I feel odd for asking this question, but I'm sure at some time or another someone asked it to themselves... If you are using someone else's model, and someone else's texture, and someone else's pose for Daz's (someonelse's) Vicky3... is it truly your art? All you're doing is doubleclicking a couple of buttons, maybe changing the lighting, and rendering... I feel bad for using other people's textures when I know that if I had a 6 megapixel camera and a lot of time on my hands, I could do the same level of textures. And as for the models themselves, if I had a book for every last tiny little dial on the Vicky3 package, perhaps I could make something nice too (breast 1, 2, 3, 4... what?) Does anyone else have this problem of morals? Or is it just occur to those of us who aren't confident enough of their own work?

What ever gets that huge pain called an Idea out of your head, grab it and run with it. There have been artist down through the ages that said if you did not make the canvas and grind your own pigments that you were not a ture artist. Use the tools that are available to you to express your self and feel good about it. John Lennon drew with a pen, Warhol painted Cambells soup cans, and Van Goh painted what was out his hospital window. (over simplification of all artists, please don't hurt me and keep all flames to a simmer). Are you happy with what you have created? Did your vision or messege get expressed in the way that you wanted or needed to? Then it's all good! Why invent the wheel every time you need to express yourself if there is a parkinglot full of tires to be used. That's my feeling and I'm stickin to it.

I agree. While there may be a stronger personal satisfaction from making your own canvas and pigments, there's still a satisfaction that comes from finishing an oil that was done on storebought canvas and Ross' oil kit. I think artists tend to be very hard on one another. I get a kick out of my brother and sister. She pokes at him for making "photo realistic oils, right down to the distortions in the photo" and he looks at her free life oils and just grunts. Then they both look at my CG stuff and laugh. Who cares! I enjoy it. Takes my mind off work when I get home. And if I feel like I've used too much of other people's stuff, well, there's always Photoshop and the mouse.

When I was in art school, I was majoring in fine art. I had huge arguments with the teachers because they would not accept the airbrush as being suitabe for fine art because it wasn't 'tactile'. Even though the airbrush is much older than the common lead pencil they accept. Eventually I switched to Computer aided art and design instead. I think thats how you have to see things. All the wonderful models and textures that people make are in the end just tools. Another way to see it is companies like ILM. They have a huge range of people making their brilliant animations. Should the animators feel that they are not artists because they are using laser made models of the things the sculptures make and motion capture? or the sculpturs feel they are not artists because they are sculpting from the drawings the 2d artists make? and so on :) Thats just one way to look at it. I know exactly what you mean though :)

And, yes. it does occur to all of us when we're feeling a bit less confident than usual. We get over it. We have to, there is art to be made. Good, bad, indifferent, all of it art.:)) Emily

By the way, how you could be this doubtful and still have made an image like Red Flame is beyond me-- I'd be terribly proud to have that in my gallery. Very fine piece of work. Emily

Is photography art? Are movie directors artists? Until you put it together and turn it into your vision, the separate components of your renders don't mean much by themselves. I'm sure those who made Gollum were great modelers. But, I'm fairly certain they didn't animate him. Nor is it likely they wrote his dialogue or made him spit and kick water in the movie.

The Artists Way by Julia Cameron. A course in discovering and recovering your creative self. I HIGHLY recommend this book. I had so many people putting down what I did on the computer as playing, and negativity that I started believing them, and stoped doing art for about 2 years. This book helped me rethink what I believe in as art and my self and forget what others think and just create. Invaluable tool. Better than a $20 highres V3 texture haha! Go to your local barnes and noble grab a cup of something to drink and sit down with the book for a while. bet ya buy it. really glad there are others that think and feel out of the box to help support all the creative types. Grammaton your an artist and I like your images in your gallery, don't sweat the small stuff, just keep rockin with more and more images.

And wouldn't that 6 megapixel image you started with be "cheating," because you didn't handpaint every bit of that texture? How can tweaking dials on Vicky to produce a shape be art - surely you need to create an entire model from scratch? Questioning is always good but eventually, it reaches a point of Reductio ad absurdium and you find yourself digging the dand to make the silicon to make the chips to build the computer...instead of enjoying Poser. I agree with SothArtist's ILM anology. Yes, you can write a script, build a set, sew the costumes, set up the camera and act out all the parts in a film and I'm sure it would give a sense of accomplishment. That doesn't detract from the craft of the director who works with others who provide all of those functions to fulfill his or her vision. If you have a flair for modeling or creating textures for your work, by all means do it, but don't think any less of your work if you don't.

And does it matter? I am not trying to create 'art'. i am enjoying creating images and getting ideas out of my head. I have fun, sometimes the image is useful for someone else - example I did some cowboys and pirates for use in a local school's project work last week - that's even more satisfying. But art? That is surely in the eye of the beholder? There are plenty of great images in the galleries here which show skill in composition and choice of items included, great lighting and colour control and make you want to look at them more - is that not art?

"Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know."

~Groucho Marx~

Art is what artists do. It is or it ain't, but it has nothing to do with your materials. -Nancy.

I believe that the nature of the tools are not nearly as important as how you use them and what you do with them. I guess one could look at it this way: The modelers and texture artists provide the rest of us with the raw materials, but what WE do with them and HOW we use them is something entirely our own. A scultor may not have forged the tools he used or created the stone he shaped but when faced with the final result, would any of that really matter? Then would "David" not be considered Michaelangelo's artwork because he didn't forge the chisel he used, or created the rock he shaped? As lmckenzie said: "Reductio ad absurdium" :-) I believe that if you gain pleasure from the process of creating something and the end result pleases you, then whatever everyone else says doesn't really matter--- but always be open to constructive criticism. ;-) If your work pleases other people, if it speaks to them, then that's just icing on the cake. YOU have to like what you're doing and that's what really counts. Create for YOURSELF first and don't worry about pleasing other people. nukem

I too agree with the ILM anology. Plus, whan you think about it, all the great artists of the Renaissance had students who painted a great deal of the paintings. Does that mean they're not great artists?

Wow, I didn't really imagine I'd get so many responses. Thanks for all your help. :)

Doesn't this get asked at least once a week? lol Marque

Yup, Marque, it does. I think it's a little overdue. ^_~ Actually, I struggled with this at first, too. Lots of people do. We're trained that art is this mystical far off thing that only certain people can accomplish, and it's hard to get out of that. I like Scott McCloud's definition of art in "Understanding Comics". He defines art as anything that is not done to fulfill a basic survival need. Very amusing 2-page spread of a caveman. First he's chasing a woman (reproduction), then he's sighted by a sabretooth tiger and running away, evades the tiger as it leaps at him, he dodges and it goes careening over a cliff. Now what? Look for another cavewoman (reproduction), find some food? Nope. Blows a raspberry after the sabretooth tiger. Art. :)

Let me ask you this... if you use someone's brush that you bought, someone's paints and someone's canvas and then you paint God's sunset... is it your art? Of course. Because no one else has the ever seen it from YOUR perspective. And that's what you are creating. Sure, you may use someone else's model and texture and clothing... but you're creating a unique piece based on some image in your mind's eye.... that's art... whether you bring that mind's eye picture to live digitally, with a paint brush or on the wall of a cave using crushed berries as pigments.

All I can say is that if it were really that easy it wouldn't take me so long to do a picture. :)

If Photography and film making are arts, then it is art. Speilberg doesn't vat grow actors from cells ya know, or build the sets, or make the clothes etc... but at the end of the day it says "as Steven Speilberg film" doesn't it. :D Besides All one has to do is take a look thru the Gallery to see that different people can do VASTLY different things with the exact same models. Some just uncreatively stick things together with prefab poses and the default lighting, while others can create images of breathrtaking beauty.

If you didn't build the guitar yourself it's not real music, in other words? No, not quite.... NO amount of ready made anything makes a great artist. Just the lighting can take hours and hours, as can the postwork, to get that image right. And the original idea, the manner, the everything... The meshes you're using are just little part of it all. :] Fish

It all depends on which side of your brain you are using during the process ;-) Dale LaRoy Splitstone

Thank you Ookami and Musicat. Out of all the responses, I believe yours hit truest. :) The professor of art's quote was gorgeous... and when Ookami said " but you're creating a unique piece based on some image in your mind's eye.... that's art"... that hit the spot. Thanks. :)

I've been struggling with the problem from somewhat a different angle. LisaB's textures or Xena's models - or any texture/model series from a mature vendor whose product is invested with vision - meaning has a style one can pick out and know - that style becomes a very strong influence controling the look of the work, its style and / or its expression. The question for me isn't is the work 'art'; it's whether the expression of the work is mine or someone else's? I'm beginning to think that the more serious one is with actual vision - with the communication of oneself or an idea, the more one relies upon generic modeling or textures - blank slates upon which one can project texture and style. In the end, as gorgeous as many works are in these stores, as absolutely stunning the talent here is - that talent is the expression of the original creator no matter whether I purchased the 'thing' or not. This isn't the same as using 'God's' sunset - because a work of art expresses an emotional point of view in relation to the sunset. The sunset itself is neither beautiful nor ugly - it just is. LisaB's work is always beautiful. It doesn't require my particular slant for one to understand that is so.

