Digital art is a curse and a blessing.

Scavenger

Scavenger

I search for things.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 8, 2019
As drawing tablets become more accessible to the world(mostly in the west). I noticed it allowed people to express themselves as creative individuals.
But on the other side, it allowed/enabled fucked up individuals to express their sick fantasies. Not like normal porn/hentai but other things such as bestiality and other disgusting subjects when it comes to art. This type of behavior is acceptable mostly on DeviantArt(Of course) and sometimes but not most of the time, resulted in harming consequences. Like Randy Stair and Nick Bate.
(Edit: Nick and Rando never owned drawing tablets but they both fall under the category of digital art.)
 
  • Autistic
  • Informative
  • Dumb
Reactions: Bum Driller, Incognito Mood, KimCoppolaAficionado and 2 others
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Bum Driller, SpergPatrol, Balaam and 2 others
Clop said:
www.cvltnation.com

DEMONIC LOVE: THE 19TH CENTURY EROTIC ART OF MIHÁLY ZICHY (NSFW)

Sometime in the mid-1870s, while living in Paris, the Hungarian artist Mihály Zichy produced a series of erotic illustrations. These pictures featured men and women having a right old time fucking and wanking, sucking and licking. What inspired Zichy is unclear. A mid-life crisis? A raging...
www.cvltnation.com www.cvltnation.com

Click to expand...
He would make a fortune from drawing waifus nowadays.
 
Why hate on tablets? Even without tablets there are scanners and cameras, which make it just as easy to share old skool analog 'art' online.
Fan Fiction gas always been a crawling cesspit of depravity, and online, text is arguably more sharable than imagery.
 
I don't care for digital because it seems more like a crutch for people.

Personally I hated sitting in front of a computer to do my work back when I did this crap professionally, having to fuck around with tabs, layers ect. Give me real tools any day.
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Tahoma, SpergPatrol and Coelacanth
Scavenger said:
As drawing tablets become more accessible to the world(mostly in the west). I noticed it allowed people to express themselves as creative individuals.
But on the other side, it allowed/enabled fucked up individuals to express their sick fantasies. Not like normal porn/hentai but other things such as bestiality and other disgusting subjects when it comes to art. This type of behavior is acceptable mostly on DeviantArt(Of course) and sometimes but not most of the time, resulted in harming consequences. Like Randy Stair and Nick Bate.
(Edit: Nick and Rando never owned drawing tablets but they both fall under the category of digital art.)
Click to expand...

I never got these topics about discussing of the horrors of weird art unless it is about laughing at it, because only reaction I am capable to have of Winnie the Pooh anal vore is to laugh my ass off or swear to myself to not visit the profile or whatever where I saw the damned thing. It is just weird ass art. I find Randy and Nick being product enabled by weird art (in any significant level at least) kind of a reach, because unless there was someone who sorted out some serious shit in early stage of their life, they would have probably got into something else weird and crept to the local barn at night to push their hand to a cow vag or sat suspiciously often front of grade school hand in their pants, shaking something furiously. I feel always a bit iffy of the, even weird, art being called actively "harmful" or "enabling", because what that means in practice?

Tho same way as piss anal vore communities have found each other, internet has connected all weirdos and you got communities of incels, school shooter fan girls, genderspecials and antifas. I fail to see some smurf/ninja turtle/care bear gore vore anal rape porn art as core issue with internet or even creativity, but behind there is the kind of issue with the internet overall that good sometimes but sometimes not good.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Bum Driller, SpergPatrol, YayLasagna and 3 others
I think there's some truth behind why it is digital art's a blessing and a curse. Remember how back in the day when you first leaned how to draw you used a pencil and paper? You drew whatever came to mind, but when you became more serious about drawing, you took art classes? And in all of those art classes, you had face-to-face interactions with your teachers who taught you about art history and how to draw basic shapes, still life, drawing exercises where you draw a painting for like 15 minutes, other exercises where you draw in little squares to form a bigger picture, you learned how to use different mediums, et cetera, et cetera?

A lot of people using digital art aren't learning that, if at all. They don't know the differences between acryllic and oil paint. They don't know the difference between pastel and watercolor. They don't know how to shade in grayscale. There's importance in learning the traditional way first and foremost before you move on to computers, which has a color palette that yes, is more accessible because you can just manipulate the scale, but it's not true light that they're seeing like they would if they learned how to paint on real canvas with real colors first.

Yes, you can make beautiful art digitally, but you can also still pull off the same thing traditionally by learning how light works in the real world. You can make something look digital with colored pencil, copic markers, or even on canvas, but you have to practice. But sadly, that's not being practiced with digital art like it should be. Granted, because it's such new technology we don't exactly know how to teach new artists how to properly implement it, but it doesn't mean we should forsake the simple manual tradition of taking a physical pencil and paper in your hand and just get a feel for what it means to draw. Artists should never forget that.
 
