SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-

SCIART-L@LISTSERV.NEBRASKA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Clara R. Simpson" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:26:20 -0600
MIME-version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 lines)
>After a lot of hesitation, I decided to write about this theme, it is
>something that has always intrigued me.
>I think that all the chapters about traditional media should be kept. I
>think it could be easy to say "eliminate them, they are obsolete!", because
>we already know these techniques (I assume that most of us learned the
>old-fashioned way and are now turning to computers). But what about the
>people who are just starting? Don't you believe it's necessary for them to
>learn first the principles that will always be important in an
>illustration? I dont' know if I'm making myself clear. How can you teach an
>illustrator all the "artistic stuf" using only computers? I've seen many
>people praising mediocre illustrations just because they were computer
>generated. This kind of work is generally done by people with a poor
>trainig in traditional media. The artists who learned to master traditional
>media first and then turned to the computer generally do a better work. I
>know this sounds too radical, it's difficult for me to explain my ideas in
>a foreign language. I just want to know, do you think that we benefited
>from the opportunities we had to learn both ways? Do you think that young
>artists should learn them too and then choose the one that they like
>better? Anyway, they will have to use the computers...
>I remember something I read, that keeps moving inside my head. The author
>said  that computers are tools and then asked "do we want to teach hammer
>or to teach tools?"
>
>                           Silvia.
>
>PS: BTW, I don't hate computers. I love the way they have made our work a
>lot easier.
>
>
>Silvia Troyo
>Ilustradora cientifica - Diseno grafico
>INBio
>tel 244-06-90
>fax 244-28-16
>email  [log in to unmask]


Sylvia:

What I think about the above is that the important thing is to have the
training in the visual stuff. If doesn't matter in what medium.  But I
think we would all agree that a pencil and paper is more immediate than a
computer and hence is necessary.  Computers are complicated enough on their
own still that it is not as transparent a medium for learning as
traditional media.  That will change.  We don't know how fast.  I was
struck by Paul's (and others?) saying he is scanning and adjusting things.
The final tweaking is more and more likely to be computer.  And hey I have
no nostalgia for pen and ink when it comes to drafting a chart.  As for
stat mchines, well, I'm not sure yet.  As scanners get better and better we
may never send mechanical art again, even if it is scratchboard.

That said, Elaine, I assume you are asking others not on the 'serve your
question because we on the 'serve are already at least partly computer
people...  I have the sense you will have to make this decision almost an
infinite number of times, what I mean is each issue needs its own decision.

I'll weigh in on the airbrush - keep the chapter!  I use it.  I feel that
way about all the basic traditional media.  It's the final preparation for
printing stuff that is the most changed.  And design and drafting.

Cheers,
Clara




---------------
Clara R. Simpson
Zoology Illustrator
FIeld Museum
Chicago, IL  60091

[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2