Recent events in our Bryce forum here have concerned the Renderosity magazine cover contest, with much grumbling over the level of Poser use (or, more accurately, perceived Poser use) on the winning entries. One comment summed up the grumbling for me, which was this: "However, BigT did not actually create anything in his image." So, did he? Does the act of posing models made by others, and assembling them in a program made by others, constitute an act of creation? Are Poser users nothing more than gallery curators gaining plaudits for displaying the works of others? We think we are creating art, but are we deluding ourselves? We've had this discussion with ourselves many times, but is the lack of an outside perspective preventing us from seeing a truth we don't want to bear?

Is a great photographer an artist or not? He/she uses pre-assembled models who wear clothes made by others in settings designed by yet others. By that token, any photographer is merely displaying the works of others, yet "experts" have - for many years - applauded the artistry in photography. IMO, Poser is a virtual photography studio. As a tool for creating images it's very good. Any art created therein is down to the skill of the user. As for creating models so as not to be "merely displaying the works of others", I could - and one day will - refine my meagre modelling skills enough to create some good quality meshes. But will that make me more of an artist? Nope, it will merely show I can make models. However, if anyone is still unsure, gimme canvas, paints and brushes and I'll "artist" all over the place. :)

"Yet another "is it art?" thread" why??? Can't you just read the other hundreds of posts and not start this all over again...

Ever see a texture you know is excellent look positively awful in an image? Ever see one that you thought was awful only to find it absolutely radiant in the right hands? There's more to it than simply pulling in a model and slapping on a texture...composition, lighting, and a multitude of other factors have to be considered regardless of what tool you use. That is what they all are, tools. Whether you choose to do your work with a computer or with conventional media the same things have to be taken into consideration. I used to work with pastels and oils, no one ever suggested that I should grind my own pigments and mix my own binders. I didn't make my own paper or canvas either, I purchased my tools then just as I do now. I just use a different tool box.

This is an easy one to answer. Is it art? YES. Hey, I've seen plenty of people create models from scratch (I sometimes do myself as well), but just because you have the skills to model an object doesn't mean you can texture it and set up a scene effectively enough to create a great image or animation. Things like lighting, textures, camera angles and position, perspectives, and postwork all constitute skills that in the real world would all be considered an "art".

Now come on !!!! Why all this "is it art"-stuff ? Why all those big, fine words ? Whats wrong with just having some hours of fun infront of the PC or Mac, making pretty, funny, horror-what-ever-you-like-pics...whats wrong about that ? Whats wrong about selling stuff to each other to make some poketmoney or just give stuff away for the joy of it ? Why does this 3d-thingie have to be blown up to more than joy and fun...what I have a feeling it is / was for most people around here or at the other sites. Why pretend it is so darn seriouse ? Sky.

Is the work of Ansel Adams art? He created neither sets or his cameras... but my, my, what an eye.

"Now come on !!!! Why all this "is it art"-stuff ? Why all those big, fine words ? Whats wrong with just having some hours of fun infront of the PC or Mac, making pretty, funny, horror-what-ever-you-like-pics...whats wrong about that ? Whats wrong about selling stuff to each other to make some poketmoney or just give stuff away for the joy of it ? Why does this 3d-thingie have to be blown up to more than joy and fun...what I have a feeling it is / was for most people around here or at the other sites. Why pretend it is so darn seriouse ? Sky." Nothing wrong with that point of view, Sky. I believe the debate is about whether or not a Poser user is capable of producing art.

The other night, my family and I were sitting at the dinner table (having dinner - of course) and my daughter yells out "I did it mommy!!! Lookit what I made!!" and there on her plate was a tower of mashed potatos that kind of resembled the Eiffel Tower. She said "I'm creative huh mommy?" and of course I agreed with her, she really is creative and artistic. In her hands - mashed potatos became the Eiffel Tower, and it was a masterpiece - I assure you. Now to the point (at last lol) What right do I have to tell her otherwise. The fact that she did not grow the potato, peel it,cook it,and mash it does not mean that her work was any less real and spectacular. To her it was art. Does it really matter what others think if you are happy doing whatever it is that you do? - Now, go play in your mashed potatos! lol love, Jane

I'll ditto Dizzie.

