One of the things that has surprised me, since I started looking at some Poser art forums is that Poser artwork is seen as something inferior to work produced with Maya or 3DS Max. It's not simply a prejudice based on the capabilities of the programs. Poser, pure and simple, is not as capable a 3D program as many others, but it's also not as expensive as the others (less than 10% the cost of Maya or Max). Poser can still produce some very nice artwork. The prejudice is often simply the use of the program. I've read posts by people that have been approached to participate in online gallery art showings, based on the galleries on their websites, that were immediately uninvited when they explained how they produced their artwork. One minute, their art was good enough to show and the next it was considered garbage because of how it was produced. It is so weird to see a person's perceptions totally change their realities when they have new information. There was no question the art was good enough to display--the artist never would have been approached if that was at issue. Since the artwork wasn't created with a more expensive program, it was deemed junk. The online showcase was for 3D art, not Maya or program specific art, and Poser is a 3D art program. I've seen the same kind of prejudice against software created artwork by the traditional media based art communities. That's likewise very strange because it's hard to imagine that the traditional art world, which can be enamored by works that are literally just paint splattered on a canvas, but find a problem with something beautiful if it was created on a computer. It's all very silly. Art is not being judged by the final product, but by how it is created. The one thing that surprises me even more is that I'll occasionally see threads by people who almost seem to believe the bad press and feel like second class 3D citizens. It's almost as if they feel all the worse if the software makes it too easy to produce good work. That's strange because software is supposed to make chores easier. Whether the software produces a perfect sphere in a second or hours, a sphere is still a sphere. Maybe it's a greater accomplishment to force a program, not designed to make a sphere, to make a good sphere, but it's still a matter of not using the right program for the right task. The end result is still a sphere that doesn't look any better than the one produced in a second. Software doesn't have to be hard to use to be useful. If a person uses a pose, characters and props, lighting, and other things designed by somebody else to quickly produce an image that looks great, more power to them. That's the reason why people are using software over other media for their artwork. The average person doesn't really care how a great looking image was created. Only somebody really hung up in their invested wasted efforts is going to be bothered by something produced more efficiently.

it's the talent, not the tools, the makes the art..

Hey, I'll point out that the user's of Poser aren't much better themselves. This is a common dynamic used to validate a group. For an example, within the poser community, we have an ongoing issue with the Koshini figure. Been some awesome art out there, panned for the very same reason -- the tool used was Koshini, not a more realistic figure -- sometimes by folks using equally stylized figures such as AnimeDoll. There are some amazing picutres out there made with the P4 and P5 figures, as well -- but look at the community response to them: "Dork", "butt-ugly Judy", etc. Moving out of the 3D realm, it's not uncommon for painters who work in acrylics to feel somewhat inferior to those who work in oils -- yet acrylics are faster, cheaper, and more reliable in color than oils are. And then, of course, the oil folks get into really intense debates over the pigments used and the method of mixing. IT really is a case of Talent, not tools -- but as humans we seek to "better" ourselves over others, and often the tool is all we have to hold onto as the standard for our flag. Since I have neither talent nor a standard, I just go about happily defining the point at which thw two don't matter -- I like it, so it's good enough for me, lol

Interesting, isn't it. The other day, I heard a radio discussion about an art exhibit in which the "artist" used elephant dung to create irreverent "art" and it was considered "acceptable." Go figure! I'll take Poser images any day, thank you! Melanie

while a few times online I have had problems with someone doing the " ohhh pppppoooooooooser crap" most times I am never even asked what proggy I use. what kills me is one person that did the "poser crap"comment I invited them to actually use the program and to "click click" a picture together. I put them to the test of doing what they claim the program does which is supposedly all the work. guess what....he couldnt do it. he had to admit that poser does take work and knowledge to use. ok it is not maya ok it is not what ever but guess what that doesnt mean it doesnt take any less work to get a good peice out of it. it is a tool plain and simple.

To add a different approach to this thread...I give my personal opinion for what it is worth. True, it is the artist that gives credence to a work regardless of the tools. However, IMO, the truth of art is in the telling of the story ... if it doesn't tell you something it falls short of true art. Take the author as an artist, he/she can put together hundreds of pages of words but if they don't entertain or tell a story...they have not reached the artistic level. I feel the same about graphic arts.

Poser is the paint-by-numbers of the 3d art world. Bryce is equally ridiculed. I find the bias easy to understand - Poser's bias is because of the generic art with the generic meshes it generates, and Bryce because of the chrome, water, and chequerboard images that flooded galleries in early days. The bravest man I have seen in quite a while is someone with the nick DirtySkillet at CGTalk; he stubbornly posts his Bryce stuff there. In the end it boils down to one thing: Whatever gives you pleasure to make your images should suffice; make stuff for yourself, and not for the oooh and aaaaah effects of others - either it's max or poser or maya or wings. If you did that, the bias of others wouldnt matter so much ~S

Possette forever is a good site for those of us who are unashamed Poser heads :) None of that fancy Vickie or Mike there!! I think a lot of people are looking for affirmation, for a 'hey, you're great', let's be honest, most of us artists are showoffs and love praise! :) It can be dissapointing when critics get snippy over the type of program used although I have to say I've never had any bad attitude myself. Well, once I did but that was from a Poser artist so I put that down to bitter jealousy (I am only joking) Spinner's got it right as far as I'm concerned, 'make stuff for yourself, and not for the oooh and aaaaah effects of others'. It's nice if people like your work but if they don't..sod 'em! Mon

You have a 20 page multi-panel web comic offer and the client wants it ready in one week. You gonna use Maya or 3DS and build every single setting and detail and person in each scene and then suffer the posing of every character in every render with those slow bulky apps? Or are you gonna use Poser because almost every prop and person you need for the job has already been made and is EASILY poseable in Poser for extremely quick results? The usual argument of owners of expensive modelling apps is that Poser users use 'art' that was created by others. Did the Beatles build their own guitars? Did Michaleangelo build the chapel he painted? Did Fred Astaire build the stages he danced on? Did Bruce Lee (a martial artist) build the dojo he practiced in? Did the Maya and 3DS artists build their own Maya and 3DS applications?

