laughs Sure, why not! But when my pimp finds out you stole from me, he'll be after you, I'm sure. Always fear the man in neon pink fur.

I think I worship in the cathedrel of Poser 5 almost daily. Occassionally I stray into the church of Poser 6, but not often yet. It scares me in there. shiver

Jimdoria: "A near-life-size sculpture of Michael Jackson and his chimp, done in gilded porcelain (sculpted, poured, painted and fired by someone other than the "artist")" Saw that one at SF MOMA. I liked it a lot. Yes, the subject was derivative and the work was mass-produced, but all of that supported the underlying concepts. The concept determined the form. I have to say in too much of Poser the form determines the concept. This does not prevent one from making good art, however. The haiku form is incredibly restrictive, and it would be too easy to characterize all haiku as simple wordplay; a complex intellectual game, not poetry. Many haiku do, however, rise to the level of poetry. Yet, down that route is realizing that there can be "art" in a well-written computer program, in a hand-made guitar, in practically any of what are otherwise called "crafts" fields. Obversely, there are millions of hand-done oil landscapes out there that must be characterized as more "craft" than art; as they lack the intangible something beyond craftsmanlike execution of the subject. Deciding "what is art" is a fool's game. What is useful, instead, is to ask of a particular creative process or material if it allows personal expression, or if it emphasises craft skills -- or worse (like Poser tends to) emphasizes the drudgery of numbers. After all, one may be a musician, one may play music, but when one is trying to break in a new reed by playing scales few would characterize that as anything other than a drudge-work task. Breaking in a reed may be done with creativity and sensitivity as well as skill, but in the mind of the player "Music" will come later.

Does anyone else around here remember those old "Art is for Man's Sake" public service TV ads from the late 60's - early 70's era? I seem to have a vague recollection that the ads were sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts.

Hmmmmm......that thought gives me an idea.

I wonder if I can get a big government grant to churn out endless V3 renders.........that would be a great job, if I can get it.

Hmmmmm......after all, I use Poser on nights and weekends. That makes ME an artist!

So why shouldn't I get in on the NEA gravy train? After all, I deserve it. I USE POSER!!!!!! It's ART: so it follows that it's for Man's Sake.

((note to the NEA: show me the money.))

Just remember: "A critic knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing!" I love using poser, takes me back to my days as a photographer but without the attendant hassles of hiring a model, waiting for her to show up, finding out that she's not "into" modelling that day and leaving early. Posette and all her daughters rule!

Complicated.... There's a little old lady....really. She's got 5 assistants (all very able and talented). She say's, "let's make a nude standing". They make it for her. Between naps and guests she says..."That's it"! "I love it"! The model is scanned and it's file is shipped to abroad. Here it is laser pointed and carved into a pure white block of marble. Corrected and even signed(her name) by guys whose great great great grandfathers did the same thing without pcs. It is shipped back to her studio and after champagne, it is purchased by a repeat buyer on the spot for a huge sum. Newspaper articles rave... So,,, what is the art? What is the craft? Who is the artist? Or, is it all just a small part of a very big lie or, some new truth? A techno blur on old traditions and values...? Eat it Breath it Excell at it and It becomes valid. And then, you'll no longer have time to ask the question.

Anything can be art. Anyone can be an artist. The mystery for me is always how does some of the work I see make it so far up the Pyramid of Success? Critics and Agents push. Buckets of Blood? Masturbating in a pile of trash under the museum steps? 100 recipes for Used Yams? A play, a movie, an illlustration can all live a productive existence without being crowned "art". Thank you, Latexluv, biggest laugh of the day.

