Mixed Media?

It's not mixed media. It's all digital photography.

The filters don't work for me; but that's just me.

You'll get a variety of opinions and thoughts.

I would call it mixed media because you're mixing photography with a digital program. The camera alone would not have given you the effect digital or not.

I like the composition but I do wonder if it's a bit over filtered.

I agree with Roseann. There is nothing to say mixed media has to be traditional work and a camera, mixed with filters is mixed media,digital and camera

Straight photograph and then recreated in an editing program.

Wow, that didn't take long at all.

What didn't take long?

Apparently there are few folks here that no matter what the topic is take every opportunity to image bomb a discussion.

gotta lay those things in where you got to... i would think a blog would be better.

anyway, i don't see this as mixed media. its not a bad picture, it could be brighter. i don't care for the texture you used though. often an image doesn't really ever improve if you place a bunch of filters on it.

if i were a painter making this look like a painting i would want to see dappled light. this is missing that life. it's also kind of heavy on one side. too much dark too much light.

---Mike Savad

I agree with Murray/Mike...But the whole world has changed, so what do I know!

All I can say is that...in the old world, before the "insta-artist/photographer" mindset...this would not be "mixed media"...it's a "digitally manipulated photograph".

The camera is digital and the filters are digital...a straight shot taken with a filter screwed on the lens would be more of a mix than that. ;)

I ask a lot of questions in the gallery world and Lawrence is right as far as curators go.

Mixed media can be a photograph if it is the substrate and something is added to it, like clear acrylic and even glitter and such.

But a filter can be on a film camera as well and it doesn't suddenly become mixed media.

Anyway, we are all doing the same thing: selling prints (we hope!). Those boxes are really talking about originals, such as paintings and drawings.

Have fun with your photography!

*Shrug

I guess it's what you make of it. I know that some folks have the impression that digital is digital and it's all the same. But to you just say a painting is a painting and there is no difference from one to the other? Are acrylics and watercolors the same? The affects on this image could not be achieved with a filter screwed onto the lens. It took the filters in the 2D program to do that. And you're correct Lawrence, it is a digitally manipulated photograph. It took a mixing of digital media to do that. :-)

A filter on a camera with no post work done is photography.

Historically, any kind of photo dark room process was still considered photography. Sometimes people called it "trick" photography. Many of those effects are what we do digitally now. So to me, this is not mixed media, it's still in the realm of photography.

Sure doesn't look like photography though does it?

I really like it btw. Nice effect.

" It took a mixing of digital media to do that. :-)"

Yes, my dear...and I mix different oil paints with different oil mediums everyday...I never realized my oil paintings were "mixed media"?

And when someone dips their brush in water to mix acrylic paint...there's another "mixed media" painting.
Egg tempera...another.
etc.

I guess it's a whole new "mixed-up" world. ;)
Like I said..."But the whole world has changed, so what do I know!"

Sir Lawrence,

I think there's one thing you and I can agree on. You know much more than the average bear. All someone has to do is look at your portfolio. It's the kitties I love best.

Could be I'm dead wrong and you're not. :-)

I was specific. Oils and watercolors. What I don't know and maybe you can bring me up-to-speed, how do you define a mixed media painting? Does there have to be a certain percentage of paints mixed to call it that?

"Could be I'm dead wrong and you're not. :-)"

I shudder to think! Lord, no...never. ;))

"how do you define a mixed media painting?"

When one uses two different "mediums"...that's what the word "media" implies.

i.e.; my kitties...they are acrylic, charcoal and pastel....that's mixing "mediums"....therefore "mixed media"...though I very rarely label them as that...I guess I like mentioning the "ingredients"...this way the viewer knows what medias were mixed. ;)

Roseann with your above example of oil and watercolor both being paintings, then Daniel's image would just be a photograph... or one type of photograph as a watercolor is one type of painting.

But I do not see it that way.. in other words here comes an opinion ;O)

The issue that I have [ and many have heard it before ] it that description, categories, and tags are all there to be used to help the buyer find your particular work of art. So for Daniel's specific image I might suggest that it be put into the photograph category, and described and tagged with whatever painterly qualities that may apply.