It's also pretty telling among most Poser users that they compare themselves to the luminaries mentioned above. I have a foot in both camps - I like Poser because it's paint-by-numbers and easy, I adore my old version of Max because it takes me where my head wants to go and challenges me. However, I don't see my art as being on par with the Beatles and Michaelangelo. Neither do I consider it a serious argument; The beef modelers have with Poser is the genericness of it; if it's a bought mesh, bought pose, bought textures freebie lights, bought backdrop, bought texture brushes, where is YOUR mark on the image? You can get as creative as hell within those parameters, but no matter how hard you work, 90% of the poser images you'll see will still look premade, and preposed. A person using a modeling app does more than that from scratch - and since, in my book, more craftsmanship is involved, it's sort of natural to have a bias against pre-bought. Also; suffering the posing in those bulky apps is not quite true; Boning and rigging is easy once you get the hang of it, most experienced modelers have a rig they use, complete with envelopes (in max). And there is always CS, should all else fail. And if you go for look, you probably know as well as I about the concept of low-poly modeling and solving detailing through texturemaps. I have nothing against Poser - it has it's function and I usually have a marvellous time using it. But I'll never consider a run-of-the-mill vickie in run-of-the-mill settings as something on par with Stahlbergs women, Anry's characters, or Gevidals imagery. But thats just me. Hey, Mon - long time no see! :-) ~S

Well, Poser doesn't have to be "bought mesh, bought pose, bought textures freebie lights, bought backdrop, bought texture brushes". Most likely it will be bought mesh (though individually deformed), and quite possibly bought textures (possibly modified). It is possible to treat Poser as paint-by-numbers, but you don't have to. The comparison to make is with collage; the collagist takes all sorts of ready-made materials and combines them to make a completely original image. I would say that my images that combine found props, found textures, found/bought figures into something completely new, can be thought of as 3D collages.

Spinner, you're saying "We're dogging Poser, but we're not dogging Poser the way you say we're dogging Poser, so it's legitimate dogging." Art is the way you express yourself, plain and simple. If I choose to express myself by making paintings by using dog poop than that's how I express myself and it's art whether Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up or not. I cannot take credit for the liquid consistancy of dog poop, nor the smell, but, it is my chosen form of expression. It is art of some sort or another, regardless whether it is politically correct to accept it as so. And that's what it's really all about isn't it? The 'correctness' of how art is made. Well, you Poser guys buy everything you use, you don't actually create anything, it's all 'imitation', it's not 'correct' like what we're pushing out over here in our toilet. "We don't associate with those 'Poser' swine, they're not real artists like us" The children giggled on the playground pushing the poor Poser child away from their 'correct' circle. The ninja, the musician, the painter, the sculpter, the writer, they all express themselves differently. But here, all this time, we didn't know what the 3d modelling community knows; that there is a correct way to express yourself and thankfully they are here to set forth the parameters that dictate what is and is not 'correct' self-expressionism.

Hiya Spinner :) how's things with you? As for Michelangelo..ermm..howvever it's spelt...I think, if you look at the 'hands' paintings and drawing that you'll see he was an early user of Poser as was Ruebens and that other great artist Mon...what? Ahem ;)

Original Post: Politically correct isnt the issue here, I couldnt care less about politically correct - I -do- care about good imagery, regardless of application. All I am saying is that I understand the people who slam the poser users because there is a decided lack of creativity in a lot of stuff that is in the Poser gallery. As far as I am concerned, paint by numbers can look pretty nifty too, but this is going nowhere, because you're intent on being a slammed artist, not an amateur. There is also a hefty reading words and attitudes into what I am saying that I never intended, and thereby also demonstrating yet another fine trait of the generic Poser user; a distinct martyr-complex mixed with an ingrained disability to take anything non-commiserating about Poser as something not an attack. One thing I didnt add to my last post is that most 3D galleries have something called a focused critique forum. If you had that in the Poser community here, it'd never work, due to the persisting desire of most Poserites to take any piece of critique as a personal attack - and hence, they stay stuck in their work, without really progressing anywhere. And as far as progress goes - This isnt going anywhere, so thank you all for the fabulous refresher course into common traits and attitudes when it comes to debates like these, I don't have anything else to contribute to the discussion, so I'll see you 'round :-) ~S Edit: Mon... drian ? ...net? ...Miro ? no, that was a woman... Things are fine };-) Humming along to Tom Lehrer's "Poisoning Pigeons in the park" - it's a very springlike day here, all white and sunny :-) I also wish people would learn to spell - how can they insist on being taken seriously when they can't even spell the concepts they compare themselves with ? ~S(ayonara...)

