Ok Matana calm down ok? i think you are misinterpreting my argument.
First of all, i'm not arguing against any particular case, ok? I'm not arguing about YOUR art, YOUR skill or YOUR work, i have to say that because it looks like you are taking personally what i'm saying and that's not the case.
Having said that, I'll repeat my argument AGAIN in hopes it gets my point across this time:
"You cannot call yourself a painter if you do not paint"
This argument does not mean:
"You are less of an artist if you only do digital"
ok "You are not a real artist unless you do analogue pieces of work"
or "Yo don't know jack shit if you use an ipad"
Sure, a painting can be a drawing if we take drawing as leaving traces in a medium in order of conveying una idea. BUT a drawing is NOT a painting. You can make a work of art better than the Gioconda using crayons and a piece of paper, but that's not a painting. And my argument is that there are people calling themselves PAINTERS when they use stuff like Clipstudio or Procreate (or Krita or MSPaint, i'm talking about digital) to make their pieces of work, and TO ME that's not painting.
Look: when you PAINT you have to take into account the materials, the medium, the properties of the material, right? You can paint on stucco, on a canvas, on Plaster, and you have to take into account a large amount of variables when you do works in these kind of situations, and doing it digital takes away all of this, right?
And i'm not saying that because of that, digital art has less of a merit, of course you need a high degree of creativity and skill to pull out something good even if it is digital, the art is not gonna create itself, but the use of the nomenclature is erroneus and some people use it to make themselves look like something they aren't.
