I had a little flake of a revelation the other day when I read someone's annotate on Facebook saying: (Totally paraphrased, but this was the gist of it):

"Digital Art is not real art, and you're a fool for thinking so."

I was really peeved at first, after been training and studying digital art since I was fifteen (28 now). Calling dorsum to all the people I had to prove to, that I was actually painting and not merely touching up photos like everyone thought Photoshop was used for. I wanted to write this big whole paragraph upwardly, then I realized I was 28-years old and on Facebook, about to argue with a child who had never drawn in his life.

So I stopped and moved on. But as the week passed, the idea of this kept on hitting me. It reminded me of the teachers and older artists that would roll their optics at me whenever I brought upwards Photoshop in school, like I was this huge fake. It reminded me of comments on websites and blogs, bashing realistic paintings and so forth.

Merely then I realized that I had get that way against people that Photograph-Bashed, and everything kinda clicked. Only first, let's jump back.

My father was a traditional painter. You know how you remember specific moments in your life, and tin practically run into it? I call back my father showing me a massive oil painting he did, of this adult female, clad in fur-hibernate, holding a spear. It looked real to me. I was so impressed, and wanted to be just like my male parent.

Inspired to paint or draw like him ane 24-hour interval, I picked upwardly cartoon at around 3-4. I began with pencils, believe it or not. I know, all you guys have seen is much of my digital fine art, but don't worry, I actually practice describe with pencils and pens. I grew up on them, drawing on anything that I could. My gramps owned a print-store, and would deliver boxes of sketchbooks that I fill to the skirt in days.

As I grew up, I continued with pencils until 1 day I stumbled beyond this very exact image, by Justin Sweet.

Image past Justin Sugariness

I remember losing my mind over it, knowing correct there, this is what I wanted to practise for the rest of my life. And then Justin, if you're out there, I know nosotros've never met, just give thanks you for inspiring me to take a chance. From in that location, I dropped traditional tools and for the next four years of High-School, taught myself how to apply Photoshop in a day where there was not many people didactics…how to apply Photoshop.

Now, this is a risk that would cause lots of debates in school. I had several art teachers in High-Schoolhouse and junior higher and each one of them disliked me. I never received higher up a C in any of my art classes and you lot want to know why? Non considering we didn't get a long (mostly due to different generations, and looking dorsum, I tin come across why), but because I chose to bring a crappy back-in-the-solar day Wacom tablet to class, when every other pupil was using pencils or charcoal–painting plants and fruits, no less.

I wasn't being an asshole by any stretch, digital painting was perfectly welcomed past the class. They had the computers set up for information technology, and they had the programs (this was back in the early 2000s, then Photoshop was non as snazzy equally it is now) that would let digital art.

But my teachers despised it. Saying Photoshop is for hacks and people that don't know how to describe. Digital art will never catch on and I'thou silly for thinking otherwise. There was then much hostility against an art form, that information technology made me brainstorm to realize that it wasn't due to wanting to learn it, but that information technology was because it was a new medium taking over and making it easier than what my teachers once had to utilize. They saw how fast fine art could be produced, and to me, I believe that intimidated them. They never wanted to understand the process or the art farm, they simply would disregard it.

I caught another glimpse of this when John Lassetter, CEO of Pixar, began to innovate 3D-generated animation to Disney, and they practically laughed him out of the room. A lot of the traditional animators began to question it, asking if information technology was an end of the era for Disney Blitheness. He got flack and slapped effectually, just thankfully stuck to his gut, and as you can very much come across, has inspired and inverse the style Hollywood treats animated films now.

Beingness something new, I stuck to it. I kept on practicing, trying to get better at digital painting, inspired past the others effectually me doing the same thing. Only it kept on getting a bad rep. People proverb digital art wasn't real, and that people only cheated when they used it, bashing together photos and what not.

See, I'm 1 of those artists that spends days, hours and weeks on a painting, trying to button everything that I can. My business organization partners come across it in the office I work at. I usually am glued to my computer when I'm really into a painting, and volition spend hours rendering tiny things. Over the years, I've developed my own fashion, which I guess could be hyper-real (using others' words, not my own).

Every now and then I'd read a annotate going "Looks similar a photo, this isn't art." "Is this just photography? Don't telephone call it a painting then."

I fought this question forever, always using a rebuttal of "Information technology's my mode." "I love details." "It'due south the only affair that calms me when I paint. It'due south how I meditate."

Thankfully I grew out of that, and information technology became my manner and you either like it or non. As the years passed, new fine art styles changed equally well, and somewhen photograph-bashing came about. For work or freelancing? I totally go it. We're all on the same timer, and time is coin.

Now I know we live in a day at present where photo-bashing is the new hip thing to do. I've seen hundreds of copy-cats throw it near on art websites or Facebook, and quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it. Why? Well, the same reason I'm writing this article.

Simply then artists began clinging on and doing it. It became a fad. The absurd thing to do. People that don't even work in the business, just bashing to photograph-bash because some of the greats did it. I started seeing less painted art, and more Franken-photos. And honestly, I got upset over it.

Why is this at present okay, but I had to struggle to prove myself that I was really doing information technology when someone else was just slapping photos together and getting the same feedback?

But then it clicked, it'south not about that: Times change, art and styles evolve, and the world volition not wait up for you, then you better adapt ane way or the other.

That's not to say painting will ever die, but I've come to realize that we are in one of the most prolific times always, where technology is literally evolving every hr of the day, techniques are improving and doubling, and there is not only only i style to produce art.

Art is art, it will e'er be a universal expression of creativity, imagination and story telling, whether through music, painting, sculpting, or writing.

The lesson I learned is, don't be so quick to gauge just considering you don't prefer the medium beingness used. Information technology matters not the tool used, merely the production that was born from information technology. A lot of artists have put thousands of hours into honing their craft, and growing the gut to put it out in that location for the world to see.

And I think that'due south a lot more powerful than the fence of whether digital art is real or not.

Goofy says 'Hello'.