My personal problem with Poser is the "drudge factor." If I paint in acrylics I spend hours moving a brush -- but every brush stroke gives of it's individual character and nuance to the final painting. If I do 3d, I spend hours moving a mouse -- but no matter how deftly or sensitively I move the mouse, only the final position of the polygons appears in the resulting artwork. The complaint that artists, particularly 3d artists, have with Poser is how easy it may be to fake creativity. The viewer questions if what they are responding to emotionally comes from the artist who's signature is on the work, or a content creator or programmer behind them. It might help to look at Poser work as more collaborative art. One can admire a magnificant 'cello performance without asking if the player composed it themselves. One can enjoy all the aspects of a play, dispite the fact that the story and words already existed before the show was cast or the sets designed. I DO find that many Poser creators, especially beginning creators, are seduced by the beauty of the pre-made parts. That's why so many take am unmodified Vickie, slap a texture on her, then render. Until reality sinks in they feel as if their own efforts have made this complex bit of near-realism come to life; they feel an actual joy of "creation." The same happens when you lift a consumer camera at one of the observation platforms at the Grand Canyon; for a moment you feel as if you have personally contributed towards what will appear in that final print. Yes, you have, but not to the extent you might feel at first. Later, as the Poser user desires to express themselves more uniquely, they get into the tweaky, twiddly stuff. And there is where Poser smacks you a second time; 3d is such a complex, time-consuming act, one is always drawn (if not forced) to compromise. Sure, my inner vision said an old African woman looking out over the Serengiti -- but the morphs would take too long, Vickie won't even morph that way, my attempts at painting a custom texture ran into the seam issue, and I can't find a Wildebeast in any of the online brokers. Okay -- a middle-aged Cherokee will have to do. Now I just need to find a background that will work. The trade-off is thus; sure, the "make it all from scratch" people can do stuff the Poser junkie can't. But they make few images, they face their own limitations, and they trade polish, detail, and richness for time; they can do a "toon" quickly but a baroquely detailed jungle scene will take them all year. The Poser user trades upon pre-made material to make complex scenes quickly, to leverage the power of artistic collaberation (to inspire with directions they would not have imagined, to lean upon in the areas where they are weak, to fill in detail in places where it would otherwise be drudgery, not creation), and they can make several scenes a year; to explore their artistic visions in more depth and to branch out -- and more than anything, to have the freedom for experimentation.

Hmmm...Leo Fender built the guitars that Jimi Hendrix played. So I guess that means Hendrix wasn't an artist either.

"Buckets of Blood? Masturbating in a pile of trash under the museum steps?" Stunningly decadent imagery, I'm inspired! Vicki probably won't go for the blood though.

Well the problem is not that it's art the problem is it's art made from other art i think...figures made by others and daz/zygote. If anyone can make art from it then when does it blur the line between talent with charcole and paintbrush where a real life person paints the image rather then a person poseing and texturing an image from prefabricated art elements in 3d that took them 4 minutes to render. See if anyone can do this it kind of lowers the value for employment for poser artist right? Why should a employer hire anyuone who can do this if he can purchase the packages and do it himself? another problem is alot of poser images are stand alone with a figure centered as the focus of the image, I guess if maybe the art was not as stand alone it would get better recognition? I can't answer this question but i can toss out some things that come to mind when i think it over.

Nomuse i agree with you i think poser is more collaberative art rather then art made by a single person unless that persom made and created all the elements themselves.

For example if i make a figure and my own textures ect then the art is mine, If i use david and buy a texture from dreamspinner and hair from Anton clothes from Phile C then it is collaberative because none of the elements were my own creation except the poseing if you include the mat files, So i push a button and it renders, how much of this image can i call my own?

I would say very little of the image is mine, even if i create the hair and texture and use the david figure someone still made the morphs and the figure, and the program poser itself so how much of the art is really comming from my true art talent?

I agree poser is an artform but i think there is a limit to what a person can claim as thiers? the rendering engine has to get alot of credit whoever created the rendering image has alot to do with how the images render I would submise...

Message edited on: 01/12/2006 22:53

"Why should a employer hire anyuone who can do this if he can purchase the packages and do it himself?" That assumes that anyone CAN whis is only true in the most general sense. Yeah, if you can hear thunder and see lightning, you can probably create a Poser image but will it be any good? If I wanted to have a cover for a book or a really nice application, there are several people here whose work I'd pay for. I certainly wouldn't use one of my digital scribblings and I've been playing with Poser for years--I'm no artist though. Even people who may have the ability may not have the time or inclination. There will always be a market for talent. More importantly, the buyers don't care how it was done, as long as it meets their needs. I can see people getting their knickers in a twist when their talents are being dissed but really, I sometimes think the 3D art bullies pick on Poser artists because it's so easy to get them going. That I suspect, comes from an underlying insecurity that says "Gee what if this really isn't art?" Anyone without some subversive agenda knows that "art" is too subjectve a concept for such rigid definitions so why even play the game. Let those fools stew in their own bitter juices. You may as well spend your time debating the superiority of one religion over another. At least no one is going to hell for using Poser. Well, OK, if I do the thing under the library steps picture I might get purgatory.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Chuck Norris does not make art. He is art

