Is computer artwork shit?

I keep seeing computers being used for artwork on these Century Media and Nuclear Blast cds. And it looks shit. All these naked bitches with saggy breasts that have been pixel enhanced, and some swirly shit flying around in the background.

And even worse, Logos done on a computer! What shit!

When will it end? When will people realise that hand drawn stuff looks better?

There's no doubt about it that I perfer hand drawn album covers!

Computer enhanced covers can look ok, but not the same.

yes it sucks especially when it's that unimaginative

but drawn covers can be just as boring when it's overdone or cliched like the Dan Seagrave style metal cover who's been too much seen...I prefer W&B drawings like early ND or some punk...photo mixes are often great too like the first Carcass...

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

Tigi wrote:

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

And they are even more craptastic when it takes a hour to figure out what the fuck they even say!

It depends how you use the computer tools and how to express its ideas... the exposure of few layers aren't always useful and desecrate the original vision behind. Though I prefer a masturbating hand drawing some cadavers in B/W for sure.

I voted for yes.

Evil Edith wrote:

I voted for yes.

How dare you! :lol!:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

And they are even more craptastic when it takes a hour to figure out what the fuck they even say!

yeah. rule #1 for a good logo is that it can be easily reproduced on a school book, class table, toilet door, etc, and just complex enough to look mysterious and scare your classmates :mrgreen:

Tigi wrote:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

And they are even more craptastic when it takes a hour to figure out what the fuck they even say!

yeah. rule #1 for a good logo is that it can be easily reproduced on a school book, class table, toilet door, etc, and just complex enough to look mysterious and scare your classmates :mrgreen:

hahaha yeah man!

brokke wrote:

It depends how you use the computer tools and how to express its ideas... the exposure of few layers aren't always useful and desecrate the original vision behind. Though I prefer a masturbating hand drawing some cadavers in B/W for sure.

I agree!
It depends on the way you use the computer, it's only a tool...
I still draw a bit... and a computer can help me to do some special effect, or to finish a drawing in few minutes... while it would take an hour with a pen!

For exemple, concerning a logo, you only have to do it with a grey pen, not really finished... Then scan it, fill all the blanks in few minutes... You can have an idea of what the final logo would look like... No need to spend an hour on it with a big sword of damocles of a doubt behind your head.

If an artist is good, the artist can make the computer work.

On a side note, I will never forget the time I found 'SAYER' carved into a phone book at a phone booth. Not the proudest Metal moment, but a hilarious one!

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

And they are even more craptastic when it takes a hour to figure out what the fuck they even say!

yeah. rule #1 for a good logo is that it can be easily reproduced on a school book, class table, toilet door, etc, and just complex enough to look mysterious and scare your classmates :mrgreen:

hahaha yeah man!

Why does this "metal archives owns you" crap keep popping up? :heinnn:

Platoon wrote:

If an artist is good, the artist can make the computer work.

On a side note, I will never forget the time I found 'SAYER' carved into a phone book at a phone booth. Not the proudest Metal moment, but a hilarious one!

hahaha I'm sure that the person that carved it rocked a mullet and screamed "FUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYYYYEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH SLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on a regular basis! :lol!:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

worshipsatanzine wrote:

Tigi wrote:

ho, and computer designed logos are ultimate crap.

And they are even more craptastic when it takes a hour to figure out what the fuck they even say!

yeah. rule #1 for a good logo is that it can be easily reproduced on a school book, class table, toilet door, etc, and just complex enough to look mysterious and scare your classmates :mrgreen:

hahaha yeah man!

Why does this "metal archives owns you" crap keep popping up? :heinnn:

Maybe it's some kind of a ghost

Because you aren't hallowed to link pictures from their site.
It would definitely kill their bandwith...

FUCK PHOTOSHOPPED COVERS


CRUST LUST - PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE


YOUR MUSIC IS ALL MELODIC
YOUR DRUMS ARE SOOOO "COMPLEX"
BUT NOTHING CAN MATCH
YOUR ATTEMPT AT "MEANING"

YOUR VOCALS SCREAM "I'M ANGRY"
BUT YOUR PARENTS ARE RICH
YOU OWN THE LATEST TRENDY CLOTHES
AND YOUR LYRICS ARE THESAURUS RAPE

PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
YOU HAVE STUPID HAIR
PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
GO PLAY TRUTH OR DARE

ALL TALK ALL SHIT
WITH BAD FUCKING HAIRCUTS
YOU WEAR YOUR SISTERS JEANS
AND SCRATCH YOUR ARMS FOR ATTENTION

NO MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT
YOUR MUSIC IS FUCKING SHIT
IT IS NOT DEEP AT ALL
EMOTIONAL LIFE IS DEVOID OF MEANING

YOU MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE IN GOD

PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
YOUR MUSIC SUCKS SHIT
PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
YOU ARE NOT EXTREME
PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR EMOTIONS
PHOTOSHOP NIGHTMARE
YOUR TEENAGE GIRLFRIEND DUMPED YOU BECAUSE I FUCKED HER

CHASEHELLVOMIT wrote:

FUCK PHOTOSHOPPED COVERS

Then fuck me!

Why loosing 2 hours and avoid photoshop, while you could get EXACTLY the same result in 15 minutes? Pointless.

gabalgabow wrote:

CHASEHELLVOMIT wrote:

FUCK PHOTOSHOPPED COVERS

Then fuck me!

Why loosing 2 hours and avoid photoshop, while you could get EXACTLY the same result in 15 minutes? Pointless.

i should say fuck generic photoshop covers. I hate digital art because it takes exactly 15 mins to throw something together that is flashy, overdone, and completely swedish.

CHASEHELLVOMIT wrote:

i should say fuck generic photoshop covers. I hate digital art because it takes exactly 15 mins to throw something together that is flashy, overdone, and completely swedish.

The problem isn't the tool, but the piece of shit behind it...

I like old computer stuffs like:





It was done with a PC, at least 10 years ago, and it still works... Even if computer effects are known to grow old quite fast...

gabalgabow wrote:

CHASEHELLVOMIT wrote:

i should say fuck generic photoshop covers. I hate digital art because it takes exactly 15 mins to throw something together that is flashy, overdone, and completely swedish.

The problem isn't the tool, but the piece of shit behind it...

I like old computer stuffs like:





It was done with a PC, at least 10 years ago, and it still works... Even if computer effects are known to grow old quite fast...

OHHHHHHH Nonononono!!!

We came off on the wrong foot!

I'm talking about PHOTOSHOP covers, not computer artwork hahah.

Stuff like this:

I am fucking sick of seeing, because it takes no talent to layer everything and erase the hard edges digitally, while stuff like this:


is awesome. even though it's not a good tihng of digital, i'm hammered and can'ty back up mny point right now.

Chasehell, this gig poster rules.