Analogue vs digital technology

What methods can be employed to develop creativity in relation to technology and practice?

Since I've been considering creativity and technology in relation to my practice, it's lead me to look at the argument around analogue vs digital technology. When I first saw technology within my question I automatically thought of IT and digital formats. But thinking about it more, everything we use to create is a form of technology, even traditional materials such as pens and paint. Just because they're not digital does'nt mean technology and science hasn't gone into making them. Even to hand draw something as illustrators, we use these inventions to help aid us in creating imagery and reach out to our audience. 

The first thing that sprung to mind when considering analogue vs digital, was clocks. Then analogue having the hand made cogs inside with numbers on its round face. And digital showing the numbers in the form of an electronic image. This made me think that this argument doesn't just relate to creative subjects, technology through every discipline has gone through changes, moving from the original tradition to a digitised version to keep up with the times. 

I took the use of printing in my practice as an example. You can read back through my previous blogs on metal type and wood block letterpress printing to see how time consuming these methods are. I learnt from first hand experience that even though it takes a lot more effort, you get more happy accidents and individuality from the traditional method. Whereas you're guaranteed with digital printing that they'll be identical prints, it doesn't take as much time and the computer works out the lining and spacing for you. Depending on your practice, one or the other might suit you more. I liked the traditional method as I think it has a certain charm about it and links to the historic themes I'm leaning towards in my own project. 

I recently started reading 'The Art Direction Handbook for Film' by Michael Rizzo which talks about designing film sets. One specific section that resinated with me was when he spoke about digital film environments vs traditional modelling on the set for The Cat in the Hat. They quoted an interview with Victor Martinez (The Terminal, The Cat in the Hat, Minority Report)  who stated "A good digital designer must have training in handcraft as a way to problem solve" and "My physical art background is very important to this. The people I work with and respect have worked by hand or at least understand that mode of working."

I agree with this because its how I work. I was taught with traditional methods. If you are working digitally but trying to mimic something traditional looking (e.g. working on Procreate, or any other digital drawing software, with different brushes/inks/pencils to make it look like a real painting) then it helps to have an original understanding of those materials in their physical form "otherwise the process of working is robotic and straight out of a manual." (Martinez, 2013.) 

But saying that, I use digital technology just as much for activities such as this blog and other research which influences my practice. Why does there have to be a competition? Both traditional and digital are good, they work nicely together in my practice. Rizzo (2013) pointed out in relation to the set design "CG modellers and CAD draftspersons in digital art departments work in tandem with each other and their traditional counterparts. A digital modeller might clearly see a structural problem in a set that an analogue draftsperson might otherwise overlook." 

Using both analogue and digital is good to make sure all aspects are covered. Even though this text speaks about set design, it is still a creative output. I think a lot of the same concepts can be applied to all creative disciplines, including illustration and my own practice, as we all share the same desire to produce visual content. 

Rizzo, M. (2013). The Art Direction Handbook for Film. Taylor & Francis.