The Relationship between the Artistic Culture and Digital

Yibao Gao, GAO07216734, MA Digital Arts

1

The Relationship between the Artistic

Culture and Digital Painting Software

Yibao Gao

ID: GAO07216734

MA Digital Arts

University of the Arts London

20 March 2013


2

Abstract

This paper explores the possible relationships between the artistic culture and digital

painting software. It begins with analysing how the artistic culture and digital

painting software have one-side shaped each other in the context of cultural

determinism and technological determinism, then it goes on to examining their

interrelationship. The paper’s major finding is that both humanity and technology

have gained new characteristics from each other in the digital era, for which reason it

can be concluded that the artistic culture and digital painting software are able to

shape each other dynamically.

Keywords: Artistic culture. Digital painting software. Cultural determinism.

Technological determinism.

Introduction

In a workshop called My Digital Life on 28 November 2012, participating staff and

students of University of the Arts London shared their experience on digital

technologies. At the end of their discussion, they agreed on the idea that the value of

digital painting software depends on how people use it. However, such idea was

criticised by Marshall McLuhan because it sounds like ‘any technology could do

nothing but add itself on to what we already are’ (1994:11). He asserts that it is the

medium shapes and controls what we do, not the content (e.g. the uses) of the

medium (1994:9). Similarly, Lev Manovich suggests that ignoring software itself in

software study is in danger of dealing only with its effects than the causes (2011:3).

According to McLuhan and Manovich, the discussion topic in My Digital Life had

wandered off to what a good digital painting is about, which this paper is trying to

avoid.


3

The discussion regarding the artistic culture and digital painting software serves as an

extension of the debate between culture and technology. As a technological

determinist, McLuhan is not alone in thinking ‘our tools shape us’ (1994:xxi). Vilém

Flusser, for instance, believes that the apparatus determines the user’s acts (2005:30),

and Sigune Hamann said it is also true for software in her lecture on 16 January 2013.

Social determinists, on the other hand, might contrarily argue that every technology

is born of a social need (Green, 2001; Kember, 1998). Else tend to say that both

determinisms are in fact two sides of the same coin (Bolter and Grusin, 1999; Jordan,

2008; Manovich, 2011; Smith and Marx, eds. 1994). However, although it has been a

popular topic in broad terms, the discussion between culture and technology usually

lacks specific examples of up-to-date subjects. In order to examine theorists’

different approaches, this paper explores the possible relationships between the

artistic culture and digital painting software: whether it is the artistic culture shaping

digital painting software, or is rather the opposite.

Chapter 1: The Artistic Culture Shapes Digital Painting Software

To begin with, this part of the paper will introduce scientific as well as theoretical

knowledge of how culture shapes technologies. Then it will analyse the impact of the

artistic culture onto digital painting software with supporting image examples.

Thibaud Gruber from the University of St. Andrews along with other scientists

conducted a research in 2009 and proved that culture shapes the tools chimpanzees,

the closest relative to human beings, use to get food (Gruber et al., 2009). Likewise, it

can be argued that people within different culture groups would also create different

tools to accomplish the same task. For instance, a Chinese paintbrush would appear

sharper and softer than its Western counterpart. A tool like a paintbrush does not

necessarily seem to determine a particular art style or an artistic culture, as one can

still use a Chinese paintbrush to create a Western style watercolour painting and vice


4

versa. How visual interpretation such as an art style is in fact culturally conditioned

can be found in other social studies (Pearson, 1988). As a consequence, it can be

inferred that our culture shapes technology as well as what we do with our tools.

On a theoretical level, digital media researchers such as Sarah Kember believe

technology is fully determined by social subjects simply because ‘we clearly are and

should be politically and socially responsible for the futures we create with or

without technology’ (1998:3). Moreover, Vilém Flusser expressed his feeling that

human could hardly find freedom within automated, programmed machines

(2005:81). Both Kember and Flusser questioned technology for its lack of

responsibility and freedom, which again stressed that people should subordinate

machines to human intention. For the purpose of this paper, the focus of discussion

will be how digital painting software is subordinate to the artistic culture.

