This isn't art, this is the magic of Photoshop

[Girl Friday]

that's awesome.

 

[Lady Day]

I make my Christmas cards

I generally do an edition via relief print. Im a printmaking junkie.

Here are some of my edition I did at home. Its a Deco inspired design I did on my kitchen table. No 3 ton press was available to me lol

LD

 

[Lady Day]

Super charming, Stovall

LD

 

[J. M. Stovall]

We used to print them out ourselves at home, but it's much easier to send it out when you need 100 printed, scored and folded.:eusa_doh: It's hard enough to put a little message and address them.

I'll just stick to the art.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Those are all really nice. I never was able to draw much. There was one cartoon character I made but the piece of paper is lost forever. In 11th grade in high school, before I started using photoshop, I used Paint. A lot of things I use on Photoshop, I used on Paint. Well, in my web design class I would make these very disturbing cartoons out of clip art using paint. They are all gone except for one that was thankfully printed out. I won't post it, but it is of a young girl with psychotic eyes running a blade through a dog. Yes, horrible. Everyone in the class thought these clip art cartoons were hilarious. I'm glad my teacher didn't send me to a therapist. lol

and I bet Mr. Quigley uses Goo on himself every day to achieve his unusual body structure.
Mr. Quigley, what is the secret to your abnormal looks?

Let's see some more Photoshop creations!

 

[Twitch]

I rather see a wiggly 56 Chevy than most of the horsecrap that passes as art.

 

[Retro Rob]

Daguerreotype to Photoshop

Hi everyone, 1st time here. Great site, had to add my 2 cents worth. I am a professional photographer. I have a studio in Gettysburg, Pa. specializing in forgotten photo processes, glass plates, tin types, 1940 WW1 WW2 and I even use digital and photoshop. I'm one of the few guys in the world making a living doing tintypes. With each photographic process from Daguerreotype in 1839 to digital, technology advanced to make the process easier or to add a new element to it (reprints, portability, 3D, color, motion, convience, etc,) with each change, the experts were usually the last to change because the quality wasn't there yet. Think about what pros were saying about digital 7-8 years ago. The same thing happened in the 1800s. People are threatened by change. Portrait Painters thought they would be out of business with the announcement of "Paintings by the Sun", many were. Some changed what they were doing, impressionism was born as a result of photography. My point is that with each change comes less dependence on technical skill, more on technology. In the late 1800s Eastman Kodak said "you press the button, we'll do the rest" Creative people will adapt, the new technology frees you of the technical skills needed, allowing you to be more creative, and allowing people who are not so skilled to take some pretty wonderful pictures. You should see the look on a high schoolers face when I pour emulation on a glass plate, while they photograph me doing it with their phone. Thanks, I looking forward to many late nights here, Retro Rob

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Well said.

Photoshop is not an enemy, just a misunderstanding. Even with technology one can be creative, without having to learn all the in's and out's of their project.

Now let's see some more Photoshop creations!

 

[Quigley Brown]

Here's a little one I made the other day....

[/IMG]

 

[WEEGEE]

MANRAY

Along with everything else i do as a full time photojournalist and

street photographer i have benn working on a series of diptychs.

The one below is a statement on early male influences titled "Man Ray".

My dad is in the top image (his name Ray tattooed on his arm when he served in the Marines) and Captain Kirk in the lower.

This began as a what to do with out take images i find in the course of my travels.

Its a minor use of photoshop to create the image combination which in days past would have been a bear to print in a traditional photographic darkroom.

 

[HadleyH]

Here's a little one I made the other day....

[/IMG]

Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love that

 

[Orgetorix]

Here's a little one I made the other day....

Quigley, will we ever get to see what you really look like? Who's the man behind the Photoshop brush?

 

[Naama]

There will always be a place for real art. The kind created on paper or canvas with actual paint and the artist's hands.
I like photoshop and the things I can do with it, but it is only another tool to me and will never replace what I can create with my own two hands.

So, in other words, you say that only paintings and drawings can be art?

Well.... I'm pretty much of a conceptualist, so I believe that an idea is more likely to be art then a drawing or painting, no matter how technical good something is. Theres a big difference between art and between skills.

Naama

 

[carebear]

So, in other words, you say that only paintings and drawings can be art?

Well.... I'm pretty much of a conceptualist, so I believe that an idea is more likely to be art then a drawing or painting, no matter how technical good something is. Theres a big difference between art and between skills.

Naama

Interesting point.

There's a guy who makes paintings by throwing paint into the jetwash of an airplane engine.