SamT...I was reacting against an other "is it art"-discussion. Its a kind of empty discussion...I think. Most people do this for nothing else but fun. I dont think most of us do even think in the terms of art. And asking the question: Is Poser capable of producing art is an empty question as well...in my opinion. You could might as well ask just out in the blue air: Is a pencil capable of producing art ? Is a pen ? Is a videocamera ? The question is without meaning or content.

Thanks :-) Sky.

I went to art school. I ended up going into graphic design because I'm good at it, but also because I got so bloody damned fed up with this sort of discussion, this sort of "more artful than thou" crap. You know what? My clients couldn't give a fat hairy rat's ASS if I designed the fonts, made the Photoshop shapes myself, invented HTML, painted the textures, did the 3D modeling, etc. They pay me for the end result, and how I get there is no issue. So long as they get what they want, they're happy, I'm happy, and it's happy all around. Is it art? Why should I care? Fact is: I don't. And the cover of a magazine isn't "art" in the "fine art" sense. It's "illustration". With illustration (as with graphic design) it's the end result that counts, not the method or materials. And now let's discuss something more important, like, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" bonni

Why do those who apparently don't wish to participate in, or read, another "is it art?" thread feel the need to read and participate in one? :-D Skygirl, I have complete sympathy with the notion that Poser use doesn't have to be for the creation of art, and that such other use is just as valid. I've never really understood why people have campaigns against NVIATWAS type images (which is not to imply that NVIATWAS cannot be art), or any other type. Perhaps, given the nature of the remark that took me aback (see above), I should have titled this thread "is it creative?". I think the analogy of photography is interesting, especially that of studio photography. I'm starting to feel reassured. ;-)

Art is what you, the person with the vision, bring to a finished work.
Either it is terrible or fantastic, but that does not matter a whit. If it is creative it is art (even if only to you!).
Nor does it matter if you pound the pigments, make the brushes and canvas or simply buy them. It does not matter what medium you use or if you compose the scene or randomly stumble on one. You do not have to suffer, spend long hours in preparation or chop off your ear to be, or qualify as, an artist (contrary to much popular belief). Nor do you have to have a permit, licence, qualification or be a member of some exclusive guild, fraternity or secret society to be considered an artist.
For society to call you and consider you "an artist" you need some talent to show forth in your work. But who gives a damm about what society thinks! If you spend time in the creative process you can call yourself an artist and F**K the begrugers and naysayers and those that seek some sort of elitist labeling process that distinguishes them from every other creative mortal.
To every being on this planet art means something different. The only people deluding themselves about art are those elitist and aloof snobs who despise and demean the work of others no matter how poor it may seem to them.

End of short Rant!

Regards to all
STORM

have you just named this thread "is it creative?" it would have been an other story and I could have gone to bed hours ago without think a bit about anything (as I use to);-) Sky :-)

"Does the act of posing models made by others, and assembling them in a program made by others, constitute an act of creation? Are Poser users nothing more than gallery curators gaining plaudits for displaying the works of others? " isn't this just enginering? so someone spends months making a couple of props in Bryce or maya to make a crappy picture- big deal!! if I paint a picture of a chair someone else made if I draw a picture useing photoshop someone else made Ofcourse it's art

PJF "I've never really understood why people have campaigns against NVIATWAS type images " quite often it's repressed sexuality- and no ability to accept that others don't hold there 'moral' code. then the other side- seen them a thousnad times and it's boring

It is art dammit! You reacted to it didn't you. That's why you started this thread. Art does not necessary means positive all the time. It can invoke negative emotions too. Go to your dictionary and LOOK it up. Bigt in my book is an artist. His dragons are not even artistic nor awesone lookin; they look rather plain (no offense BigT), but the message he delivery is loud and clear. I bet you can't make us laugh like he did with his compositions of those dragons. How many model makers can make their own dragons, put them in a scene and make us laugh hard? Now we all grab some sticks and start beating the dead horse. My 1 cent, okay the economy is bad, I am keeping the other one. :D BTW Jane, your daughter is truly your's. I can see where her artistic creativity comes from :o)

lol Bonni :) "And now let's discuss something more important, like, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" guess what- the egg came first :P

No...it was the feather....