But with examples of photographs that have been processed to the point that they no longer any "photograph" left and it looks like a painting... then I would suggest calling it a painting and including somewhere in the description the fact that it started as a photograph, and add appropriate tags as well to aid the customer in finding what they are looking for.

bob

Oh... but mixed media.... nope ;O)

Sir Lawrence are you teasing me? Surely not! LOL

So with a mixed media painting, it doesn't matter how much of each type of paint was used, or if the start was a charcoal sketch, as soon as you add in a new media, it's mixed? For example, I sketch a basic image with graphite, maybe do a watercolor underpainting, then put acrylics on top of that,it's mixed media.

Bob - Hey dude. I agree with HW that if you apply a filter in Photoshop, that can be done in a dark room, then it's still photography. But Daniel seems to have added more than just a simple filter on the first image. Looks like a texture, too. That, to me, is more than just photography.

the thing i think you are aiming at is where would someone go to find this type of art. i think if you call it a photograph, people looking for photos would be disappointed and skip by it because it does not look like a photo. you could call it digital art because it is heavily digitized but you could also call it mixed media because it is 2 media, photography and digital. you could put the word 'painterly' in the description to describe the effect. the thing i like about painting and which goes for digital as well is that you are not limited by reality. for example if you wanted to add branches and berries where none existed before you could do that, or add color or change shape. Because the effect is mostly painterly on this one I would recommend mixed media, imho.

Kim - I use the term Digital Mixed Media. It let's the viewer know that there is more than one media and they are digital. This way I don't confuse it with traditional mixed media.

@ Roseann, I agree that is a great term to use yourself, but the selections in Artwork Categories are limited. You can put what you like in your own media description, though if that will effect the search results I don't know.

paintings, sculptures, reliefs, photographs, glass art, ceramics, tapestries - textiles, drawings, jewelry, digital art, mixed media, pyrography, pastels

Here is the definition of mixed media:

Mixed media tends to refer to a work of visual art that combines various traditionally distinct visual art media. For example, a work on canvas that combines paint, ink, and collage could properly be called a "mixed media" work.

Daniel, in my opinion, your work falls into category digital art and photography. Doesn't matter that the final image has a "painterly" look, the filters and/or textures you used are all digital.

But, as Lawrence said: What do I know?

- Elena Nosyreva

But Roseann and Kim... do you think a customer is going to ever going to intentionally search for "mixed media" let alone "Digital Mixred Media"?

No.. they will look for photograph, and they will look for painting...

bob

i understand what mixed media traditionally has meant but the world is changing and we have to change with it or get left in the dust. Since there is a category called mixed media I would use it because it does not look like a photo and I don't think someone looking for a photo would think of it as a photo. When a photo is so manipulated that it no longer resembles a photo I just wouldn't use that category any longer. I would either select digital art or mixed media.

Kim,

If due to digital manipulation a photo doesn't look like a photo, but like an oil painting, will call "oil painting" in description? In my opinion this will be totally misleading.

- Elena nosyreva

no I would not lie about it. but is mixed media strictly limited to traditional media? if so, the category should be labeled to that effect.

Mixed Media means using more than one media it does not equate to oil painting. If collage which can employ bits and pieces of magazines and newspapers is mixed media then digital + paint, or digital + photography is also mixed media. Mixed media means more than one media. If a person describes the media used in their description space for the piece I don't see the issue with it. It is not deceptive or misleading. It would be helpful if FAA had descriptions for the categories.

I would call it photo art. If it were painted from scratch on a computer, then I would call it a digital painting.

All in all, it's still a print that they are buying and probably what is put in TAGS is more important than what's in MEDIUM.

Hi Chuck, which of the Categories would you choose?

Elena - if I were using simply the term mixed media, then I would agree with you. It would be very misleading. I add the word digital to show it's digital media I'm working in.

Bob - I don't know about digital mixed media, but it's possible they could search for mixed media. If I were looking for a photograph and I came upon something that looked nothing like a photograph, I would probably not look at that person's work. If I was searching for a painting and I came across something that wasn't, I wouldn't look at that person's work.

