In present day with the ever increasing integration of technology
into everyday life, digital art is becoming more and more prevalent in
today's art scene. It seems that the art world, especial the new
generation of artists, are more inclined to using digital media to form
works of art, and traditional media seems like a foreign concept to
some. The big debate among some seems to be "which is better?"
What is Traditional and Digital?
First of all let's define what I mean by "traditional" and "digital." Traditional mediums include things such as, charcoal, pencil, paint, pastels, etc; applied to paper, canvas, or other surfaces. Digital mediums include the use of digital art programs such as, Photoshop, Paint tool Sai, gimp etc; along with the use of a usb/wireless drawing tablet or more expensive touch screen drawing tablets. Now that I've got that out of the way, let's talk pros and cons.
Pros and Cons
With digital media comes the ability to produce an infinite amount of copies, both tangible and intangible. However the, what I like to call, "original value" is nonexistent. This is the value of the original piece that you get with traditional pieces, which is often exponentially higher in price than that of prints of the original piece. However the options within digital media are almost infinite. Depending on the program you can imitate most traditional mediums. You can create what appears to be an oil painting with the use of a tablet and a computer. And all without the mess! However it is just an imitation of the original medium. There are things that you can accomplish with traditional media that is much harder, if not impossible to achieve on a digital canvas and vice versa.
Price
Now let's talk price. It's hard to say which method of art is more expensive. On the surface, it would appear that digital would be the cheaper of the two because it eliminates the need to continually replenish art supplies. However when you break it down, it doesn't seem as cheap. Though there are some programs that you can download free of charge, such as Gimp and Paint Tool Sai, the more "prestigious" programs can be pretty pricy. Photoshop programs can range anywhere from $50 to $200 plus. But then again, you should only have to purchase the program once. Tablets can also be pretty pricy, looking at Wacom drawing tablets, they range anywhere from $79.99 (Intuos Creative Small Pen Tablet) all the way up to $2,799.99 (Cintiq 27QHD Creative pen and touch display). Doesn't sound so cheap anymore does it?
But then again you can say also that "well you only have to spend that money once." However, with my experience and the experience of digital artists I know personally, that is not necessarily true. As we all know, technology does not last forever. The one drawing tablet that I have owned, with mild to moderate use, began to have technical difficulties within the first year. You could argue "well that could have just been the model and brand," however digital artists that I know have had similar experiences with tablets of different models and brands. I know one artist who has gone through 4 tablets in the last 4 years. Though these tablets are also considered to be on the lower price range of tablets, they still had to be replaced. Though the higher level tablets may not need replacing as often, they still may eventually need replacing or need maintenance. So is it really cheaper in the long run?
Profit
Let's look at the profit side of things. Looking at some digital artist's commission prices, digital works can have an infinite range of prices depending on the artist and their popularity, as well as other factors that include time taken to complete the piece. However, unfortunately digital artists often find it hard to charge higher prices on pieces due to the fact that people are less willing to pay more for them. This, I believe, is attributed to the fact that no physical mediums were required to complete the piece. Also, as I brought up earlier, you lose the ability to charge more for the "original" because all file copies or physical copies made are exactly the same. A traditional artist is more likely to make $1,000 on a piece than that of a digital artist selling a piece. There are also many problems within the digital art community with art theft, which is caused by the ease of ability to copy a piece from anywhere online. Unfortunately, there are few modern day laws that protect digital artists from this. It's much harder to steal a physical original piece.
It is hard to say which method of art is "better." In my opinion, neither is better than the other. Each has its good qualities and bad qualities, and the idea of which is superior is up for your interpretation.
What is Traditional and Digital?
First of all let's define what I mean by "traditional" and "digital." Traditional mediums include things such as, charcoal, pencil, paint, pastels, etc; applied to paper, canvas, or other surfaces. Digital mediums include the use of digital art programs such as, Photoshop, Paint tool Sai, gimp etc; along with the use of a usb/wireless drawing tablet or more expensive touch screen drawing tablets. Now that I've got that out of the way, let's talk pros and cons.
Pros and Cons
With digital media comes the ability to produce an infinite amount of copies, both tangible and intangible. However the, what I like to call, "original value" is nonexistent. This is the value of the original piece that you get with traditional pieces, which is often exponentially higher in price than that of prints of the original piece. However the options within digital media are almost infinite. Depending on the program you can imitate most traditional mediums. You can create what appears to be an oil painting with the use of a tablet and a computer. And all without the mess! However it is just an imitation of the original medium. There are things that you can accomplish with traditional media that is much harder, if not impossible to achieve on a digital canvas and vice versa.
Price
Now let's talk price. It's hard to say which method of art is more expensive. On the surface, it would appear that digital would be the cheaper of the two because it eliminates the need to continually replenish art supplies. However when you break it down, it doesn't seem as cheap. Though there are some programs that you can download free of charge, such as Gimp and Paint Tool Sai, the more "prestigious" programs can be pretty pricy. Photoshop programs can range anywhere from $50 to $200 plus. But then again, you should only have to purchase the program once. Tablets can also be pretty pricy, looking at Wacom drawing tablets, they range anywhere from $79.99 (Intuos Creative Small Pen Tablet) all the way up to $2,799.99 (Cintiq 27QHD Creative pen and touch display). Doesn't sound so cheap anymore does it?
But then again you can say also that "well you only have to spend that money once." However, with my experience and the experience of digital artists I know personally, that is not necessarily true. As we all know, technology does not last forever. The one drawing tablet that I have owned, with mild to moderate use, began to have technical difficulties within the first year. You could argue "well that could have just been the model and brand," however digital artists that I know have had similar experiences with tablets of different models and brands. I know one artist who has gone through 4 tablets in the last 4 years. Though these tablets are also considered to be on the lower price range of tablets, they still had to be replaced. Though the higher level tablets may not need replacing as often, they still may eventually need replacing or need maintenance. So is it really cheaper in the long run?
Profit
Let's look at the profit side of things. Looking at some digital artist's commission prices, digital works can have an infinite range of prices depending on the artist and their popularity, as well as other factors that include time taken to complete the piece. However, unfortunately digital artists often find it hard to charge higher prices on pieces due to the fact that people are less willing to pay more for them. This, I believe, is attributed to the fact that no physical mediums were required to complete the piece. Also, as I brought up earlier, you lose the ability to charge more for the "original" because all file copies or physical copies made are exactly the same. A traditional artist is more likely to make $1,000 on a piece than that of a digital artist selling a piece. There are also many problems within the digital art community with art theft, which is caused by the ease of ability to copy a piece from anywhere online. Unfortunately, there are few modern day laws that protect digital artists from this. It's much harder to steal a physical original piece.
It is hard to say which method of art is "better." In my opinion, neither is better than the other. Each has its good qualities and bad qualities, and the idea of which is superior is up for your interpretation.
