Hello all: 
I have been following this discussion with interest as to the motivation of 
the original thoughts; and agree with  Julian in the larger points that he raised. 
So here are my two bits, respectfully and without malice.

Mystification of any sort notwithstanding - direct comparisons with the act and 
processes involved in drawing outside of the computer are bound to raise issues. 
One could make analogies on certain broad similarities between processes that 
artists employ in works done with and without the role of a computer. I say 
this with a certain degree of understanding. My graduate degree is in 
Computer Graphics. I went in this direction largely to understand the role 
of then new egalitarian cousin in the arts. An expensive exercise but one 
that I am now glad to have traversed; as in walking across the proverbial 
bed of coals. Having said that, ninety percent of my productivity is in 
traditional media although I have a day job [digital production of web 
banners and other interactive organs, where I constantly deal with a host of stupidities]. 

In the end we have to understand whether we are indeed fairly comparing 
processes, as well as the necessity of doing so - permitting that either is 
indeed valid. All images are dependent on an output device, whether be it 
the Iris Inkjet, the HP printers, the Roland HiFi, etc. The results and 
perceived resolutions are based on - to begin with the excellence of the 
algorithms, the quality of inks as well as number of inks, the breadth in 
the gamut one is attempting to output, the substrate to be printed upon, 
the screening methods - a couple use stochastic screens and variable dots, 
etc. So with drawing, unless we look at the original - one could say that 
the printed version does not look as good as the original and oddly enough, 
many a times, the printed version looks better! In my opinion, any attempt 
to bring about a direct relationship, as in comaprisions between processes 
and their apparent similarities, has to also see what any drawing is 
intended to convey to the self or to others. Essentialy stimulating various 
senses and emotive environments, as pointed out by Julian. 

Digital media, has its merits but one has to explore them; as who does when 
sufficiently drawn to studying Drawing and living it as an aesthetic! We know it is 
not as easy as many profess or believe. For instance, layering as in 
layering transparent layers is certainly achieved by the hand, but only a 
few have the acumen and mastery to do so at a high degree. In the digital 
realm one could layer a hundred layers (one could do it traditionally too 
but the inherent nature of pigments (even the very best) will not allow for 
this possibility or will render it exceedingly difficult. Computer programs 
allow for this possibility since it is a light process and is not affected 
by the substractive quality of pigments. Other simlar areas are complex 
distortions and mapping. A good example regarding transparency is sumi. 
Most who learn to use it have to start seeing sumi as well as boku/enogu 
(pigment) in ways other than they regarded shellac inks, or for that matter 
watercolor. And furthermore, one is working with specific papers as grounds! 

Sixty percent of my work in graduate school was done in traditional media. 
That was not an accident. I had to do this to maintain my sanity while 
battling computing systems and eliminating or gaining perpectives as I went 
along. My advice to students (while I was teaching in the 
early-mid 90s) was to find and work alongside someone who knows either 
side, or even one side really well; to further develop ideas and 
understanding. BUT keep drawing because it unshackles you! 

Thanks. Its been a good opportunity to voice some thoughts. 

Venantius J Pinto 

664 West 163 Street, #57 
New York, NY 10032-4527 
USA 

PH/Fax: +1 212.928.3955 On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:14:56 +0100, Julian Howell wrote
> I have a resistance to a mystification of digital drawing that seems to arise from comparisons with 
> 'traditional' drawing. I prefer to think of digital image-making as more akin to photographic or 
> printmaking processes than to directly marking surfaces.
> 
> Digital artwork does have a physical state - an arrangment of electrons on a silicon chip - and 
> although we cannot see this directly, we are used to this virtuality, from photography. We take a 
> picture on film and we can't see it until we do something to it to make it visible. What I think of as 
> the 'grain' of digital images (the pixel resolution) is usually very crude compared to drawing 
> directly on a surface. Vector images don't have the same grain as bitmap images, but both are still 
> dependent on output devices (printer, screen, plotter etc), which are still very crude compared to 
> marks on a surface.
> 
> It is possible to alter digital images extensively, but it is also possible to process film, printing 
> plates or drawings extensively or to translate them to the stimulation of other senses.
> 
> Some of the wonder of digitalisation is the speed with which changes and translations can be 
> made. And this is enabled partly because digital images contain information which (at present) is 
> vastly simplified compared to what our senses are used to dealing with.
> 
> Julian Howell
> (Kingston University MA drawing as Process student)


--
@@@USER@@@
Internet Channel -- inch.com