is there another gallery here where art is posted? almost every day i have a look at the gallery, flick from one page to the next looking for art. not soft porn or some thinly disguised advert( but i must say of these are not to bad )or a pic that could not have taken more an hour to throw together with stock this and stock that. but some work that an artist has taken time with,staged, checked to see that bits are not sticking in or out of other bit, maybe even done a bit of post work, something that is trying to tell a story,

I would say you're not looking to good. There are loads of excellent art in the gallery.

...what's your point, soul? In your post I see a dull, vapid generalized critisism that's been done a thousand times before. Nothing new or imaginative to it at all.

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 13:59

At the risk of making enemies, I got the same reaction. I find something to like in the majority, fortunately -- but I also find something I wish they'd bothered to fix in over half of them. In defense (and not much of one) I consider forcing an image out of laggy computer and wacky interface somewhat akin to playing piano with your nose. Everything takes time, lots of time. The smallest details take the most effort (and roundabout effort it is, too!) to fix. So I salute any music that comes out, and am even more pleased when it is actually musical.

I didn't know you had to work on a piece for a set amount of time for it to be considered "ART" But we all know that you can't produce art with POSER ;-)

so soon ....has it been 15 days already????

BTW "soul" I was hoping that you would help us raise the bar with your renders but alas you have nothing of yours posted here at least to show us . and i agree that there is ALOT of poorly executed crappola in the galleries ....Alot!! but hey dont go there if it really bothers you ;-)

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 14:23

" is there another gallery here where art is posted? " yes, try to post them at epilogue.net >:o) oh good luck.

where is my bloody dead horse with that stick image....???

Yo Soul, or should I say Chris since you obviously don't have much soul. Its ok to play the role of the critic if you show what you've got. Otherwise, you're nothing but a, dare I say, "Poser!" Your criticism is imho valid for some who post but there's others who I know put their heart and soul into their work. Your observations are insulting to them. So lets's see what the makeup of your heart and soul is before you walk in the door and piss on the livingroom carpet. Go ahead and BRING IT! -jay

And yet you do it almost every day. Does that mean you're insane?

what's art?

Strike that question.

Asking where the art is is like walking into a crowded room and asking where the humans are when what youre looking for is an Asian female.

Whether you agree or not, its all art. if you want something specific you need to figure out what it is you're looking for and ask for it specifically.

What are you looking for? Cartoons? Sci-fi? Fantasy? Portraits? Landscapes?

The galleries allow you to sort to a specific subject; unfortunately you cant filter out subjects.

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 14:58

(in jest) if you'd spend more time looking and less time memorizing what is "stock" maybe you'd find more art. I always find it funny how these critics seem to know what is and isnt "stock".

You're quick enough to criticise everyone else but you don't seem to have the balls to let anyone do that to you. I'd say put up or shut up. If you don't like what's here - no one is forcing you to stay

I'm new to Poser and, I should say, like many others here, are still in a very deep learning curve. I admit I use "stock" stuff, because I don't yet know how to make my own - with practice that will come. However, we all have to start somewhere, and by posting to the gallery we can get an evaluation of our work so far and act on any advice given. Just by reading forum threads here I've learned quite a lot in the 6 weeks I've had Poser. Also, not everyone can afford all the bells and whistles from the various site stores - thank goodness for freebies! But then that's another thread ...............

Personally, my hat goes off to anyone who posts thier work whether they spent 2 weeks or 2 minutes. What looks good to some may not look good to others which is what makes art appealing.

Hehehehe, nobody appreciates "Chinese Art"- take something from column A, something from column B and something from column C. And an hour later, have to look at it again. Bad humor, bad, bad.

hmm..I'm doing a background in Bryce for a Poser pic, started Thursday at 10pm with the render, and at..4:40pm Friday, Anti-alias is only at 42%..does that count?..;) today I am a man..;)
There's good stuff out there, and not just in Poser..take a chance and sort 'all and all'..just for different approaches..

