies of the original.




All the...everything you're saying is so incredibly wrong I don't even know how to address this.  There is no high and low art- traditional lithographs reproduce traditional art the same quality as a digital has regular prints, lithographs range the same price as large digital prints do. We can also talk about woodblock prints as well! They're traditional pieces intended to reach the masses by cheap prints.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 23, 2014)

FireFeathers said:


> All the...everything you're saying is so incredibly wrong



It usually is.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Aug 23, 2014)

FireFeathers said:


> All the...everything you're saying is so incredibly wrong I don't even know how to address this.  There is no high and low art- traditional lithographs reproduce traditional art the same quality as a digital has regular prints, lithographs range the same price as large digital prints do. We can also talk about woodblock prints as well! They're traditional pieces intended to reach the masses by cheap prints.



The difference though is each traditional print (litho, relief, intaglio, etc) in an edition is an original piece of art, where as a digital copy is not.


----------



## Gnarl (Aug 26, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that's an excuse rubbish artists use to console themselves- myself included.


everything I have seen of yours tells me that you are not a rubbish artist! 
Yea- I sneak around and jump out of the bushes and gobble them up... well... if I could still jump that is! They usually escape into the net.


----------



## Centradragon (Sep 3, 2014)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> The difference though is each traditional print (litho, relief, intaglio, etc) in an edition is an original piece of art, where as a digital copy is not.



You can still have editions of digital prints. :0

There will always be minor differences with lithographs, screen prints, etc... (honestly, you'd probably even find minor differences with inkjet or laser prints if you looked hard enough, although those differences might not be as aesthetically valued). Lithographs/screen prints/etc are still copies of an original design â€” as cool as they are, I wouldn't consider them originals. Although a woodblock print might wear down over time, people can still make digital copies and print these things perpetually. 

We had magnesium plates of digital designs for letterpress. I'm confident if my plate had exploded, the newly ordered one would be identical. No customer would have been able to tell it wasn't the "original" plate.


----------



## DragonFoxDemon (Sep 3, 2014)

Centradragon said:


> You can still have editions of digital prints. :0
> 
> There will always be minor differences with lithographs, screen prints, etc... (honestly, you'd probably even find minor differences with inkjet or laser prints if you looked hard enough, although those differences might not be as aesthetically valued). Lithographs/screen prints/etc are still copies of an original design â€” as cool as they are, I wouldn't consider them originals. Although a woodblock print might wear down over time, people can still make digital copies and print these things perpetually.
> 
> We had magnesium plates of digital designs for letterpress. I'm confident if my plate had exploded, the newly ordered one would be identical. No customer would have been able to tell it wasn't the "original" plate.



Yes, you can have editions of digital copies

Fine art prints are originals. They are prints, not copies. Each piece is suppose to be exactly the same as it is mass produced fine art. However, the nature of the medium (the block/plate, ink, wiping if intaglio/litho, the press pressure, even the paper) is going to make them each ever so slightly different. Also, fine art prints are more likely to be limited editions. As you said, digital copies can be made perpetually.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 3, 2014)

Regards 'they are slightly different therefore they are original', are the differences actually meritable? If I had the choice of 1 of 1000 different prints, would 1 lucky print be given significant value over the rest, would they all be given special-snow flake prices or would their originality be worthless in context?


----------



## Centradragon (Sep 4, 2014)

DragonFoxDemon said:


> Yes, you can have editions of digital copies
> 
> Fine art prints are originals. They are prints, not copies. Each piece is suppose to be exactly the same as it is mass produced fine art. However, the nature of the medium (the block/plate, ink, wiping if intaglio/litho, the press pressure, even the paper) is going to make them each ever so slightly different. Also, fine art prints are more likely to be limited editions. As you said, digital copies can be made perpetually.




Sorry, I wasn't suuuuper-clear about what I meant by digital copies in the realm of traditional prints. ;u; (my bad!)

So you have your ordinary "scan in and print it" thing, and that's all fine and good. I wasn't quite referring to that, though.


In letterpress you use cast metal or polymer plates to create a design from a digital file, or you can use the traditional lead fonts for making body copy. All the letters of one kind (e's, quotes, etc) are copies of each other, so already you're getting into the "if it's worn down, it's easy to cast another and replace it" category. A worn-down plate is NOT more inherently valuable â€” they're actually kind of shitty (you have to be careful about laying ink over them) and you'd want to re-cast or re-buy a new one. The whole point of producing prints isn't to make special-snowflake originals, but copies of an original as closely as possible. The reason why books come in editions (especially older ones) is because you'd have to set up your form for each page (or each folio, or quarto, and so on) and it'd take a long-ass time. Without any changes to the copy itself (and using the same ink, the same press, and good notes to replicate the original conditions of the height of the form, etc), these editions would be identical. You can technically re-print something in this case and the consumer would be none-the-wiser.

I mean, yeah, you could go into each single hand-set letter and go, "oh, that "g" is slightly more worn around the bowl so this is a different edition", but EVEN THEN you can get around it in modern times by using the metal/polymer plates I mentioned earlier. And if there were a lot in the edition, it'd be pretty difficult to tell what was normal variation and what was a "copy." Although this is a little more difficult than flat-out digital printing, that CAN be perpetual.


I find it strange that people elevate other forms of printing so high compared to digital. In the end, all forms of printing are a way to make passive income and sell copies of something to people â€” digital prints (including GiclÃ©e) are still "fine art" prints. Digital is just a different method to get copies of something into a consumer's hand.


----------

