I'm really sorry, but I don't like photoshop. Maybe I just can't get a handle on how to use it, but even If I did I don't consider a computer program to be art. It's not the same as the classic artists who work with real utinsels and mediums. It's like the differnece between playing soccer and a video game. Who's the better athlete? C'mon...

Hahaha... Photoshop can be really funny to mess around with though, I like to put lense flares behind people's heads to make them look like Jesus!

i like photoshop, cos im rubbish at art and its fun to mess around with and make crazy pics.

lol, make your mind up!!!!!

Where else can you find a Red King Crab eating a baby?

bah to photoshop

Nothing wrong with Photoshop, the more you use it the more you learn to do and you can do some pretty cool stuff in it

We mock what we don't understand.

do women come under that heading sweety

"People Mock what they don't Understand" sweetpumper? No, I believe we hate what we don't understand, and I understand that I hate photoshop for making art as simple and readily available to make as a generic McDonald's cheeseburger. Art is three parts; vision,creation, and interpertation. Photoshop bridged the gap for those who may have had vision but no way to convey it, which may be fortunate for people like Bizarro, but shows no importance in the art world. Photoshop is a tool, I use it to edit photos for my newspaper, but as for the realm of art it will never gain enough recognition as an artform to be taken seriously.

Bizarro, I comend you on your manipulation of pixels and varying hues. (Your Photoshop works.)

Tool is an awesome band. Seriously, they're awesome.

Hmmm I do like computer generated work, but if I'm honest I do find it frustrating when I put alot of effort and time to get my work perfect in my eyes, then find someone has done an equally stunning peice but only spent an hour or so, sat at a computer.
My favourite medium is Pen and ink, using cross hatch as a shading and toning tecnique and maybe add colour at the end by using a very watered down coloured ink washed over the top to give a feeling of depth.

Photoshop IS a tool and thats all it is. I don't take any 'art' created in Photoshop seriously. Too many people that can use a computer also think that because they have certain programs that they are 'artists', though some of it can be very impressive. Anyone who can't put pen to paper and create something shouldn't take themselves too seriously with powerful programs like this.

Lets just say the Photoshop art I've seen are never as impressive as most other types of art.

art has little to do with how much you perspire to create it, but rather the idea behind it is what makes it interesting. in the future, most art will be digital. its inevitable and it is the medium of the future. you can whine and cry about it, but it will not change things much. art has endured many medium changes and as someone who has spent a VAST portion of his life in the study of art, im offended by some of the comments ive read in this thread. you are almost as bullheadedly idiotic as the people who claimed photography would never be considered art back in the 1800's. oh yes, i have whole books on this subject as it was a massive controversy in the art world. its really great reading (yawn). i would say that photography has proven itself as a viable art medium in today's art world. one day, digital art will prove itself in our art world too.

btw, i have created more art with my hands than most people and i found i just enjoy digital much more. it allows me to do things with photos that are extremely difficult to do in a darkroom setting very easily. this is not a bad thing.

just an example: solarizing a photograph in the darkroom takes hours. there is the negative developing, the photo developing, the redeveloping (which is very difficult to create a standardized type of print, even in professional hands), the washing, the drying, the retouching, and the final presentation. all of this can be accomplished with equal results by pressing one button in photoshop- and you get a professional level of print accuracy as a bonus.

if you want to whine about my art as not being real, you go develop as many photographs as i have and then maybe i will give a damn what you think of photoshop. try spending 7 straight days and nights getting a large presentation ready to be checked for accuracy and skill only to be foiled again and again by chemical inconsistencies- the slightest temperature change can totally alter the chemical activity of the developer.

all photoshop does is take away the perspiration from the creative process. it does not create anything without input and manipulation.

