I'm not a trained painter originally I trained as a designer but I think painting is still alive and well and yes there is a place for it. I know computers are now occupying an ever increasing space in the creative process but I don't think they can replace the moment or spark when the colour and brush hit the canvas. I love colour and my paintings are very organic so I often don't decide which colour I'm going to use until I actually start to paint. I think computers can lose that moment and in those moments magic can happen. Anyway Hi everyone great to see you :-)
Sometimes I feel that I am painting by number when I do highly graphic work, but I still enjoy pushing the paint around. Painting has evolved past just using paint. Many mix media, printmaking, and drawings have been considered paintings. I think that painting has adapted to the changes of time buy widening it meaning to be more inclusive to other processes.
I have found that in many cases with my own work it is extremely difficult to get a phto of it to look like what my eye see's when I look at it. So often I have to do alot of mods to the picture to make it look like what I see. With the real paintuing you have that aspect of the surface helping and enhancing what the eye see's. How can a computer replace that?
I think it is not just a technical issue with the use of technology as a support, but I feel it cannot replace the heart of a painting that only mimics the sensual (emotional) content only after it is expressed by the artists' interpretive effort. I believe NOTHING can replace that.
Computer generated work is great. It certainly has, for the most part, usurped the eye of the public away from more traditional forms of art. I've been painting for thirty odd years, but my weekdays are spent as a graphic artist in front of a computer screen. It can be fun and challenging, and it keeps the lights on. But it is not painting.
To the lay person, not much has been lost. An image is an image, and certainly images of extremely high quality are digitally produced by the thousands every day, produced by talented and creative individuals...But for us, the painters, it isn't about the end product. Never has been. The process is the thing. Painting is tactile, it's sensual. It pleases our eyes and soothes our souls. It's in our blood, often literally. We live it and breathe it, we become one with our canvas, and we identify ourselves with our work. We achieve a meditative state while we are painting. The textures, the colors, the subtlety, that delicate tension between color and surface, the variety of effects we can achieve with glazes and mediums; none of these can be reproduced digitally. Painting has a soul. Unfortunately, it no longer has much of an audience.
Painting will never irrelevant.... It takes a special talent to paint.... I know a lot of photogs who cant paint. I dont do Photography. Were all good at what we do. As foa computer.... Its a program and a key board. where is the artistic skill?
Picasso set a prescient that it is not what you are doing but how you are doing it. he had freed himself from identifying with the the media and paying attention to the creative power within. If Picasso was still alive, he probably would have pushed the computer tools to their limit like he did painting, sculpture and especially printmaking. To have tools means nothing if you have not mastered them and more importantly, are not willing to take the risk to experiment.
USING UNUSUAL TOOLS IN APPLICATION ON LARGE CANVAS'S TO CREATE DEPTH, SHADOWS, AND INCONGRUITY THAT I USE AS A DIFFERANT PERSPECTIVE RELATIONSHIP, WITH A PARALLEL UNIVERSE. I THINK I AM AN "INNERNAUT", MUCH LIKE AN ASTRONAUT ONLY GOING DEEP INSIDE, THEREFOR INNERNAUT. I AM VERY RELEVANT IN 2010 IN THIS UNIVERSE, BUT AM EXPANDING INTO A MULTIVERSE APPLICATION, THAT IS ALSO INTERDEMENSIONAL, AND IRREVELENT, TO EVERYTHING, AND EVERYONE.