Geoegress, I think the chicken came first. Notice the cigarette in his mouth......... :D

...I miss that picture of the decomposing horse already. /P

lol@JV

In a museum, once I saw a six foot length of rope, hanging on a wall, with two waist sized loops at each end that were cut. It represented a Performance artist piece where a guy tied him self to his girlfriend for a month. That was considered great art. So as far as I can tell anything can be art. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise. DaveK

David Hockney and the Old Masters Aidan Campbell Pop artist David Hockney has sparked a sensation in the art world with his recent pronouncement that Old Masters like Caravaggio did not paint freehand but used a 'camera obscura' instead. This box device works on the basis that a pin-prick hole will reproduce an inverted image. It has long been known that Canaletto used the camera but Hockney's theme is that all Great Artists from the 17th century onwards used the method, and this 'trade secret' explains how they were able to depict reality so vividly. http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2000-02/art/candid_camera.htm

Yeah, and didn't someone get some kind of art award for displaying elephant feces? The artist did make the poop and yet...well, you get my drift. You might as well start from the beginning because, as far as I know, anyone making art has always used something that s/he didn't make whether it be sticks (coming from a tree), or rocks (coming from the earth), or brushes (made up of many things the artist probably didn't make). Aren't "those people" who continually ask this question really concerned about the quantity of materials the art was made with that they didn't themselves produce (assuming that the less they had to do with the materials used to produce it, the less it is art)? As one who is not a psychologist, I'd simply say it appears that people who get upset over Poser use are just jealous of the attention it gets. But, that's just my opinion. I felt I had about 10 minutes to waste before bedtime.

Ooops... "...The artist DIDN'T make..."

For all the people that ask the question "is it art", I suggest you try putting together an image using countless obj.'s, lighting the scene, setting up the cameras, rendering to the size needed and then putting the final touches on using a paint program. There is a real talent needed to do the above and I personally count it as art. It's too bad people can't sit back and enjoy the beauty that the ARTIST has created instead of picking everything apart.

Just about anything can be "art" with a small "a". The consensus of history defines "Art" with a big "A". Or has that been said already?

I remember the brouhaha from the "Pink Pony" episode. And I know, if only subjectively, that between the Pieta and one of the Pink Pony series which one I'd choose as being artistic. But... Virtually every definition of art revolves around the idea of 'skillful creation of asethetic objects,' and they all seem to allow for works we'd agree on as Art (the Pieta, Beethoven's Fifth, &c.) and those we'd as likely disagree on (the "Vicki in the Temple" genre, for example). My answer to the question "But is it art?" would be...yes; by any definition of art, the skillful creation of a Bryce or Poser scene (even using pre-existing objects, even if the user didn't alter a single mesh) would seem to qualify. If I were to render the default figure in Poser 5, using the default lights, would it be considered art? Probably not. But once I start adding customizations into the mix, the artistic level would rise. By that line of reasoning, there's no doubt that BigT is an artist.

