I know this is probably a rather hot topic, but i thought i had to post something about this. Recently a friend of mine did a journal entry elsewhere about how he felt about tradional vs computer art. Now i've done both, and it seems to me that there's the same ammount of effort involved in both types of art. Yes you have tools that make some things easier with computer art, and you don't have to worry about making a mess on the floor if something goes wrong. But there's plenty of things that (seem to me anyway) to be actually easier to do in Traditional media. Does the fact that something's been done on the computer make it any less of a peice of art then if you've done something similar on canvas, or in a art book? I know everyone has their own views on this subject, and i'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong in their views either.

Another thought that just occured to me, does the fact people use computers to write novels and stuff now make them any less of an author then someone who writes everything down on paper? I think it's a fair example. The comptuer allows the author to copy and paste text, spell check, change things quicker then if they were writing everything down on paper. Yet i've never heard anyone claim that by using a computer to write a book or a story, is in any way worth less then by doing the same book or story in traditional media....Which seems to me to be the exact argument people use for computer art vs traditiona. Why is is that Computer Art Vs. Tradtional Art brings forth so much angst?

Overall, i guess i'm not really sure what i'm saying, guess i just had to get some of my thoughts down...
Anyway, guess i've run on long enough...

GryphRaptor