The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 3

Given what I've covered in parts 1&2, you might be wondering what else could be said on the matter of worth between the mediums.  In truth, a lot.  Traditional, such as it is, covers such a wide range of varied mediums itself, that going into great detail could take a lot of time.  Digital, is also constantly growing and developing at a rapid rate.  They each have their benefits and their downfalls, but when it comes to worth in art, you have to remember that art is subjective, and what you may not pay a single cent for, someone else may be willing to spend thousands.  What I really want to talk about in this final part of the series however, is a matter of a couple specific points. 

The demand of digital is ever growing in the fandom.  There has apparently been the comment made to an artist, maybe more than one, that no one wants traditional any more. If this was the case, then I would think no one would bother with the argument that traditional is worth more just based on supplies.  There is likely always going to be a demand for traditional, however slight it may become.  As more and more digital artists are refusing to work with traditional character references, it may make an impact on the traditional market, but how much so is hard to say.  Regardless, many people still like having a tangible piece of art in their hands, in their homes, and some people in the fandom still value tangible art over digital. This is a personal preference, and in contrast some may value digital more because it's not going to change or degrade, and what you see on the computer is what you get. 

I will say that while the initial cost of a piece doesn't matter, that it is a matter of skill, there is one more major thing I would like to talk about.

It's called 'Investment Value'.  But before we get into that we have to talk about a couple of other things. 

First off, is the fact that, when talking about the modern age of art, some odd decades ago, wildlife art wasn't really taken seriously by galleries. Digital art, as a whole, isn't really taken seriously by galleries, yet many companies that rely on artists have more or less moved towards the consistency that digital can produce.  What does this stuff have to do with anything?  As wildlife art has become accepted, and as the demand for digital grows both inside and outside of the fandom, we don't know what the future holds.  There are artists, past and present, who have created anthropomorphic works that were valued by the public.  And the fandom isn't all adult related.  We have a number of talented artists who are as good as many professionals in and outside of the industry-it's important to realize that there may very well come a day where "furry" art may be valued greater than we do now.

Secondly, I think all of us, at one time or another, have lost a file or photo on the computer, or been locked out of an account.  We have all seen websites and the information they hold fall into the black void of deletion.  We have probably all had a computer get fried or just die, or know someone who has.  The permanence of digital is a bit questionable.  Even if the files manage to make it through the artist's life, what then? Will someone else be able to access them?  Do any of us think about that?  How far will anyone go to ensure the legacy of their art in the digital medium?  What are the steps needed, how will the steps evolve?  When the last bit of data vanishes, if it does, are there prints?  Some tangible form to live on? 

Third, when it comes to traditional mediums, not every product will last for years to come either.  Some pigments fade faster than others, currently the majority of markers are made with dyes rather than pigments, not all papers are acid-free, some things will break down over years, yellow and fade.  While not everyone wants everything to last, and while some things just won't(lamination can come apart, degrade, and crumble for example...hint, hint, I'm talking about badges), it's still something to think about. 

With all that said....we KNOW that original, traditional art, barring accidents and mishaps, can be around for centuries.  Original pieces and high quality prints can last years on end.  Such things, more so usually for the originals, hold what I mentioned earlier: Investment Value.  This is because when an artist passes on, that's it-their body of work is done, there are no more pieces from them unless reanimated corpses suddenly become a thing.  So collectors will hang on to pieces, sell them later on, and as time passes, for those artists of note, the value ends up increasing as demand goes up, as fewer pieces are being cycled through the art market.  Art, for some, is seen as an investment that gains value, especially if an artist has been someone of note in their style, or seen as a pioneer. 

Prints can have investment value themselves, especially those that are hand-pulled, and sometimes hand colored in the style of block printing or lithographs.  In that case, when the prints are done being made, the plate is often destroyed for maintenance of the value of the prints.  Limited runs are a thing of note as well.  However, with digital, it will be hand-signed ones which will hold value any investment value, especially if the original file happen to stay intact and available.  Though another thing to be considered is that if the copyright lapses, it becomes public domain, and prints can continue, though they won't be hand-signed.  How will the art market handle digital medium in the future?  That remains to be seen.  We know in the long history of traditional, how things work in the art market, but anything could be possible with digital.

So what does this all mean?  Well, it means that with digital, we are faced with a lot of unknowns.  We KNOW for sure that original, traditional art holds investment value.  We KNOW that hand pulled prints do as well.  We don't know what the technology for printing will look like in the future for art, especially digital, and we don't know how the future will maintain digital art, protect it, use it.  All of this are things to be considered, things to talk about and open up discussion for.  Neither are 'lesser' mediums, but digital is still very much in it's infancy, as is the art market for it.  We should be talking about it now, but we also shouldn't dismiss the known value of traditional either. 

Variety is the spice of life after all!

The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 2

In contrast to part 1, the more common argument, despite the demand for digital, is that traditional mediums are worth more than digital for a handful of reasons.  Sometimes, I feel that this argument is being used to try and haggle a digital artist down in price, given the sheer demand for digital, but, we are going to touch upon the reasons used.

