I noticed a lot of discussion in our lack of comments thread on the subject of whether works done in digital 3d are considered art. I found the mini controversy interest and would like to see more thoughts on the subject. I don't think it is necessary to restrict the question to 3d alone, as I have no doubt that manipping is also under something of a stigmata as well.

To begin the discussion I thought I would let Merriam and Webster weigh in.

Quote:

i believe in the whole, it primarily IS art. yes, yes, i've heard the arguments, bout how anyone with the same program and models can do exactly the same thing, but thats like saying everyone with an easel and a paintbrush can be van gogh. its illogical. yes, the programs and the models are tools, and yes most 3d artists DON"T create their own programs or their models, and most painters don't create their own easels or their own brushes. their merely tools, and its wut each indiviual artist puts into it that makes 3d art. and its hard, to lose that samey look. just like its hard to get rid of the white canvas, or the white page.

so yes, i think its art. and yes i think this holds true to manipping and other forms of digital art. i view the computer as merely another tool to do the job.

Ahhh...This could be a subject of passionate discussion from both sides, but to me the way I see things it's simple: Art is the ability to create something unique, could be a drawing, 3D, manip or sculpture... or even any other form of art. And why be stucked on only these? I'm sure there's a lot of talented people out there that are genius at what they do, doens't that might be considered art as well? Or fan fiction (writing) for that matter?

As for digital arts and that's the subject here, I have to agree with PC about the computer being only another tool... Heck, I've tried 3D and I know I can't match his beautiful artwork no matter how much I try or what kind of program or models I have.
And that goes to manips too, I make some fairly good images now, but I can't be on the same level of Bio or chilly or any of the genius...
So, in my opinion it's the person talents that are important in the creation of a masterpiece of art, not what medium they use to achieve their vision.
If you don't belive me, give it a try and make a 3D piece like PC or Hawk or Tart or make a manip like Bio or JR... then you understand what I mean.

You need hard work and practice with every new piece you try to make to improve yourself, and as penciller too I can say that happens if you draw something in a piece of paper too... Of course, here I agree that having better materials will make your drawings look better BUT you gotta have the talent.

Now I love all in all kinds of art out there, so I'm not saying that an artist must do beautifull pieces, we all know some artists have their own style that works for them and you liked or not, even the less talented can produce art that can be appealing to someone. What I'm saying is that every person that dream and have a vision can try to make it real using whatever tools they have at their disposal and called it Art.
One more question about digital art: the pros that color comics and such with computer programs aren't they artists as well?

Anyways, to me the most important about art is you gotta have fun doing it and make it for yourself.

The way I see it is that the dictionary definition given by Bio clearly allows for 3D ART to be classed as such, and I won't argue with that. I never said that it wasn't anyway. Also, OCP and PC are right, you're only as good as your equipment and talent allows you to be, but it doesn't make it any less ART.

Ah the endless debate rages on ;)

I think that the major crux of the argument is what petercotton mentioned -- that Poser images are very much created using other people's models. And I say Poser specifically rather than 3D in general because I've never heard anyone say that something created in Lightwave, etc., isn't art.

The analogy about a traditional artist not creating his own brushes and easels doesn't really work in relation to Poser, though. When I create a piece, its true that I don't make my own pencils. But I have to do everything else. I have to map out the proportions, create the character's underlying structure, create depth and then I have to draw each piece of clothing, each strand of hair... the pencil doesn't do any of that for me, but the majority of Poser users don't do any of that. They click the "add figure" button. Most probably don't even pose the figures themselves, they just click a pose they've downloaded or purchased. Same goes with clothing, face morphs, lighting, sets, etc. If I take a bunch of action figures and arrange them in a playset, have I created art?

Now, to be clear, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I used to use Poser extensively and while I haven't touched it in almost 2 years, I certainly think Poser can be used to create art. However, I can also see the other side of the argument (and see prime examples every time I visit Renderosity).

well, i kinda agree with ya ods, in that it takes a bit more hard work to make 3d actually art, as yeah, i've been to renderosity, and i know EXACTLY wut you mean. but i still think my analogy holds true, because, the computer is merely a tool. yes poser/DS makes the proportions correct and wutnot, but thats not all a picture needs. it needs inspiration and heart, and THATS wut makes 3d just a tool, because that is dependent on the artist, not the program.

hope i'm making at least a little sense.

