Ok everyone :) since I've been using poser I've heard all sorts of daftness about what is and isn't art. It's all a bit frustrating really :) Before I go on I'll jsut qualify myself a bit. I've been a semi pro fine artist for about 15 years, I've had exhibitions, a few sales and have won competitions, all in 2d of course. Several things I know without question :) from the moment I envisioned my first painting and picked up a pencil to work on it, I was an artist. Don't get me wrong I was rubbish, but technical skill does not make an artist. I say this because alot of criticism seems to be aimed at work here that is not technically perfect. It's completely unfounded criticism, the artist has envisioned an image and has worked to produce it, it's art. I was having a look for definitions earlier and found this. Defining art: what is and what is not 1. requires creative perception both by the artist and by the audience 2. elusive 3. communicates on many levels and is open to many interpretations 4. connotes a sense of ability 5. interplay between the conscious and unconscious part of our being, between what is real and what is an illusion 6. Any human creation which contains an idea other than its utilitarian purpose. Now there are very few artists who could match all of the above criteria in every work, in my opinion if any one of these is met then it's artwork. Anyway, just because someone uses Poser doesn't make their work less valuable, and conversely because someone uses a package worth 1000s doesn't make their work more valuable. My work I think falls into a couple of categories, there are the practise pieces, where I'm working on technique and there are the more aty pieces where I'm trying to say something. The 3d stuff is mostly practise :) Enough of all that, my point is. For those of you lack faith in themselves as artists, have faith and keep going. For the detracters, if ya don't like it then you don't like it, fine then constructive criticism is great, otherwise don't belittle other peoples efforts. Thats my rant, for what it's worth :) Take care, n have fun. John. Becalm, bestill, bewitch, drowning in the real

My definition... Art= Any created piece of design intended to capture an emotion. The subtler the emotion, the finer the art. Rawn

:) I love emotive art, it's my favourite genre. Though most of my emotive pieces have verged towards the dark. John.

Is there art which does not spark emotion? Emotion is the difference between a polaroid snapshot of a face and the mona lisa. The subtlety of emotion caught in the art is what elevates it.

True true.

I'm glad you brought up your opinions, guys. I've had this issue for some time now, being a user of Poser. But, it's not just the whipping of someone who uses Poser from traditional or professional "artists", but it's from other users of high-end 3-D programs. The biggest talkers I have come across has been CGTalk. I simply DO NOT post any of my work there because 95% of the people there will blast you a new hole of what a "true artist" is. "Poser isn't real 3-D. You're stupid."

Uhmmm... who said anything of me being a master of any program? I thought it was HOW you use a medium, the use of composition, (in most instances, imagination use), and how your finished piece conveys to the audience (hence, Rawn's definition). My MAIN reason for purchasing Poser was because it was essential for my traditional pieces; instead of forking out hundreds to thousands of dollars for real models, I have Poser, and these models won't ask for double-payment for a split-beaver shot with a gun in the snatch.

I find it funny, that when I do my "usual" piece and not mention Poser, people will give a normal critique or high-praise, then ask "what program did you use for the character?" "Poser." "Ha ha ha... you're funny! Shit program, not recommended."
Uhmmm... but why was I getting high-praise for the finished piece? So, all of the sudden, I'm no longer an artist because I used Poser?

Sad sad.

Me so sad, me find ways to inflict pain on sub-consiousness.
:( and people wonder why i have such unpopular ultra-violent or mentally disturbed pieces to show. thank you, society, for confusing the minds of future artists

