This thread is for discussion of Taste the Magic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mc22), which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

If the Iname, Life Aspect was done digitally, I have nothing to complain about.

I really liked this article. I'm obviously deprived, because any time I get to see a glimpse of somebody who is fairly passionate about the art he does (or whatever else he or she does), I just can't get over it.

Nice article.
The prejudices about digital art are very common, glad someone explained that the artis remains unchanged, whether he/she decides to use traditional media or not.

“I would like to own this little piece of your soul… here's some cash.”

Wow he even incorporated some Orzhov stuff in the article to!!! :P

Great article! I personally like all mediums and I really can't name an "Ugly" piece of Magic art, though I may have just blocked them out of my head, then again maybe Look at me, I'm the DCI comes close, but I won't be too critical of MaRo.

Excellent, informative article. Lots of pretty pictures, too. :)

Seeing as I am an artist (though no where near as good enough to be paid by Wizards), I like what Matt's saying. He's very true.

I am by NO means a professional. However, I like to draw with pencil, and have recently started drawing on computer. I...I love it so much. I'll only go back to paper if my eyes are hurting from looking at the screen too much:-)

As someone who is very fond of the old methods, I really am worried.

I'm worried that this will freeze out some of the more traditional artists. Yes, certain artists such as Staples and Avon move very well between the digital and hard-media spheres, but I worry about individuals such as Donato Giancola and Rebecca Guay.

Mr. Cavotta (yes, I know you're just the straw man in this case, let the convention go this time), I own one of your works ( Spiritual Asylum ) and I know it was done in acrylics. How would you feel if you couldn't use acrylics any more? Not that you could use the digital system, but that you flat-out could not use them in your art? You say that "Don Hazeltine and Rebecca Guay would produce similar work on the computer as they would on paper." This is simply not true. Rebecca Guay is essentially a watercolorist by trade. She is not a digital media specialist. Neither is Donato Giancola.

The decision tells me that the hardcore traditional-media artists are being frozen out of the Magic: the Gathering sphere, and I really do not like the idea. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this is Cranford's final revenge on Guay. (Completely out of touch with reality, but conspiracies are more fun than the likely truth!)

I know my Lady Love would love to see this article, but I'm of half a mind to not pass the link on to her. I'm worried she's going to get horribly jealous of that WACOM, the one she uses is only about 2/3rds that size.

A few random points in response to the post above the post above this:

Artists aren't told to use any particular media; WotC art direction shows no irrational bias to particular medias; the "would" in "Don Hazeltine and Rebecca Guay would produce similar work on the computer as they would on paper" almost certainly is hypothesising about a horrible world where these artists would be able to use digital media fluently. So it's not the traditional media artists being kicked out of the prestiguous collectible card game market, it's just the ones who use water colour :) .

I have a confession to make...
Contrary to the Playboy, I don't read Matt's article, I only look at the pretty pictures :embarrass

Nice article. I get the impression that WotC is trying to be agnostic about media, which is a good policy, although I could see them gradually shifting to a stance where digital art is preferred (I'm sure that it's easier to incorporate into the cards, for one thing, without having to go through extra steps to scan it in).

But, at the same time, I would suspect that's true of the world of contract art in general. As a consumer, my primary concern is quality and I think Matt has proven that digital art is not inherently worse than (or even distringuishable from) traditional art.

It does, however, seem to me that artists would like the secondary revenue stream provided by original artwork. Matt even notes that a digital artist can not sell the originals because they simply don't exist. Sure, said digital artist could sell prints and do limited runs to push up the price a bit but it's my understanding that original art is what sells for the most, so wouldn't going digital hurt the artists in the long run?

I suppose that as long as WotC keeps the current policy of media neutrality, then all is well since it is the artists choice. If that choice is ever taken out of the artist's hands, however, I will feel very bad for them.

I would have liked it if Matt had told us which artwork was digital afterwards in the case where we were asked to spot the difference. I have my suspicions it was the one on the right, if anyone could clear that up.

