Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
When you drink the water, remember the river.
▼
Monday, July 05, 2010
Making a portrait on the iPad
Like I predicted before the iPad came out, there is already lots and lots of good art being made on it. Apart from pressure sensitivity, there's really not a lot you can do with the more expensive Wacom Cintiq that you can't do on an iPad. (And an intriquing area, barely explored yet, is replacing speed for pressure sensitivity, for example making a line thinner when you move your finger or stylus faster.)
That's a tough debate. Personally I feel while you may miss a certain organicness without paper, computer art is quicker, in some ways easier, and the ability to undo is a godsend.
It rewards laziness then. I've seen videos like where the "artist" fumbles there through, creating a portrait (or whatever) through trial and error. This wouldn't work with traditional pencil and paper. That might be acceptable except that it won't lead to a work of art but instead to this kind of uninspired, mediocre mugshot kind of thing.
Anon, while the issue may not be exactly or solely about laziness, I do agree with you 100% here.
However, we have discussed this general subject on this blog twice or thrice before. I have given examples from the field of music production and from other disciplines. Eo initially seemed to have difficulties understanding the issue, but I think he got it (while didn't agree on) in the end.
I am convinced that there is a significant difference in art produced by traditional methods and by using a tool that does not require the author to commit during the process.
In fact the difference is so deep that you may well be justified in your saying that the latter is not art at all.
there is already lots and lots of good art being made on it.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't an example of good art or art at all. It's the kind of thing you might produce if you were a police sketch artist.
Never mind that this could be produced on paper for a lot less than ipad costs.
Well, it's not my thing either. But it shows that technically, there are no hindrances.
ReplyDeleteBut it shows that technically, there are no hindrances.
ReplyDeleteYes, but is it better than using paper?
90% of what today's computers offer is the ability to do virtually that which you could do for real if only the computer wasn't obstructing your view.
That's a tough debate. Personally I feel while you may miss a certain organicness without paper, computer art is quicker, in some ways easier, and the ability to undo is a godsend.
ReplyDeleteand the ability to undo is a godsend.
ReplyDeleteIt rewards laziness then. I've seen videos like where the "artist" fumbles there through, creating a portrait (or whatever) through trial and error. This wouldn't work with traditional pencil and paper. That might be acceptable except that it won't lead to a work of art but instead to this kind of uninspired, mediocre mugshot kind of thing.
It rewards laziness then.
ReplyDeleteAnon, while the issue may not be exactly or solely about laziness, I do agree with you 100% here.
However, we have discussed this general subject on this blog twice or thrice before. I have given examples from the field of music production and from other disciplines. Eo initially seemed to have difficulties understanding the issue, but I think he got it (while didn't agree on) in the end.
I am convinced that there is a significant difference in art produced by traditional methods and by using a tool that does not require the author to commit during the process.
In fact the difference is so deep that you may well be justified in your saying that the latter is not art at all.