Hmm. Third of the month, I guess it is time for this discussion again.

There is bad Poser art out there. There is bad 3D Max, Lightwave, and Maya art out there. There are bad oil paintings out there.
Anyone who says that, as a result, all Poser art, all Max, Lightwave, and Maya art, or all oil paintings are bad is a fool. Treat them as such. Have some confidence in yourself; you don't need the approval of fools.

There is good Poser art out there. There is good 3D Max, Lightwave, and Maya art out there. There are good oil paintings out there.
Anyone who says that all Poser art, all Max, Lightwave, and Maya art, or all oil paintings are good is equally a fool. Treat them as such. Again, you don't need the approval of fools.

If you are knowingly in the presence of fools, and are continually shocked by their foolishness, well....

There are models and textures that one can buy for Lightwave, Max, Maya et al (Turbosquid surely covers all those applications and more?). If one owns a halfway decent modleling app (max, Cinema4d, Lightwave - so on and so forth) one is FAR from constrained to the built-in or purchased models within Poser. That's even forgoing some of the startling work people have done building models within the Poser application (yes it's possible - though how they found the patience to go through it is beyond me, it honestly is). The "telling a story" thing here seems apt - I imagine that none of this thread is at all original, it's all been copied. Every single word of i tis from this book I've got called "The Dictionary"... but if you select the appropriate words/props/characters/textures/lights/whatever and put them in an order that pleases you and does what YOU want it to do - fair enough! Some of it will be on a level that makes the Poser (4 or 5) manual look like quality art. Some of it may make people step back with respect. There's certainly some relevance to the amount or quality of craftsmanship (IMHO) put in by the "final artist" in judging how good an artist they are, but AFAICS there's only the final image to go on in judging how good a piece of art it is. At the end of the day, a great many of us are using triangles or other simple polygonal shapes, just like so many authors use the same words. It's what you do with them, how you craft them, and what results you get that affect the final image. Cheers, Cliff

Actually, my original post was about the kind of people whose judgment is wholly influenced by a single detail. It's the kind of person that can look at an image and "ooh and ahh" at it till they find out it was made with Poser and immediately think it's crap. It's the kind of person that can like somebody and immediately hate them upon learning of their race or religion or whatever. If you want to talk about the dislike of the original P4 figures or Koshini or whatever, things start moving into the realm of taste. People can and will discuss and argue over their personal tastes, but there are some things people will always love and some things people will always hate. I don't like chocolate. Somebody can give me the best chocolate cake in the world and I still won't like it. I wouldn't sweat over the people who don't like Koshini or cartoonish characters because it's their personal tastes and they'll never like the kind of cutesy images being produced no matter how well they're done. A person, who does not understand that their tastes are not universal, can be as obnoxious as somebody who is prejudiced, but it's still not quite the same thing. If somebody hands me a cake and I think it's great, and later find out it has chocolate in it, I'm prejudiced if I suddenly say it's bad. The reality would be that I've found a chocolate product I like. It's not bad because it's chocolate. It's just that chocolate, as a general taste, isn't something I care for. I won't typically try a chocolate flavored product, not because I hate chocolate with an irrationality, but because I how many times I have to taste different variations of something that I probably won't like. It can almost seem like prejudice, but it's not. To that extent, there's some real reasons for people to not be enamored with Poser. Poser is somewhat of a one trick pony. Anybody who wants to do a scenic image is best moving to a program that has better scenery creation capabilities. There can be a sameness to a lot of Poser images in the galleries. Considering that Poser is a figure manipulation program, it's not surprising that figure studies are a mainstay in the galleries. The creativity of the individual is always paramount in producing a successful creative image. A good artist will create something stunning in just about any medium whereas a lesser artist can't do anything good whether they're using Poser, Max, oils, or crayolas. As was mentioned, if a client wants an illustration, the client doesn't care if it's done with an existing pose, character, texture, and props. It either looks good or it doesn't. The client isn't going to pay the Maya purist, who put 200 hours into a purely Maya created image, any more than the Poser artist who did it in half an hour. P4 figures are not as good as current Millennium figures. That doesn't mean they're bad figures. They're just not as detailed or as versatile as the newer ones. Slap some good morphs on them and a nice texture and, for most purposes, they remain very useful figures. Thorne created some stunning P4 fairies that demonstrate how much can be done with the P4 female. If I were going to do a Poser image with dozens of figures, I'd be using P4 figures. There's still a place for them and there's a lot of freebies out there for those figures. They're not bad figures, but there are better ones for a not unreasonable price.

I wonder if part of it is that if you've spent hundreds and hundreds on a high-end package..you figure it must be better than the 'cheaper' version..;)

This happens in the programming field as well. For example, I worked for a game company that has a team of over 20 system engineers working on graphics engines. Low and behold one of our content engineers makes a product on his own time (one guy) that out renders and out shines the system that these 20 guys use and releases a game in 8 weeks. The game has been used 3 or 4 times cause it simply blows away the competition and our clients love it. He's still blasted by the engineers as "not a real programmer" cause he doesn't use templayes, c++ advanced features or other such things. Gee I wonder if carpenters are amatuers cause they use precut lumber from the mill and ready made nails or are muscians amatuers cause they don't make their musical instruments themselves.