About buying artwork: I bought my wife one of the limited-edition Serra Angel prints for Christmas. Her co-workers, who wouldn't know a Magic card from a Tarot card, absolutely love it (the implied religious overtones may help in one case, but that's just a bonus as my wife is openly Wiccan). Had cash not been tight, I would've bought a Hell's Caretaker print for myself. I'm already drooling over the possibility that I'll at least get a wallpaper of the Orzhov Guildmage, too.

Mr. Staples, you are threatening to surpass Quinton Hoover as my favorite Magic artist -- and I don't care how you or anyone else creates these mini-masterpieces.

...You say that "Don Hazeltine and Rebecca Guay would produce similar work on the computer as they would on paper." This is simply not true. Rebecca Guay is essentially a watercolorist by trade. She is not a digital media specialist. Neither is Donato Giancola.

The decision tells me that the hardcore traditional-media artists are being frozen out of the Magic: the Gathering sphere, and I really do not like the idea. ...

I think the point Matt Cavotta was getting at was that artists can use whatever medium they want, be it digital, oils, watercolour, or even blood, when commissioned to illustrate a card, and are not restricted to using just digital. MTG employs the artist not the medium. Thus artists like Giancola and Guay are not frozen out of MTG because they don't use the digital medium. He also points out that when an artist changes to digital their standard of work may not suffer. He showed it's possible to create art that looks for all intents and purposes as if it were created using a traditional medium. Finally, he shows that actually the digital medium is used in a variety of ways, from doing everything on computer to using it to replace a pencil prep drawing. You have to ask yourself what would you actually class as a digital work of art?

I just want to say that I really enjoyed this article. Matt Cavotta appears to be not only a talented artist but also a talented writer. So many gifts, is it any wonder I'm jealous. Thanks for the efforts...

Mr. Cavotta (yes, I know you're just the straw man in this case, let the convention go this time), I own one of your works ( Spiritual Asylum ) and I know it was done in acrylics. How would you feel if you couldn't use acrylics any more? Not that you could use the digital system, but that you flat-out could not use them in your art? You say that "Don Hazeltine and Rebecca Guay would produce similar work on the computer as they would on paper." This is simply not true. Rebecca Guay is essentially a watercolorist by trade. She is not a digital media specialist. Neither is Donato Giancola.


I think you win today's "did not read the article before posting" prize. Congratulations!

The whole point of the article was that no one is forcing artists to use digital media; they each pick and choose how they use digital media on their own.

As a professional artist, I wanted to chime in and say that I will always want to do some of my work with traditional mediums... but I really like Painter and Photoshop.

Nothing can replace the ability to manually foodle around with pencils and pastels, charcoals and paints. There's a tactile connection with the art that just makes for a more holistic experience, and sometimes, makes for better work. Plus, I just like working in traditional media, especially pen, pencil and watercolor. And, using watercolor as a good example, digital media, good as it is, can never completely capture what happens with traditional media. Real life nature is just too complex for any computer to model perfectly accurately.

Likewise, nothing can replace layers or undo or some of the more specialized functions of Painter or Photoshop. Among other things, digital painting and drawing is much more "tweakable" on larger scales and with higher degrees of precision than traditional media ever will be. And as computers and programs become more powerful, the simulation of tactile media is much closer to the real thing. It's just the nature of the medium itself.

Photoshop curves and HSV editing, for example, are things that traditional media just can't do in any reasonable time period. Time, then, is a big factor. Money is another big thing; I got Painter for around $200, Photoshop Elements for $45 or so, and my used Wacom for $125. That's a fair chunk of change, but that would only pay for a couple of canvases and a handful of good oil paints and brushes. With the digital media, I get to explore and paint in media that I might never be able to afford. On top of that, as Matt alluded to, traditional media requires a good workshop and time to paint. I simply don't have the room or time to spend in a traditional painter's shop. Digital media allows me to work in snatches here and there, without losing quality. (Except the quality lost by getting "out of the groove", but that's a different thing.)

