For more updates, tips and links;
Please support me on @ [link]
Or Follow Me On @ [link]
I was lurking around an Art discussion forum a couple of days ago, and came across the usual "Digital Art vs Traditional Art" topic. And while both sides had good arguments, one point really grabbed my attention and made me think:"Traditional Art will always have more value over Digital because it is a one-of-a-kind piece. A digital piece can be easily reproduced and printed hundreds of times and used for anything (T-shirts, signs, posters etc.). It's really just data and pixels on a screen."
I agree (to an extent) with the statement that a Traditional piece (an oil painting, for example) is truly a one of a kind item. You can scan it and photograph it all you want, but tt's real, and there will always be a single, original. It exists in a solid form yet it can also be destroyed and lost forever, whether it's by a house fire, or a glass of water accidentally being spilled over it. But so can Digital Art. If not handled correctly, the document can become corrupt or lost in a hard drive crash.
I wondered, how could I make a digital painting (that is data and pixels on a screen) truly a "one of a kind"?
I'll paint a digital picture, print one single copy
, then erase it completely
off my hard drive!
So this film and the one print sitting on my desk is all that remains of the painting. No pixels, no data. Just a single hard-copy print (of ink on a glossy A4) of the painting.
It hurt me a little to destroy the file, but do you think the (physical copy) painting has more value and artistic merit now that it is truly a "one of a kind" now?Adobe Photoshop CS5
Based off and a tribute to Teller's signature magic trick "Shadows" [link]
WMV download here: [link]