One thing to say.... Change the name of the program for **** sake! It is very unfortunate that the name of the program purports an unfortunate meaning, being a "poser" in the 3d art community. Probably too late for CL to do that. The history is there and it will always be. People could have made a huge market making products for MAYA or 3DSTUDIOMAX, but they cost too much. If they could have a cool name like "Vortex", or even "BlackHat, the advanced character plug-in for Shade 7", maybe the stigma would subside. As it is, Poser is practically a plugin for MAYA, 3DSTUDIO, CINEMA4D, and VUE Professional. I know people use it for those apps. I would be willing to bet that making a working figure for Poser is a lot harder than making one for these higher end apps. Take a look at Bloodsong's book to see what I'm talking about.

The fact is, if the end result is art... it doesn't really matter how you made it. Is a photographer any less of an artist because he or she didn't build the camera by pounding the metal used in the parts, creating the plastic used in it, grinding the lens and making the film? What about the model? Unless it's his child, he didn't make them... Is a painter any less of an artist because he didn't find the raw materials, grind them down and mix them to create his own paints? Or cut down the wood and process it to make his own paper? Or find the animal and pluck the hairs and make his own brush? Is a sculpture any less of an artist because he didn't create the stone? Make the chisel? Is an architect any less of an artist because someone else actually builds his idea? What it boils down to is something similiar to a line in the movie Jurasic Park - Life finds a way. Guess what... Art finds a way. It will find an outlet anyway it can, with whatever tools are on hand. Sometimes it's clay, sometimes paint, sometimes pen, sometimes 3DMAX and sometimes... yes... even Poser.

GUH... today I was doing {as promised} working more on trying to expand my epilogue gallery{odd I know I know but see I made a promise to someone to give it a go you know? to give it a shot. I even went and posted to the WIP forum...which leads too....} I posted in the WIP forum. at first I was pleasantly surprised by the honest and not poser bashing suggestions to work on the pic. I was like "hey this isnt so bad after all" then {dunn dunnnn DUNNNNN} you guessed it "outside of the obviouse use of poser...." I was like ...huh? ok like it wasnt even a problem that 4OTHER programs were used..no that was not a problem didnt get snide remarks..BUT the fact that the figure was a "poser" figure did. needless to say I did a peek around and yes the person is a very talented artist. which made me wonder all the more...then why such a remark. did I pop poser open and click click POOF picture? no way on this green earth! like I said I took the raw render tossed her threw more then one paint proggy till I was somewhat done with her..and today tossed her between two of the same previouse proggies tweeking her. to me this is like going "OMG you THINK THAT is a painting???no way you used a SYNTHETIC brush instead of sable! how dare you!"

"The fact is, if the end result is art... it doesn't really matter how you made it." "Is a sculpture any less of an artist because he didn't create the stone? Make the chisel?" I'm far from an expert on "tubes" but as I understand it they're small(ish) pictures which have been grabbed from art not originally made by the "tubeist" and use to create images of their own. I've seen such "tubeists" lynche d(usually in absentia) on this very forum. Query:- Is what THEY do art, and if not then why not? It sometiems seems to me tha tin many ways we inhabit a middle ground, call it "level 2". Those on level 3 look down on us, and we despise them for their snobbery. We in turn look down on mere level 1 people, because after all they are lesser beings and not even in the same class as we level 2 people. "outside of the obviouse use of poser...." If I were told that an image of mine were "outside the obvious use of" any particular program - Poser or otherwise - I MIGHT wonder if the comment was a compliment. It might suggest that instead of going for just the obvious easy application of the program (for Poser that's probably a T&A image, I'd assume - or maybe a portrait), I have put in extra thought to come up with something a little bit different, a little bit "special". This doens't happen often enough to me :( Cheers, Cliff

Oops - forgot a line I wanted to respond to: "What it boils down to is something similiar to a line in the movie Jurasic Park - Life finds a way." Quotes are a funny thing, you know. There's another scene in the same movie which reflects exactly the opposite side of this discussion. From, in fact, the same character. This time discussing how the Scientists had "reached the pinnacle of achievement", something along the lines of "You didn't have the discipline to attain the goal for yourselves, you stood on the shoulders of giants and just took the next step.". That, I think, is at the core of most prejudice against "Poser users", that all too often there is (in the eyes of those slamming one of my favourite tools) often all too little "art" put in, just the final brush stroke. I've certainly seen those images from Poser (and I might say from other programs). Heck - I've done some of them myself :(

Oh I will give it this..the WIP forum there will pin point what needs to be fixed. I got some great points that I did work on. but the poser comment it is just one of those things that make me twitch. poser is actually a tool if you rely on it to creat your work you will get let down. poser is great do not get me wrong it is one of my favorite proggies. but it will not NOT do it all for you..even premade light sets or poses wont do it all for you. but to discount work just because of POSER..is silly just silly