The ideal workflow for me uses both traditional and digital media to create things that neither could do alone. I like to start with thumbnail sketches with a cheap ballpoint pen or pencil in my sketchbook, then if it's something I like, I'll either scan it or redraw it in the computer and go wild from there. Sometimes I'll do a "finished" ink or pencil piece, too.

It's the merging of traditional and digital that makes me very happy, as I get to use the best of both worlds.

So, thanks, Matt, for a great article and some very clear explanations! I hope more people actually read and understand your comments!

I actually happened to be sorting some cards last night, Visions thru Exodus, which have a lot of Guay's art, and her stuff always caught my eye, and provided a nice break from most of the other artwork. I still can't sort out which way the article is saying, but if this new system really does lock out artists like her if they don't use a computer now, it will indeed be a sad day for Magic. I don't want to use the old chestnut "Magic is dying", but it would certainly be in poor health.

Matt raises an important point: For traditional art to continue to exist, it needs patrons. The artists can't live off dirt, and paint isn't free. Digital media are MUCH cheaper, and can produce comprable work.

BTW, I think that the Hippy is digital, because it's so sharp and clear, and the curves seem so perfect. But I get the point. Heck, if I'm wrong, then your point is proven double over; I can't tell the difference.

I've only done very minor art, although my GC 120 class (aimed at technical sketches made by engineers) has been helping some with my random amature fun.

BTW, I think that the Hippy is digital, because it's so sharp and clear, and the curves seem so perfect. But I get the point. Heck, if I'm wrong, then your point is proven double over; I can't tell the difference.

I would guess that the Hippy is "natural" based on reading his interview in the 9th Edition Fat Pack where he discussed how he created the new Serra. Since he was the man responsible for all the packaging art for 9th, it would make sense for him to have done all of the new pieces (Serra, Hip, FatMoti, etc) in the same attention-to-detail manner. (Then again, maybe I'm mis-remembering that interview.)

Plus we know that Dimir Machinations was a piece that needed to be altered for the Chinese market, which seems easier to do if it were digital.

Matt raises an important point: For traditional art to continue to exist, it needs patrons. The artists can't live off dirt, and paint isn't free. Digital media are MUCH cheaper, and can produce comprable work.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "Digital media is much cheaper" quote. I think digital media has it's obvious advantages for sure. Seeing how this is the business of illustration and time is money, when it comes to making changes to art, digital can be a better way to go. But that isn't always the case. I do both traditional and digital art, although I have not yet done any digital art for M:TG because my digital style is very different than my traditional style. And presently this is done on purpose because of the way I work in the digital environment. It is also a refreshing change for me to shift between styles. but until I match a digital style with my traditional style, I won't be doing digital art for Magic because they need to know what they are gonna get for finished product.

Both traditional and digital have their built in costs. Obviously surfaces and tools for the traditional artist. But the digital artist has tablets, monitors, cpu's, etc. All just as expensive as traditional materials. Especially when you take into account the upgrading of hardware and software over the years. In fact, by years end when I figure my taxes and expenses, I ALWAYS spend more on computer hardware, software and other tools for digital art than I do for traditional art. But each artist is different.

Jeff Miracola

THis may be a really dumb question(s), but is this RT3000 availible on the market, and what does the RT stand for? :confused:

It's good to see your comments, Mr. Miracola. I hope that more MTG artists chime in.

I mentioned earlier that my use of digital media is more cost effective, but I forgot to note the computer costs as you did. I simply ignored them, since I bought the computer for home use; gaming, office software, genealogy, etc. in addition to the art. That, and I only upgrade every three years on average. That's plenty and to spare, since once you have a functional computer for digital media, you don't need to upgrade. You might need to repair, but I've always found that computers have a higher up-front cost, but don't keep leeching money like paints and canvases do.