Well, Rawnrr, maybe emotion is a subjective term, it should be it's subjective by nature. Maybe there would be less argument if one simply gave art the intent to affect a viewer-- even if that viewer is merely the creator. Art creates an effect. Provokes an effect?? ['A's and 'E's defeat me on that word, do forgive.] I think art is caused or created by emotion, it can start as doodling but when the artist becomes involved in what they are making, it starts to be art. I've long said I've thought the problem people have with calling something like Poser art is the overly high value we have placed on that word. You're an artist, means you have made it. Never been true. Usually means you're condemned to rice and beans if you're lucky for the rest of your life. There's good art and bad art and everything in between but all of them were satisfying to the artist on the day they made that atrocity--LOL! Medium has always been made to matter and has never ever mattered. People looked down on Photography anything to do with machines always seems anti-art which pertains of the primitive urges. Hmmmm, look in a gallery, enough mammaries usually to satisfy any number of primitive urges-- and that's just the Louvre. If computers can't make art then Yoshitaki Amano isn't an artist and that can't be right. If computers can make art then it's foolish to limit the art made to only the most expensive software or hardware-- goes quite against art's democractic impulses. A great world is one in which everybody makes art and doesn't know it, or care-- they're just doing what they love and what feeds their need for beauty. Give us Bread but Give us Roses too. Even if painted on black velvet. Oh, sometimes the emotion provoked is loathing. It also is not Not Art-- does that make any sense-- if you don't like it. All it means is you don't like it so it isn't your kind of art. You want to call it low art, common art-- there goes that democratic impulse out the window-- or cr@p art. But it does remain in the heart of the person who created it. Having said all that, I think back on some of the pieces in this gallery and others that have struck me as great and they have all moved me emotionally. Some for odd reasons, as places I wish existed, or fearful images that released somethng inside me for good or ill, some for purely propaganda reasons, the people in it were so nice. A few for what modern aestheticians would recognise as the few artistic reasons allowable-- color and line which also provoke emotion, sometimes amazingly powerful emotion. Which is why nudes will never go "out of style." The power of the beauty of the human body is the power of life. Way too much said by me. So far this is a good discussion of art,not the usual tear em down, make em feel small, motivations. I don't think we should live without art, you see. I think we should constantly encourage it cause it is so vulnerable to the artist to show their work. I think seeing something beautiful enhances my day-- hell, even something cute or pretty, brightens the grey ordinary crises of life. Emily

'Is there art which does not spark emotion?' Sure there is, many great minds have tried to define at a concrete level what "Art" is or is not, every-time someone does then there are works that break that definition. Here something else to break. To me "Art" is the result of an artist sharing their "Vision", good art is well executed and facilitates that sharing. If your vision is VITWAS and that's what you achieve, excellent art. If your vision is, like the early cubists something new or defines itself by testing bounds and you achieve that vision then excellent art. If your vision is abstract and inaccessible, and you maintain that in your work, then you have achieved art. If your vision is emotional, rational or technical and you capture those qualities in the work then you have artistic success. Far to much thinking. Going back to banging rocks together now.

Hi Emily I would argue perhaps that the root way in which the viewer (or artist) is affected by the art, would occur originally in their emotions. But then this would end with simply a debate of semantics regarding the word "emotion" ;)

Everything in the Poser gallery must be art, then, since it is all capable of generating strong negative emotions in 3D snobs. Not to mention all the people who are angry about seeing dozens of NVITWS renders every day.

"Is there art which does not spark emotion?" Yes. A good deal of conceptual art is geared towards intellectual exercise, not emotional response.

Those that look down on Poser don't like it because they either don't understand it or consider it a porn making program because of the half naked girlie art that is tossed up in the galleries and of course the nude figues lol. That is what I come across when I go to put a poser render up in any online galleries. People's reactions to Poser renders makes me laugh. If I render it, it's mine, I made it and it's all 3D Art, no matter how you look at it. If it took me ten hours to make, you dam well better believe I call it art. I pay no attention to the remarks anymore. I dont any renders up in here yet. No time. :)

Everything in the Poser gallery must be art, then, since it is all capable of generating strong negative emotions in 3D snobs.

True. If art is defined as something which sparks an emotion, then lots of the posts here (and lots of other things) are art.

technical skill does not make an artist
Also very true. A lot of the controversy over "purists" and "snobbery" against Poser only makes sense if there is a confusion between art and virtuosity.

Most CG "snobs" are not really artists but rather artisans or craftspersons.

An example of art v. virtuoisity: one great singer with a tambourine can potentially create and perform greater art than a whole symphony orchestra full of virtuosos with Phds in music. I think art is about more than eliciting emotion, and I know it is about more than mastering 3D software, however good you become at that. Message edited on: 02/07/2005 19:18

Art is whatever I say it is. So there.

technical skill does not make an artist must be true as 10s of 1,000s of dollars have been spent for 'art' painted by a chimp, an elephant, and an ape. I have not seen any of them in any of my "technical" classes :? Although there was this penguin back in high school, always stood up in front of the class, I think it was a 'she' cuz everyone called her "sister"...but I never saw her do any art....

