2003 DIGITAL ART TO PAINTING CONSIDERATIONS

 

PYGOYA DIGITALS TO OILS

 

IN MUCH OF MY NEW DIGITAL ART, TEXTURE IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE DIGITAL IMAGE IS SIMULATED TO LOOK LIKE IT IS ART ON A CANVAS GROUND. THE LAYERED CANVAS WEAVE FIBER PATTERN IS IMPORTANT IS MAKING THE EYE SEE AND THINK OF CANVAS BASED PAINTING, NOT DIGITAL LIGHT IMAGING.

IN PRODUCING A REAL PAINTING FROM THE ORIGINAL DIGITAL DESIGN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT LOSE THE CANVAS PATTERN AND FEELING OF TEXTURE UNDER THE PAINT.

THE PERFECT REPRODUCTION WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY PAINT BY HAND THE CANVAS FIBER PATTERN. IF A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DIGITAL IMAGE AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PAINTED REPRODUCTION ARE INSPECTED SIDE BY SIDE, THE PERFECT PAINTING CANNOT BE CHOSEN FROM THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY WOULD LOOK EXACTLY ALIKE!

NOW IF PAINTING THE CANVAS PATTERN IS TOO DIFFICULT, THEN MAYBE THE NEXT BEST SOLUTION, TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL DIGITAL ART LOOK OF SIMULATED OR ARTIFICIAL CANVAS, IS TO USE EXTRA ROUGH OR COARSE CANVAS MATERIAL. OR MAYBE USE UNPRIMED CANVAS TO MAINTAIN ROUGH CANVAS TEXTURE. OR MAYBE ALSO PAINT IN THIN LAYERS, NOT THICK PAINT THAT WOULD BLOCK OUT THE UNDERLYING CANVAS TEXTURE.

MY DIGITAL PAINTING SIMULATIONS ALSO HAVE PROGRAM APPLIED SIMULATION OF BRUSH STROKES AND THICKER EDGES OF PAINT OF THE ARTIFICIAL BRUSH STROKES. IN REPRODUCTION OF THE IMAGE, THE REAL BRUSH MUST ALSO HAVE THICKER EDGES OF PAINT FROM THE BRUSH, COPYING EXACTLYH THE DIGITAL BRUSH STROKE AND UNEVEN PAINT LAYERING OR DISTRIBUTION OFF THE BRUSH.

THE PAINTER MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF THE LIGHTING SIMULATION OF THE SURFACE OF THE DIGITAL SIMULATED PAINTING. SOMETIMES IT WILL APPEAR LIKE THE LIGHT IS SHINING ON THE DIGITAL PAINT SURFACE FROM THE SIDE, TOP, OR EVEN FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE.

SO, IN SUMMARY, EXTREME FAITHFULNESS IN REPRODUCTION OF THE DIGITAL INTO A REAL PAINTING MUST HAVE DILIGANT COPYING OF ALL THESE SIMULATED PAINTERLY EFFECTS, SO IMPORTANT TO PYGOYA CYBERART.

 

INSPECTION OF FIRST SAMPLE PAINTING OF ARTISANS FOLLOWING ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS:

 

MAY 25, 2003

 

DAZED OVER THE BEAUTIFUL "COPY, REPRODUCTION,  HUMAN PAINT OUT II (DID PAINTOUTS I SERIES 1985-`97)!  WITH SUCH QUALITY, NO MORE CONTROVERSY WHEN I SHOW ORIGINAL OILS WHETHER FINE ART OBJECT OR NOT, BUT SUBSEQUENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT WHO IS THE ARTIST, NOW NOT THE COMPUTER OR THE USER BUT NOW  WHETHER THE PAINTER OR THE DIGITAL DESIGNER. 

 BUT IT'S MERELY ACADEMIC, A PROBLEM OF THE ART WORLD THAT LABELS FOR PRICING AND GIVES OFFICIAL RECOGNITION TO THE MAKERS.  BUT I BELIEVE THAT  IN THE BUSINESS WORLD ALL THEY WILL DESIRE AND PAY FOR WITH BIG MONEY IS THE OBJECT, THE BIG IMPRESSIVE AND SENSUAL OBJECT. ONCE SUCH IS ACQUIRED IT ADDS TO THE COMPANY'S OWN IMAGE OF POWER AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF PATRONAGE AND  ACCULTURATION INTO CONTEMPORARY TECH CULTURE.

AND IMAGINE, AS THE BEATLES SANG, A LEGION OF CLONED IMAGES FROM SUCH MADE BY HAND PAINTINGS, BORN FROM DIGITAL PARENTAGE, AS NICELY SELLING PRINTS (EPSONS OR GICLEES), 2ND GENERATION (FROM THE PAINTED RENDITION BUT NOT THE ORIGNAL DIGITAL FILE) THAT FURTHER BLUR THE DISTINCTION, THE BOUNDARY, BETWEEN THE DIGITAL ART AND TRADITIONAL ART, BY SUBSTITUTION THE PAINTBRUSH FOR THE PIXEL. 

FOR THOSE SO COMPELLED, SQUINT AS THEY MUST, THEY WILL SCATCH THEIR HEADS IN CONFUSION AS THEY TRY TO DISCERN THE PIXEL, AWARE THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING PAINTERLY YET ODDLY  COMPUTER-ISH.  STILL DISTURBED BY UNRESOLVED CURIOSITY, THEY, AFTER CLOSE OBSERVATION, ARE COMPELLED TO STEP BACK ONCE AGAIN AND MERELY ENJOY "SEEING" TRUELY NEW (AND THEREBY HISTORIC) WORKS OF ART, NO MATTER WHERE THEY CAME FROM OR  "WHO DUN IT."