  • Agree
  • DRINK!
Reactions: BhertMern, J A N D E K, YayLasagna and 4 others
Kari Kamiya said:
I think there's some truth behind why it is digital art's a blessing and a curse. Remember how back in the day when you first leaned how to draw you used a pencil and paper? You drew whatever came to mind, but when you became more serious about drawing, you took art classes? And in all of those art classes, you had face-to-face interactions with your teachers who taught you about art history and how to draw basic shapes, still life, drawing exercises where you draw a painting for like 15 minutes, other exercises where you draw in little squares to form a bigger picture, you learned how to use different mediums, et cetera, et cetera?

A lot of people using digital art aren't learning that, if at all. They don't know the differences between acryllic and oil paint. They don't know the difference between pastel and watercolor. They don't know how to shade in grayscale. There's importance in learning the traditional way first and foremost before you move on to computers, which has a color palette that yes, is more accessible because you can just manipulate the scale, but it's not true light that they're seeing like they would if they learned how to paint on real canvas with real colors first.

Yes, you can make beautiful art digitally, but you can also still pull off the same thing traditionally by learning how light works in the real world. You can make something look digital with colored pencil, copic markers, or even on canvas, but you have to practice. But sadly, that's not being practiced with digital art like it should be. Granted, because it's such new technology we don't exactly know how to teach new artists how to properly implement it, but it doesn't mean we should forsake the simple manual tradition of taking a physical pencil and paper in your hand and just get a feel for what it means to draw. Artists should never forget that
Click to expand...


As if people that go and study art really still learn to work their craft.

Go into a student exhibition at the end of the year and tell me the place isn't riddled with intentionally ugly stuff, as well as booklets describing why beauty shouldn't be a goal. The minds are poisoned with poor philospophy and from that comes poisoned art.

I don't think digitalization of visual arts is a root problem anymore than guns are to warfare. Every artist and art appreciator should be glad when there are new better tools available. Of course most paintings in the past were shit too, but those don't survive, just as ugly and average people don't make it as often to either silver screen or google image search.

We select for what is worth keeping and that is usually the sublime; whether sublimely beautiful or sublimely awful (kiwifarms is a good preserver of the awful online, a kind of metaphorical amber to store the fossils and DNA of the weirdest online people).

Besides, the issue you seem to have is not so much the digitization part of the web, but the self-publishing part.

Now you can imagine a little bit what a shift the printing press was, where you don't just save the stuff that is worth copying by hand, but any fanatical with a little bit of money can print pamphlets to highlight his zany ideas.

But I'll throw you a bone; what is the problem exactly with people drawing or animating their diaperchu fantasies, or whatever crazy stuff you've been seeing? In what way does it cause more problems than say, two girls one cup or the crazy shit people can highlight and publish with camera?

I get being disgusted by it, but I don't get why one would kinda look at it as a problem to be solved. Open to having my mind changed.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Yaito-Chan, Incognito Mood, GrayWater and 5 others
I'd argue the bigger issue with digital is the fact that a lot of artists tend to use the same style and software (everyone uses Sai) and even then there are more drawing programs than just Sai and more styles than just the one everyone uses. Crazy art is going to exist regardless, before digital tablets were a thing/popular it was done with physical media and photographed or scanned in.

Don't blame the tool, blame the person using the tool.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Chichan
Scavenger said:
As drawing tablets become more accessible to the world(mostly in the west). I noticed it allowed people to express themselves as creative individuals.
But on the other side, it allowed/enabled fucked up individuals to express their sick fantasies. Not like normal porn/hentai but other things such as bestiality and other disgusting subjects when it comes to art. This type of behavior is acceptable mostly on DeviantArt(Of course) and sometimes but not most of the time, resulted in harming consequences. Like Randy Stair and Nick Bate.
(Edit: Nick and Rando never owned drawing tablets but they both fall under the category of digital art.)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure pencils are more accessible than drawing tablets. Chris still hasn't upgraded and yet he still made SheCameForCWC with colored pencils. I don't think this has anything to do with drawing tablets.
CIA Nigger said:
I'd argue the bigger issue with digital is the fact that a lot of artists tend to use the same style and software (everyone uses Sai) and even then there are more drawing programs than just Sai and more styles than just the one everyone uses. Crazy art is going to exist regardless, before digital tablets were a thing/popular it was done with physical media and photographed or scanned in.