Currently there are two major “genres” of digital painting software. One is what

people are familiar with in the Western art context such as Adobe Photoshop, Corel

Painter and Art Rage. Another is what many, if not most, Japanese artists and similar

Manga artists would recommend, namely Paint Tool SAI, Open Canvas and Clip

Studio Paint. Each of the software genres is created by people of a particular culture

for specialised purposes: The Western group aims to simulate the physical properties

of traditional media and is genetically suitable for creating Western style artworks

that are more painterly (Figure 1.1), whereas the Japanese group focuses more on

the creation process of Manga-styled artworks that are more graphic (Figure 1.7).


5

Figure 1.1: Down Knight (2003) by Craig Mullins. Tool used: Corel Painter and Adobe Photoshop.

The digital painting above by Craig Mullins is a typical example of the Corel Painter

style artwork, which can be recognised from its use of Painter’s signature “impasto

oil” in the background. This painting does remind us traditional oil paintings of

Rembrandt or Frans Hals for its realism style, choice of subject, as well as its painterly

brushstrokes. Apart from the style and choice of subject which are premarily the

artist’s own preference, the brush system of Painter could greatly reflect the Western

cultural context of the software. The latest Painter 12 consists of thirty brush

categories (Figure 1.2) ranging from acylics to watercolour, from which only one

brush called Sumi-e (Chinese paint brush) is borrowed from another culture other

than the software’s Western origin. Similar to Painter, the latest Art Rage 4


6

introduces fifteen tools (Figure 1.3) and twelve of which are directly borrowed from

Western media such as palette knife, crayon and paint tube. It can be asserted that

tools in Western digital painting software are direct products of the Western artistic

culture.

Figure 1.2 (left): Brush categories of Corel Painter 12.

Figure 1.3 (right): Tools in Art Rage 4.

Not only could brush categorisation reflect the cultural context of digital painting

software, but also how these brushes are programmed to function. In Corel Painter,

the brush editor has many sub-categories to let users customise literally every detail

about the brush such as the stickiness of the paint, the density of the bristle, the

drying speed of the canvas, and so on (Figure 1.4). Art Rage and Photoshop also have

similar brush editors which allow virtual tools to simulate real, existing tools in

scientific ways (Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6).


7

Figure 1.4 (left): Brush editor of Corel Painter 12.

Figure 1.5 (right): Brush editor of Art Rage 4

Figure 1.6: Brush editor of Adobe Photoshop CS 5.


8

Figure 1.7: Double Soda (2010) by Yoshinori Shizuma. Tool used: Paint Tool SAI.

The Japanese genre of digital painting software is quite different from its Western

counterpart, which can be seen from the artwork above created by Yoshinori

Shizuma. Again, Shizuma’s style of art and his choice of subject are influenced by the

contemporary “Kawaii” Anime culture which can be traced back to the traditional

Ukiyo-e (Japanese woodcut) art, but the focus of discussion remains the culture

influences on software itself. In cel-painting, what we usually call Shizuma’s working

method, the use of line and flat colour is fundamental. Therefore Paint Tool SAI along


9

with other Japanese digital painting software is designed to meet such specialised

expectation of the Japanese market. In SAI, hand-drawn lines can achieve almost

perfect results with the use of the Pen tool on a vector layer. The resulted line art will

be smoothed out according to user’s anti-shakiness preset and can be later

manipulated into different line-width variations. Figure 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 are

screenshots of the line-control palettes in different Japanese digital painting

software.

Figure 1.8 (left): Pen tool and line-width control tools in Paint Tool SAI.

Figure 1.9 (middle): Anti-shakiness and anti-alias brush control in Open Canvas 5.

Figure 1.10 (right): Line correction palette of Clip Studio Paint.

Likewise, colour tools in Japanese digital painting software are specially built in order

to work closely with the cel-painting method and are also quite different from which

in Photoshop. Firstly, it appears that the default brushes in SAI, Open Canvas and Clip

Studio Paint are all circle-based, which causes brushworks appear very soft. Secondly,

the relatively advanced colour blending system also allows software users to create

gradients with the least effort. See Figure 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 for picture examples.

The reason why SAI does not have a gradient tool like Photoshop is because fine

gradients can be achieved through simply touching one colour into another with a

soft circular brush.


10

Figure 1.11: Various circular brushes and blending options in Open Canvas 5.

