rosesred
I remember seeing a completely pixeled tarot somewhere. It was tiny, about 10 pixels by 5 or something. I checked my links, can't find it anymore, but I'm sure it exists.
pixeled tarot
cirom
madmoiselle said:
Personally I have to disagree.
Our ancestors dipped their hands in blood or dye and left their imprint on a cave wall,
A quill dipped in ink on parchment.
A piece of charcoal on paper.
A pencil on Paper,
A stylus engraved on metal or cut into wood.
A brush dipped in paint onto canvas...
A computer generating an image by creating pixels in response to the controlled movement of a mouse or digital pen.
In each case the image was "created' by the person manipulating the tool in question. Why would one be less valid or have less 'energy' than another.
If and when the the computer keyboard comes with an additional key that says "CREATE" or "IMAGINATION" then that might be a different story.
(Having said that I personally do have an issue with simply scanning in photos and applying special filters such as watercolor or oil, and palming them off as if they were actual paintings, so I guess Pandora's digital box has been opened).
mysticmonkey
I love the idea of a pixelated deck! This kind of goes along with an idea I had today for my own 22 or 78 card deck. Not pixelated but video game related.
I also love how the 8-bit deck is coming along. I'd definately buy that if it went into print. My inner geek demands it.
I also love how the 8-bit deck is coming along. I'd definately buy that if it went into print. My inner geek demands it.
madmoiselle
cirom - I see what you're saying, but it still does feel odd to me. Thanks for your thoughts.
thinbuddha
cirom said:
Well, as a digital artist, I have to disagree.
Certainly, a digital artist is capable of producing a work that is just as strong as, say, a painting. After all, a computer is just a tool like a paint brush. In the hands of a master, art of the highest caliber can be created in digital form.
But the fact is that what is created on a computer, by the very nature of it, can be duplicated- that collection of 0's and 1's can be cloned, and anyone with the proper equipment can have exactly the same experience- there really is nobody that cares if it is the original hard drive that a piece was first saved on, because that piece can be transfered (with no loss in quality) to any other disc.
But a painting or a drawing is another matter entirely. There can only ever be the *one* painting. Even the artist himself can never quite replicate it on another day.
So, I would say that if you are making a personal one of a kind deck, it will have more power if your hand actually places pen to paper (assuming that you end up using the actual drawings *not copies* as your cards). If you are going to scan them into a computer and print them on your printer anyway, then there is no difference between the hand drawings and the computer illustrations (beyond the obvious differences that arise due to using a different medium). If you are going to mass produce the deck, then there is no difference. But if you are turly making a one of a kind deck, it steals from the uniqueness and the power of that deck if you can easily replace it (or duplicate it) by simply pushing the print button.
cirom
Yes and No.....
I would still propose that the same initial creative energy exists wether it manifests itself by pushing a mouse or a paint filled brush. So my response was based on that, and defending the artistic merits of the digital media compared to others. My opinion is that in the strictly creative sense the computer is merely another tool as you also noted.
As to the value of a one off deck, namely "a true original" one that would be produced by actually painting, drawing or whatever on the actual final pieces of card, then most certainly the uniqueness of that without question would be the more valuable. But once again that does'nt equate to diminishing the merit of the actual creative process...surely?
As for the abilty of the digital medium to be reproduced faithfully and with ease. Once again that is a seperate criterea to the creative process.
Reproduction is an integral part of many art forms from music to literature, and most certainly tarot. Every deck you are likely to have in your collection (apart from a 'unique' one you literally might of have drawn yourself) is also a reproduction. The fact that you can reproduce multiple copies from an original digital file is no different in concept to the multiple reproduction possible from other mediums. Using your beloved Marseilles decks for example. I'm sure that the creative energy that is questioned in this thread certainly went into the initial woodcuts, and is'nt diminished because multiple copies of those images were reproduced onto cards. (accepting of course that those original woodcuts would be worth a king's ransom)
To be honest I feel that the reason people question the intergrity of digital art is because they don't fully understand it , and this is'nt a put down of any members here, as its a dilema thats causes confusion in other art circles as well. For example the juries of the art festivals I participate in have a mixed reaction, with some (mainly the older ones) being particularly reluctant to accept it. They assume its just punching in keys and typing instructions and viola!!!. But when they realize that some digital art is produced in a quite traditional way Namely holding a pen (digital) in your hand and actually producing the lines, shape, texture etc etc, they warm up to idea.