And after all... it's a hobby, we do it for fun, to relax. If you want art you'll find it, just lay off those of us who can't even spell picars... piccas.... rembrandt ok! Jack

I'm a musician by trade and very new to visual art. A few weeks back I collected several images from the Renderosity galleries which I would consider prime examples of computer art. I spend hours studying them, hoping to learn from them and "doing my own version" of some of them in an attempt to understand what makes them great.

I posted a Render today, that took over a week to make, and I get nothing out of it. Yeah..I do as hobby to, but I like to get credit along with it. So, last one going in the gallery from me. I have other things to do than wine and feel bad about it (After knowing no one is enjoying). But along the line. The gallery has formed an image already. I/we should know that already, and leave it as is. My images not art?

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 16:03

I do not usually look at the galleries here. I browse some specific sites in Europe where the artists discuss the method used to create the images.

I have just had a look and found images that I consider superior examples of Poser art.

Some mentions: (no offense if you aren't included)

shesa "girl and cat"
kinouk "light the way"
? "dianas dream"
antge "Mireya"
? "where the moonlight"
? "Lost temple"

If any of these are cut and paste stock items I have been shopping in the wrong place.

There are a number of sites where artists feature their own work and a couple of websites that are paysites.

Sifting the gems from the not so gemish is worth the trouble.

And please remember that some of this artwork is the early work of people new to the programs and new to artwork in general. It is in my opinion inappropriate to dump on them for their efforts. Constructive critisism should always be welcome particularly if matched with a concrete suggestion. Something like "adding a specific light in front of and to the left of figure A would improve the scene" rather than "you're lighting sucks"

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 16:02

In answer to your question SoulTaker, there are several sites that have galleries where art is posted, just look for them. I post images here because I enjoy putting crappy work on sites for the whole world to see and I'm sure there are lots of others who do as well (tongue in cheek). LMAO

thanks to all for posting, it realy has been fun. no real surprise

But we all know that you can't produce art with POSER ;-) LOL. Couldn't agree more. ;)

...hehehe. Mark Twain once said, "Man is capable of almost anything, but man is not capable of having a hole in the seat of his pants and keeping his fingers out of it." Apparently Poser is the hole in the seat of soultakers pants.

wow some folks read and twain at that

When I look thru the gallery,(which is quite often), I see lots of good stuff, and a bit of great stuff, and one or two exceptional items. Oh, and some crappy ones, but I never complain about those because there's enougbh good, great and exceptional stuff to keep me happy...

"When I look thru the gallery,(which is quite often), I see lots of good stuff, and a bit of great stuff, and one or two exceptional items. Oh, and some crappy ones, but I never complain about those because there's enougbh good, great and exceptional stuff to keep me happy..." And that, martian manhunter (lurve that name btw) just about sums it up. Jack

I would like to see what you did when you first started. I know some people think they can make themselves look better by berating the work of others. I agree that some of the art is not top quality. I also fee that if they are happy with it it will not hurt me to look at it. What are you doing, trying to find something to take and post somewhere else as your own work? That could be a reason you are picking others work apart. There are tools here where you can name the artist you want to see. Believe me that RENDER ARTIST are always on the look out for others posting there work and rightly so. We see a lot of stuff ripped off around here. I also hope that the contest winnings are given to those who deserve the awards.

I just love poking a stick into an ant hill. You'll always get a reaction.

...all kidding aside, soultaker, you might wanna take a look at using Poser yourself. The vast majority of us do this for good fun, not "art". The "what is art" argument is old and cliche. I won't jump into that one. We solved that 25 years ago at a beer hall in Virginia, but for some reason the New York Times won't publish the transcript ;) However, on a more practical level, as a businessman I occasionally have to hire artists (I am not an artist) for our promotional stuff. Frankly, I could care less what tools they use. If they can get the job done with an Etch-a-Sketch, or Maya or Poser that's fine by me, so long as the job gets done.

From the number of replies here, I'm thinking SoulTaker got exactly the response he/she was trying to get. :) Probably learned net manners on the Yahoo message boards.

