MR GO INTERVIEW
Q 1 || Do you ever have anyone question the fact that you illustrate digitally- how would you deflect the assumption that digital art is somewhat ‘easier’ or not as time-consuming as classic pen and paper?
There is no denying that digital tools allow for a very different workflow from traditional media, however this requires it’s own, equally challenging skill set that can only be gained through experience and hard work, just like traditional media. With digital art being so varied in how it is created due to a massive range of programs being available to use, it can be a process that isn’t fully understood from the outside.
If we are talking about a process being ‘easier’ or ‘harder’ than another then whether digital or not, that really depends on the artists abilities. An experienced oil painter would find it ‘easy’ to create a final piece they are happy with, but that doesn’t make it less valuable than the same artist using an unfamiliar medium like watercolor and finding it ‘harder’ and struggling to create it. I would recommend artists use the tools they found ‘easy’ to create their work. The tools they find easy because they have become masters at using them from years of practice. Becoming an expert at your chosen medium allows you to explore the end result better rather than worrying about how to use those tools.
I understand though that unfortunately some hardcore traditionalists view on digital art would, perhaps, say that it somehow has less credibility than an oil painting for example. I think it’s easy to romanticize the role of an artist slaving over wet paint compared to the more clinical nature of pixels and digital art. But is the vision and techniques required to create an oil painting more credible than that which is required to create a digital matte? I don’t think so. In my view the two processes are two very different things, two wildly different mediums and should be respected for what unique qualities they offer.