For me, the balance is heavily in favor of the digital media, as I already have most of it. Other artists will have a library of traditional media that they have collected over the years. So, yes, I agree; it's pretty individualized by the artist. I just wanted to fill in my computer cost comments, since you made a great comment.

Thanks again!

P.S. Maybe this makes me an old school fanboy or something, but I've long loved the art for Skyshroud Elf. :D Kudos!

I prefer traditional artisanship. None of the digital art sticks in my mind well as opposed to my favorite card artwork.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "Digital media is much cheaper" quote. I think digital media has it's obvious advantages for sure. [snip]
Both traditional and digital have their built in costs. Obviously surfaces and tools for the traditional artist. But the digital artist has tablets, monitors, cpu's, etc. All just as expensive as traditional materials. Especially when you take into account the upgrading of hardware and software over the years. In fact, by years end when I figure my taxes and expenses, I ALWAYS spend more on computer hardware, software and other tools for digital art than I do for traditional art. But each artist is different.

Jeff Miracola

Thanks for answering, Jeff.

RT3000 can't be a cheap piece of software. Does Wizards pay for the independent contracted artists to have a copy? Do they have to give it back after their work is finished and the set is gone to print?

I could care less how the final product is created as long as it rocks. And I'm sure those on the R&D team at WOTC would agree. I do know that they certainly enjoy opening up packages with actual paintings in them, but that is a personal preference and doesn't help sales at all. What helps is that art looks great. I think Matt Cavotta was brilliant to show the work of Greg Staples as an example because I have seen his original, painted art and I didn't even know up until viewing one of his latest pieces of art as a wallpaper that he was doing them digitally. Just goes to show you that Greg Staples is an awesome artist no matter which medium he chooses.

I love staring at an original painting as much as the next guy, but when it comes to selling a product, it doesn't matter one bit how that image was created.

Jeff

I think the point Matt Cavotta was getting at was that artists can use whatever medium they want, be it digital, oils, watercolour, or even blood
That's what somebody should do. I propose that for Dissension the art for the Demonlord Rakados be done entirely in blood. C'mon, it'd be totally appropriate.

I prefer traditional artisanship. None of the digital art sticks in my mind well as opposed to my favorite card artwork.

You seem to be missing the point of the article. Matt's pointing out that "artisanship" is the same, it's just the media that changes. Jeff Miracola's got it right; as long as it looks good, it doesn't matter. I wholly agree that sometimes digital work can look bad... but so does traditional work, at times.

In the end, it's the artist that matters, and it's their hand that creates the art, regardless of the media.

Current Magic art blows chunks compared to classic older art, stuff like Cursed Scroll, Tolarian Academy, Lightning Bolt, Mana Vault, Sol Ring, Morphling, Vesuvan Doppelganger, etc. This digital crap can't hold a candle to the real thing.

Honestly, how many of you actually read the article? :rolleyes:

The difference between digital and traditional is the same sort of difference between acrylics and oils. They are just different media with different uses, but virtually indistinguishable in their differences when used by a capable artist.

Great job, Matt. I think you could have given people a little credit, though, and used the space devoted to the RT3000 hyperbole to talk more about art in general, but that's forgivable.

I'm not a fantasy-genre artist, but I have been working in digits since the late 1980s and I'm pleased that it's only taken 15 years for the media to rise in professional stature to be taken seriouly as a tool for "fine" illustration.

If the pace keeps up, by the time I die of old age, an art gallery or two will shut up about the duplication factor as though engravings weren't a dime-a-thousand. But, I digress.

Another good thing about your article is the chance, finally, to get somebody to answer this question (which I have asked many times before, to no avail): Are the various works attributed to "Cliff Nielsen" (Spirit of the Night, Paradigm Shift, others) digital or not? There was a time that WotC claimed that NONE of the art was digital, so I could never get a straight answer on those, but I always thought the images looked a little too 'shopped to be painted.

