Oh, of course is PS and other digital imaging software a very powerful instrument for creative work, Gustavo! I am the last to deny that.
But I reject the attitude that appears so often in our days, that one doesn't need to bother about technique and systematic learning. Even Pollock didn't simply splash colors but was very eager to develop his own techniques of *how* to splash them - and that's no piece of cake.
The self-named "artists" and "creators" never bother to read some things before they start presenting us their "creations". BTW, did you notice what happens? They "create" (they never work! ;-)) and all people say "oh, wonderful", and that's all. If everything we "create" is automatically wonderful, then what is the sense of arts at all? Is that kind of steadily smudging around without mind already artistic?
Let's turn also to some people out there, like for example Gursky. He does use PS - heavily! But what he produces overtops all kinds of "playing around with PS". And why? Because he was willing to know, learn, and develop techniques that allow him to reproduce his visions on an image.
Surrealism, abstraction and all the other kinds of modern arts are not simply products of "accidents". Try for example to make something Dali-like without technique! It simply wouldn't work. Even Dali said: "There is more system in my insanity, than there is insanity in my system." ;-)
Or can we take some music instrument and strample around without knowing what we are doing, and say that this is "creative work"? Zappa sounded very surreal at times, but he did know *exactly* what he was doing - that was not simply hitting the strings as it comes.
So, let's use all those powerful tools, but use them reasonably. This includes a long period of learning, just the way we must learn the alphabet first in order to write novels. Experimenting is much more than random effects and filters on a dilletant image. Experimenting means to isolate, carefully examine, and *understand* what for example some kind of effect, filter, whatever does, in order to be able to *reproduce* that result and also *predict* what kind of means are needed for getting some wished result. Take for example the guitars: Am I going to be able to put it on a white background if I am not aware of what the many methods of selection do? No, then I will start smearing and say that "I create". I prefer to think, learn and work instead.
Ok Nick, te entiendo, pero no descartes las posibilidades creativas del photoshop, hay mucha gente que se cree artista solo porque logró cortar y pegar un par de fotos o aplicar un efecto raro, pero también hay buenos artistas aplicando estas tan potentes herramientas nuevas.
Yo estoy tratando de explorar precisamente este campo, el de la convergencia de las artes plásticas tradicionales con las artes plásticas digitales, partiendo en mi caso de la fotografía y utilizando en primera instancia la técnica de collage que no nació con el pohotoshop, sino con los surrealistas...:-), En mi caso hay mucho de experimentación y mucho trabajo tammbién, buscando consolidar un estilo propio, y alcanzar genuinamente el estadío de artista...
I don't use PS just to distort, Gustavo. That's for the kids. Anybody can start wroing and filtering around, and then say, "I'm an artist". Such images are then the best proof for their complete dilettantism.
But I would use PS for example for such a project, in order to make something visible that wouldn't be as easy to achieve with other means.
That's why I'll betrying to work on your and Andre's idea about chainging the background of the guitar. Most dilettants would either just cut and paste getting horrible results, or would go on with their incapability and unwillingness to work. ;-) But it is a nice idea, and so I have to see if I could manage to get it in an acceptable way.
0 
cwx 