Figure 1.12 (left): Blending options and softness controls in Paint Tool SAI.

Figure 1.13 (right): Advanced colour blending options in Clip Studio Paint.

Through above software studies, it can be learned that the artistic culture has

strongly influenced digital painting software. Different painting programs within

different cultural contexts have different attributes, which is identical to what Robert


11

Heilbroner meant by ‘technology boundaries coinside with cultural boundaries’

(Bulliet, 1994:204). However, whether culture is a sufficient condition of technology

remains a question which will be further discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Digital Painting Software Shapes the Artistic Culture

This part of the paper will firstly end bias against technological determinism and

introduce what technological determinism really is about. Then it will move on to

analysis of how digital painting software is shaping the artistic culture with image

examples.

Cultural determinists have limitations in their theories. The reason why people refer

to technological determinism as a ‘trap’ (Bolter and Grusin, 1999:19) is because

technologies are themselves man-made in the first place as a matter of fact, which in

turn implies that technological determinism is a false argument (Jordan, 2008:133).

But why such obvious fault remains so popular (Jordan, 1999:138)? Tim Jordan

explains that it is because nearly everyone is being determined by technology

everyday although at a social level it is mistaken (ibid), which he refers as a

‘contradictory position’ (ibid:137). Instead of arguing who shaped whom in the first

place, McLuhan’s famous quote ‘we shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape

us’ (1994:xxi) tends to focus more on what happens afterwards, in other words, the

impact of technology. As Thomas Hughes suggests, technological systems’ impact

onto society becomes greater as they evolve larger and more complex (Hughes,

1994:112). Simply denying technological determinism for the causality between

human and technology seems to be missing the point.

Furthermore, what makes technological determinism especially unpopular in the

creative industry is because “determined artwork” sounds very uncreative. Lawrence

Zeegen stated in his book that many artists have stopped using computer tools to


12

fight back technology (2010:154). However, James Walker questions if an art form

without any technological aids is ever possible (2006:160) According to Walker,

Zeegen neglected the fact that low-tech tools still determine artworks in significant

ways- one cannot draw colours with a graphite stick, for example. Technology limits

its user’s choice as long as it is used (Flusser, 2005:35), but it does not necessarily

stop user’s creativity.

The core concept of technological determinism is that technology user’s act is limited

to what that technology is able to do-- and that limitation is what defines human

history. Taking digital painting software for example, John Pearson wrote in 1988 that

computer-generated imagery was dismissed as not being art because of the lack of

hand-made ‘accidents’ in software (1988:78); years later, the inventions of graphics

tablet and brush customisation system have enabled accidents to occur when

painting digitally. Similarly, the latest painting programs have undergone several

evolutions which provided more freedom to digital painters. The paper will now

focus on a few examples of how new functions in digital painting software have

offered new possibilities to artists and thus influenced the artistic culture.

It is known that Art Rage is good at simulating traditional media; however it does not

mean that Art Rage is limited to only mimicking existing tools in real life. From Art

Rage’s colour picker, one can find a ‘metallic’ slider which literally allows the user to

turn virtual oil paints into metallic paints (Figure 2.1). Since Art Rage 3, a new tool

called “gloop pen” (Figure 2.2) - which functions like a hollow airbrush- has also

created new possibilities in art. Figure 2.3 and figure 2.4 are artwork examples

created by Art Rage users to show how new tools have shaped artists’ visual style.


13

Figure 2.1 (left): Metallic paint in Art Rage 4.

Figure 2.2 (right): Gloop pen in Art Rage 4.

Figure 2.3: Experimental Stitching (2012) by MSIE. Tool used: Art Rage 3.


14

Figure 2.4: Gloopy Old Tree (2010) by Coops. Tool used: Art Rage 3.

In figure 2.3, the artist firstly created some visual elements, such as paint drops and

wet paints, with the use of the paint tube tool and the metallic paint option in Art

Rage. Then the artist exported those visual elements into the “sticker spray” tool

(which is similar to Corel Painter’s “image hose”), and then finally sprayed various

metallic paints onto the canvas. Figure 2.4 is an example of how the gloop pen tool is

used. The artist started with spraying the tree trunk and the sky with a hollow gloop

pen, smudged the colours with a palette knife, then finished the painting by adding

the rest of the details with gloop pen sprays.

