Blog/Updates
In one of my last journals I posted a bit about inking in comparison to co-op in Halo, and within that I dedicated a small paragraph to digital inking and how I wasn’t a fan. A lot of the comments were defending digital inks, and I realized that a digital inking post would (in and of itself) hold up a journal. So let’s talk a bit, as friends, about what digital inking is and let me explain my case as to why you should still try a brush, quill, or whatever you can physically hold.
(And when I say digital inking I’m referring to the use of a Wacom tablet, not the temptation to simply adjust your curves and levels in PS)
I know digital inking isn’t going away. As the world goes more digital there’s less and less to stop an artist from utilizing the computer more and more for whatever he can do. And digital inking makes sense in theory: you can create any brush, any texture, and can control EVERY nuance of the line work in ways that you couldn’t do with traditional art. And the fact that you can undo something and layer images makes it that much easier to correct changes that an editor may have. When it comes to commercial art (finished concept art and backgrounds), I think it’s crazy NOT to go digital because of the amount of changes that the bosses are likely to make. And I haven’t forgotten that even with digital art, there’s still a warm blooded, human artist driving the process and a talented artist will give you something good no matter what his medium.
MOTIVATION
I would wager that 9 times out of 10 artists who ink their work digitally begin doing so simply because they’re afraid of the brush. And that’s a poor reason to ever do anything. Think of computers like you would any other tool, be it a brush or a sword. When you’re choosing your weapon, why would you want fear (or laziness) effecting your decision? If you take the easy way out of things then you’re not challenging yourself as an artist.
DIFFICULTY
Historically, the tools of the trade have been brushes, quills, correcting ink or various pens. All the guys that you admire who are now dead made ample use of these tools, so why wouldn’t you? Because it’s frustrating to use a stick with hair on it? I understand that a brush doesn’t always do what you want at first, and a 102 quill will snag every now and then, but it takes about as much time to get comfortable with them as it does with your Wacom, your custom brush creations, and your quick keys.
ABILITIES
I can’t remember ever seeing digital inks that looked as good as competent traditional inks. Not that I seek out digital inks, but I do see a fair share at conventions when people show me their portfolios. And even though they don’t see the difference between digital and traditional, I CAN. And most professionals can, too. Digital inking, in the minds of most professional artists, is synonymous with amateur art.
SPEED
As far as I know, digital inking is no faster then traditional. But maybe I’m biased because I’m fast. For 4 hours a day I’m twisting my page, slapping down ink, twisting again, using quill, rotating to the left, right, then left again, then splatter, then using a ruler, adding more detail here, there, splatter, brush, here again, etc. When you’re good with a brush, quill, pen, or whatever then nothing can beat the speed and skill of the human hand. I’d argue that digital inking is actually slower because of the amount of “undo” you can do. If you’re constantly rethinking each line (which digital inking allows you to adjust) then what’s to stop you from obsessing into the night and not moving forward? Traditional inking forces you to boldly commit and move on.
MISTAKES
Yeah, I make mistakes with my tools. But usually I can adjust the lines around it and compensate without using Pro White. There’s more soul in keeping your mistakes, rolling with the punches, thinking on your feet and adjusting your technique every second than simply hitting “undo” each time and making everything perfect. There’s no soul in perfection. With digital inks your final piece is more likely to be “exactly what you planned” as opposed to “close to what I wanted, errors here and there, happy accidents throughout, but heart all the way.”
VALUE
With digital inking there’s no original to value and nothing to sell in the end. You created something that doesn’t even exist. Sure you can make prints and get some extra cash on the side, but I can do that with traditional art as well. Plus I can sell the original, which is worth more anyway and likely to be more highly cherished over the years. Human created artifacts will ALWAYS be worth more, especially in an age when more products are made with computers. Even the layman appreciates this. It must be in our genetic makeup. People will always appreciate something that looks perfect and flawless but especially when it was made my hand. Then they do this: “No way! I can’t believe it. You used a computer, didn’t you? No? A brush? You used a stick with hair on it to create these tiny lines? Amazing!”
SIMPLICITY
Again, I support digital painting. Painting deals with more variables than inking. Painting is like inking, but inking with any color you want and the infinite ability to blend those colors however you like. But comic book inking deals with only black and white. Either something is there (black) or it’s not. I don’t see how the complexity of computers has any advantage at this step. For coloring, yes. But not inking.
Again, I imagine that being a traditional inker will eventually make me a dinosaur, but as things stand right now I don’t see a worthwhile benefit to using a Wacom when you have so much to lose by doing so. I love computers, but they’ve taken away small bits of humanity little by little and replaced it with something close to cold perfection. And its improved human existence in a billion different ways. And it’s here to stay.