Since the artwork wasn't created with a more >expensive program, it was deemed junk. The >online showcase was for 3D art, not Maya or >program specific art, and Poser is a 3D art program. You are missing the point here. A Poser artist can arguably produce some great looking work, but almost none of them actually create any of the figures, poses or textures they use. Thats fine for many purposes, and for arts sake, but if you have a gallery where people who consider character modeling a real craft, and come together to share that, Poser renders have no place. In fact, it is quite disrespectful to assume that spinning a few dials on a purchased character should somehow earn you respect from those people. Imagine a group of homebuilders who are sharing tips and tricks, and complementing each other on the work they have done, and you barge in and declare, I bought my house, can I hang with you guys? Its not about having a house, it is all about the process of building the house, and that makes all the difference. People spend a lot of time and effort learning to create 3D elements from scratch, and they truly enjoy it, so respecting them for that is a good place to start if you want some respect yourself for your own artwork. > You have a 20 page multi-panel web comic offer >and the client wants it ready in one week. You >gonna use Maya or 3DS and build every single >setting and detail and person in each scene and >then suffer the posing of every character in every >render with those slow bulky apps? slow bulky apps? Youve clearly never used either of those programs! LOL I challenge you to render a 20 page multi-panel web comic in one week using Poser. Or all the fx and animation for a weekly television show. Or even a daily pre-vis during story board development phases on any media project. Go ahead, give it a real try. Then cry when the client is pissed and fires you because your project is late, and because you used characters that everyone else has. Seriously, originality in art, even commercial art, is highly sought after. Do you think characters developed for games and movies receive so little consideration and forethought that any old character from any web store will do? No way. Companies put great effort into creating completely original characters and art assets in an effort to stand out, communicate specific messages and stories, and establish a long lasting franchise.

I used to see this in fashion and hairderessing all the time. Real artists never speak ill of work of other artists as that`poor work by other artist's work doesn't have any impact on theirs. Belittlement or elitist attidues should always be immediately ignored and dismissed. The issues involved run deeper than the actual work being done. Anton "Criticism is often the articulation of resentment. In this form it is neither gentle or fostered by helpfulness."

Most of these comments appear to be defending the use of Poser as a tool for creating art. I could be wrong but I don't think that is the actual issue in question. I've seen a fair amount of Poser based or assisted work that I would call very artistic. I've also seen a lot that drown in a sea of look alike images that appear to be closer to some form of mass production than anything else. But in most cases there has been at least an attempt to produce an artistic image, whether successful or not. But when you browse through the galleries of those "other" sites it is very common to see images of just a bare model. No effort was made to incorporate it in a scene and often the model isn't textured or posed in an even slightly interesting manner. Although it may not be stated outright, clearly those sites are more about demonstrating the art of modeling rather than the art of imagery. As such, there is an implicit understanding that the models used were created by the one who posted the image. So one should not be surprised when an admired piece of work is abruptly dismissed when subsequently revealed as "Poser". It is not so much that the piece is rejected for its artistic merits but that it is perceived as having being offered under false pretenses. We've seen the same thing here when a new Poser product appears that everyone absolutely loves. Then it turns out that it is merely a tweaked version of someone else's model or texture and the public reaction is to heap richly deserved scorn upon the perpetrator. So if I posted an image using Victoria 3 the general attitude would be "So what? Go home." But if I were the one who actually modeled V3 and posted it with the comment "Look what I created for the Poser market." I would probably be swamped with compliments. I've seen this issue discussed on some of those other sites and most said they had no objection to someone using Poser models provided this was stated up front. But this attitude isn't always made clear. The result is that the site "newbies", often fairly young, think that it is fashionable to disparage things like Poser and Bryce. Wanting to be accepted, they bow to perceived peer pressure and thus become quite vocal in mocking these programs. This just serves to further obscure the true objection and generates even more confusion. It boils down to this: You may be a great musician but over here we're talking about cooking and you're a lousy chef. So don't waste our time. Believing that everyone "over there" thinks art cannot be created using Poser is to believe that they are all fools. While this may be true of some of them it is certainly not true of all of them. - Jack

Real artists never speak ill of work of other artists as that`poor work by >other artist's work doesn't have any impact on theirs. While this would be wonderful, it sadly isn't true at all. Check out any history book from any time period, and we see fantastically talented people being pricks to each other. LOL! ; )

"While this would be wonderful, it sadly isn't true at all. Check out any history book from any time period, and we see fantastically talented people being pricks to each other." Yep. I agree 100%. Thinking that true artists wouldn't be vainglorious dolts is living in la-la land. I haven't met or read about an artist yet who hasn't criticized other people's works in some way. In fact, some of the more famous artists of our time were complete self-absorbed narcissists who couldn't take criticism, but felt compelled to dish it out. Not all, obviously, but many

The massive stones had been sculpted into elegent faces and placed upright on the island coast. But over the years the shifting sands had caused the great stones to fall on their sides, the faces buried in the sand. When the new islanders found the great stones, they decided to pull together and raise the magnificently carved monoliths so that they once again faced proudly out to sea. The islanders agreed that the stones had to have been carved by gods. So, in homage, the islanders carved the name 'god' into each stone, then painted the faces with all colors of paint. The people rejoiced, elated by their joint effort to raise the stones. They danced and created songs and stories about the great stone faces of their newly adopted gods. Then, by some mysterious magic, the great creators of the magnificent stones landed on the island. They saw the islanders dancing around THEIR stone creations, heard the islanders creating stories about THEIR stone creations. The gods approached the islanders and spat at them with obvious distaste "Thou haste not created yonder stones! Why dost thou pretend as if thou hath earned the right to rejoice? Thou haste only raised the stones, not carved them." "But Great Ones," the island spokesperson said, " we love your creations and rejoice in them. We have carved your name into them." The gods walked over to a stone and read the words and gave out an exaggerated gasp, "Acht! They've misspelled it! We will have none of this." "What is wrong?" asked the islanders. "It's spelled 'god' not 'gawd' you dullards!" And with that the gods turned and walked back to their boat. All the while the islanders were on their knees repenting "We're not worthy. We're not worthy. We're not worthy." Then, in their boat, the gods sailed away, thoroughly disgusted by the ignorance of the foul island savages. When they returned to their ship, they each vowed to shower off the stench of those awful islanders. The islanders watched the gods until their boat disappeared in the sunset. Then, they gave a collective confused sigh and decided to break open another keg and return to their songs and stories and primitive merriment, dancing circles around the stones of the gawds. And so it is written. And so we're not worthy in the eyes of the gods.