From the above examples, it can be told that “spraying metallic paints” and

“smudging hollow airbrush marks with a palette knife” sound very surreal to

traditional artists. Working methods that are never physically possible in real life are

now achievable in many digital painting applications. Therefore it can be argued that

digital painting applications are not just limited to “remediating” traditional media,


15

but in fact have a whole world of new possibilities available for artists (Bolter and

Grusin, 1999:47; Manovich, 2008:64). Such infinite freedom is by far exclusive to the

digital medium, thus it can be asserted that the virtual nature of digital painting

software plays an important role in defining artists’ working methods and thereafter

shaping the artistic culture, which finding is in opposition to the previous chapter.

Chapter 3: The Artistic Culture and Digital Painting Software Shape Each Other

In chapter one and two the paper discussed how culture and technology have

one-side determined each other. This part of the paper will further discuss the

interrelationship between the artistic culture and digital painting software.

Cultural or social determinists insist on “we shape our tools”, whereas technological

determinists put more emphasis on “afterwards our tools shape us”. It can be argued

that a contradictory position like this is not contradictory at all. Rather, it is more of

an organic, or what Jordan describes as ‘dynamic’ (2008:140), chicken-and-egg

situation. Moreover, there is not a definite boundary between humanity and

technology, as Jordan further asserts that ‘there is no human society without

technologies characteristic to it’ (ibid). What we consider as human can be

technological at the same time. Martin Heidegger, for example, believes ‘humanity

itself is in the service of a self-governing technological system’ (Zimmerman,

1990:214), which idea is similar to Flusser’s concept of a “metaprogram” (Flusser,

2005:29). Our hands, which Charles Darwin defines as “the intelligent hands”, can as

well be seen as an advanced mechanical system which allows humans to make

culture (Sennett, 2009). Technology, on the other hand, can be considered as the

extension of man (McLuhan, 1994). It is not hard to find out that the topic of

humanity and technology should not be discussed in isolation. As a result, it is vital to

understand how the artistic culture and digital painting software have dynamically

shaped each other.


16

On one hand, it is important to know that a piece of software is different from many

other technologies. A camera, for example, can only provide limited freedom to its

user as its possible functions always remain the same (Flusser, 2005:35). However,

the virtual nature of the digital technology allows the users to keep updating their

software, which means digital tools do not usually stay the same (Jordan, 2008:133;

Manovich, 2008:60). Instead of confronting with limited freedom, software users live

in a world that is ever-expanding. Therefore, although the digital medium is widely

known for “remediating” old media in our culture (introduced in chapter 1), it is also

capable of generating new cultural contents (introduced in chapter 2). Digital

painting software, as a branch of the digital family, could reflect characteristics of

both cultural and technological determinism.

On the other hand, creators of digital tools are not limited to software programmers.

For many non-digital tools, there are usually inventors and end-users. The situation in

the digital medium is slightly different, because every software user is potentially a

software inventor at the same time (Jordan, 2008; Manovich, 2008). Before the

actual publishing of software, “beta testers”, who are often experienced software

users, are crucial to the quality of software products (Figure 3.1). After the official

software releasing, software users can also help debug (Figure 3.2) or make

suggestions (Figure 3.3) through online forums. To encourage people contribute to

the software development even more, many software creators would specially build

a communication platform within their software. For example, the “package creator”

of Art Rage (Figure 3.4) allows software users to share and study each other’s

customised tools. Clip Studio Paint has its Clip Studio (Figure 3.5) so that any third

parties can trade their tools and even compete with each other. No need to say there

are also many art community websites such as DeviantArt and Pixiv for people

showcasing their art resources. Manovich suggests that such extensive

communications between software users have led to lots of innovation (2008:14),

which is a good example of how the artistic culture and technology have sustained

each other in the age of Web 2.0.


17

Figure 3.1: Artweaver 3 prerelease version for beta-testers.

Figure 3.2: An Artweaver 3 user reports bug to the software creator.


18

Figure 3.3: Art Rage users post suggestions on the Art Rage Community forum.

Figure 3.4: Art Rage’s package creator tool.