*Art is whatever I say it is.

So there.*

:)

That, in a sense, is fact.

Think about it: no matter what medium someone uses, if a person can "analyze" it and come up with "what the artist is conveying", it is art, whether you like it or not.

I can sculpt Michelangelo's David out of elephant dump and put it on exhibit. Someone (usually some aristrocrat snob) can manueveur their specs on the bridge of their nose and go, "yes yes... truly a master of human form, capturing the beauty of the renaissance, yet displaying that this world is full of filth and debauchery..." I just now made $120K.

BUT... when it comes to art created by digital means, the ridicule comes mainly from within the CG community, not society. People who love to be entertained and amused (and don't have the 'talent') love what is being created, no matter how ugly you do something (ie: South Park). CG creators, however, writhe in disgust. And this ridicule is usually which program was used. I think that is so pathetic. Do you think Da Vinci and Michelangelo had coneption fits of what horse hair should be used to consider a piece art?

Here are a few replies made to Katherine Howard's (Curious Labs) post at CGTalk (forgive me for continuing to bring them up... they have excellent renders and helpful tutes for other proggies, etc... but many of the people are elitist) of the upcoming release of Poser 6. This shows not only how brutal CG'rs can be, but also how scary it can be when venturing out to post your pieces up at other communities (there are a few combative defenders for Poser, but they, like myself, tend to not come out of the woodwork until this very moment such as someone being rude to a rep from Curious Labs). And pay very close attention to the last one:

Lol to funny  
 
I was going to write something sarcastic about that horribly written post but then i decided against it.  
 
Er, hi.  
I do believe that you have posted this on the wronge site. The correct site is http://www.rendorosity.com. Here you shall find all manner of 3d Pr0nsky and other assorted 3d clip art....  
 
But for some strange reason it hurts me more to look at a bad Poser image, than a bad pencil image.  
 
The only thing that troubles me about poser, is that i can spot creations done from it, miles away. I'm not bragging about it, many artists can do the same, and its not a matter of sharp eye, its just an obvious reality.  
99% of Poser users, only care about doing something fast and effordless. They don't care about being unique in their art. And thats the problem. Poser leads you into aquiring a false perspective about creation and art. Its just a tool like all other tools, but it takes you so far with a push of a button, it gives you the illusion you are instantly an artist, while you are missing some foundational knowledge about human form.  
Bash all you want the artists that do it the hard way (or narrowminded way) as you say. In this stoneage process of building characters from scratch, you learn so much, and have so much fun, its just hard to explain to a hardcore Poser user.  
Thats just my humble opinion, feel free to correct me.  

BUT... when it comes to art created by digital means, the ridicule comes mainly from within the CG community, not society. People who love to be entertained and amused (and don't have the 'talent') love what is being created, no matter how ugly you do something (ie: South Park).

A little OT: Hey now no dissing South Park please lol. South Park looks ugly to most folks for a reason: was created by hand in construction paper no less, the creators did it for fun at the time, not profit, I'm sure you know the rest of the story. Not sure if that would be considered art or not though. :) Message edited on: 02/07/2005 23:40

South Park is Art. I say so.

South Park is Art. was created by hand in construction paper If nothing created using Poser can be considered "art" then surely nothing created using the Sims could be either: http://www.strangerhood.com/ ANYTHING can be used to create art, and a lot of CGers use Lightwave and Photoshop to create pretentious crap IMHO.

South Park is computer animation, made to look like construction paper animation. Poser art is a form of art, but comparing it to art that gets sold in galleries or hung in museums is generally pointless. Its context is different, at least so far as I'm aware. If some high-end gallery artist has done a series that utilized Poser, I haven't heard of them, but would like to. The best Poser artists are usually thought of as illustrators. "I say so." -pdxjims, 2005

Here's a scary thought. Imagine a world like the movie "Equalibrium" where art in any form is outlawed. If you are caught with simething as simple as a book of limricks, then you're executed! I hope I'm long gone before that ever happens!