On the subject of asking whether one creation or another is art. If you think about it, anything can be percieved as art. Sure, there are different opinions on the subjective value - but we're all entitled to those. If that wasn't true, we'd all be happy to have the same generic box for a car, a house, etc. ;) It's like someone asking if Rap/hip-hop were music. Sure, it may not have much of a melody or even harmony for that matter, but if you look at the syncopation and the development of the rythmic structure theres something going on there. Look at it as being the vocal form of percussion. Some may say that posting plain models isn't much in the way of art. However, work and detail went into the overall design, mesh layout, and mechanics of a 3D model. It may not have the prettiest placement in a scene or textures for rendering, but nonetheless the crafting of the model is an art in itself. Also others use the same model over and over again, but develop new texture sets. Sure, the model itself never truely becomes something new, however the new ways it is painted/textured can give it different character. To pull that off and make it work effectively is definitely an art. I guess the big gripe in Bryce and other communities is that they don't always feel equally represented. To pick on the artistic merit of something isn't exactly right though. Rather, they should do what they can to improve the development of their own images in order to bring out more meaning and character. (Even technically good artwork doesn't always hit home provided it can't evoke that emotional something.) There could be a rotation of what program gets represented, but with all the different software out there I doubt people would be happy to wait for "their" month to come up. So, there's a certain wisdom in not going with that idea here at Renderosity. I think the best bet would be to limit how soon someone can submit to another major contest after winning a top spot. It would be fair, and allow for fresh development and artist exposure. I'm a Brycer/Wings3D artist myself, yet I don't go griping about what gets more votes or wins contests. I know my artistry isn't always of the highest craftsmanship, but I don't atribute it to any flaws or lacking in the software. It is my own impatience with a given work and my desire to move on to something fresh. As for BigT winning, I have no issues with it as he's shown excellence in working with a particular subject (his dragons.) Now if he were to win a whole string of contests I might see some bias, but I don't think that's happened.

Dizzie is right. We're not going to say anything that hasn't been said before. That said, art is anything I say it is, at least to me. Look at Cherokee's still lifes and tell me that isn't art. No figures. But in Poser with assembled (some custom made for the picture) props. Isn't that what people do in other 3D programs? So in Vue or Bryce you build a beautiful scene using the generated mountains, water, and atmosphere. You haven't done any more work (usually less) than a Poser artist. It's not the medium or the tools, it's how the artist's vision moves the viewer. Does an actor create art? He's directed through a pre-scripted scene, he's not adding lines or movement that wasn't given to him. But he creates his own art. The same with a musician. The same with an artist. As for voting, well, count the number of people who belong here who are mainly Poser, and add up all the rest. The Poser people outnumber everyone else. Sure, we vote for Poser pictures. They're the ones we look at. I like the Poser galleries because there's more originality and more humor in them. And of course, more nekkid men. At least I'm honest. Art snobs are entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to mine. Yeah, and some people eat snails. ...and Dizzie is STILL right. But I can never resist a soapbox.

The same can be said about all the Bryce artists then, nothing they do with Bryce can be called art because they didn't go out & grow the mountains they use. Slap the next person who says it's not art & tell them to wake up.

sorry i rushed out in this topic without much reading, as it looks so the same with a couple of threads i had read here some weeks/monthes ago.. would just say so: photography is not an art, until the photograph gave birth to the girl/model he poses, knot/designed/made the clothes she wear, and was a lead researcher scientist in the lab who released the camera he is using... yeah right :) and you are not an artist too until you do not make your own pencils out of real animal fur/hairs, and make your own canvas too , and smash berries and herbs into color paints :)

Well, as an animator (here's where animators FINALLY get an advantage on R'Osity ... wheee!) I can truly say what I do is art. (Not saying that still artists' work here isn't!) By the time I'm done a movie, I've put more artistic talents into it than I care to mention. Okay, if you really want to know ... well let's see: - Write a script. - Act. - Do voice-over work. - Set-up environments, lights, camera moves, and ANIMATE figures, objects, etc. - Composite. - Add special effects. - Edit. - Do sound design: soundfx, mix music, etc. - Encode it. OKay, that's not artistic at all, but it still can require a lot of your time to get right. It's hard enough completing an animation, if I had to model and texture-map everything too, I'd NEVER get anything done!! I think if one project sucks an 6 months to an entire year out of your life to complete, shouldn't that count for something too! Don't you? :) -Tim

