A Comparison/Contrast of Traditional and Digital art

A Comparison/Contrast of Digital and Traditional Art

Write a comparison/contrast essay on a topic related to my field of study? I've got to do this and make it interesting and relevant to my audience? I'm at a bit of a loss, to say the least. These two tasks alone seem insurmountable. I suppose, there could be quite a few subjects I could compare and contrast, but keeping a reader's interest level high enough to finish such a banal paper is a daunting task indeed. I would compare such a paper to reading the latest issue of "Real Estate Forum". Well, in the spirit of pulling teeth, I've chosen to compare and contrast digital art versus traditional art; the main focus being on creativity, media, and uses. Creativity is something that is required for any type of artwork you might find. It is something that at the basest point, every artist requires. In digitally created pieces, it is easy to fall back on templates and other previously created building blocks. There is also a plethora of tools to make the creation process a bit automated, if not soulless. In turn, however, the artist also has the ability to build pieces from the ground up and unlock many paths that may have not been available in the past. On the other hand, traditional art has a more organic approach, as a majority of it requires the artist to create something from nothing. A look or a technique has to be invented or created from the ground up. There is also a certain percentage that can slip into the "found" art category, as well as pieces that are created from other pieces. In essence, the amount of creativity required for either is in the eye of the beholder. Both roads travelled have a several lanes for reaching your destination. "Getting your hands dirty" can mean different things in either type of art. In digital art, there is one type of media. That being pixels. Everything else is just another interpretation of those pixels. In traditional art, the choice of media is only