Kim - sort of what I've been saying.

Chuck - valid point on the tags.

@all - Sort of like the TED video discussion. It's all about perception. Clients may be buying a print, but it's also their perception about what they are buying a print of.

But Roseann... a customer would not receive a mixed media artwork... they would be receiving a Fine Art Print.

Kim, I called this one Photo Art, and that's what I would call Daniels.



However, I called this Mixed Media, because I not only gave it a painterly look, but I actually painted petal by petal on the print with clear acrylic paint.

I agree with Bob, in case the print is bought the media doesn't matter, but if original is requested, the work presented here for discussion still will be a print.

That is why my answer to Daniel's question is:
Call it whatever you want- digital art, photo art, photo montage, photo collage, but not mixed media. And, again, this is just my personal opinion.
And of course, modern mixed may include all kinds of elements, but digital + digital is not mixed media.
- Elena Nosyreva

Bob - It's the perception of what they are buying a print of. Remember the TED video discussion regarding forgeries?

Elena - not all digital is the same. That's like saying all paintings are the same and there's no difference between oils and watercolors. Have you worked much with digital?

"Sir Lawrence are you teasing me? Surely not! LOL

So with a mixed media painting, it doesn't matter how much of each type of paint was used, or if the start was a charcoal sketch, as soon as you add in a new media, it's mixed? For example, I sketch a basic image with graphite, maybe do a watercolor underpainting, then put acrylics on top of that,it's mixed media."

Have I ever teased you?? lol ;)

No...the mixed “mediums” should be an integral part of the painting...meaning...you can see some paint, some paper collage, some ink etc.

All my oil paintings have a sketch underneath...they also have acrylic gesso before the sketch....and sometimes some acrylic undercoats...but in the end we just see oil paint...therefore...an "oil painting”.

But if we want to get "anal" about it...then everything is "mixed media" ;)


I knew I should have kept my thoughts to myself! Lol…here we go;

A ”medium” is something that already can be used by itself, in order to make art.

Therefore…if we take two or more different "mediums"…which each on their own accord can be used to make a final piece of art...and we combined them to make a final piece of art…then that final piece of art is considered “mixed media”.

If we took some screw-on lens type filters and glued them (or attached somehow) to a print/image…we’d have “mixed media”. ;))


But why do I bother...lol... in the end it all comes down to “$ales”…and not about "keeping up with the changing times".
As long as changing terminologies...or meanings of words always used...will help one make "mo money"...it's justified and proper. ;)

Roseann,

Actually a have a lot of digitally manipulated photos, some of them look like abstract paintings, and do not look like originals at all. I also make mixed media collages, the only digital thing about them, is sometimes I use my photographs as a part of collage. For me there is no question to which categories my works belong.
I tried to answer Daniel's question to the best of my understanding.

- Elena Nosyreva

LOL - all the time, but usually in a good natured way.

Okay, see now I understand where you're coming from better. I now have a point of reference to use when making an analogy that may or may not make sense. It's not just that the media is there but how prevalent it shows in the piece?

Therefore…if we take two or more different "mediums"…which each on their own accord can be used to make a final piece of art...and we combined them to make a final piece of art…then that final piece of art is considered “mixed media”.

I think part of the problem is everyone views all digital media to be the same or just digital. There is a difference between many of them. I'd say the most basic being is it a 2D application or a 3D application? Each can be used to create art on it's own, but they each get there in different ways. Combining the two is mixing media.

YMMV

Elena,

I don't think anyone is questioning originals. There are no physical originals in digital art as there is in traditional art. The best you can do in digital is an original digital print or a limited edition print. But there are different media in digital. As I noted above, 2d applications and 3D applications. You can't model or what I call digital sculpting in 2D programs such as Photoshop or Painter. You would need a different digital media for that.

Roseann

I would label this as Photo Art. At one time it was a straight image of a grackle.