Art is quite simply what the "artist" sees, nothing more, nothing less! What is art to some is not art to others, so what, you pays your money and takes your choice! As for "stock" items, sure we all use them but it's how we use them that differs and some, like me have no intention of ever making my own props, etc. because most of the software that would enable me to do a good job is too pricey so I just buy what I need when I need it. Happy days and long life friends!

Attached Link: http://http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=677210&Start=55&Artist=Argon18&ByArtist=Yes

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=720454

Hey, why don't you peruse Deviant Art for a while, SoulTaker? Then you'll be a little less, hm... derisive. Nice gallery, by the way. It's always good to see someone who is working hard to improve their artwork taking the time to constructively criticize others. Oh, wait. RC Do I really need to include sarcasm tags?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=733348&Start=1&Artist=bnetta&ByArtist=Yes

Take a walk through an art gallery some time. You'll find good art there alongside the bad. Stop near the bad art long enough, and someone will come along who likes it. That's why it's there, because someone likes it. I'm an artist myself (on paper) and personally, I don't like Picasso's work, but it belongs in a gallery because he took the time to paint it, and someone likes it. If someone spent time to produce art with poser and you don't like it, instead of criticising them, try doing better. As they say, "Thems that can, do. Thems that can't criticise." Or maybe you should call yourself "Gotnosoul", instead.

This is from someone who lists favourite's like crikett because of 'no pinups', then further down the list has prog LMFAO (no offense to prog in ANY way at all - I quite like his busty redheads)

So the ONLY way to provide a valid criticism is to be able to show examples of one's own ability in regard to the criticized subject matter? That's ludicrous. I'll have to remember you said that when Poser 6 is released. Or when Microsoft's LongHorn is released. Or when George Bush makes a booboo. Or when.....aw, you get the point. Serious question 1: Is a single frame extracted from a security camera operated randomly and automatically in the corner of an empty warehouse "art"? If so, why so? Serious question 2: Is there such a thing as bad art? If so, why so?

So the ONLY way to provide a valid criticism is to be able to show examples of one's own ability in regard to the criticized subject matter? That's ludicrous.

Well yes, in the sense that we are all critics all the time - we all say, 'that was a great/lousy movie/book/TV show/meal' etc. etc. Which is expected, and in any case we're entitled as we are the consumers paying money for whatever it was. However, I can't help feeling that someone entering a community devoted to a particular subject and criticising all the other people there, but without a track record of his/her own, whether good or bad, is unjustified and rather pointless.

It would be like me entering a meeting of parents and telling them how bad they are at bringing up their kids - the obvious question is, 'tried it yourself, have you?' (The answer is no, BTW :-)

I think it's mostly a case of "I was going to make sweeping generalities and false assumptions, but then I got high" This subject comes up a lot in the forum and most of the time it's from someone making sweeping statements about the images in the galleries as a whole when they can't be applied that way. There are a lot of different kinds of images there some better and some worse than others since the arists are at different skill levels and some have learned more than others. It's hard to generalize about the galleries here because the images are so varied Question #1 yes it's art since it represents something. Question #2 Yes some art is better presented than others.

So the ONLY way to provide a valid criticism is to be able to show examples of one's own ability in regard to the criticized subject matter? When someone provides an opinion with grand generalizations, the only way to judge what that person thinks is good is to view his gallery or his favored artists list. That is the only face/example you show here unless you hang around the forums and establish a reputation. Soultaker has no gallery and of the 37 artists on his list i sampled several and noticed all that i viewed fall into what appears to be his catagories of "not art". From what i can tell from his favored artists, he likes pin-ups with painted hair. >Serious question 1: Is a single frame extracted from a security camera operated randomly and automatically in the corner of an empty warehouse "art"? If so, why so? yes, intent. it was composed/collected and displayed. even a randomly operating camera must be set to operate randomly. If you only appricate art because it was difficult to produce, then you are not appricating the art. >Serious question 2: Is there such a thing as bad art? If so, why so? Good and bad are opinions of the viewer. SoulTaker did not say there was not good art here. He said or rather bluntly implied in his first two sentences that there is NO art here.