19

Figure 3.5: Clip Studio of Clip Studio Paint. Lower left says “resource contest”.

In summary, it can be seen that both humanity and technology have gained new

characteristics from each other in the digital era. The ever-evolving nature of

software is the result of people’s hard work; in turn, the extensive communications

between people are ensured by digital technologies. Both the artistic culture and

digital painting software are becoming increasingly inseparable and, as a result, their

impact on each other should not be considered one-sided.


20

Conclusion

The major focus of this paper is to explore the relationship between the artistic

culture and digital painting software as an extension of the debate between cultural

and technological determinism. In order not to overlook software itself in software

studies, this paper puts more emphasis on software functionalities rather than

software products such as digital artworks.

Digital painting applications mentioned in this paper are limited to the preferences of

the mainstream, which means their impacts onto the society are only part of the

whole image. Within that limited area, this paper is able to conclude that both the

artistic culture and digital painting software are able to shape each other dynamically

due to the virtual nature of the digital technology as well as the extensive

communications between software users in the age of Web 2.0. Whether this finding

could be applied to all other digital painting software or even all upcoming

technologies remains a topic to be discussed, which would be further researched in

future.


21

Bibliography

Bolter, J. D. & Grusin, R. (1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Bulliet, R. W. (1994) Determinism and Pre-Industrial Technology. In: Smith, M. R. &

Marx, L. eds. Does Technology Drive History: The Dilemma of Technological

Determinism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Coops (2010) Gloopy Old Tree [image online]. Available at:

<http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39570&s

tc=1&thumb=1&d=1263053753> [accessed 17 March 2013]

Flusser, V. (2005) Toward a Philosophy of Photography. Translated from German by

Anthony Mathews. London: Reaktion Books

Green, L. (2002) Technoculture: From Alphabet to Cybersex. Sydney: Allen & Unwin

Gruber, T., Muller, M.N., Strimling, P., Wrangham, R. & Zuberbuehler, K. (2009) Wild

Chimpanzees Rely on Cultural Knowledge to Solve an Experimental Honey Acquisition

Task. Current Biology. Vol. 19, Issue 21, pp. 1806-1810

Hughes, T. P. (1994) Technological Momentum. In: Smith, M. R. & Marx, L. eds. Does

Technology Drive History: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge,


Jordan, T. (2008) Hacking: Digital Media and Technological Determinism. Cambridge:

Polity Press


22

Kember, S. (1998) Virtual Anxiety: Photography, New Technologies and Subjectivity.

Manchester: Manchester University Press

Manovich, L. (2008) Software Takes Command [pdf]. Available at:

<http://softwarestudios.com/softbook/manovich_softbook_11_20_2008.pdf>

[accessed 19 March 2013]

Manovich, L. (2008) The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life [doc]. Available at:

<http://manovich.net/DOCS/manovich_social_media.doc> [accessed 15 March

2013]

Manovich, L. (2011) Cultural Software [pdf]. Available at:

<http://manovich.net/DOCS/Manoich.Cultural_Software.2011.pdf> [accessed 15

March 2013]

McLuhan, M. (1994) Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. Cambridge,


MSIE (2012) Experimental Stitching [image online]. Available at:

<http://www2.ambientdesign.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=65330&d

=1332200257&thumb=1> [accessed 17 March 2013]

Mullins, C. (2003) Down Knight [image online]. Available at:

<http://www.goodbrush.com> [accessed 14 March 2013]

Pearson, J. (1988) The Computer: Liberator or Jailer of the Creative Spirit. Leonardo

[internet]. Supplemental issue vol.1, pp.73-80. Available at:

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557914> [accessed 23 January 2013]

Sennett, R. (2009) The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books


23

Shizuma, Y. (2010) Double Soda [image online]. Available at:

<http://planet-mars.jp/_src/sc98/PM_11.jpg> [accessed 14 March 2013]

Walker, J. F. (2006) Painting the Digital River: How an Artist Learned to Love the

Computer. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Zeegen, L. (2010) Complete Digital Illustration: A Master Class in Image-Making.

Switzerland: Roto Vision

Zimmerman, M.E. (1990) Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity: Technology,

Politics, Art. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Documents

The Relationship between the Artistic Culture and Digital