As far as I can tell, when people say the iPad is for consumption and not for creation, all they mean is it's hard to type on, at least compared to a full-sized physical keyboard. (In that sense, it's probably true, too.)
Harder to type fast on, but then again in many situations it makes typing easier because setting up a full-size keyboard wouldn't be practical. People forget that sometimes.
I think the most interesting part of this is that he starts the painting very differently than I (a non-artistic person) would. Instead of starting with an outline of the head and filling it in, he starts with the large patches of color, gradually adding more detail. Very cool.
Most of art school is unlearning the "natural" way one might draw and paint and relearning ways to look at things and build up paintings and drawings in a much more iterative and incremental manor.
What made people masters in the past was the triumph over fear. Much like typing on a computer when you think of the words that you are typing you type slower than if you just let your hands work the keyboard. The great artists of history overcame their fear and let their body and mind create. When you bypass the fear there is not the same struggle to master the medium. If there is no longer a barrier, you will get good media but everyone will be able to do it and it will no longer be great.
He's good and the video is a great example of the endless possibilities that await technology.
But, while watching I still get the feeling that it is not great art. There is always the undo option for mistakes and it's not permanent. There is no original that will ever be shown, everything will always be a print out. It will make for a good photo to pass around the email lists but when it comes to print it out and put on the wall you will always know that a printer did the work and not a hand. It's like Rock Band vs a guitar. Both are great in their own right but you'll always know which one is better in the end. Either way, kudos to him for mastering another medium.
It is art yes, but it's not great art simply because it is done on a computer. I am not trying to say that it is not good, simply that since it does not exist in the physical world on a solid object it is not 'great'. When I see the end result, I just see a picture. There is nothing. There is no evidence of emotion in the brush stroke or feeling in the texture. His picture is just a bunch of pixels. It looks good but that is it.
The same argument could be made for music made with a sequencer or recording to hard disk (pro tools), endless undos. The "print out" equivalent is bounce to disk (render). Do you think great art can't be made this way? if so. you've got to rule out most music from the last 20 years or so.
Makes me wonder about the role of the brush/pen. Is it just an extension of the finger, or does it bring more than that to the artist using it?
Considering the comments on the page, it seems to me artists have different opinions about this as well. One thing missing is pressure sensitivity, of course, but I wonder if the lack of a stylus touched upon in the comments have more to do with what one is used to than actual advantages. I can imaging that well-working pressure sensitivity in conjunction with a finger gives more precision than using a brush, once one is used to it.