An artist painted a picture called "The Town Watch" If he had to credit all the people involved people/things it would someting like this Thanks to 'Ace Armory' for the armour depicted Thanks to 'Weopons Inc' for the pikes swords etc. Thanks to 'Torches associates' for lighting Thanks to 'Harry's Habadashery' for the gentlemans clothing Thanks to 'Millies Millinary' for the womens clothing Thanks to 'Pets Ltd' for dogs etc Thanks to 'Buildings Inc' for background buildings Thanks to 'Streets are Us'for the Cobblestones Thanks to 'Barbers Golore' for beards/hair styles Thanks to 'Joes Jewelery' for the ladies gems Thanks to 'The individual members of the townwatch' Thanks to 'the Ladies' of Madam Rose's home for women Thanks to... etc, etc, the list goes on. All these items/people were NOT designed/manufactured by the artist. The artist simply composed a picture and lighted it, and applied paint to the canvas to render it. So how much of the painting was his?

Ask yourself: who is responsible for imbuing the work with its meaning. That is the artist. If no meaning is intended to be imbued, or none is conveyed because of lack of craft, then it is not art. ::::: Opera :::::

And Winsor & Newton made the watercolours. They also made the brushes. I forget who is known for manufacturing artist canvas. Someone else made the easel and stool. Nature made the marble or other stone. A company made the chisel. You didn't dig that clay up yourself. You didn't make that pottery wheel or the bench you sit on when you use it. Do you see where this is going? Until these smarmy "You didn't make any of it yourself so you're not a REAL artist!"-types dig up their own clay, grind and mix their own paints from berries and suchlike, OR CODE THEIR OWN VERSION OF 3DMAX/WHATEVER FROM THE FIRST LINE OF CODE ON UP, they can kindly shut up.

I'm reminded of the Dadaist who bought a urinal and displayed it as art. Someone else put an old tire around a stuffed goat and called it art. Another put an "Out of Order" sign on a crucifix and created art. The Louvre several years ago had a display of vintage erotica (i.e. sexy pictures meant to appeal to the prurient interest), all of which was presented as art. Art is not a fixed concept. It is quite fluid and changes. But that is what one would consider official "Art" as dictated by an outside source other than the artist. My dog creates art in the backyard three times a day. I'll be willing to sell some if anyone's interested. He's quite prolific. Mike

Well, actually....Rembrandt ground his own pigments and was a master in mixing the complex glazes he used. Also, the picture in question -- "The Company of Captain Banning Cocq" -- is actually a day scene. Darkening of the brown glazing over time has led to its present name. :)

egaeus, that was Marcel Duchamp, a personage who, in many ways, is the cause of confusion and contention in art. He would be bitterly happy about it, too. ::::: Opera :::::

Yah. "Fountain." Cute work. The "found object" sculptures I like best are the ones that show you the objects in a suprising yet convincing new way -- like Picasso's "Head of a Bull" made with an old bicycle seat and handlebars (which I always thought carried the subtitle "A Tribute to Georgia O'Keefe.") The difference with these, is that the inherent "art" in these items was not designed in by the original producer. The bike seat was made to fulfil a specific function, and it was the artist who noticed the resemblance to the skull of an animal. Whereas, in something like Warhol's soup cans the artist is asking you to respond to the "art" that was already on the cans -- as if it had been designed from the start to hang in a gallery. (I'd mention Roy Lichtenstien in this context but I have a strong dislike for his attitude towards the original work). So not to get too far afield, the Poser connection might be that one Poser artist would use stock textures (pre-mixed paints) generic props, and creatively combine, reverse, re-texture, and otherwise envision uses the original creators had not. The other takes items developed as complete-in-themselves (like a Vicky character set with costume and hair), and uses them as provided.

Again a lot of misconceptions.

CGI is not like photography vs painting.
Its much more like creating original music vs sampling, or making collage-art from other peoples photos.

Neither the painter nor the photographer have to "create" what they picture. They just reflect on what is already "there".

But Vicky3 and everything else in your runtime isnt just "there", it all had to be modelled first to bring it into virtual space.