Quote:

That's true, but the point is that the majority of Poser users don't have to do any of the "hard stuff" that a traditional artist has to do in order for their inspiration and their vision to really take shape. It's already been done for them by other people. I guess my analogy would be that the average Poser user is the equivalent of an inker and colourist in the comic industry. Yes, it takes effort and skill to make it look good, but everything they do is building on another artist's work -- it's adding to existing work, not creating something entirely their own.

I'm very happy with the way this Poser image turned out: Mr. Freeze
But the fact is, no matter how much I may like it, the only truly original things in this image -- the only things I actually did myself -- are the lights, the displacement map for his wrinkles and the texture on his armour.

And that's why, in my opinion, so many people don't classify Poser art as REAL art -- because 99% of Poser users wouldn't be able to do what they do without other people creating the content for them. And I suspect that's also why so many Poser users (again, especially at Renderosity) have such thin skins.

ok here is what I think of art.
When I was in Art school, one of my professors defined art. I pretty much go with his definition of it. First you have to take it down to the core of what it really is. Expression. Take away the externals, and additions such as skill level, tool sets, talent, and ability. Human have at their core two basic drives. one is sex and the other is to survive. So something done not to directly or indirectly satisfy one of these drive and only done to express something for the sake of expression is art.(there of course can be some overlap) if you do a picture to get laid, it can still be art. why do a picture. you could have gotten a girl on charm, wit, luck, money. but the person choose to create and express themselves. motivation of expression does not define expression. Pro-artists, create art even though they could have gotten a job doing manual labor.
You go to work, to get money, you want money to get food, shelter, and if you get enough it also makes you more attractive. So you can get both sex and survival from working. Here is a little story to illustrate.
Imagine taking a leak on a snow bank. If you just stand there and let nature do it's course. you are satisfying your need to survive, what goes in must come out. Not art. You just stood there and took a piss. But if you wrote your name, Drew a little stick figure with the stream. Bamm!!! Art!!! Why, because you didn't have to. You were expressing yourself. the tools used were your Johnson and piss in the snow, but it is still art.
Now should all art be appreciated and put on display, absolutely not. But just because the medium and quality are that of piss in some snow doesn't change the fact that it is art. it was created only for the purpose of expression, it didn't have to be done. It took effort and even a little imagination.
A lot of arguments that I have heard over the years, is that isn't art. usually is about quality and skill level. Art doesn't come in different levels it either is or isn't. quality, tools, and skill have nothing to do with it.
A simple drawing of a stick figure isn't less art then the statue of David. They are both art. They just have greatly different skill levels and mediums done in their creation.
Art is all around us, all day every day. from written words, to the design of your PC/MAC. We are the only animal on the planet that creates art. It really is the only thing that seperates us from other creatures of the world besides our intelligence. Thumbs...sorry nope, tool use....not even close, sex as enjoyment...nope, Art ..yes.
In our quest to define ourselves as both individuals and culture quite a few of us have the need to create. a drive that has no purpose and usually has no benefit to us either. I know I create simply because I have to. I think about images and projects. I have ideas for things, I know I will never have the time to make.
Manips, poser, daz studio, photoshop. it doesn't matter. It is art. The argument that you have to model the figure for it to be art, or create the texture for it to be art, isn't about art. it is about quality and skill level.

Mondrian is a good example of this. A lot of people say his stuff isn't art, I have heard it discussed 100s of times.

lets compare it to this


Both still art. Both still valid.
The main reson people don't call Mondrian's stuff art is because they don't like it. Personal taste doesn't change what it is. Just because I don't like my neighbor doesn't change the fact that he is a person. Yet people make the same argument. Just because Jim Lee's art looks better then Darth Pauls doesn't mean Darth's not an artist.
Just because a 3d artist doesn't model or a photomanipper doesn't take the photo. or a painter didn't grow the fruit and make the bowl, or a pencillers didn't make the pencil and paper. Doesn't mean they didn't create art. It means that they didn't make the model. didn't take the photo, didn't grow fruit or make a bowl, etc.
Skills, quality and personal taste often get brought up in these discussions, and really those are different discussions altogether.

I hope my rant made some sort of sense to those reading it.

Quote: Damn Straight I'm an Artist! Thank's Hawk. Truth of the matter is that most of the general public who sees my work thinks that I'm a frickin' artistic genius, it's only among my fellow artists in cyberspace here that my strenghts and weaknesses get evaluted and I become that much better. Yet, it's that public, and my friends here in cyberspace that enjoy my work for the art that it is that really matters rather than the detractors. As should matter to the 3D folks or the manippers. Incedentally Jim Lee is one my favorite artists and someone that I strive to get to a level such as him someday.