Don't blame the tool, blame the person using the tool.
Click to expand...
It's not entirely accurate everyone uses Sai. A lot of digital artists on Deviantart do but outside of that professional artists tend to be far more diverse. Like a lot of artists recently have started using Procreate (as have I). You also find a ton of graphic design artists who use photoshop. Etc. A big reason why people pick specific software has more to do with one's level of comfort with it and it's general use. (Like artists who use photoshop generally also use it for graphic design and photo touch ups). This is also true of traditional art as you'll largely find artists using the same tools/methods for 20-30+ years. See Akira Toriyama who still draws manga identically to the way he did in the 80s.
Kari Kamiya said:
I think there's some truth behind why it is digital art's a blessing and a curse. Remember how back in the day when you first leaned how to draw you used a pencil and paper? You drew whatever came to mind, but when you became more serious about drawing, you took art classes? And in all of those art classes, you had face-to-face interactions with your teachers who taught you about art history and how to draw basic shapes, still life, drawing exercises where you draw a painting for like 15 minutes, other exercises where you draw in little squares to form a bigger picture, you learned how to use different mediums, et cetera, et cetera?

A lot of people using digital art aren't learning that, if at all. They don't know the differences between acryllic and oil paint. They don't know the difference between pastel and watercolor. They don't know how to shade in grayscale. There's importance in learning the traditional way first and foremost before you move on to computers, which has a color palette that yes, is more accessible because you can just manipulate the scale, but it's not true light that they're seeing like they would if they learned how to paint on real canvas with real colors first.

Yes, you can make beautiful art digitally, but you can also still pull off the same thing traditionally by learning how light works in the real world. You can make something look digital with colored pencil, copic markers, or even on canvas, but you have to practice. But sadly, that's not being practiced with digital art like it should be. Granted, because it's such new technology we don't exactly know how to teach new artists how to properly implement it, but it doesn't mean we should forsake the simple manual tradition of taking a physical pencil and paper in your hand and just get a feel for what it means to draw. Artists should never forget that.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking most people who do digital art have a degree of a background in traditional art. You can still find classes in traditional art. Taking traditional art classes mostly made me appreciate digital far more. (Especially when it came to the bullshit that comes with physical paint like having to clean brushes and having your paint dry really fast and having to continuously mix more and more of it. If I painted daily the costs of buying just acrylic paint would easily overshadow the costs of buying a tablet really rapidly.).
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Bum Driller, GrayWater, Lemmingwise and 3 others
For sure the development of digital art technology has lowered the entry barrier so most computer-literate people can turn out something passable on the digital image manipulation programs. But I don't think that in itself is to blame for increased frequency of degeneracy; that is almost entirely attributable to online communities and social media that has allowed for the formation and growth of likeminded communities of degenerates. Take away the internet, and none of these people would be able to disseminate their work or communicate each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrayWater
millais said:
For sure the development of digital art technology has lowered the entry barrier so most computer-literate people can turn out something passable on the digital image manipulation programs.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with this is cost. Most artists when they start drawing are very young and an entry level tablet generally costs 75$. With a good one ranging from 100-300$. Not including software. That and the cost associated with pencils is generally much cheaper and most people are taught art in school using them. The majority of digital artists I've talked to started as traditional artists for years until they saved up money to get a tablet. It's why I've found the logic that ease of use of digital art spreading degeneracy as somewhat dubious.

One could claim that the ease of being able to view digital art online spreads degeneracy but there are examples of pre-internet sexual furry drawings to differ. If anything all the internet did was move something that was underground into the spotlight where people could view it publicly.
 
Watcher said:
The issue I have with this is cost. Most artists when they start drawing are very young and an entry level tablet generally costs 75$. With a good one ranging from 100-300$. Not including software. That and the cost associated with pencils is generally much cheaper and most people are taught art in school using them. The majority of digital artists I've talked to started as traditional artists for years until they saved up money to get a tablet. It's why I've found the logic that ease of use of digital art spreading degeneracy as somewhat dubious.

One could claim that the ease of being able to view digital art online spreads degeneracy but there are examples of pre-internet sexual furry drawings to differ. If anything all the internet did was move something that was underground into the spotlight where people could view it publicly.
Click to expand...
I don't think cost is so big a concern. The software is either easily pirated or there is a freeware equivalent, and mouse/keyboard can do much the same stuff as tablet with a minimal investment of research and practice.
 
Can't wait for technology to collapse, physical copies of art books were scrapped in favor of digital, and we're back at square one scratching buffalo pictures on stones.
 
Well as we have seen from this video
Doesn't matter if it is digital or not some degenerate will make and post their shit publically for everyone to see
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Watcher
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back