"Real" Art or "Fake?"

[Barleywine]

Unfortunately I have to agree that most Tarot decks using this medium do not represent it in its best light. (and you are free to include me in that list)

Don't sell yourself short. I for one find your work masterful . . . but mainly as an artist and a collector, not a reader. Many of the images are evocative and compelling as both art and inspiration for reading, others . . . not so much (at least in the "inspiration" department). For some strange and puzzling reason I don't connect at all with most of the court cards. Maybe it's a bit of the "medium-is-the-message" dichotomy I mentioned earlier, and a bit of the interpretive dilemma that the court cards in ANY deck present. Anyway, I own one of your decks and will undoubtedly own more down the road. I'll be interested to see where you take it as the techniques mature. For what it's worth, I think I'd like to see a bit more "grit" and a bit less "polish."

 

[gregory]

I like yours, Cirom. I even like your Lenormand - and you know I don't do those .

But then there are things like Deck of Heroes.... As you say - they give CGI a DREADFUL name One can kind of understand where others get the idea that all CGI is rubbish. I know a few people here who didn't KNOW your work was in any way in that category (CGI.) That says a lot. If people can't even tell...

 

[Ferendial]

I have to say, I do enjoy CGI when it's done well. I do however think it looks pretty tacky when photography is used, but maybe I just haven't seen a deck that used photography that well.

 

[cirom]

Anyway, thanks for engaging with us on this issue, Ciro. By the way, are you the artist behind the three examples you posted?

The Keith Richards image is mine and used as to demonstrate that not all CGI faces are smooth. Keith bless him serves that example perfectly.

The other two are not mine, but relevant examples. The sword man, of traditional feel and texture for want of a better expression, and the portrait as just a scary example of how real it can be. To be honest while I really admire the discipline and technical execution of the portrait sample, that degree of realism isn't my thing. I don't believe the artists behind them are offering them as "art' either, such images are really aimed at their peers and shown principally in forums and web sites dedicated to digital art.

I have found this thread an interesting one, and I hope my comments are received as intended, not as defense of either my work or anyone else in particular, but to genuinely clarify common misconceptions. I have always admitted that this medium allows me to create images that i would otherwise not have the ability to do, but I don't consider that diminishes the end result, just as a Renaissance artist using a camera oscura pin hole to then trace the inverses projected image of the posing model. Or the Dutch school of realism taking advantage of the recently developed lenses and optics of the day. Its a question of embracing the technical options available to achieve the same end result of story telling. What CGI does provide however and arguably more than other medium, is an incredibly flexible tool for creative expression and experimentation. It also provides that wonderful option called "undo" when something doesn't work out as you like.... a bit like an eraser on the end of "traditional" pencil

 

[ilweran]

Just look at any Saturday morning cartoon (in the US at any rate) or anime feature: there is virtually no fluidity to the motion of the characters. It's enough to make Chuck Jones weep.

The reason for that is that they want to churn them out as quickly and cheaply as possible. Really good quality computer animation is expensive. Poor quality, shoddy animation is cheap. Just like hand drawn animation!

I think for me when it comes to tarot art the term CGI covers too much. There are so many different styles and techniques I don't see how I could make a blanket statement of I like CGI or I dislike CGI.

ETA: didn't notice that there were six pages of posts, have now read through them and then went a looked through my favourites on DeviantArt for examples of digital art I like that shows some of the variety of digital art - and the flexibility in how it can be used in combination with traditional techniques.

muttiy uses watercolours, but has some digital art and some combine watercolour and photoshop.

zdrava uses text to create images.

Odin by dislodge, and this was a speedpaint!

This by transfuse is a detail from here and I think it's beautiful. One of my favourite images of Samus from the Metroid games.

 

[gregory]

I have found this thread an interesting one, and I hope my comments are received as intended, not as defense of either my work or anyone else in particular, but to genuinely clarify common misconceptions.

Indeed they are - by me anyway.

I wish more of them were taken that way instead of being perceived as some kind of marketing ! You know a lot about process and so on and it is seriously useful info.

 

[Debra]

With all due respect Debra the links you provide show the poorest and simplest versions of the medium in order to make a point.

I posted those to illustrate the "uncanny valley," which is painfully obvious in those kinds of poser images. I wasn't talking about your kind of art at all.

 

[cirom]

You're right, the links you provided do illustrate the "uncanny valley" concept quite well, and certainly explains some of discomfort some people feel. But nevertheless they do so in part because they are as I said samples of the poorest quality of CGI, and as such they reinforce why the medium is unfairly perceived (or misunderstood) by several members. My point is the "uncanny valley" association would be far less "painfully obvious", when the quality and style of the imagery is better. I felt it was relevant to at least demonstrate the possibility of that as part of the wider conversation.

 

[The crowned one]

You're right, the links you provided do illustrate the "uncanny valley" concept quite well, and certainly explains some of discomfort some people feel. But nevertheless they do so in part because they are as I said samples of the poorest quality of CGI, and as such they reinforce why the medium is unfairly perceived (or misunderstood) by several members. My point is the "uncanny valley" association would be far less "painfully obvious", when the quality and style of the imagery is better. I felt it was relevant to at least demonstrate the possibility of that as part of the wider conversation.

Exactly,

I can draw with a pencil a stick-man, is that better then CGI? Its the artist more then the medium to me. Good art is good art regardless of medium, bad is bad ( and often subjective)

 

[cirom]

I can't remember if I ever posted this link before. Its not a promotion, its not great 'art' its just a visual summary, a little demo that may help you associate the similarity between CGI painting and tradition media. Its several hours work compressed into a fast sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3QLfoWRjg&feature=g-upl