Hi you guys, please answer this question. See you.

YES, I do. Why do you ask?

What image? Wether it's art or not depends on the image, not the name or the price tag of the program that was used to produce it.

Or is it even a display of intelligence? I've a background in AI research, and computer generated art was often cited as an example of such a possibility. Sure... the procedures employed in its creation were the results of human endeavour. But the complexities which become possible when even just a handful of simple procedural calls are asked to recursively call upon themselves in their logic, rapidly creates a combinatorial explosion which leaves human understanding in it's wake. If a work of art is generated, then just maybe on occasions it will have been generated by a process which is beyond human understanding, but far from being random. I have little doubt that the material room in Poser is a gestalt source of amazement.

I am curious as to the thrust of this question---an attempt to start a debate, perhaps?

Permit me to posit a question in response: is an image taken with a digital camera a true photograph?

But, to answer: it depends. On many factors. Here's two factors:

One factor: what was the image creator's intent? A sheet of paper, scrawled with crayons by a 3-year-old, is a type of "art".

Another factor: is the image defined as "art" in the eye and mind of the beholder?

I think that these two factors outweigh all other considerations.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. 1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
3. The study of these activities.
4. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
5. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
6. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
7. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
8. 1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
9. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
10. 1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
11. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice (Joyce Carol Oates).
12. 1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
13. Artful contrivance; cunning.
14. Printing. Illustrative material.

So I'd say YES :)

This type of question always boils down to the simple semantics of finding a mutually accepted definition of the word "Art" Once that variable is properly defined, then people will be able to properly answer that question. My opinion is anything "created" with intent can be called art. Rawn

opps...cross posted with Phil....who had very good definitions :)

In the hands of an artist, sure. Ever see a japanese rock garden? I have no problem seeing the arrangement of stones, shadows, etc as art. My father, (who taught himself to play guitar almost 60 years ago and worked as a studio musician occasionally, despite never learning to read/write music) when he picks up a guitar, is going to make art, no matter what the quality of the guitar.

Art? I know that guy. Hey! That guy owes me 5 bucks! If I ever see him again I'm gonna "render" him speachless. turns head and completely loses focus Oh, hey look! Naked Vicky in a temple!!

Art is not defined by the media used. 'nuff said.

"created with intent" - I like that definition Rawn. Although I must admit that much of my 'art' just seems to happen by lucky accidents, you know.. Let's try putting her there... Now let's pose him a bit.... Add this clothing.... What about those new props.... Oh, that is a nice thingummy.... Blonde hair for her.... Dim those lights a bit.... Voila!

Actually, on reading that, it sounds like I am making some well dodgy picture! Woops!

This much like saying "This isnt Speghetti unless an italian makes it"....which of course is non-sense. Axe ir right above, Art is not defined by the meduim used.

If Leonardo can have Mona Lisa sit in a chair and copy her...if Rowena can hire models to pose for her... then you can use Vue.

I wonder what Leonardo would have done with Poser and Vue? Imagine - the Mona Liza as an incarnation of Victoria 3......

LawnDartLawnDart - you owe a new keyboard. Mine has tea all over it! ;-)

Leonardo took 3 years on Mona Lisa and was never happy with it. If he used Poser he'd probably give up on most poser solutions and just fix everything in post with Corel Painter. It's art if someone says it's art, you don't have to agree or like it, you may agree and love it. Vue is a tool, Poser is a tool they don't have 'instant art buttons'

Most likely, Leonardo would have written all of his own modeling/imaging programs from scratch. He did almost everything else.

Yeah, uh-huh, right. As the the actual question - It might be. Just as a painting or a photograph might be art. Or might not. Or a piece of music for that matter. :] Fish

Just because it isn't an original question doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked again. Although, to be honest, I've read so much cr@p about what constitutes and doesn't constitute art that if I cared what anyone else thought I'd probably have shot myself by now. Having been blessed with an inability to draw (although I'd love to be able), I do use Poser to imitate/lampoon/enhance/distort 'art' that I've seen others perform. Sometimes I even use it to try out stuff I've thought of all by myself. Interestingly, there was something on the TV last night mentioning an 'in' artform in the early 20th century known as 'readymade', in which the 'artist' made a piece out of commonly available materials. Hey, that isn't radical, our schoolkids routinely rip up magazines or chocolate wrappers to make collages and stuff. Not what most Poserhaters would call art (unless they have school aged kids, of course, in which case substitute 'Genius' for 'Dumbass'). But the level of substitution in 'readymade' was slightly more robust. The example quoted on the program was 'a bicycle wheel in conjunction with a kitchen chair'. My, how exciting can we get? This art form was not a minor abberation, it was a major art movement. So I guess the best way of defining 'art' is to do what makes YOU feel good, or fulfilled, or disturbed, or whatever it is that makes you want to do what you do. I wouldn't consider displaying my soiled underwear or a list of all of my lovers 'art', but it made someone rich and famous. And the person responsible for those displays didn't give a sh!t about what anyone else thought about their work. Nope, Poser, Bryce, Vue, ripped up newspaper, photos, chairs, bicycle wheels, scrapyards, box of pastels, broken pencil and an envelope - the art is in the brain, in the communication

This "art form" was known as DADA - the French word for "rocking horse". A word chosen randomly from a French dictionary. DADA was meant to express the idea that existence is absurd. It was the visual/artistic expression of existentialism. It also had the effect of turning "art" into a joke for many.