I've seen plenty and still never put in on the same level as other mediums no matter how good it looks on screen. It is just easier to do using Photoshop and there's certainly nothing wrong with that as long as you're happy with the end result. I wouldn't expect someone to pay as much for digital work over say, a painting, being of equal quality.

i have had my art printed and it looks very good, but then again it costs an arm and a leg. i can have it printed on canvas and then i can retouch it with paint and you wouldnt be able to tell it was a print at all. you are obviously a neophyte at art criticism and not worthy of me getting worked up over. i endure much worse in front of gallery owners who hold your opinion and i just laugh in their faces so i will laugh at your post as well

btw, when you pay for a painting you arent paying for the effort put into it. you are paying for the name at the bottom. its the same for photography or digital art as well. to say that a painting is a 'higher quality work' is utter nonsense as some of the most expensive and famous paintings look as if they were created by 2 year olds- both in composition and craftsmanship. when a painter hits the big time, most of their works arent even created by them anymore at all, they just assign studio people to create them and then sign them. if you want to say that renaissance paintings were more beautiful, i would agree with you. the thing is that art has undergone massive changes in the past few centuries and if a renaissance master existed today, his art would not sell because its been done before. some bozo who splashed his blood on a blank canvas with some dog turds skillfully applied on top would sell many more paintings- especially if he publicly masturbated during the show opening. that is craftsmanship and is much more beautiful than say a digital work.

Ah Bizarro, are we so quick to retreat into our Ivory Tower when debate gets heated?

As for Phenomenon, I HAVE worked with this new-aged program you call "Paintbrush" and found it quite enjoyable , not nearly as troublesome and complex as the overpowering nescessity of Photoshop. I believe paintbrush itself is a BETTER medium then Photoshop for the fact that it does not tread into other realms of art, it formulates a style all it's own.

My bottom line in this thread;Photoshop drains the worth from art.

However, I regretably admit you made some damn good points back there and believe the only true way to solve this dispute is to define exactly what "art" is, and how broad your perception of it is. THAT argument could take a few thousand years and would probably end in the destruction of mankind as we know it. Ultimately, time will tell what Photoshop is destined for...

i dont know what photoshop is but..
.. if it involves any type of stimulation to the eye, then i guess its art

Anyone can throw crap on a canvas and call it art, it only becomes true art when it sells

personally I like using watercolours and Acrylic, I don't have 50 years to wait for the oil to dry. Thanks to PHOTOSHOP I can create an image to paint.

God! DS I'v really missed you

doomgirl Posted on Mar 5 2004, 01:36 AM

Art is only Art in retrospect.

I do crap on canvas and I'm proud .

Still I can't produce anything with the feeling that DS does with photo shop

There is all kind of art eg sculpturing, photgraphing, painting etc. With the photoshop case then that is what i like to call digital art. At my school there is a art digital course to learn art instead of using paint brush pencil etc you use a computer.(of course there is a art course where you use paint burshes) I say anything that is a picture is art. Of course different people like different things some like painting some like sculpturing.

Anything you create with your mind is art. The medium you use to show it is irrelevant. Be it an image, story, song or thought it doesn't matter. One of the greatest minds of our century talks through a computer and is unable to physically function. His artistic thoughts are something to behold and are not diminished by his method of communicating them.

Simply because someone spends months creating an artistic masterpiece, toiling over their canvas with brush and paint doesnt mean their work is anymore artistic.

there are many different types of art! that doesnt mean one is better then the other. it's just differnet. you like what you like, why does it matter how it was made?

some can spend months on a canvas, and they can spend months working on a computer, what does it matter?

here ya go, read this lovely article about an artist in Canada who won a $15,000 government award:

LINK

Edit: removed graphic text.

now that's what i call art. im thinking of doing something similar so i can actually sell something.

That's just sick

thats just sick why cant he use those blood to help people instead of putting it on paper

Bizarro, living up to his name!

thank you, Magikman. i didnt know we weren't allowed to type 'anal' on this forum. kind of like 'Magikman is the most ANAL of all the mods'. thank you for making me feel welcome here again as it wouldnt be a proper homecoming without you being an inconsistent prick at my expense- i feel loved.

just a thought.... if something is acceptable for AP to carry, is it not acceptable for discussion here without censorship? i don't really care about this article either which way (i only posted it as an example) but your inconsistent moderating always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. if you are going to remove something i have posted for being too graphic, perhaps you should enforce the same with your own posts? hrmm?

whine, whine, whine

Why am I not surprised?

Yes, things haven't changed, I'm a dick and you're still a pompous, self-involved twit with a persecution complex that could gag a horse. The text was removed because it was graphically disgusting and offensive, not because it contained the word 'anal'. Your intention was obvious, not admirable or appropriate. You're no more inmune to moderation than anyone else, so temper the arrogance, okay? Hopefully you'll consider decency and acceptability in future posts, I'd hate to have to inflict my inconsistancies on you again. I so much need your approval and unconditional acceptance. Really.

MM