Regarding serious question 1. : You've accepted a blank piece of videotape as art. I neglected to mention that the camera was not currently operating. One should be more careful in their art appraisals.*

When nothing (literally "no thing") can be considered art, then art becomes nothing. You may like the sound of that, but not I.

Yet, if everything is art, then the literal correlation means art is everything. And anyone who creates something is an artist. Everyone creates something at some point, therefore everyone is an artist. If everyone is an artist, then SoulTaker is an artist. And since art cannot be deemed bad or good in any objective manner, what point is there in his showing results (which he MUST have created since he's an artist) or favorite artist choices in order for you to validate whether his opinion is valid? That's just an attempt to trump his opinion with your own. Would you turn 180 if he proved himself to be skillful? Or if his choices matched your own? Why ought he be attacked for expressing his detractive viewpoint? (Rhetorical questions all.)

Regarding serious question 2. : Bad art is a contradiction in terms. Images can be art. Images can be ugly. Ugly images can be art. But bad art denotes that the artist was incapable of communicating the artists beauteous intent, whether due to lack of skill, or lackluster inspiration, or otherwise. You can have bad composition, bad anatomy, bad perspective, but bad art isn't art. It failed to become art at some point in the execution.

Occassionally, there are stories of prodigies (teenaged or younger) who evidence exceptional ability to produce elaborate images (drawings, paintings, photography, etc) with remarkable sophistication and regularity. Usually there is an awed reaction to the work, due to the prodigy's skill at such an early age. This suggests that skill is an inherent measureable component of artistic ability. And if that is true, then not every image must be art.

I recognize my views may be distasteful. Feel free to contradict me. I just want to explore the subject.

All in all, I think the obvious direct answer to SoulTaker's question is: No. There is not. WYSIWYG.

*SoulTaker has also made an assumption. The page series where images are displayed here at Renderosity is called the "Gallery", not the "Art Gallery" (a wise decision by Renderosity designers, whom i'm sure have their own opinions on the subject).

Message edited on: 02/07/2005 06:23

You've accepted a blank piece of videotape as art. Yes. It is collected and presented with intent. It conveys a message regardless of you or I understanding the message. >I neglected to mention that the camera was not currently operating. Your question stated that it was operating. Security cameras that are not operating do not produce frames to extract. I stand by my response to the question as stated. > One should be more careful in their art appraisals One should be more careful in stating the questions lest one be thought a troll. >When nothing (literally "no thing") can be considered art, then art becomes nothing. You may like the sound of that, but not I. Absence can be as powerful a message as presence. What you like is not relevant. >if everything is art Everything is not art. >And anyone who creates something is an artist. Everyone creates something at some point, therefore everyone is an artist. If everyone is an artist, then SoulTaker is an artist. And since art cannot be deemed bad or good in any objective manner, what point is there in his showing results (which he MUST have created since he's an artist) or favorite artist choices in order for you to validate whether his opinion is valid? It is not about validating his opinion. He implied that there is not art in the galleries, and requested the location of art. In an attempt to ascertain what he considers art, we viewed his gallery (or lack there of) and favored artist list as well as reviewing the specifications he stated at the beginning of this thread. In my opinion all of the artists galleries that I reviewed from his favored artists are not posting art in accordance with the specifications in his posts. >That's just an attempt to trump his opinion with your own. Would you turn 180 if he proved himself to be skillful? I would be more able to help him locate that which he considers art. >Or if his choices matched your own? That would make it easier. >Why ought he be attacked for expressing his detractive viewpoint? Attacked? You can tell by the title of this thread that he expected people to get defensive. >bad art denotes that the artist was incapable of communicating the artists beauteous intent, That neither you nor I understand the intent does not mean that it is not art nor in my opinion does this make it bad. >Occassionally, there are stories of prodigies who evidence exceptional ability to produce elaborate images with remarkable sophistication and regularity. And because prodigies do it so effortlessly, Soultaker implies that he would not consider it art (work that an artist has taken time with, staged, checked). >Usually there is an awed reaction to the work, due to the prodigy's skill at such an early age. This suggests that skill is an inherent measureable component of artistic ability. And if that is true, then not every image must be art. This suggests that admirers are viewing the complexity and technique not the intent or message. Skill is present in the execution of all works, to dismiss something as not art because you subjectively judge that there was not enough of skill, I believe, is wrong. You dont have to like it, but that doesnt mean it isnt art. Skill in and of itself is not measurable; however it can be observed in our actions (or productions) and judged relative to others.