But getting back to still artists ... like writing a script for an animation, I'd say the real art occurs in the mind. To me, creativity = art. So when the still artists' contemplate what their scene is going to look like (and I'm sure for many it evolves AS they CREATE), that is where the art is occuring. Now, if you loaded someone elses PZ3 and hit the render button ... that would not be art. I'd say the qualifying factor is: If you put any kind of original thought into composing something, than it is art. IMHO of course. _Tim

SamTherapy wrote: "Is a great photographer an artist or not? He/she uses pre-assembled models who wear clothes made by others in settings designed by yet others. IMO, Poser is a virtual photography studio." Amen. - Orio

Seems to me we're discussing a side issue ;o) Why, or more precisly to whom, is it so IMPORTANT to be labelled "Art"? My guess is that it's important to every do-it-yourself'er who feels threatened by the "mass-producers" using Poser and other kinds of "automated" apps. Not pros who are losing their market (they simply use the tools that serve them best), but amateurs who are losing attention and admiration to products that may not LOOK inferior, but definitely ARE inferior. They just have to argue this into a fact rather than a partisan view ;o) They can't afford to accept Poser art as Art, the "attention/admiration market" is too small for both camps. That's why our internal art/non-art debate is a side issue. This is essentially a fight for the "hearts and minds" of the cheering public. If Poser artists want to win, they have to stop arguing with the anti-Poser camp, and concentrate on wowing and wooing the public. Stop arguing and start filling the Poser galleries with great art, sneak even better Poser art into the anti-Poser galleries, and don't reveal the Poser origin until it's too late - for them ;o) I don't think the cheering public is all that different from the paying public - as long as the (shortcomings of) the production process are invisible, it's the product that counts. Give'em a good one ;o)

Waht about the elephant in India that paints with it's trunk. The beasts paintings go for around 1k-10k :O)....IMHO it's all art. I agree with Bonni...all that matters is the end result not what you did to get there...as long as you aren't stealing someones elses work. Debby

It's Art. You have 3D tools and with these tools you produce your visions.

Rembrant-"Night Watch" A list of credits was found attached to the back of the painting. Cobblestons from-Ace Cobblestones Inc Buildings-Buildings Galore Construction Torches from-Torches are us Armor from- Acme Armor Hand Weapons from- Sword Inc. Spears from- Spears-a-lot Male clothing from- Gentlemans Tailor Female clothing from- Ladies Pretties Male figures from- The Nightwatch Volenteers Females from- Millies house of the red lantern. Plus many small accessaries. Rembrant said "I just did the lighting, and arranged the figures" Rendered with oil paint, on canvas, and brushes Using "Sams Oils", "Canvo canvas", and "Stroke It Softly" Brushes. :OP

Actually, Rembrandt probably had his students and pupils paint most of it. That was the habit of the "old masters". That's why they were the master. They had apprentices who learned from them, and they learned by DOING it. That's what the term "school of Holbein" or "school of Rembrandt" or whatever means. In some cases, it's likely that the actual "master" only showed up to give the nod of approval, correct the students here and there, and then sign the canvas (if that) and deliver it to the patron! bonni

rockets said: For all the people that ask the question "is it art", I suggest you try putting together an image using countless obj.'s, lighting the scene, setting up the cameras, rendering to the size needed and then putting the final touches on using a paint program. There is a real talent needed to do the above and I personally count it as art. It's too bad people can't sit back and enjoy the beauty that the ARTIST has created instead of picking everything apart. i agree, here. to me, it takes so much work to set up a pic even using the models of others in poser, that i basically have put poser aside. to me, in another app, building the model, and texturing it, etc., takes no longer than finally getting a poser render that i like. (and posts to other galleries don't get buried in 15 minutes.) to me, poser is hard. period. and, to me, perhaps alone, it is not really worth the effort, anymore. i don't know if it is or isn't "art"....guess that would depend on who created it and how skilled they are at their craft. my bird builds little stacks of his water and food dishes, assorted plastic lids and paper shreds daily. he thinks they rock, but, i don't consider them art, either.