Personally, I like to compare Poser artists to film-makers. Any dork with a camera phone can film a movie. Does that make them Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan? No.

Do film-makers make their own cameras? No. The camera is a tool. The film-maker takes different elements others create (script, costuming, actors, etc.) to create his art.

Who care... shut the *bleep* up and get to work!!!! Without manips, 2d, and 3d we don't have a site.... so quit bickering about "what is art" and get busy creating images in what ever media you like.






Oh and Jackson Pollock is still just a paint slappin and chunkin' hack.

I went to the Art Museum in St Louis and there was a fool displaying his art there. It was basically huge sheets of glass suspended from the ceiling that were smashed. Glass shards were allowed to remain scattered across the floor. On either side was two paintings where another fool glued bits and bobs to a canvas and painted everything gray/tan. I was under whelmed.

Was this art? By accepted definitions, yes. To me no.

I worked for a company that had a collection of painting, prints, and photographs. There was a fulltime curator that would rotate them from the collect and display them around the office building. As I was waiting to get on the elevator, they were hanging a new painting in the lobby. I overheard it mentioned how much it was worth. I do not think it was appreciated when I said (my wife says I whisper louder than most people shout), ?Huh, my girl paints better than that and I get it free?. Several people agreed with me.

So how does the relate to 3d? Basically anyone with the money and time can get the programs, models, and such. Using them they can make a picture. My child with paint can paint a picture. With pencils they can draw. With clay they can sculpt. They maybe talented. Without the discipline to learn and hone their talent though, it is only primitive attempts at art.

Having the discipline to learn how to use their chosen tools to direct their talent to best achieve the effect they desire makes something art. There are several people that have posted here that have demonstrated to me that they use 3D to make art. There are a lot of people, myself included, that struggle along attempting.

In short it doesn't matter the medium, it's the results.

To me, Art is anything built by man that gives pleasure to any or all of our five senses.

But I tell you this: I hate Marcel Duchamp because he opened Pandora's box. Anything could be Art according to his ideas. And Art was not the same after him. I hope you are burning in Hell, Duchamp!

What I see is "bad" and "good" Art. To me, the atemporal (and good) Art is anything that survives, anything that show us a different vantage point. Anything that could be considered a new step in human perception.

So... to me, the sameness is ignorable which could be understood as "bad" art.

I have a hard time putting my thoughts into something coherent on this subject. I imagine I'm fairly inconsistant as well. So wit that in mind.

That dead guy with the afro that painted happy little bushes always seemed to be on drugs, however I can not deny the end result is freakin amazing. He makes it look too damn easy.

I would love to slap whoever had the idea to spit food coloring through a straw onto a canvas and then sell it for 10 million.

Van Goght was a nutjob with a missing ear, but still fairly influencial.

M.C. Escher confuses my eyes and makes my brain hurt, but I can't get enough of his stuff.

As far as Daz and Poser go. I've heard the "playing with dolls" arguement. And I can somewhat agree with that. But I've also seen Bill Turner take the bare essentials and blow your mind. There is also that I've played with Daz a bit and then I look at what can happen if Colero or Winterhawk combines that with a few other programs. In that case, I don't care how many programs it took to get the end result. As long as it's pleasing to the eye.

I am very intrigued by Winterhawks simplification of ?What is Art??.
While reading it, I couldn?t help but wonder how Marcel Duchamp fit in (or if he even should), but farther along the page Android pretty much covered my opinion on that.

In the fledgling tradition of ?Found Art?, Duchamp puts a urinal on display and names it ?Fountain?.
What especially bugs me about this is that he didn?t even make what he?s taking credit for; he found it, displayed it, and gave it a name, period. But, this does touch upon a subject that I like to consider, from time to time; what about relationships between art and craftsmanship?

The aforementioned urinal may be a very attractive urinal, one that strikes a good visual balance, maybe skillfully reflecting a particular style of art matched to its projected environment, and thoughtfully designed (right down to the composition of the porcelain used to construct it).

The craftsman that designed and built this urinal did so to initially fill the primal need to survive (paycheck$ = food and lodging), but somewhere along the line they put more into the project than what was strictly necessary to get the job done. I think that this too denotes artistic expression though it seems less recognized.

And then, like today, some jerk comes along, puts their name on it and claims it as their own (Duchamp interweb style).

