Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Monkyburd

I Don't Like Photoshop

36 posts in this topic

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... whistling2.gif

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! grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, make your mind up!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

post-68-1078081100.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wacko.gif bah to photoshop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

post-68-1078089805.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Especially fun when combined with Animation Shop! thumbsup.gif :

post-68-1078094070.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We mock what we don't understand. grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do women come under that heading sweety tongue.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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. whistling2.gif

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

grin2.gif Tool is an awesome band. Seriously, they're awesome.

Edited by Monkyburd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Nothing like whipping out that 5' x 4' canvas and laying down about 50 dollars worth of oil paint eh? I love oils. My favorite medium. But I love computer driven

art as well. It is just a different medium as far as I am concerned. I certainly have

no love of Art 101 displayed as 'works of art' in oil either...and I have seen plenty of that...believe me!

Artists Rock! Hey I guess I rock too....yay me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Funny to mess around with?

Anyone who could possible mock the uses photoshop has obviously doesn't know how to use it or they had their eyes closed at the time.

It is simply brilliant, and more people should have access to software of this quality, unfortunately the license's are rediculously priced and therefore only a handful will ever see its true potential. (that's those of you who actually bought it in the first place tongue.gif )

Photoshop wasn't designed to bridge the gap between art and computers, it was designed to as were flash, fireworks etc to create great effects, be it an image or graphic.

phenomenon passes monkyburd a copy of windows paint. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who can't put pen to paper and create something shouldn't take themselves too seriously

Art is about creativity, thought and imagination.What does it matter what medium you use to express your thoughts or imagination? According to you if a brush or pen isn't present then you are not an artist.

What about those of us who have published work that was typed on a computer? Does that mean I am less of an artist? I don't think so......You obviously have great imagination mixed with humour.....apples eh? tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just say the Photoshop art I've seen are never as impressive as most other types of art. whistling2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Then you haven't seen much, the effects are brilliant in the right hands.

thumbsup.gif to Bizarro...put it perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 laugh.gif

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 m********ed during the show opening. that is craftsmanship and is much more beautiful than say a digital work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not necessarily. I've never bought one because of name, but style, content and appeal.

some of the most expensive and famous paintings look as if they were created by 2 year olds

Gotta agree with that one. John Lennons art only sells because of name, for sure.

Printing to canvas actually is the way to go especially for people who in the past have used projectors, etc. to transfer sketches to it instead. As for the gallery owners who have the same opinions, I really don't care because I've seen some of the garbage they show as art. Digital art may find a niche somewhere other than for production and effects but I don't think it will be a big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Bizarro, are we so quick to retreat into our Ivory Tower when debate gets heated? whistling2.gif

As for Phenomenon, I HAVE worked with this new-aged program you call "Paintbrush" and found it quite enjoyable grin2.gif , 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, disgust.gif 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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know what photoshop is but..

.. if it involves any type of stimulation to the eye, then i guess its art w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can throw crap on a canvas and call it art, it only becomes true art when it sells wink2.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

God! DS I'v really missed you wink2.gif

doomgirl Posted on Mar 5 2004, 01:36 AM

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

Well thats not strictly true...Art is what you find beautifull, meaningfull or inspirational.

Most people who produce "Art" do it as an expression of themselves and their feelings, not money! It may take 5 mins or a lifetime to evolve your work, what matters is, it came from your mind.

If Van Gogh was painting for money then we'd not have the incredible peices we see in gallerys today, and if there were no "Sunflowers" posters what would students hang on there walls?

Art is Poetry, dancing, music, grafitti, even crap on canvas for some!

Whatever way you express yourself....keep doing it. Even if you die pennyless and mutilated your mark on this world will still be here for many years to come.

Edited by Halo_Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.