"Art," by definition is a function of individual perception. You may get a consensus among a large group of individuals that somethinf is or is not art but you will never get absolute agreement. Even if you could get every human being on the planet to agree, it would still be only an opinion, a perception, not a fact. Art is not like a carbon atom that would persist, immutably even if all life in the universe were to suddenly cease to exist, it's a concept People may enjoy thinking of theiir opinions, their perceptions as facts, but that does not make it so. I think that Thip hit the nail on the head here. The question is not about art, but rather about artists and the need for the particular type of ego fulfillment that perceiving oneself as an artist brings. The more exclusive the membership, the greater the ego boost. In this case, the only way to maintain exclusivity is to subscribe to a definition of art that excludes as many people as possible. Sometimes, those who perhaps feel less secure, even in their own self definition, feel obligated to act as protectors of the true faith, aggresively attacking infidels. It's probably no coincidence that Hitler wasn't an Aryan.

stands in the corner watching the debate

well afaik i never asked myself the question about "art" in my poser use.. there are many peopel here that, in my own point of view, create ART with poser, because there is both skills (that i lack or yet need to learn), mastery (in those skills) and sensitivity, emotion or imagination in works i saw.. i also saw many great works that are respectful due to technics and skills, yet lack a bit of imagination, originality or sensitivity (again, according to my needs/standards, that may be a bit highs), yet i respect it too, and i think even mastery of skill, craftmanship is an art, aside from pure creativity. some say cooking is an art.. well what do we do in poser ? we put in some reagents/ingredients, and we use our skill relative to the media/software (sklls in posing, lighting, poswroking, etc) as a cook chief masters the heat time, the tools etc... so here i see many ART pieces made with poser, i see many "craftmanship" pieces too, and i see other things that lak sometime technics (i do lck technics myself so i can recognize it) yet carry either a feeling or a message, maybe it is art too ? i use poser as an hobbyist, and as a total newbie regarding skills in digital arts and tools. But i never ask mysel" am i doing art" ? i dont care, for me poser is a "media", a way to express my ideas, my feelings, or my imaginary world of mine. Right now, i have a handful of totally unartistic, unskilled but very humorous pictures ideas to make with posers... humor is sometime an art, or it is pure madness and cheer laugh.. i dont think the creator can label his work as art, art is seen by the eye of viewer. I saw pictures of friends (non poser, classic pencil) that they did not value as art themselves but that reallt moved other people and thus labelled art. i too had a problem with a text/short story i wrote, simply for killing time and try to carry my ideas and feelign as acuratly as possible on a paper with words. I did not valued the artistic value (were there a value after all) of my art, simply a "dejection" (well a poo :) of my spirit, something i had just to let out :) the only goal was that people who may read can experience the feelings i had myself in head in the more faithfull and accurate way(though i never show this, people find it by chance/hazard, i do not display on purpose). But once one person that was visiting me caught the paper while i have my back turned and told me it was a great piece of art and it reminded her of some other famous work (that i did not even read, so no hidden influence) and i should make more, show it, and the like.. i told her i never had pride in displaying my poo to the world :p now if someone like the smell of it, it's all his problem :) from what i learned, art only exist on the viewer's eyes, not the creator (unless being overly proud of oneself and a bit arrigant maybe of too self confident), and art often comes unexpected.. Try to force yourself to MAKE ART, most of the time it will fail. Try to simply let things out of your mind in a sincere way, and it may be art for someone else, but hardly for you :) question: would you tell that a picture featuring a girl cladded in a pink and strawberries swimsuit, riding a giant toonized strawberry with angry eyes and big foots, yelling "hayaaaa silver" could be called art ? i dont, but i stil am making such a picture (?!) so... who cares ? What i care is that i manage to get it look the way i have it in mind... if not, i hope other people will have enough imagination to overcome the crudeness of it and still see it the same way i did... You would rather call it madness/insanity, but please dont tell people in white blouses where i do hide :)

Somebody clever once said, "One can not hypostatize an abstract concept." If you try to you get threads like this one. Isn't there a difference between concrete and abstract concepts? Then why treat them the same way? A man may run swiftly, but not because he has swift. A child can act intellegently, but not because he has intellegence. You can mind your parents but not because you have a mind. A render can be done artfully but not because it is (or is not) "art." Humm?