I guess that is sorta what I feel as well, barb. It's like they said... using something to create that vision in your mind which in itself is art... but how can you complete your vision by using someone else's textures? For instance, there's this girl at work I'm trying to model, but no matter how hard I try, I can't model her... I want HER.. not Miasma, Alusenthia, Nia, Theresa, BlodWyn, or any other texture I've downloaded. And as much as I try to use any of those textures to accomplish what I originally saw, I can't, because it's just not her. And because I want it to be a surprise I can't exactly walk up to her and say "Can you give me an absolutely pallid expression so I can take a hi-res photograph of your face with a camera I don't own?" It's like just now, when I was trying to recreate a scene I saw in my effed up little head of mine... Poser is not all it seems to be. Why can't I get a girl to sit down like I want her to? Perhaps because I'm an idiot and the only thing I'm good for is getting pictures of nude girls I find online and remaking them into art pieces in a Photoshop that I don't even much own... or getting simple primitives in Cinema (again which I don't even own) and creating "works of art" to see if someone out there appreciates what I do. It is very rare for me to ever be happy with my work. My spider piece, which received the most compliments out of all my works is a piece I detested because I could not get rid of the stupid little cubes under its feet caused by a glitch in the reflection. My favorite piece "The Tear" has gotten absolutely NO comments.. but yet again, it's just a picture of a girl (whose picture was taken by some famous photographer somewhere, an image which is perhaps copyrighted), a wing, and a sword, Photoshoped to hell and back to make it look the way I wanted it to look. My art is horrid, and I'm not happy with it unless someone tells me it looks good. There, I spilt all my guts out to you people... :(

Grammaton - don't despair!! I am no expert, but I am pretty sure everyone feels like their art is no good and that they have no talent what so ever every once in a while (I know I sure do). And you're bound to have good days and bad days, just like anything else. The way I see it, when you download or buy a poser product, you don't only use it, you learn from it. You see what's good about it and what's bad about it, you may even try to change it to better suit you. You may say "wow, I'll never ever be that good", but you'll be surprised! Practice is the most important thing. I myself am still struggling with GOOD textures, and that's because I just didn't put enough time into it, and had very little practice. And about your friend from work - perhaps you should take a break for a few days, rest your mind and come back to it with "fresh eyes", then you'll know better where to go with it next. By the way, no one with a portrait like "Heather" can convince me they're not an artist. :)

Boris Valejo once said he was lucky if he managed to get 50% of the image he had in his head down on canvas. If someone of that caliber can't then don't feel bad! I heard that professional photographers will take 100 pics just to get one good one. I checked out your gallery and you have some awesome images there. I particularly loved Spider, Lost branch and silver plastic over a woman. Your a natural surrealist :) Dali would be proud hehe

The question is as bad as! "I have a wordproccesor, are the words mine, since they exist on a keyboard?" An artist creates what they see, either in their own mind or with their own eyes. It may be an idea for a friendly contest, you all create an image from a given set of models (given, means the choice of models NOT models given for the contest) i.e victoria 2, adventurers, and a sword. The rest is left to you. It would be amazing if 2 or more images were the same or even closely matching. What I think is art compared to what you think is art will be different. If you were to create your textures, your models, your poses, your lighting and then your backgrounds and postwork and it had taken you weeks, only to find it resembled something that you could have done "with a few clicks" would you not feel that you could have invested some of your time in developing your idea to make your image an excellent image. This community is an excellent example of being able to share in other peoples talent and skills. If I paint exactly what I see, is that art or just a copy of reality? Art is not just the finished item, it is what you get out of it. If you are not happy using other peoples items, then create your own. Artists suffer for their art but they should also see the benefits of using other people for their strengths. I buy my paper to draw on, I don't try to make my own. Use other peoples skills but don't abuse them! Credit where credit is due, if using other peoples items then let others know whos items you used to help create your images.

heh... Dali rules.

{Doesn't this get asked at least once a week? lol} Yes... and probably in the Art Theory Forum also. So, I'll forego my usual rant about how people should hit the "Search" link and just look through the archives for their answer. Tha bottom line answer is this: Poser, Vicky, textures, whatever are just tools that you use to make your art. Do you have to make your own canvas? Make your own pencil or paint or ink? No, but the final artwork is yours. Did your home builder take credit for building your home? Why? He didn't create the wood or the plaster or the tiles or the fixtures. He only arranged the pieces together to form the final shape. That's exactly what you're doing when you make artwork in Poser- you are arranging pre-made items into your own vision.