Some will say that traditional takes more skill than digital.   I kind of feel that that particular idea extends from two places.  First, the idea that traditional as a whole is unforgiving with mistakes, and secondly, that there doesn’t seem at first glance to be many tricks or “shortcuts” to traditional.  While, depending on the particular medium, one or both can be true, it’s not always the case, and there’s always more development towards products to aids artists in their work.  With actual scratchboard, for example, a mistake can be hidden with scratchboard ink.  In watercolor, if you decide to work on aquaboard and avoid straining colors, it is possible to wash the board back to near-new (it may be stained, but can typically be worked with still).  In colored pencils, a new powder blender kit is speeding up the process immensely for some artists.  And these are just a few examples.  In art, sometimes a piece can be saved from a very damaging mistake with just a little adjustment or creativity anyway.  Remember what Bob Ross said...'We don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents.' I don't find it to always be true, but I have saved pieces by just continuing to work with the mistakes made.

Outside of that, however, good, solid art takes skill.  Skill which comes by the learning process, accidents, and practice.  There are many digital artists who know their medium inside and out, have the skill, turn out great pieces that were labors of hours and hours, and those traditional artists who are the exact opposite.  The medium alone doesn’t make the piece, it’s the skill behind it.

Another argument is replacing supplies of traditional mediums, and let me tell you, digital, traditional...it doesn’t matter.  There’s so many variables.  Is the person working with a low end computer, tablet, and a free art program?  A cintique, a high end rig, and photoshop?  Are they having to replace parts?  Are they working with student grade supplies?  Are they working with high end, light fast materials?  What are their techniques?  Light coloring versus heavy layering?  It’s a matter of so many variables as to be hard to pin down just because different artists work different ways with different supplies and trying to say traditional is worth more because of that alone is pointless.  On top of that, good pieces do come from cheaper materials sometimes.  They may not hold up over time when it comes to traditional, and would be better suited to prints, but that’s not what this is about.  In the end, no matter what, supplies of either kind should be factored into price, but generally a lot of what makes up the price of a piece still comes down to time and skill.

This isn’t all folks!  Stay tuned for part three!

The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 1

No matter who you are in the fandom, if you see anything about artists taking commissions, or are an artist who takes them yourself, you've likely seen the argument of "that's not worth the price", sometimes followed by the person's reasons why.  As an artist myself, I often fight the urge to speak out against such comments for a variety of reasons, one of which being the fact that I'm often 'late to the party' as they say, and feel like my response will be ignored.  Also, this happens SO often, it can wear one out to try and combat this argument every time it appears.  It was actually one comment that made me consider starting this blog in the first place, so it seems fitting to tackle part of this subject first. 

"Digital is worth more than traditional."
This actually is not a common argument, as most people's logic about cost of supplies usually has them supporting traditional of being worthy of a higher price.  However, the mindset behind this argument is that digital is in higher demand, thus is worth more because of said demand.  While it is true that there is more of a demand for it, especially as more and more digital artists are requiring digital character references, there by spurring the market for it even more, it is not inherently worth more because of the medium.

Taking into account that a lot of the fandom's interaction revolves around the computer and internet.  Digital is made with and for computers, showing up more vibrantly on a computer screen than traditional which must be scanned/photographed well, and even then, often tweaked.  The truth is that 'digital is more in demand'.  A side effect of that is that artists often go where the market is, leading to a highly competitive market.  Most artists in the fandom work in digital, and because there are so many, a lot of them, especially new comers who are trying to build their fan base, actually start off absurdly low.  Most of the higher prices seen in digital are directly related to the subjective quality of art from a particular artist who has large base of supportive customers and fans. 

In talk of material costs, most people these days do have a computer of some sort.  A basically tablet can be bought for under $100, and while there are free art programs out there, most of the staples are more than $50, sometimes costing into the hundreds.  Not to mention, internet.  While the basics can get someone started, there's upgrades to hardware and software to be accounted for over time and can vary widely depending on how far the individual wants to, and is able to, go with it.  It's not all that cheap, even if you're not having to constantly re-supply the same way you would with traditional mediums, though is does have some flexibility in price range and can easily be considered a cost effective medium.

Introduction Ahoy!

This is the new year!  2017!  And here I am, finally getting underway to doing something that I probably should have done long, long ago.

I run about in the furry fandom as Karja.  Or Karjalankarhukoira. No, the name wasn't created by slamming my head into the keyboard-I'm also a massive dog nerd and the full name is Finnish for the Karelian Bear Dog......even though, yes, my fursona is usually a camel.  Usually being a key word, because shape shifting does happen.  But enough of that!

I've always been involved with art for as long as I can remember, and I've been in the fandom for some time now.  I'm solely a traditional artist at this point, which seems to be a rarity in the fandom.  And even though I'm artistically moving more towards realism and realistic animals (still going to do personal anthropomorphic work) as far as trying to make it as an artist, I still feel I have many, many things I can share with the fandom in terms of knowledge.

From everything regarding supplies and techniques to how the real world artists do things and how we can learn from it, to debunking myths and countering some of the incorrect views present in the fandom, and much more! 

-Karja