It makes me happier knowing that the art had been created with oil and paint, the old... Fashioned way. Now, with the translation to digital performance, it makes me feel as if the art put into said work of art is less... arty. Or, in other words, I feel the art's quality is being cut because of this. Oh well, I think I stand alone in this opinion.

Fah.

So... what about Rebecca?

Because you didn't say anything about her in the column. And she's not in Guildpact. So... she's still getting commissions, right? RIGHT?

*gets his torch and pitchfork ready.*

I as kinda disheartened to read this article... i always thought magic was about beautiful real art... and that program, with the questions and that.. it seems like it can only be a matter of time before it comes up with a replica of another picture...

Art is art. The lines between 'real' and 'fake' cannot be quantified. Nice article. I always enjoy Matt's.

P.S. Justin Sweet rocks.

I enjoyed the article as well. I thought that was good insight on artist's work between mediums. To answer someone who asked about Cliff Neilson's work, yes, spirit of the night and such are all digital.

But seeing that I was recently in Amherst, I am interested to hear if he knows anything about Rebbeca's work. I love it and it totally rocks magic cards. And contrary to popular belief, alot of her work is in watered down acrylics, not watercolors.

It makes me happier knowing that the art had been created with oil and paint, the old... Fashioned way. Now, with the translation to digital performance, it makes me feel as if the art put into said work of art is less... arty. Or, in other words, I feel the art's quality is being cut because of this. Oh well, I think I stand alone in this opinion.

Fah.

I've run into this kind of opinion so many times over the years and it is still just as fascinating as it ever was. I think this comes from a perception that digital art is somehow more easily created than traditional art. It's not like Photoshop or Painter draw for you or build a better composition for you or tell a story for you. Just because a digital artist uses a preset brush tool built by a developer at Adobe doesn't take the magic out of a great digital piece of art. At least not for me. When I paint with oils, I don't gather and grind my own pigments or clip horse hair and make my own brushes. I left that work to Windsor & Newton or Grumbacher. My point is that all artists, traditional and digital use tools built or designed by others. So how does that make digital art less artsy or somehow inferior to traditional art?

I look at a piece like HUNTED TROLL (http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/mtgcom/wallpapers/Wallpaper_HuntedTroll_1024x768.jpg) and I could care less how it was created. Greg Staples would have rocked this out in traditional if he felt like it. Whatever his reason for doing it digital, I'm just glad he did it!

Now, having an affinity for a physical painting to hold and smell is one thing. At least until they make scratch and sniff digital prints that smell like oils (note: bad idea of the day).

My point is that you shouldn't get too hung up in what medium your favorite art is created in, but just that it is your favorite art because of it's beauty and impact on you emotionally. I went a long time thinking Todd Lockwood was still painting traditionally until I found out that many pieces I was looking at were digital. It didn't change my opinion of his work one bit. In fact I was even more impressed with Todd's skills in that he could move from using a brush to swishing a pen around over a Wacom tablet and still get the same look of his traditional paintings. That to me is mastery, not a lapse in quality.

So Vammm, I am not slamming you at all. Your comment just struck a cord with me because I've run into that comment so many times before and never quite understand where it comes from.

Best Wishes,

Jeff Miracola

For those of you who are kind of slow on the uptake, RT3000 doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure most of you who spoke about it were being sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure at least a couple of you weren't.

Anyway, I love digital art, I love traditional art, there's no quality difference between the two. I don't care if my art is digital or not unless I want to buy an original version of the painting/art, and I haven't really had that urge yet.

I have a confession to make...
Contrary to the Playboy, I don't read Matt's article, I only look at the pretty pictures :embarrass

Yeah. Sure.
I'd like to say Jeff is totally right. What is the matter as long as it rocks?
I didn't know Justin Sweet's work was digital. I recall his work for the Icewind Dale 2 PC-game, I see Elves of Deep Shadow and all I can say is that he makes honor to him last name. His art is Sweet.