But art has always been the arena of human expression, be it painting, poetry or music. And although computers can help us here too, I surrender that right with great hesitance.
Comments - (7)
Well said.
I'm one of those who, for impact and soul, will still write snail mail letters or cards. Only with
a good fountain pen. :)
Mufi
Motivation: Actually I used a brush first. Sorry. My motivation was speed. Having not quite gotten your standard pagerate you get on something like Hellblazer, I definitely wanted to get something impressive out with quickness in mind.
Difficulty: Yes it's much easier working all digital and I cannot wait to have stashed enough money away for something like a cintiq with which I imagine I could explore more full what could be done with it. Forgive me I did forget how things have to be difficult to be legitimate.
Abilities: Oh I can definitely say I can see the difference between most digital inks and traditional. And I prefer getting a peek at an original traditional page than a to-size print of digital inks. I'm sorry to hear that in my motivation to speed up and be able to more adequately do a job with speed and quality in mind, I've made myself seem even more amateur. I'll be sure not to make that mistake twice! :D
Speed: Now maybe your just fast, but maybe your just fast. I think, maybe, your just fast. No need to rub it in. I can only hope to achieve that sort of fluidity with traditional inks.
Mistakes: This one, ok your mistakes are better than my best. You've also had years more work experience. Personally I hope to have as many hours clocked at your age.
Value: I'm trying to tell a story, not create original art for sale. There have been some who've rather successfully argued that the preoccupation with selling original art put a huge hiccup in comic storytelling in the late 80's to early 90's, so that swings both ways.
Honestly, I've been able to experiment with digital so fully that I hope to be able to apply things I've learned to my traditional work. I also hope that the digital tools continue to advance so that they become more intuitive. While I really dig your artwork, your opinion on this particular subject is coming off from a rather comfortable position to have that opinion.
I fully agree that when it comes to inking, digital is much slower, I know, I do a bit of both. And because of the undo function and the ability to get rid of as many mistakes as possible, the image seems to lose a good bit of the "humanity", that is, the human touch. Drawing, inking, painting, it is all very much an improvisational dance between the artist and the medium, and making the most of the accidents that are bound to occur is a major part of the dance.
To Blankenship's point of "storytelling"... well, I consider myself first and foremost a storyteller, be it visually or verbally, and I do think that original art should simply be a bi-product, however! Just because one can tell story quicker, doesn't mean one SHOULD. To not take into account how the medium is adding to that story is a fallacy in my opinion. I have seen many comics that have suffered from the clean look of digital, though the art was nicely done. Sometimes digital fits, but often it is not the BEST fit... rather it is chosen because it is the coolest thing right now, and many young artists ARE going that route out of laziness. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. And I know because I did that for a while, and I came up with every excuse (good ones too) why it was legit. But when it came right down to it, I could not put myself at the same level as someone who had facility with a brush. So I put away the tablet and stylus and learned to paint. I just good not feel good about calling myself an Artist otherwise.
Yes digital inking is hard to do at first. Yes real inking is also hard to do at first. Truthfully I think artists should try both. Traditional inking for the purposes of understanding the tools, and the effects you get on paper. And then on the computer to see what cannot be done on paper. To disregard traditional techniques is accepting ignorance. You would be disregarding history and all the artists that came before.
I will assume that most any artist of some ability who uses the computer has done some traditional media.
This argument is similar to those who say you should learn art history and from the masters. Those who do tend to be better. Those who don't, the best ones who don't, are usually missing a variety of things you would learn.
Drawing on paper with ink is traditional hand/eye coordination.
I dropped out of art college. But I decided that just because I did that didn't give me an excuse to stop learning. To stop looking at other peoples art(digital or non). To stop trying different things.
I think the point is that cutting out any technique or tool is bad.
Another thing is the satisfaction I get from having a huge piece of art physically in front of me. To pull it out and show people. I made the decision a few years ago to move to a bigger size paper. Why put up a 10X15 piece of art when you can put a 14X21 on your wall. I am not the artist Murphy is, but it is always impressive to have huge pages of real art. To see the raised ink and the white paint on the surface.
I consider comics to be art and feel that a page should be displayed on a wall. That is what people like to do with art. People who have no real liking for artwork as anything other than a means to an end tend to not care how it is displayed. A small screen(or fuck this, an ipod) is NOT the best place to display artwork(unless it is morsel sized material, and I do not think comics are generally that).
I even dislike the fact I letter on the computer. It is cheaper, but it takes some meaning away from the original art(as a message at least).
Sorry for the rant.