I'm not arguing, Roseanne, just out of curiosity - how would you describe a media used to print a 3D piece with 3D printer?

yes, it is in good nature ;)

"It's not just that the media is there but how prevalent it shows in the piece?"

yes, in its purest sense, but also and most importantly...if all the different media used can somehow be used by themselves to make an image.

In your mind or better yet...in reality ;)...Is a digital filter a "medium" or does it manipulate something that is already there...be it a photo or blank white doc?

Just as I can manipulate colors with a brush or knife, etc. My brushes are only a "medium" of the art if I glue them to the substrate. ;)

Well I will end my discussion here by saying you have to use what you are comfortable with. I try to take my images as close to natural media as I can and will call them what they look like with the addition of adding to the description that they began their life as a photo.

But when entering the gray area as Daniel's original example where there are elements of the original photo visible as well as some painterly elements I think you have to throw everything you can into the description and tags to capture the eyeball of the customer. I don't think there is any deception of calling a Fine Art Print a painting as long as you are up front in your description mentioning that it started out as a photograph. And I will repeat again that when the customer orders something from the Photograph category that "is" what they will get. If they order something from the painting [ or any other category ] they will not be getting something that "is" that category, the will be getting a Fine Art Print [ of something from that category ]

Descriptions, categories, and tags should be used to allow your image to be part of the customer's search terms. So if I don't call my images painting, instead of photographs / manipulated photographs / multi media / they will not be found.

bob

@Elena.. how about Fine Art Sculpture?

Elena - I wasn't aware we were arguing. I thought this was a discussion. Digital Mixed Media. It's a digital sculpture being printed out as a physical item. You're definitely mixing media and one of them is digital. You could call it a digital sculpture as well. What are your thoughts?

Sir Lawrence - I would say it depends upon what filter you are using. Some of them are stand-alone applications. Some of them only work with a 2D program like Photoshop or Painter. Without knowing what was done or used specifically, it's hard to say.

Paint + Digital


Photos + digital

Bob and Roseanne, this works for me.

Yet, Daniel's question, as I see it, was simpler than what we made out of it, and my answer to his question will still be "No".
I will end my discussion here as well. It was very interesting to read different opinions.

- Elena Nosyreva

Kim - I really love the Iris piece. The colors are stunning.

Elena - Awesome! I think it's great that we can have different views on it.

Modern Photo Art.

"Some of them are stand-alone applications. Some of them only work with a 2D program like Photoshop or Painter."

Ok, so you're saying that when it's a "stand alone" (which I have no clue how it's standing alone;)..the filter is then a "medium"...And when you're in PS...it's a filter...right? But to me...there is no "standing alone" without it's digital legs/mind. ;)

I think you know me well enough to know...it's all "digital", to me. ;) The photo is already digital...then one manipulates the digital photo with digital filters. They start with digital and end with digital...it just looks different.

Now...if one takes a photo produced on film...scans it into the computer and uses filters to manipulate it....then that's using two different mediums to create a final work of art, to me.

If you start with a digital photo in PS and use your levels/curves to make it look nothing like the photo...is that mixing mediums, too?

As long as it's all being done under the digital umbrella...meaning...none of it exist without digital software...then it's all one medium...and that medium is "digital". IMO :)

But the customer is not getting a digital file. The digital image is being sprayed onto a substrate [ paper, canvas. what ever ]. The printer is mixing paints.. just like a traditional painter would.. and applying them mechanically [ just as a traditional painter does via the brush ] so in effect the customer is getting an analog version of the digital file. Yes it is a copy but so are those paintings that come from those factories in China where a thousand artists are coping the masters.

So what is all the hub bub about ;O)

In the end the customer is getting a nice Fine Art Print, not a digital photograph, of digital manipulation, or a digital mixed media [ just ink.. nothing else ] or a digital painting, They would only be getting those if they purchased your original digital image file.

Am I not right?

bob

Ok, so you're saying that when it's a "stand alone" (which I have no clue how it's standing alone;)..the filter is then a "medium"...And when you're in PS...it's a filter...right? But to me...there is no "standing alone" without it's digital legs/mind. ;)

Stand-alone means does the filter require another application to run, or does it run in it's own program. To me it's mixed when you do something in a 2D application that can't be done in the darkroom.