RReynolds - does the thread make it clear to you why Poser is such a looked down-upon app ? Having said that; you may want to check out Martin Murphy's stuff - noone would argue with the artistry in those images: http://www.artsforge.com/martin/murphy.html Or even the CL gallery; some of the images have that distinct Poser look, which I am afraid it's all about; you can tell the app by looking at the figures, and that takes a focus away from the art, and hence, people also frown at that; kinda like the lightray in an old ruin in Max. http://www.curiouslabs.com/imagecatalogue/image/list/3/parent/30 if you don't like chocolate, but got chocolate, and unexpectedly so - that gut-reaction of "oh, ick" will still be there, probably until the generic chocolate will be of a palatable standard to -you- personally, or whomever else doesnt like chocolate ;-) ~S

Phantast's round-up: Fyrespirit wrote: "Hmm. Third of the month, I guess it is time for this discussion again." Well, if we had decent forum software so that threads didn't die after three days, we wouldn't need to keep restarting threads on the popular topics. Quoll wrote: "I challenge you to render a 20 page multi-panel web comic in one week using Poser." You picked the wrooong person to challenge. Finister will do that without even breaking a sweat, believe me. DarkElegance wrote: "I was like 'hey this isnt so bad after all' then {dunn dunnnn DUNNNNN} you guessed it 'outside of the obviouse use of poser....' I was like ...huh? ok like it wasnt even a problem that 4OTHER programs were used..no that was not a problem didnt get snide remarks..BUT the fact that the figure was a 'poser' figure did." Yeah. I suggest a counter-offensive. We all visit Epilogue each day and post comments saying, "well, this picture is not bad except for the obvious use of Maya". MAYA! I mean, come on, what lazy sods. A REAL artist uses Notepad and writes .obj files from scratch. I bring a professional model into my studio, have her pose, and then go, "Hmm - vertex at 12.034 0.576 -3.412; then, oh, 12.214 0.588 -3.399" and so on till it's done. That's true art.

"A REAL artist uses Notepad and writes .obj files from scratch. I bring a professional model into my studio, have her pose, and then go, "Hmm - vertex at 12.034 0.576 -3.412; then, oh, 12.214 0.588 -3.399" and so on till it's done."

Erm - you mean... there's another way?
"That's true art."

It's certainly what true artists have done over the years. Get a model in, get her to take her clothes off, and then do your best to look professional :)

Cheers,
Cliff

Art is an expression of oneself. Plain and simple. Those who critique another artist's work and the tools he uses is merely egotistical. I have been an artist all of my life using such mediums as crayons (in kindergarten... heheh), pastels, charcoal, pen and ink, acrylics and more. I could do an awesome drawing in crayola crayons alone and of course someone would laugh because I used crayons. "Crayons are for sissies", they might blurt out. On the other hand, their own art probably sucks to hell and back, but they did it in oils and that makes it "real" art. I have graduated from those other mediums and now model in Rhino. I also use Poser and find it is a very intuitive program. I still have some flexibility in that I can rig my own figures with Pro Pack and can do many things more easily than I can with Max (which I also own). I am an impatient bastage when it comes to learning some of these proggies and I still haven't learned all the lighting tricks , etc to make great renders, but I'm working on it slowly. It is interesting that I would choose to model in Rhino over Max. My reason is that Max's interface is very convoluted. Rhino being strictly a modeling program is straightforward and I don't have to sift through hundreds of tools to find what I need. Rhino makes it easier for me to be creative whereas Max rely's on too much technical BS. Do I knock Max because I can't stand the interface? Nope. It's a great program, it's just not for me. Some artists just need to get a grip and shut their traps. No wonder there are so many "starving artists". They are the one's who think they are better than everyone else and therefore alienate themselves from the rest of society ;); or at least... the rest of us ;). I wonder if they are just starving for attention, in that case... they are getting what they wanted. ---Will

I can see why Rhino is so popular - I tested the demo a while back, and nurbs is easier than boxmodeling. I think it in general leaves a way, way too dense mesh, but thats me - I like it tidy, and Max allows me to do that, once you've customised the UI to be somewhat less of a pain in the ass in preferences. Keihan, is the last comment in your post aimed at me ? See - I don't see myself as an artist. I see myself as a dilettante, maybe a tinkerer in 3D. Maybe thats the difference between me and a lot of the thread participants; I don't lay claim to having any of my images being called art, or insist on having them taken as seriously as i.e something by the oft mentioned Michaelangelo. Thats why I also dont give much of a shit when some troll on a rampage decides to visit my gallery because I said something bad about someone else's image, or said what was wrong with it. But again - a lot of the discussion in this thread ended up as a Poser-defense for many, and not an answer as in why people -think- the imagery created with the help of Poser is seen as crap. ~S