I stated "a single frame extracted from a security camera operated randomly and automatically in the corner of an empty warehouse". Operated. Past tense. I phrased it intentionally. YOU made the assumption. Admittedly I baited you, but perhaps you should have questioned the situation more carefully before deciding. Think me a troll all you wish. It makes no nevermind. The notion that a collected strip of blank tape presented as art, when even you yourself who collected and presented don't understand your own message, is absurd. But enjoy. I'm not referring to negative space surrounding positive space. I conspicuously said literal nothing. The belief that art is whatever any believer believes it is equates to everything being qua art. However, it also provides for any believer to believe the opposite. "Skill is present in the execution of all works," Egad. "You dont have to like it, but that doesnt mean it isnt art." Nor does liking it mean it is art. "Skill in and of itself is not measurable; however it can be observed in our actions (or productions) and judged relative to others." And how on Earth does this NOT equate to measurement? I find your rebuttal lacking in rationale (although I am sincerely grateful for it), so I will heed Nietzsche's advice and invest my interests elsewhere. I must admit, given his intro, SoulTaker WAS expecting to stir a hornets nest. But you are just as capable of avoiding his posting as he is of avoiding the gallery (as I infer Wolf359 suggested). I now understand that you were trying to help SoulTaker find the art for which he was so desperate. Now it all makes sense.

This whole thread was a lot more about something to talk about than art (trolling can be considered an artform in itself but I have seen better examples of it) Serious question 1: Is a single frame extracted from a security camera operated randomly and automatically in the corner of an empty warehouse "art"? If so, why so? That statement means it's on at some point and has frames on the tape, now who's making false assumptions when you say it's not on later? Rationalizing away your mistakes after the fact just for the sake of argument and making such sweeping generalities is just talking for the sake of it.

I stated "a single frame extracted from a security camera operated randomly and automatically in the corner of an empty warehouse". Operated. Past tense. I phrased it intentionally. YOU made the assumption. I made the logical assumption that for a camera or its tape to have a frame to extract, it must have operated prior to the time of extraction. >Admittedly I baited you, but perhaps you should have questioned the situation more carefully before deciding. If you are baiting then no amount of questioning will reveal the relevant facts until you feel the need. Most likely not until an answer was given so that you could counter with these new facts. Changing the question is not a response to the original answer. > Think me a troll all you wish. It makes no nevermind. Dismissing the consequences of your actions does not negate the consequences. >The notion that a collected strip of blank tape presented as art, when even you yourself who collected and presented don't understand your own message, is absurd. But enjoy. I did not intend that statement to read that the collector/artist did not understand the message. I assumed the artist was a third party and that you and I do not understand his message. That being said, claiming something is absurd is not a logical argument. >The belief that art is whatever any believer believes it is equates to everything being qua art. However, it also provides for any believer to believe the opposite. art is whatever any believer believes it is is not what I stated. It is not belief that makes it art, it is intent. >"Skill is present in the execution of all works," Egad. Disagreement without rebuttal? >"You dont have to like it, but that doesnt mean it isnt art." Nor does liking it mean it is art. Agreed. >"Skill in and of itself is not measurable; however it can be observed in our actions (or productions) and judged relative to others." And how on Earth does this NOT equate to measurement? Youre not measuring the skill, your judging the work. Judging the work is subjective. Measurements (to my mind at least) should be objective. >I find your rebuttal lacking in rationale (although I am sincerely grateful for it), so I will heed Nietzsche's advice and invest my interests elsewhere. Be well.