(Description copypasta'd from my journal)
Traditional art vs. Digital art. The debate has raged for ages.
First of all, I think it's unfair to say 'digital' and 'traditional'. There are so many mediums within those two categories that all require their own separate forms of skill and knowledge. Pencils are not markers, are not paints, are not inks, etc. Likewise, rasters are not vectors, are not fractals, are not renders, etc. I'm willing to bet no matter how good you are with pencils, if you've never touched paint before you're not gonna be recreating the Mona Lisa anytime soon. Likewise, a Photoshop user isn't going to be rendering recreations of Pixar films anytime soon either </personal experience for both>
That said, despite preferring 'digital' art as my medium, I see both digital and traditional as equal. I think that neither one is better than the other, whether that be the skill required or its personalization. Both require practice, patience, talent, creativity, time, skill, and most importantly, yourself
. Neither one is cheaper or superior to the other. Not in appearance, not in quality, not in potential, not even in their individual strengths and weaknesses. That is purely
If a painter who has never touched Photoshop believes it is cheap, I challenge them to paint me a masterpiece using it. It's taken me well over a decade to reach the level of skill I have, and I'm still learning. No one is going to tell me a digital picture I poured a week of my life into isn't personal.(also, cripes my handwriting is horrendous)
Other stamps I've made: [link]
Stamps I've collected: [link]