The Poser Police are knocking on your door!!! Caught in possession of a VIATWAS, throw away the key...

South Park is computer animation, made to look like construction paper animation. Not only that, but it's modelled and rendered in Maya. Just FYI. :-) bonni

This time of the month again hmmm, guess the "what is art" pebble in the pond was due once more. :) Art is the ability to sell whatever crap you put together to a bunch of critics, most of the time the "public" will happily follow the opinions of said critics. Yup I've had exhibitions, yes I've sold stuff , and yes a box of cigars and an bottle of the best to the right critic will sell you more stuff than the adoration of the masses.

Attached Link: http://www.mayaassociation.fsbusiness.co.uk/bro-southpark.htm

ANYTHING can be used to create art~~Qualien
Yep.

This time of the month again hmmm, guess the "what is art" pebble in the pond was due once more.~~hein
This is the ONLY thing that I am willing to debate. I have more passion for this than anything. Consider it my 'religion' and 'politics', and neither one of those I am willing to debate. Go figure.

No dissing South Park~~opinions of more than one
Oh no... not dissing. I love SP. But, granted, it is an ugly form of 'art', but does stir entertainment due to not only the 'performance' of the piece, but also with the dialogue.

Ok... I'm done. Continue to butcher the child that feeds. I had my two cents thrown in: one cent for my thoughts, the other...hell. I have no clue what the other penny was for...........

The original South Park (Jesus and Santa Claus) was done in construction paper. It went to being generated in Maya when it became a series. The design udea is to continue to make it look like construction paper. It's produced in a 3D program to look like 2D. As for it being an "ugly" form of art, well, I never much liked Mona Lisa's smile. It looks like the artist couldn't make up his mind. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'll just rip off the Supreme Court's definition of prongaphory "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"..;)

Prongaphory? Sounds sharp and dangerous. :)

:) thanks everyone for your posts, it's been great to read them all. South Park now who'd have thought that would come up :) My feeling is that if someone tells me I'm not an artist it can have two effects. Either knock my confidence and get me down, or irritate me because of their brash ignorance :) I'm pretty sure no one has the right to do the first to anyone, so I'll pick the second every time. John :)

I wrote the above at work. We have an on-line parser, so the moment you write 'pr*nography', alarm bells ring in Data security..which is why I'm not more foul-mouthed in here..;)

Art is commonly misused as it does not really relate to the technical skill of a person, but the perception of the piece. The whole concept of it can't be art because ... doesn't really exist. But it's the only word that we have, so it's used in ways that are really ludicrious.

CGTalk defines art as a community as doing it all yourself and showing what you can do to potential professional production houses. That is their culture, that is their art, so if you look at it that way, they can say Poser is not art, but what they are saying is that Poser is not their idea of art. They don't really care whether you have a high end app or a low end app, if you did the image yourself. Project DogWaffle is cheaper than Poser, but if you painted the image yourself, then you can get recognized on there. You can take the latest Lightwave wonder into a regular traditional gallery and in many ways get just as much ridicule and scorn. There will certainly be people who will say it's not art and in their particular discipline, it's not. Just as we can say that a model on a white background is not art. It's not the kind of art that we consider art, so it's not art. The pendulum does swing both ways.

Art is whatever the viewer and the artist thinks it is (and because Jim says so). But if you are going to clash cultures with a site that is known for it's narrow definition, then you can't expect to be treated as an equal to their way of thought. That is why I don't post on CGTalk. I don't do their kind of art, so there is no point to it. Just as I rarely post on WetCanvas, because they are more traditional artists than digital. If you think it's art, and you are happy, who cares what they think? If you do care what they think, than perhaps you should investigate their world and start the journey that they are on, rather than your own. You'll find that both are very difficult paths from different perspectives.

The choice is up to you...Sorry, I don't mean to sound crass, but there is a lot of room for all cultures of art and each one has their prejudices that are not going to be broken down. So you either fight them, join them, or just render on, have fun, and don't worry about it.

ShadowWind is right. It's amost art. I say so.