Can we really say with confidence that the computer will only be a silent partner? Can’t some visionary artist create an illustration form that is unprecedented? Or is illustration an antiquated art that defies change and so will vanish? Film is an integral storytelling medium that bears no relationship to painting. Can the computer be an integral medium that changes the way we perceive and practice illustration?”
Steven Heller, 2000
This research point deals with the distinction between digital and non-digital illustration.
It's amazing to think the quote above is now over twenty years old. This exercise itself seems almost wildly out of date. The link to Computer Arts magazine is defunct, the magazine having closed up shop in 2020 [1]. There is a certain irony in a magazine specialising in digital arts falling prey to the decline of a physical medium.
Digital art, however, is far from dead. Its prevalence in media has grown so much that there are still magazines covering digital media, but now they have diverged and specified. There are magazines for 3D art/software, digital animation etc. I have subscribed to Imagine FX Magazine for a number of years now. It has a focus on art in the entertainment industries (TV, movies, games etc.) and the majority of the work that is featured is produced digitally. However, it still ensures to have a section of the magazine dedicated to 'traditional' methods which exposes that traditional media and techniques still have a place, strengths and techniques - many of which will still translate back to the digital space.
I think in the entertainment industries digital has become standardised given its speed, editability, and ease of communication across large projects and organisations. What's interesting in Imagine FX are the sections dedicated to showcasing the sketchbooks of different artists. There is so much diversity in how artists sketch each month, and the magazine doesn't care if it is done traditionally or digitally. It just cares about showcasing the artists' sketches and thought processes. In a way, digital art has democratised creativty, taking away the stigma and fear of drawing by allowing people to express themselves in the most comfortable way for them.
There is a disturbing trend in this democratisation, however, in the emergence of generative AI models. There is a positive aspect of allowing people who have ideas to express them in a realised way quickly and efficiently. However, the models have been built using the artwork of artists who have collectively put hundreds if not thousands of years into not only creating but investing in how to create them, make choices, and synthesise styles based on inspiration, influence and skill. All of this is done without permission or recompense.
People are being given power to create images that become increasingly homogenous, as the models spit out more images that are self-referential. They get all of the power without any of the effort, and with that comes a sense of entitlement that devalues good design, illustration and art. They see only the benefits without understanding the risks or the impact on lives and creativity. There is no sense of responsibility.
Traditional vs. Digital - how they present themselves.
When digital art emerged, it was very clearly 'digital'. Stylistically there was a clear separation between the two approaches. As the years and technologies have advanced, however, many of the lines have blurred. We are creating art that synthesises the traditional and digital worlds, and digital art itself has evolved so that you can make art in many different styles. Many of those can effectively emulate the appearance of traditional media should they wish.
When I did my series of portraits for Visual Exploration I used a software package called Rebelle, which I love because it allows me to really get the feel of traditional media in a digital space. It even replicates impasto effects, so the image looks like a photograph of a painting, with all the nuances of lights playing off of the surface of the canvas.
In a previous exercise, I explored the work of Johan Egerkrans, whose illustrations are largely completed digitally in Adobe Photoshop. When you look at them however, it's easy to believe that they have been created using watercolour, ink and pencil.
This is the kind of place I would like to get to: I enjoy working partially traditionally, but I also feel more proficient when working digitally. I also find working digitally frustrating at times, and I would know how to achieve certain effects if I were using something physical, but to achieve it digitally there seem to be many different approaches, and none of them are obvious to me. Despite the number of tutorials and guides that exist for digital art, there does not seem to be a middle ground where people take you through these techniques step by step. It's either overly simple beginner's guides, or time-lapses of digital illustrations that might give you glimpses into their approach, but no insight into what (or why) they did with the tool to achieve the effect they were after.
I think my own practice is moving into a space where I will move and integrate between the digital and traditional space. The tools at my disposal allow me to do that pretty seamlessly now, and that gives me more of an opportunity to try and create a look and feel that is distinctive to me. I feel that's going to be an important thing if my illustration practice has any chance of getting off the ground in the age of generative AI.
References
Dennis, T. (ed.) (2020) ‘Today marks the sale of the last issue of Computer Arts...’, Instagram. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/B_XHwDEhjNb/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (Accessed: 03 October 2024).
Egerkrans, J. (2021) JORMUNGANDR - The Midgard Serpent, Johan Egerkrans. Available at: https://www.johanegerkrans.com/cdn/shop/products/jormungandrA3copy_540x.jpg?v=1666362664 (Accessed: 03 October 2024).
Comments