These mesh objects are in fact three dimensional "paint-
ings", so the MODELLER is the one who can compare his work to a real life painter or photographer, not the Poser user.
He translates a real world object into another dimension (a virtual space) in the same way a painter translates a real world object onto a 2D canvas.

So its easy to see that in CGI the mesh creation is the
primary artistic process.
A Poser user just takes other peoples works and rearranges them.
This CAN be highly artistic, but like every "secondary" art (Like music sampling or collage-art) which relies on other peoples work to exist, you will have to live with the fact that your work is generally not valued as "important" as the primary process of "creation".

The problem is that many Poser users seem to have no clue about modelling, and tend to take all that meshes they have in their runtime for granted, just like they take the world outside their window for granted.
But Vicky and Mike and all the other meshes are NOT just "tools" like paper and paint you create Poser art with.
They are works of art by themselves, in the same sense a real world sculpture is.
And if you cant respect that fact, youll never win the respect of one of the "make it all yourself" purists.

Its like going into a gallery, photographing a Rembrand with a Polaroid and then expecting that you can put your pic alongside the original because your such a great "frigginartist and you demand immediate respect.

Sorry, wont happen.
Those who have greater skills usually dont depend on what people with less skills think of them.
If you want to earn someones respect, you better play by HIS rules.

I love to work in Poser with other peoples meshes as it saves a lot of time and energy for me, but I have no problem to admit that almost everything I do in Poser is BASED on someone elses work and can only be judged as somehow derivative.

stahlratte

the mesh creation is the primary artistic process. << Art requires meaning. What is the meaning of a mesh?

the MODELLER is the one who can compare his work to a real life painter or photographer, not the Poser user. He translates a real world object into another dimension (a virtual space) in the same way a painter translates a real world object onto a 2D canvas.<< Excuse me, this is not true. A painter who just translates a real world object onto canvas is just producing a technically perfect copy, but not art. A real artist leaves off things which are there and perhaps paints things which are not there, he/she creates atmosphere and expresses feelings. Real good painters do not necessarily paint what is there, but they paint what THEY see and what they feel looking at the scene. >>So its easy to see that in CGI the mesh creation is the primary artistic process.<< I am really in awe of some of the modellers, especially because I've just recently started modelling myself and I know now how hard it is. But I don't think it's art, it's not even a creative process to re-create something in 3D. It's a craft which needs a lot of technical knowledge and a high degree of perfection to make the mesh look and work right. By creating a mesh, however, nobody expresses their feelings, only perhaps their taste about what they think is beautiful. But I think it IS creative if someone is able to combine the morphs of the rather average-looking Vicky in a way that conveys real emotion, that creates a feeling in those who look at the image. In reality we all have at our disposition the same poser resources. Why then don't look all the pictures the same (even if many do - but not all)? There are a few really stunning images that are very impressive. Where do they come from? Obiously it is possible to get unique results even with elements that are owned by a thousand other Poser users, too. There may be only a few artists who are able to reach that effect, but I think those who can do just that deserve to be considered artists.

This is an absolutely boring thread (trying with this post to disable my 'Email me when someone replies' option, I have readed all this so many times ago an without a particle of humour...) bye

.ottid

An artist can create art with Poser (though this is rare). Using Poser, however, does not make one an artist. A brief view of the Poser gallery will show that both these facts are obvious.

That's right- unless you use a pencil, charcoal, or oil paints, your creation is not artwork. I mean, really, you didn't create those mountains- you just took out your camera and took a picture. And you didn't paint that sunset yourself- you just took a picture of it. Sounds kind of absurd, doesn't it? I'm sure photographers heard these sames things when photography started to become a true art form. Poser, like Lightwave and 3D Studio Max is a TOOL to create an image. Whether the quality of an image rates it as "artwork" can be debated, but no one can dismiss an image because of the tools that were used. Or do these same people discard sculptures because they aren't paintings? Or are all pencil drawings bad because the artist didn't use oil paint? --John

Mark_uk It would have been helpful if instead of saying "obvious" you had given the actual reason why some are art and some are not. They whold problem in this thread is lack of people giving the essential qualities, the specific, rational characteristics, of a work that make it art, regardless of form. And jhoagland, I agree with you that it is not what tool you use, but the quality of the content. What is the essential quality that makes the work pass over the line from not-art to art? ::::: Opera :::::