"The question is not about art, but rather about artists and the need for the particular type of ego fulfillment that perceiving oneself as an artist brings. The more exclusive the membership, the greater the ego boost. In this case, the only way to maintain exclusivity is to subscribe to a definition of art that excludes as many people as possible. Sometimes, those who perhaps feel less secure, even in their own self definition, feel obligated to act as protectors of the true faith, aggresively attacking infidels." I've come to this conclusion, too. I don't know why, but some people feel the intense need to define themselves as "artists". They elevate "talent" (which is usually more a combination of practice, natural ability, practice, experience, and practice) to some sort of "touched by the gods" gift, and in order to feel appropriate special and touched by the gods, they have to narrowly and rigidly define what an "artist" is, so that it only applies to them (and sometimes to people exactly like them). A while back I had a much-praised and admired image on another site, and the image was made with Poser (and a TON of postwork). Someone made the comment, "It takes no talent to use Poser." Now, totally aside from the fact that Poser does NOT have a function to add extensive hand-painted postwork and third-party filter effects, I had to wonder about that statement. So what if it takes "no talent" to get a very interesting and admired image out of Poser. You mean that people "without talent" might be able to make good images?! OH NO! The world is ending! (i.e., people who think they have "talent" are threatened by those "without" it) I think that some people's only great "claim to fame" is that they can draw (or something else artistic). When you've got such a fragile self-image and you take your natural abilties as some sort of defining quality that sets you apart from everyone else and makes you better, well, anything that threatens your unique "talent" will upset you pretty badly. ;-) I don't care if I make "art" or not. "Art" doesn't pay my bills. End results DO. bonni

Amen, bonni, amen! "He painted always like a scholar and a gentleman, though not like a great artist." Quoted from the obituary of John William Waterhouse (http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=79). According to the patronizing obituary, Waterhouse's art wasn't art because ... well, because the critics had now defined his kind of style and subject matter as non-art. The modern art savant buys or cheers art as sort of a critic-verified diploma of taste. The more money or cheers you're willing to put into it, the greater the proof of how much art means to you. It's really quite fascinating : you can actually con intelligent people into paying a small fortune for a sealed can of artist's poop! I'm not joking, this "objet d'art" was on display on the Lousiana museum in Copenhagen. Very nice can, though :o) The con club of self-appointed critics, in and out of 3D, are staking their fame and fortune on their opinion, so don't ever expect them to listen to arguments to the contrary. However, if you can wow and woo their public, it will become a very one-sided argument - they'll be talking to themselves ;o)

I'm sure that group identification is hard-wired into us as a survival trait. Building up the group, and conversely, putting down everyone else helps to maintain group cohesion. If group A isn't somehow superior to group B then people might just decide to switch. Unfortunately, abstract notions of superiority pften become so irrational that they lead to the ultimate expression of superiority, violence. People kill each other over their identification with a race, a religion, a nation or even a sports team. I wonder if the police are still guarding that Cubs fan who interfered with the game? Fortunately, differences over art are less likely to lead to murder though it has certainly happened and more than one artist got sent to some gulag for not getting with the current regime's idea of proper art. Sometimes people confuse process with results. Someone who spent weeks modeling a figure in Lightwave to create an image is probably going to feel some resentment if someone else gets equal praise for an image they created with Poser. That's natural but it misses the point that the viewer really may not care. If the process is enjoyable and fulfilling for you (as it should be), then it shouldn't matter to you either. In reality though, all of us at times find that internal validation not quite enough and need more. Some things in life, like love and art shouldn't be about keeping score but it happens anyway. Refusing to play the game won't end it but you'll be a lot have a lot more fun :-)