Fair enough - wasn't sure, so I asked before I brawled };-) Some of your points are also taken; to go back to an earlier debate I had the ah... pleasure to participate in, some times it just goes back to the fact that you need to make an image, the "Look what I made" effect. I agree with most of what you say, but my highly personal and biased, and probably to some bigoted opinion is no matter WHAT you make, you shouldnt be able to tell the tool in such a specific manner as you can with Poser - that takes the focus away on the art you're working so hard on producing. And I honestly think that that is one of the reasons for the "oh ew" reactions from the other application communities. ~S

LOL, No Spinner...not at all. It was aimed at the issue that brought up this post about various artists and art groups which singly out other artist's works because of the tools they choose to work with. To me, this method of being exclusionary is biased and ludicrous. There are some artists whose work I dislike for my own tastes, but that doesn't mean that they suck as artists and doesn't mean that the tools they choose to work with suck. It could, however, mean that they are still learning and adapting to the toolset they are using. When one first picks up a paintbrush he isn't, suddenly, a Michelangelo even though the drive and talent may be there. It takes time to learn how to use that brush and the medium that is being applied. To further that, someone who is used to working with oils, may try out acrylics and not paint as well because the medium is quite different. He'll just need to take some time to get the feel for acrylics. I, myself, prefer acrylics over oils because they dry very quickly and the colors are more vibrant, however, I'm not going to criticise another artist for using watercolors, oils or even Crayola crayons for that matter. I, myself, can draw just about anything I can imagine, but can't do the same in Photoshop or PSP and I don't do the greatest renders in Poser. Is it the tools that are the problem? Is it the artist? Not at all. At the moment, however, I prefer to do creative 3D elements in Rhino, but if I took the time to study the lighting, camera angles etc ..I'm sure I could do some awesome things with Poser. It just doesn't interest me as much as modeling a 3D object. Furthermore, I was just stressing the point that art is an expression of oneself and not defined by things which many of us would consider aesthetically pleasing. I was not aiming anything I said at any individual but to the ideas that promote some unforgiving artistic prejudice that is so ridiculous that it is laughable. I think some artists allow their ego to get in the way and lose sight of what "art" actually is. Most of all, it isn't the toolset. Even in copyright law, it's not the ideas and format of artists which are copyrightable. It is the way that the artist expresses himself that is the copyrightable material. Now, sometimes, it is hard to discern between the expression of the artist and the other elements, but it is always the expression of the artist that makes it art. If I were to think something "crap", it's my own opinion and the art community shouldn't exclude an artist based on my opinion or even the opinion of others that think they are art critics. Artists themselves can be quite a biased bunch and I find that so unfortunate since as an artist my main purpose is to grow; not only in my art but in my life. Art is just an extension of myself.

LOL sorry spinner, I deleted my prior post and reposted to elaborate more on what I'm trying to get across.

You are missing the point here. Hmmmmm.....It's always possible, but, considering I started the thread...? ;) > Its not about having a house, it is all about the process of building the house, and that makes all the difference. And, if you talk to the Amish, they didn't use power tools to build their house, so they wouldn't appreciate hanging out with wimps that bought pre-cut lumber and used power tools to cut it and hammer it in place. That's why it's a silly snobbery to have. There's always a more primitive step to take pride in. I could take pride in writing a book by hand, but it's kind of ridiculous to not use a word processor if one's available. Someday, we have to get past the feeling that it's modelers vs. Poser. There's no "us" vs. "them" on the Poser side because Poser artists wouldn't have much to work with if it wasn't for all the talented people out there creating models. I'll have to admit that it's not totally inappropriate for somebody to take offense at a Poser artist that is misrepresenting what was created; or if the Poser artist enters a gallery that showcases the work of modelers. Posting a photo of a live model in a Poser gallery and claim it's Victoria and watch the feathers fly. I've seen gallery images trashed even when they were clearly labelled as Poser. Some people are going to be prejudiced, pure and simple, and their views of the world are going to be tainted by those prejudices. Their world is not made up of reality, but of what they allow themselves to enjoy.

QUOTE: "...you shouldnt be able to tell the tool in such a specific manner as you can with Poser - that takes the focus away on the art you're working so hard on producing." I can tell an oil painting from an acrylic painting. I can also quickly distinguish between chalk, charcoal, watercolors and many other mediums as well. I think what is being missed here and what is probably the core of this issue, is that anyone can put Vicki in scene and render off an image. It is true that I get sick of seeing all of the nude Vicki images that took little work to accomplish and seem to get more gallery views than someone who worked very hard at producing a carefully selected scene, camera angle, focal effect, lighting etc etc.. I think there is a disgruntled feeling, even for me, to see an image that took a few minutes to create being passed of as artistic. However, that has nothing to do with the tools, but mere laziness on the part of the producer of the image. In that respect, I don't think it has much to do with being new to the toolset either. My first rendering in Posering is the image that is posted. I knew nothing about how to set up good lighting, camera settings etc, but it took me hours upon hours to get the scene just right. I think I captured something in the image and that is what I wished to do. That was my expression. It's not great, but it wasn't a naked Vicki thrown into an empty background.

Attached Link: http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6230.jpg

On the other hand Poser realism might be hard to get, but check this out in 3DS Max. This is even something difficult to achieve in Max. Is it real or Memorex?