I would still propose that the same initial creative energy exists wether it manifests itself by pushing a mouse or a paint filled brush. So my response was based on that, and defending the artistic merits of the digital media compared to others. My opinion is that in the strictly creative sense the computer is merely another tool as you also noted.
As to the value of a one off deck, namely "a true original" one that would be produced by actually painting, drawing or whatever on the actual final pieces of card, then most certainly the uniqueness of that without question would be the more valuable. But once again that does'nt equate to diminishing the merit of the actual creative process...surely?
As for the abilty of the digital medium to be reproduced faithfully and with ease. Once again that is a seperate criterea to the creative process.
Reproduction is an integral part of many art forms from music to literature, and most certainly tarot. Every deck you are likely to have in your collection (apart from a 'unique' one you literally might of have drawn yourself) is also a reproduction. The fact that you can reproduce multiple copies from an original digital file is no different in concept to the multiple reproduction possible from other mediums. Using your beloved Marseilles decks for example. I'm sure that the creative energy that is questioned in this thread certainly went into the initial woodcuts, and is'nt diminished because multiple copies of those images were reproduced onto cards. (accepting of course that those original woodcuts would be worth a king's ransom)
To be honest I feel that the reason people question the intergrity of digital art is because they don't fully understand it , and this is'nt a put down of any members here, as its a dilema thats causes confusion in other art circles as well. For example the juries of the art festivals I participate in have a mixed reaction, with some (mainly the older ones) being particularly reluctant to accept it. They assume its just punching in keys and typing instructions and viola!!!. But when they realize that some digital art is produced in a quite traditional way Namely holding a pen (digital) in your hand and actually producing the lines, shape, texture etc etc, they warm up to idea.
thinbuddha
cirom said:
I think that we (you and I, at least) are prettymuch in agreement. And yes- anyone who feels that making a digital painting can be done by everyone who knows how to use Microsoft Word obviously hasn't spent much time creating art with computers.
This is something that I have been putting a lot of thought into lately, because I've wanted to make a deck for myself. I am far more comfortable using digital tools to create pictures- yet I am leaning towards making it all "by hand" for the reasons that I've given above. I may yet lean back towards the digital path (or I may abandon the idea alltogether) but.... well.... there is something about being able to hand down a hand made deck that really seems more magical than handing down 78 printouts and a bunch of digital files. It might be that I have the same traditional bias, even though I make digital art? The bias might even come from the fact that I've never been able to draw to my satisfaction (which begs the question: how will thinbuddha make a deck by hand? A:learn to draw to his satisfaction)
-tb
Indy1725
Hm. not to dredge up this old topic or anything, but really any modern printed Tarot deck will have gone through a computer at some point. Even if the original artwork was drawn on paper, with pen or pencil, or paint, or whatever, it will have had to be scanned into a computer and manipulated in order to print it.
And even a letter-pressed deck will still not be anything more than a piece of paper with an image that was transferred from a block of wood, metal, or linoleum. It may have some of the 'energy' of the artist, but that energy still had to be translated through the machinery of the press.
And even a hand-drawn deck has a drawing implement (a pen, pencil, brush...) acting as a translating device for the artist's hand. Unless you're going to insist on finger-painting your own personal deck, you have to realize that there will always be some tool the artist had to use to communicate their idea down to paper.
And even a letter-pressed deck will still not be anything more than a piece of paper with an image that was transferred from a block of wood, metal, or linoleum. It may have some of the 'energy' of the artist, but that energy still had to be translated through the machinery of the press.
And even a hand-drawn deck has a drawing implement (a pen, pencil, brush...) acting as a translating device for the artist's hand. Unless you're going to insist on finger-painting your own personal deck, you have to realize that there will always be some tool the artist had to use to communicate their idea down to paper.
Honda Civic
Indy1725 said:
This looks awesome! I'm eager to see how some more of my favorites turn out. Will keep watching.