Yes, and very beautiful art at that...thanks for asking. :-)

Where's that animated pic of the club beating the dead horse when you need it LMAO!!!!!!

Is it that time of month already?

no no not this debate..no no~curls up in a ball~

Some people used to say that "rap" music was not music. Now it's winning Grammy's and selling more CD's than just about any other genre. So there's a good comparison I would say. Be careful what you choose to define as art, because art was not meant to be defined. I do a the majority of my works in 3dsMax nowadays, and I model most of my scenes from the ground up because I'm a control freak, and have to have things just right. But if the end result isn't acceptable to my "vision", then what's the point?? When you have a scene visualized in your head that you want to express through art... then the most "artistic" thing you could possibly do is utilize whatever tools you can to bring that visualization to fruition. Anyone truly into graphic art would concur I'm sure.

What????? Vue doesn't have an instant art button????? Damn, wasted all my money on a useless program again.

it is.

Well the image can't really be defined as art unless it features a naked Vicky. If it also contains a temple then I'd say it was 'fine art' - but I don't really know about these things :)

I'm still reeling from "Oh, that is a nice thingummy...." Nice one. Best to go with the dictionary defition a'la PhilC. H:))

Is it art? No, not in general. But: Is a text written in MS-Word art? No, not in general. But you can use MS-Word to write art - no question! Are all notes played on a piano art? No, not in general. But you can use a piano to compose art - no question! Is everything painted in oil on a canvas art? No, not in general. But you can use oil and a canvas to paint art - no question. The same with Poser and Vue: You CAN produce art with these tools - no question! That's how I see it.

Some people used to say that "rap" music was not music. Now it's winning Grammy's and selling more CD's than just about any other genre. So there's a good comparison I would say Yeah, that the Garmmys no longer recognize what music is. :)

Troll. Marque

I'd say art is an expression of emotion given form, and is defined as such from the artists emotional input involved in the creation, and from the resultant emotional stimulation of the viewer. 8) Catlin

Oh yes and Poser and Vue are just tools, similar to paint and canvas. 8)

"Troll." Hm, that's what I was thinking, or at least wondering. joramnet, please prove us wrong. Please offer your thoughts on your question. Many people have taken the time to offer their opinions. Out of politeness, you really should participate in the discussion you started. You don't have to have any definite answers, just some musings of your own would be nice. A hit-and-run on a tired and true provocative subject does come across a little trollish, my sincere apologies if that's not your intention. By the way, the answer IMO is "yes," although that doesn't mean that it's all good art. :-)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1559900

joramnet has a habit of posting a question, see the thread below, and then never returning to it. I suggest that unless he participates in future discusions we should ignore his questions. I think he is just trying to wind people up. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1559900

Attached Link: http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/33793/?ttop=34024&toff=50

Oi. This again. I'll give my standard answer. I make homemade soup regularly. I make it by putting store-bought stock, beans, chopped vegetables, and some seasonings into a slow cooker. Sometimes I also throw in a handful of chopped ham or some bacon. Is it "real" soup, or not? I mean, all I did was know which ingredients to put in and "arrange" them in the pot, right? I didn't grow any of them, I didn't raise or slaughter the pig. I didn't even make the stock. Is it soup? Well, I certainly think so. Would it be even MORE "soupful" if I'd grown all the vegetables and raised the pig and so forth? Well.... I might feel more proud of myself, but I would have spent a HELL of a lot of time on a pot of soup, if you take my meaning. With illustration/art, I think you use the tools you have to get the job done. My clients couldn't care less if I modeled the stuff from scratch or drew it or whatever. They just want the finished product. What steps I take to get there and what base products or "ingredients" I use are of no importance. bonni

~twitches~ art.. is created from a persons view idea emotion etc etc etc made with a TOOL of any sort.... I have seen paintings done with feathers.. I have seen carvings done with a chainsaw... it is not the tool that makes it art.

I have seen art created by explosives.. As usual, it is the sophomoric persuit of arrogance that imbues the initiator of such questions. I guess he/she needs justification for that $16000 spent on (by father, most likely) Houdini Master. ;) Art has nothing to do with the quality or expense of the tools, just the skillful use of them.

well people aren't getting very wound up ...which is nice IMO art is about communication. if the creator manages to communicate something (hopefully what they had in mind) then it is art. I've seen images I would classify as art created in ascii text so ..... art is irregardless of tool used

is a pile of elephant poo art? or some random paint splatters on a 10 foot canvas? some people think so. if YOU think its art, then its art. end of story. i've seen oil-on-canvas paintings selling for a million dollars that i think are shite... on the other hand, i've seen poser work that i would put in a gallery. poser/vue are just tools, like oil or acrylics or ceramics are. if the end result pleases you, its art.

I challenge you to go and tell a fully grown male elephant in mating season that his poo isn't art. LOL It's definitely shite though.

This is a bit like asking 'if it's written using MicroS*** Word, is it literature?'. All depends on the end product, not the medium.

Yawn Come up with an original question, why don't you?

Shouldn't this be in the Art Theory forum in the Done to Death section ? (just joking , everybody) )