I think you know me well enough to know...it's all "digital", to me. ;) The photo is already digital...then one manipulates the digital photo with digital filters. They start with digital and end with digital...it just looks different. Now...if one takes a photo produced on film...scans it into the computer and uses filters to manipulate it....then that's using two different mediums to create a final work of art, to me.

It's okay, Sir Lawrence, that it's all digital to you. You're still one of my shining knights.

If you start with a digital photo in PS and use your levels/curves to make it look nothing like the photo...is that mixing mediums, too?

IMHO, if it's something that you cannot achieve in the dark room, yes.

As long as it's all being done under the digital umbrella...meaning...none of it exist without digital software...then it's all one medium...and that medium is "digital". IMO

I can respect it, just as I can opt not to agree with it. I understand why you fee that way. But I want to say thank you. For discussing this in a professional, respectful manner. But mostly for bringing me up-to-speed on mixed media.

Bob - actually even if they purchased the original digital file, they would only have the file. In digital art there is no physical original as in traditional media. There is the original concept and the artwork in the file, but no original. You can do an original digital print or even a limited edition print. As for the rest, you are correct. But as I noted earlier, it's all about the perception.

So, I have a number of photographs that I alter in Photoshop. This one is manipulated some but many are closer to the original image. I've been posting them as Digital Art/ Photography. I describe my work as digital art created from my photograph of what ever it is. I'm going to do more with added layers of textures and composites. I also do watercolor work and would often add gold leaf, colored pencils etc... which are then called mixed media.

"Stand-alone means does the filter require another application to run, or does it run in it's own program."

ah..I figured that's what you meant. When it starts running alone without it's digital legs...I'll label it a "medium". ;)

You're welcome...and thank you!


Bob... "Am I not right?"

Well, no, not completely ;)...if and when the customer "gets" the image...they get a "digital print". If you can find a giclee print that is not digital in it's origin...then we can label it something else. The "fine art" part is subjective. Starts digital...ends digital...like I said. ;))
and as I insinuated above...this whole thing boils down to sales as soon as we mention what a customer thinks.

Kerri - That's lovely work. Digital Art/Photography is a good choice from what you're describing. Same with mixed media, if I understand Lawrence correctly.

Lawrence - LOL if it starts running alone, we're all going to be in trouble. If it can think on it's own, we might become superfluous. I'd love to pick your brain sometime in regards to your kittens. You are welcome also. Thank you for giving me a new perspective to think about. :-)

Lawrence.. well yes.. a giclee printer is not placing the digital equivalent "dots' onto the canvas... it is spraying [the translation of glclee] them on just as the taggers do with their graffiti. Since it is spraying the inks are overlapped and the paper also causes a bit of blooming of the inks.. just as natural watercolor on watercolor paper does, so it is not a direct representation of the digital file so it is not a digital print. It is a bunch of spray cans directed by the digital file. It is not a pixel by pixel painting therefore only an approximation of the digital file only much less digital. ;O)

You're welcome, Roseann...it's always a pleasure to help you think. :)
See, now that's a tease ;)...but with some truth too, because you're always willing to say when you learn something and when you don't....and that's a pleasure to see here. ;)

and yes...big trouble! lol


Bob...
what a joke...finally a digital conversation with you where I'm the one defending the digital aspect! lol

" It is a bunch of spray cans directed by the digital file."

And each micro fine mist are minute "droplets"/ "dots"...the printer is manufactured to produce a certain "dpi"...the ink heads are digitally controlled.

Those "cans" don't do ____ without their digital commands.

But lets say the ink was completely digital and each image an exact replication of the digital file...would you then say...well...the paper/canvas isn't digital? ;)

as I said...If you can find a giclee print that is not digital in it's origin...then we can label it something else....and as I said...if you want to be anal about the whole conversation...then everything is "mixed media".

Starts digital...ends digital ;)

But, you win, Bob.

sorry... link got all screwed up ;O(
I'll try again tomorrow