TwitDraw Vs. TwitPaint

While I was on Twitter, someone sent TwitPaint & TwitDraw links my way. These are basically online graffiti wall drawing applications that you can post directly to your Twitter account. It was the best kick in the butt for playing with my Wacom drawing tablet! It's good fun and you might get addicted to it.

TwitPaint

This is a pretty simple application. You are given an variety of colors to use. You can set colors from transparent to opaque. You can also determine the broadness of your lines. You are given ample drawing space to work from.

The only stipulation with this application is the limitation of 140 drawing strokes (like Twitter tweets are limited to 140 characters).

You are only allowed to Undo or Start Over there is (no redo). If your Wacom has express keys set to go back a page, make sure you turn it off or you might end up losing your drawing! (I am speaking from experience!)

My stuff :

http://twitpaint.com/graffiti/sketchanddoodle/works

NOTE: As I double checked TwitPaint, I realized there was a link called TwitShot. This application allows you to take a stationary or moving picture with your webcam. You can use "gray", "sepia" or "pop" to change the coloring of your picture. I didn't play with this application since I am more into the drawing aspect of TwitPaint.

TwitDraw

The drawing tools available are pretty much the same. The only differences are that there is no limitation on drawing strokes, the canvas drawing space is wider, and it can replay back your drawing strokes (that you can set from slow to fast) so people can see how you created your picture!

This was the selling point for this application for me. I have been trying to find the right software to record my digital drawing that would not impact the drawing software I was using. For now, this seems to be a good solution.

My stuff:

http://twitdraw.com/by.php?name=sketchanddoodle

At this time, I think I prefer TwitDraw over TwitPaint because of the playback mode. However, if I wanted to challenge myself with limited drawing strokes I would go for TwitPaint.

Just remember this is considered a "graffiti" application so anyone can make alterations to your drawing without impacting your original drawing.

You may be surprised at what others may do :

http://twitdraw.com/g1cwcr

FEATURES IN TWITDRAW & TWITPAINT:

UNDO

START OVER/CLEAR

BRUSH PREVIEW

COLOR

WIDTH

OPACITY

TWITTER POSTBACK

TWITPAINT ONLY:

140 STROKES

TREND POSTINGS

TWITSHOT

TWITDRAW ONLY:

REPLAY

SPEED

SET AS BACKGROUND

SET PROFILE IMAGE

future movie pick - in a dream

This is one of those movies that you want to make sure you keep on your radar. A documentary that shows an initimate and visual portrait of an artist.

I have yet to see it myself, but wanted to make sure I don't forget to seek it out. It looked so damn good that I had to write up this quick blurb.

Just check out the trailer and see for yourself. The movie is currently available on DVD.

http://www.indiepixfilms.com/film/inadream

movie pick - my kid could paint that

MY KID COULD PAINT THAT is a documentary on child artist Marla Olmstead (aka pint sized Jackson Pollack) which is a work of art as the artist herself. Art that raises questions and debate is usually art that gains the most interest and leaves an impression.

Marla Olmstead began playing with paint in her diapers and began to sell paintings by age 4. To me she is not the first child painter to gain success and probably not the last. Alexandra Nechita is one that I can remember from my lifetime. She was deemed the pint size Picasso. Now in her 20s she is still an active artist. I do not recollect Nechita ever being questioned on creating her own paintings.

This brings us to the toddler Olmstead. Can a 4 year old create a work of art?

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." ~ Pablo Picasso

As a potential artist myself, I do believe that a child has more freedom to paint. A child's mind is not corrupted by the crippling fear that prevents adults from getting ideas down on a canvas or piece of paper.

The documentary shows two sides of the world of Marla Olmstead. It starts off very supportive and later shows areas where there are doubts whether little Olmstead created her paintings without help from her father. Both sides of the story were pretty convincing. So it left me not only debating the artist but also debating what I saw in the documentary in my head.

My thoughts. Is this a gimmick? A prodigy painter has already been established (now grown but still established). A new one (Olmstead) comes in. How do they differentiate between the two? Create a scandal. Would this additional drama of questioning authenticity feed the popularity or interest of her paintings or distract from it? If she grows up and continues to paint, perhaps she will always be questioned on her abilities. But as the novelty of her age wears and her talent is possibly proven, where does that leave her in the future?

There are some things that irked me in this documentary. The parents passed on an offer for Marla to do a project with Crayola but entered her into a Rude and Bold Women art show which was clearly geared to adults. (The latter was revealed in the DVD bonus section). What kid does not want to play with Crayolas? Hell, I still love to use them. This extreme is telling me they could be hindering her childhood (or childlike form of expression) by forcing her to become an adult with her art. I guess I didn't see the harm in letting her be "a kid" for once. It seemed mindless for them to enter her into a show that she would be too young to attend or understand.

I would recommend checking this documentary out. It importantly raises the question - what is art? And can a child really paint a masterpiece. As I said before, only time will tell.