::Yes... and probably in the Art Theory Forum also. So, I'll forego my usual rant about how people should hit the "Search" link and just look through the archives for their answer:: AT the same time, the question isn't one that necessarily has been answered. It's not an 'answerable' question one can reach a conclusion via the search button. So there is no :: ... bottom line answer is this ... :: ======== ::Did your home builder take credit for building your home? Why? He didn't create the wood or the plaster or the tiles or the fixtures. He only arranged the pieces together to form the final shape.:: But - what if my 'builder is an architect/designer' like Frank Lloyd Wright? A man of vision, and artist whose vision expresses itself in archtexture. If he built my house it is a Frank Lloyd Wright house - or, if I made my home in the style of it would always be 'like' or 'in the style of' Frank Lloyd Wright. The question is intrusive for Poser artists. mpov: It doesn't hurt to ask what we are doing and to examine the nature of significant work. And each time the question is asked, we have the possibility of maturing our own relationship to both Poser and our work.

BTW, why would anybody even care if what they do personally is art. If you like to do it, do it, don't worry about if it is art. And if people want to see it, display it. Once again, don't worry if it is art. If I zoom in on part of the Mandelbrot set and find it particularly interesting, it certainly would not be art, but I would share it nonetheless. Dale LaRoy Splitstone

"...why would anybody even care if what they do personally is art." Becuase if it's art then you're an artist and being an artist must be a very imoortant thing. Why else would people fight over the title. Some Lightwave folks will be happy to tell tou that if you use Poser, you're not an artist. Some who work with paint and canvass will be equally ready to tell you anyone who uses digital media isn't an artist. Others will tell you that photographers aren't artists. The "you have to make it all yourself," school withing Poser is jsut another tiny battle within the larger, never ending, turf war. I'm sure that if someone invented the StarTrek holodeck technology, some would say that anyone who creates scenes using force fields and tractor beams isn't an artist. Perhaps the first step to becoming an artist is to stop thinking about becoming one.

"...why would anybody even care if what they do personally is art." Because in my life.. that's all I have to strive for. Being 22, living at home with my parents, having no car, no girlfriend, nothing... all I have is a tablet and hours on my hands... If I can't be someone in the material world, let me be someone in the digital world. That's why I want to be an artist, because I want to be someone.

"That's why I want to be an artist, because I want to be someone." What? You want to be a penniless, starving, underappreciated someone in a garret? (j/k) To me, that statement indicates that you don't think of yourself as an artist yet. That doesn't mean you won't get there or that the works you currently produce aren't without merit. I'm not an artist (visually... I have a higher opinion of my writing) - not yet. But I enjoy what I do, and sometimes, with the help of Poser, Bryce, whatever, I manage to make something that looks at least a bit like the picture I had in my head to start with. That's art - the pic in my head. Maybe I haven't always got the hang of translating that to the screen yet, but hey, it's all good practise :)

OK, try this. I am nearly 50, single, living alone, no girlfriend, and working part time. My goal is to be an excellent 3D craftsman. Why do I need to be a mediocre artist when I can be a superb craftsman? Dale LaRoy Splitstone

When I first began doing 3D art.. especially in Poser with all the available free downloads and "props" that others have made, I too questioned whether this was truly my art or someone else's. Before Poser I used to do a lot of pencil sketching and "comic book style" artwork. At that time I never doubted my artistic ability. However, as I began setting up props and sticking one model here and another there, it felt more like I was simply photographing someone else's work. It wasn't until I discovered "post-working" and how much more can be added to a simple combination of lighting and props. This was where my true artistic talent shined, and this, I believe, is what distinguishes anyone from someone else. It's that personal touch they add to every picture. No matter the props... it's the artist behind it that can make the true work of art. My two cents...

Milla's comment brought something to mind. I wonder if there is a difference in attitudes between: People who came to Poser with a background in "traditional" art - painting, sketching, sculpture, etc. and People for whom Poser is really the first significant experience they've had with art as an adult. My hypothesis is that the traditional folks would be more likely to feel some doubt about the artistic nature of Poser.

I started doing art when I was young, around 5... atleast that's what my parents tell me. Between 10 and 16 I started to do more and more drawing art, but they were usually copies (duplicates of original pieces). Either way, around 18 I picked up the computer to start doing art in. I started off in some Macromedia art program (I think it was Macromedia.. it was an M that was half blue, half red for a logo). From there I went on to get Corel and then I found POV-Ray. I think I did some of my first 3d pieces in POV-Ray, then I got MORAY and did even more. Then I found Lightwave, hated it, and found Cinema which I loved. I've been using C4D for about 3 years now, and just now I picked up Poser. It is a strange jump for me. Unlike in Cinema where you'd have to build a person from nothing, Poser just gives you the person. Then there's this site which I found while trying to find something on how to make dynamic clothes work in Poser (and I have yet to figure out how), and now I've gotten to the guilty pleasure of downloading premade models... So I went from making 3d images from scratch (POV-Ray) to buying premade models and using them in "scenes". See where my problem is? eh..

Please excuse my slight case of bi-polarism... it seems to be a strange side/added effect of having AHAADD... so if I seem fine one day, then I burst another... it's normal. :