"On the other hand Poser realism might be hard to get, but check this out in 3DS Max. This is even something difficult to achieve in Max. Is it real or Memorex?" Yeah, it's definitely not easy, but you can achieve a level of realism in Poser 5 at least that rivals that. The problem would be the time it takes to render. You'd need a lot of lights with soft shadows and high settings. I have 3dsMax as well, and realism of that kind in there isn't nearly as difficult to achieve. The technical prowess exemplified in that image is really the skill he displayed in modeling and texturing that figure from scratch. Otherwise, you can import a poser figure to 3dsmax, adjust the materials a little, and with GI lighting, you can get realism like that in about 20 minutes. If you look at the "Best Rankings" category in the 3dsMax gallery, you'll see tons of photographic images just like that. It's been said that the prejudice of Poser isn't it's ease of use or even the pre-fab models, but as was mentioned, it's the fact that you can make an image that is absolutely beautiful and unique in and of itself, but then maybe someone else created an image witht he same exact hair and clothing you used, and suddenly your image isn't unique anymore. It's the fact that thousands of other people can produce an image consisting of the same elements as yours that puts a very SOUR taste in the mouth of artists using other apps, and most of them do not want the possibility of someone else using the same hair or the same skin texture they did. That's why making it from scratch is so appealing to them. Frankly, I can see their point.

I should point out that as was mentioned, there's tons of prefab models for 3dsMax and highend apps too. So what's the differece? Well, it's my understanding that some even frown upon using other people's models regardless of what program they are made for. Be it Poser, Max, or whatever. But from their point of view, using background models like a bed to suppliment an environment for a hand-made character isn't as bad as using a stock character itself as well as a stock environment, and that's where the prejudice comes in. So many people use Koz's hair for example, or SteffyZZ's textures that it's hard for someone trying to stand out as a unique "artist" to do so using models or textures made by others.

True about the prefab thingy, but when a they project that assumption onto the whole of Poser users, they are in err. This type of prejudice would be similar to real-world racial prejudices in which a man or woman from a certain group is automatically perceived to be a certain way based upon their race.

I think there is a disgruntled feeling, even for me, to see an image that took a few minutes to create being passed of as artistic. I agree that this is a common viewpoint but I'm not sure why. Have you ever seen a Japanese Sumi artist at work? An ink drawing of a bird might be executed so quickly that you could almost miss it if you blinked. But before committing ink to silk the artist may have spent years contemplating the essence of "bird". Regarding art, for me content is king. If a piece that was created in mere moments speaks to me then it is not necessarily an indication of laziness or lack of skill. Instead, it is a concrete demonstration of doing more with less. While this cannot be said of all quickly executed pieces such artistic abilities should not be lightly dismissed. Placing a higher artistic value on increased effort or time does not seem so very different to me than placing higher value on creating a 3D image from scratch versus using a premade model. Effort or time involved are more reflections of craftsmanship than innate artistic ability. While such things are not without value they are not what determines whether something is a work of art or not. One of the most interesting things about artistic expression is that it cannot be easily constrained by rules. This has certainly not prevented us from inventing new rules at every opportunity but to do so risks reducing art to a mere sequence of procedural executions. To truly understand Art is to fully understand Man. Somehow, I think we are a long way from achieving such understandings. That's my story and I'm sticking to it... - Jack

Jack, I understand your point but I think you took what I meant to an extreme that it was not intended. I should have offered an example so that my words were not taken out of context. Example: Loading a nude Vicki, applying a prefab MAT preset, applying a prefab light set.. sticking on a hair model, loading a smart prop of some sort and then rendering it over a stock photo background. To me, that's just not artistic because for the most part...some other artist created ALL of that which was used and nothing was done to change anything. Basically it's all "cookie cutter". Tracing pictures would be much more artistic because you would still have to maintain a steady hand (hence effort). However, if you took the same items and made your own adjustments to camera and light settings, tweaked the Pose and added morphs to the hair, face etc., then you are talking all new substance.

Err... I made a booboo in my last post cause I was in a hurry. I said ALL new substance which should say SOME new substance. Anyhow, even with that said, I will still defer to what I said earlier in that art is an expression of oneself. And anything I say is just my opinion and is mine alone. I love Michelangelo's work and I've always hated Picasso's, but I wouldn't say Picasso's work was crap, just not suited to my taste is all. With that said, you won't find me telling someone who did a "cookie cutter" Poser scene that their stuff is "crap". It is possible that they are just learning the tools and got excited that they were, actually, just able to produce something. I'm not going to smash their hopes of ever getting better by such harsh statements. Instead, I would offer some advice on how to do some things differently. With all that, artists whom have grown to a certain maturity level should be more constructive and logical in their critiques anyhow. I see too many people in galleries (other than R'osity) saying stuff that is just plain uncalled for. Well gotta git home to the kiddies. Ciao all and have a good weekend, ----Kei

I remember being excited when my copy of P5 came in the mail. My friend asked why I was so excited, and he replied "it figures you'd use a program called Poser", and even now when he sees my manual laying out he asks "is this your book on how to be a poser?". I think that's a big part of it. I know if I didn't have Poser's figures I could eventually model my own in TrueSpace or zBrush. But since they are there I always end up using them, even though I know if I ever created a suitable character I'd never be able to use it in a game or anything commercial. I don't have a problem with the program itself, I think it's incredible. I think the combination of the name and the knowledge that the included content is so extensive gives one the impression that the artist might not be able to achieve that same quality in Carrara or blender. I do agree that if photographing live models can be art, so can rendering figures in Poser.