That's a clever idea, but are the resulting paintings "art"?

Not to my mind. There has to be human intentionality in the finished product. Not throwing paint to the winds and claiming it as your design.

So he, and a lot of conceptual artists in my view, get points for thinking the thing up, clever points. But it ain't "art", not like the product of someone who, through some sort of actual, intentional contact with the medium, makes something of nothing.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

So, in other words, you say that only paintings and drawings can be art?

Well.... I'm pretty much of a conceptualist, so I believe that an idea is more likely to be art then a drawing or painting, no matter how technical good something is. Theres a big difference between art and between skills.

Naama

I have millions of concepts,...but never enough time to actually make them a reality.
I just like to see things through to their concrete form, something I can frame or put in my portfolio, or give to someone else. I like the sense of accomplishment I get from taking lifeless raw materials like paint and panel,or a leather jacket, and bringing the concept to life. I could always print anything I did in Photoshop I suppose, if I felt it could stand on it's own as a complete project, and not just a rough sketch.
I am such a realist, as well as a surrealist.
I think it is because my main influences were from the golden age of illustration, like Maxfield Parrish, Kenyon Cox, and so many others.

 

[Naama]

I have millions of concepts,...but never enough time to actually make them a reality.
I just like to see things through to their concrete form, something I can frame or put in my portfolio, or give to someone else. I like the sense of accomplishment I get from taking lifeless raw materials like paint and panel,or a leather jacket, and bringing the concept to life. I could always print anything I did in Photoshop I suppose, if I felt it could stand on it's own as a complete project, and not just a rough sketch.
I am such a realist, as well as a surrealist.
I think it is because my main influences were from the golden age of illustration, like Maxfield Parrish, Kenyon Cox, and so many others.

Nah, I understand that the process of making those things is important to you, I'm also not that much of a conceptualist (does that makes sense) as to say that the concept of it's own should stand alone or, the result doesn't matter, as I also believe in aestheticism. But I also think that people like Marcel Duchamp, Yve Klein or Piero Manzoni are great artist's with great ideas.

So he, and a lot of conceptual artists in my view, get points for thinking the thing up, clever points. But it ain't "art", not like the product of someone who, through some sort of actual, intentional contact with the medium, makes something of nothing.

You know, the question, "What is art?" is a taff topic, and I guess, you can't find a clear answer to this, since so many things can be art. It's actually a pretty old question, and I wonder that people are still thinking like they did back in the 19th century.....

Naama

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

"Art is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent perspiration."
Don't know who said it, (someone from the 19th century? )but I heard it long ago and it just always made sense to me.

 

[carebear]

Nah, I understand that the process of making those things is important to you, I'm also not that much of a conceptualist (does that makes sense) as to say that the concept of it's own should stand alone or, the result doesn't matter, as I also believe in aestheticism. But I also think that people like Marcel Duchamp, Yve Klein or Piero Manzoni are great artist's with great ideas.



You know, the question, "What is art?" is a taff topic, and I guess, you can't find a clear answer to this, since so many things can be art. It's actually a pretty old question, and I wonder that people are still thinking like they did back in the 19th century.....

Naama

Naama,

Is it 19th Century thought or is it a cultural idea that "doing" is somehow better than just "thinking".

I think of all the coffee shop conversations by folks who say "I'd do this... or that" and yet never actually proceed to the actual doing. they show no gumption or strength of will.

So the jetwash guy is "better" in my view than the guy who may have thought the same thing, but never exerted the effort to try his idea.

But, in the end, the guy who can actually paint with his own hands in any medium, including computer, is better than the jetwash guy because any idiot can stand there and throw paint into jetwash and get the same end product.

The "art", if any, is solely in the idea, not the finished product. Yet the product is what is being sold, although I could train a monkey or program a robot to throw paint.

Inventors of concepts for stuff, or processes to make stuff, can get a patent and make those concepts their own legally. A similar procedure doesn't exist for art concepts. The ownership is solely in the finished product, and then only has value when made by the actual conceiver, not by a mimic of a technique that depends on randomness.

 

[Naama]

Nice. But I still belive, even if I don't make my hands dirty, I still can call myself an artist.

Naama

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Why do monkeys paint?

Chimps will paint, and paint ,and paint for hours upon hours,...going without food, sleep, everything for the sake of their art. We may not have a clue what it is that they are trying to say, but I think it would not matter to them. They do it for the pure joy of creating. This is also a part of the answer to the question, "What is art?"