And, by the way:

So... what about Rebecca?

Because you didn't say anything about her in the column. And she's not in Guildpact. So... she's still getting commissions, right? RIGHT?

*gets his torch and pitchfork ready.*

I was wondering WHY!?!? her art is not on Ravnica :weep: and I still ope to see more art from her great hands. I don't care the way it is done, by the way. Maybe it will look different, but I know if it's a Guay, it will rock.

The comments thread for this article is just terrifying. Matt, if you're still reading, please stop crying - I'm sure they're joking really. Maybe.

As for the people defending "traditional" art, I'm so tempted to plug in my Intuos3 right now and run off some fakes of existing Magic card art from scratch. The idea that watercolours are impossible with digital media is particularly amusing - how many times have I wished I had an 'undo' key working with real watercolours ? That stuff's hell to work with !

Thank you, miracola! You summed up my feelings. Also, that's amazing that Staples' Hunter Troll is digital. I love him even more now!

Current Magic art blows chunks compared to classic older art, stuff like Cursed Scroll, Tolarian Academy, Lightning Bolt, Mana Vault, Sol Ring, Morphling, Vesuvan Doppelganger, etc. This digital crap can't hold a candle to the real thing.

And D. Alexander Gregory and rk post both use digital media for many of their pieces. Your point?

Looking at magic art today compared to the old-school art it should be clear that something's changed. As Matt made clear in one of his earlier articles there is still a great deal of variance in magic art, but it looks to me as not as much as there was. This is probably nothing to do with digital art, but it may be. Of the Grag Staples question in the article I think the right piece of art is the digital one. Artists still have the same freedom of what they choose to do, and for the mostpart can produce imitations of whichever traditional media they like, but the tools available to some artists with their digital platforms seem to have captivated them. The individual pieces are as skillful as any they've done, but as a whole each artists work is becoming a bit... samey. I'm fairly confidant this is me mistaking an artists individual style, but even if I'm wrong there's certainly something different.

Yeah, I first noticed computer-generated card art with Eiganjo Free-Riders. I was wondering a bit about that.

As for my opinions about Computer-generated card art, let me say this much: as long as I can’t tell that it’s computer-generated, I don’t mind. But if It’s quite as blatant as the aforementioned card, then … I’m not all that happy.

Yeah, I first noticed computer-generated card art with Eiganjo Free-Riders. I was wondering a bit about that.

As for my opinions about Computer-generated card art, let me say this much: as long as I can’t tell that it’s computer-generated, I don’t mind. But if It’s quite as blatant as the aforementioned card, then … I’m not all that happy.
Oh, Toggo. You couldn't have made our point for us more clearly if you tried.

Eiganjo Free-Riders was hand-drawn and hand-painted. No digital tools used at all. Thanks for playing.

:P

http://www.birkoph.com/owned/owned21.jpg

The comments thread for this article is just terrifying. Matt, if you're still reading, please stop crying - I'm sure they're joking really. Maybe.

As for the people defending "traditional" art, I'm so tempted to plug in my Intuos3 right now and run off some fakes of existing Magic card art from scratch. The idea that watercolours are impossible with digital media is particularly amusing - how many times have I wished I had an 'undo' key working with real watercolours ? That stuff's hell to work with !

n00b. [/watermediamajor]

Looking at magic art today compared to the old-school art it should be clear that something's changed. As Matt made clear in one of his earlier articles there is still a great deal of variance in magic art, but it looks to me as not as much as there was. This is probably nothing to do with digital art, but it may be.

Don't be silly.

The main reason that variance has gone down (and quality has gone up) is that they now have a style guide.

This is a good thing.

The only thing I'd say on variance is that the styles could vary a little more from block to block and between obvious groupings within a block. I'd have loved to have seen a more pronounced style difference between the rav guilds, happily GP guilds seem to have that style difference.