OK I have stood in the background and listened long enough, I would really like to understand why someone can say that a piece of canvas that some Hippie high on crack and fruitloops has thrown paint and ink on can be called art, but something that we, as 3D artist, have spent numerous hours on manipulating envirnments and characters to make a scene that can be understood is called shit?
Don't get me wrong I have seen some really fucked up 3D art and when I was starting out I made some of it. Now I can see where you need to do more than throw things together and hit the render button.
Guys like Collero who make a render and then cover do a complete covering of the render so that it looks almost real, are awesome, BUT they are still 3D artist. Guys like Bio have taken a basic render of a figure and turned them into very impressive manipulations, but it still has a 3D base.
Art is in the eye of the viewer and for some of you to say that 3D does not qualify as art are dilluted and high on your own abilities to draw and paint. It is an elitist attitude that I find to be bordering on ignorance. So 3D artist have chosen to use a program that has prebuilt characters and props, we still import them into the scene and manipulate the outcome to produce an image that is either pleasing to the viewer or possibly in some cases utterly discusting to others. I do Fetish renders, which to some is considered to be borderline porn. Some people understand what I do and enjoy what I produce, others don't. Do I find ways to tell those that don't understand my work that they are stupid or wrong? No, I take it that they either do not understand the concept or idea behind my work and I move on. Most fetish artists, such as I consider myself to be, are eclectic individuals that for the most part are looked at as repribates and twisted when we dress a model up in latex and tie her to a frame with ropes or chains. So I am doublely damned for the art I produce. I guess what I am trying to say and being long winded about it is this, wether you agree with it or not 3D IS art. We have just chosen a different media then you have, so either accept that or you can continue to pull excuses out of your ass as to why we are not artist. Your choice.
Let the flaming begin with me!

I hope the "playing with barbies" comment isn't what started your rant. But since we're on that route. I myself am not saying 3d isn't art. I see that it is.

I have heard the arguement that because YOU didn't create the Vicki 4 model. Nor did YOU create the clothes that were loaded and dressed upon her. And because every time you upload a picture you have to give credit to every single person who even so much as breathed a stitch that you used. Then therefore it is nothing more than playing with Barbies. I agree with that statement, to an extent.

Ubald is one who credits people, but his end result is all his own. You can't deny that.

Colero isn't one I've seen to have to credit others. Nobody's denying he's a 3d artist. In fact, I don't care what he is. He's mind bogglingly amazing at what he does.

What I really can't stand is the attitude that 3D is the future and there's no room for 2d or otherwise. If that were the case then Vallejo, Royo, Jim Lee, and the entire staff of Heavy Metal Magazine would be out of a job.

There are purists on both sides of the fence. And honestly, they can all kiss my ass. As long as the end result inspires you, who cares whether it's 2d, 3d, Poser, or 3DSMax.

......... and now that I've actually had time to read what everyone else in this thread said, I see I'm just repeating them.

I do think though that this definition of art can go further than just us. I mean, singers for example. They can do things with their voice that gives them a reason to be called an artist. Or hell, even the people who think up things like that sailboat building in Dubai, or a brand new Corvette design. I consider them artists.

no Thayne your "Barbie" comment had nothing to do with my rant. I have read several threads at different sites that have gone on and on about is 3D art or not over a period of time, and I finally had enough. Personally I think that 2D art is the shit, it will always be around in my opinion. I do 3D art because it is easier for me to express myself that way. IF I had to draw out the picture and then find the right colors and draw in the shadows and background I would end up with about 10 different ideas. 3D art is fast in the way that I can go to my folders and find exactly what I want quickly. I can then go to the material room and see exactly what the colors will look like and hopefully follow what I have as the finished image in my mind.
I have noticed that some of the worst bashers of 3D art are peope who have either tried orking with it and hated it, followed by those that have never used it before and think that it is below them to try it.
Now you Thayne do not fall into that, you have in the past helped me with projects when I asked you a question. You took the time to help me understand parts of a picture. Jut like Bio, Bio has forced me to step outside my comfort zone and try different things in the past. One of my best images is the one he helped me with and actually make the background for it.
I did not intend for people to think that I believe that all 2D artist are elitist, I know several here that are very friendly and helpful when they are asked for advice. The comments I made are intended for those artist that posted comments saying that 3D art is nothing more than a program and should not be considered art. I also think that as long as there are comic fans the traditional 2D comicbook will keep 2D art alive.
I guess I have done enough damage here so I will call it a night.

Quote:

Maybe I'm reading things differently than you are, but I just re-read this entire thread and I don't see anyone making comments like that.

Quote:

I would have to agree with ODS, I haven`t seen anyone here say anything close to that here. But I also know that MC is a special friend, he takes the short bus to HM. So I know he is probably talking about conversations at other sites or perhaps just the ones in his head Poor poor MC.