Patrick Lawrence wrote:
But a computer can give imperfections if that's what it's designed to do. As a matter of fact that's basically what I have been working on in my small way. I am trying to get down a method that duplicates the things I like from paintings in oils.
But a computer can give imperfections if that's what it's designed to do. As a matter of fact that's basically what I have been working on in my small way. I am trying to get down a method that duplicates the things I like from paintings in oils.
Patrick,
The 'imperfections' I have in mind here aren't imperfections when considered from the point of view of the artist's expressive intention. What imperfection means in this case is nuance or subtlety. A stick of charcoal or a chisel actually gives the artist more control - not less - over their medium than a mouse, a digital tablet, or even a laser scanner and a 3D modelling programme and a whole boutique of Adobe applications.
The problem with digital tools isn't that they are too precise, too accurate, too perfect, but they are not supple and responsive enough to the artist or the craftsman's needs. They're improving every year, and they may get there some day. Until they can create a simulated paint brush that captures every single stroke of each separate bristle, I don't see how a computer can compete with mechanical tools in realising the artist's intention.
'Fine art' also means finesse or fineness of touch.
regards,
Iian
