A friend and I were talking about how amazing it would be if the old masters (Davinci, Van gogh, Klimt, etc.) had digital tools at their disposal. If they would use them, do you think their art would be better than what they had done? (Excluding sculpting, etc.) Granted we can never really know, or ask the dead what they think. I do know we have some artists here who (to me) seem more traditional and physically inclined with art and transfer that skill to digital. If any of you would care to comment on the shift from traditional to digital Id love to read it.

Just food for thought.

I think i would still prefer their traditional works. Digital is overdone and overrated.

well, if you believe in reincarnation among humans...

Youre blowing my mind man.

I prefer (<spell this word?) doing my art traditional, it´s more satisfying i think to do something with your own hands as to just click and drag.

hi, im on my lunch break so can't really give the answer i want to give. But consider why you're calling them "old masters". Someone like leonardo was v intelligent and put his hand to many things, as well as starting debates on design/colour in art, but also he did perfect some new techniques (sfumato, chiariscuro - i can't really spell). Even someone like michelangelo - he showed incredible attention to detail and his early sculptures are fantastic, but he, you could argue, (and raphael) are only so famous (referred to as masters) because of their lucky breaks. What i mean is, they had friends in high places and eventually worked for the church, the vatican, and the result is their legendary status.
Skipping a few hundred years to klimt or van gogh, or even better - constable or monet. They got their fame through creating a new movement (slightly anti-academic) but the reason for this was the age of new materials, namely the portable oil paint. So turner and monet etc etc could paint outdoors and created quick, rough "impressions" which was against what was expected from a romantiscist point of view (popular at the time).
If for example i point out neoclassicism - their paintings have a very high finish (similar perhaps to the photo-realism you and i know) but if someones picture was more "photo realistic" it wasn't better (as is the case now often). hmm i don't really know where im going with this paragraph.
To try and answer you question, i dont think the "masters" would be any more or less brilliant than some the talent that we already have on this site. If you'd like to say Michelangelo was great because everyone after him aspired to his level of detail of the human form, then how different is it to talk about some of the great works here the rest of us aspire to.

Sorry for the waffley reply, but i'll probably come back to this later. It's a nice question, lets see what ppl think.

Thank you frootcake. I really appreciate the response a lot. You made me realize the error in my words too. Even if they did use digital tools their traditional works would still be stunning. No one can take away from that. What I really want to say is, do you think their work would progress more with these recent tools in their hands? Considering theres a lot of extra ability and ease that comes with digital mediums. Plus the fact that its a whole new branch on the art tree.

I think technology has a long way to go, and we've barely scratched surface on ability.
One of the main things to look at is the ability for us to create animated/organic art with digital media, something that doesn't even relate to what was done before. For example, I will put forth that my wind painter is a piece of artwork even if it doesn't follow the traditional approach to things.
The fact that most digital drawing programs attempt to mimic traditional media goes to show that they really aren't that much different than their traditional components. I think if those artists were alive today, they wouldn't be wasting their time with recreating old media, but rather they would be looking at media. For example, the ability to sculpt in 3d with a computer is a concept that starts to get away from traditional art techniques. Sure you can sculpt in 3d, but there are many limitations by physical media that are not imposed in 3d computer graphics.

Well, that's just one way of looking at it, anyway.

thats a sweet comment marcello, i like the program too.
However, i refuse to say that is art. I don't have a theory on what art is like tolstoy etc but i'm more inclined to traditional paint and canvas figure drawing or telling a story. I'm not a fan of the ideology that supports some modern art movements, and i don't see computer programming as a form of art.
i do like the concept of a new art form that tends towards 3d sculpting, which i guess contradicts what i said above since i bet this is what has always happened and its only in hindsight that you can say "that art is not as good". hmm i have began to waffle.

ok to sum up - something some1 has rendered on a computer (in my sincerest opinion) will never require the genius that traditional artists have had to require. hmm :/

Computer programming is no less a form art than writing, music, or cars are. In fact, many of the people who use processing (the program I used to make that piece) are artists, not programmers.

I would agree that 3d computer art doesn't not require the genius of traditional artists, it actually requires many magnitudes more. creating good 3d art is very difficult, and there are results that incredible. They are results that require a very artistic mind, much planning and sketching out before hand, and a lot of patience. I hope that some day that the technical limitations and requirements of 3d art come down so that more people can experiment with it.

i think what was referring to is fine art - so not including writing,music, plays etc.
and to be honest, i have never seen this 3d art you talk of

Marcello: Youre right about how most digital tools only mimic and further current ones, with some added ability/ease. Great point to make. Thats what I wanted to say in addition to what digital tools bring. Id have to say that digital 3d art is just that.
Ive been over my friends house and wtach him make 3d models for class. Thers a heeluva a lot to it. As Marcello said, it does take an artistic eye for it, also a very technical one. You really have to understand what it is youre creating, if not even very minute flaws become apparent. A LOT of patience is required!

I really appreciate both of your comments and contributions. I look forward to more.

I think making a sculpture in 3D would be rather bland, many people can do that these days. Making a real sculpture takes much skill.

you're missing the point. I said absolutely nothing about using 3d tools to make sculpture, it's so much more than that.

Well... i don't read the whole thread. So ha.

very few people seem to do that these days anyway. it's all about making sure your voice is heard, even if you don't bother to help out with the "hearing" part.

this digital art you both talk about sounds almost too technical for my liking. Since visiting Italy, i sort of decided i prefer sculpture to painting. It just seems so much more expressive. You can ask many more questions about how and why it was made, but also they are much more beautiful to just stare at. I've never experienced that from a computer.
Its like a photo of a beautiful car/woman/building never recreates the sense of seeing or being able to touch something "in real life".

sorry zack, i didn't really understand your comment, and im sorry cello for pressing the 3d sculpting thing.

zack was referring to hunterkiller.

AN artist is a creature of limits.
Each type of media has it's limits, be it digital or traditional.

1st and foremost an artist is limited by his/her imagination.
With each media you learn new limits can be reached.
But with each media you can pick up things that will limit you with other media.

O.O I made words!!!!!!

it's all about making sure your voice is heard, even if you don't bother to help out with the "hearing" part.

That's what makes the internetz go 'round. =)

So ha.

Ignorance is bliss.