No, that's not what I was saying. The artist's respect for a medium does not replace objective analysis, but it's a key component in establishing artistic merit (for people who aren't retards). In addition to the standard popular definition of art, a critical and often ignored factor is the artist's motivation to work in one or more mediums because working in those mediums is pleasurable for him in a visceral sense (ie wet brush, contact with the paper, gliding across and the various subtleties in pressure and resistance). The sheer action itself becomes pleasurable in a really intense way (no, not in
that way, freak. Well, maybe for some artists. If they're painting with their dick
) and it becomes a really complex level of feelinin-
fine when you combine this with the visual information you get from the marks you are making. and if you're affected like that you get a real adrenaline rush just by looking at a painting/drawing/sculpture at
seeing what another artists did with their medium. This is related to why Damien Hirst is a fucking assclown.
I'm assuming that Dimnos is actually right on the money, except I've never met a computer programmer who could get a life-affirming reaction from writing a line of BASIC.
As far as rendering with a tablet... There's still the visceral feeling of the "pen" gently pressing on the tablet, but I don't get that intense fun factor out of it that I do with ink, graphite, and charcoal
.
Cue the gross misinterpretations of what I'm saying with my words and the English Language.