Hello,

I just thought I'd toss this out here, given the rather strong prejudice the illustrated arts community has against Poser users.

Is work created in Poser art?

I'd like to open this topic with one undeniable fact:  The public opinion of poser has been shaped by the Naked Vicki in a Temple with a Sword (NVIATWS) phenomenon, as well as the predominance of female pin-up images that feature minimalistic backgrounds.   Now I'm not saying that all users of Poser are geared toward this style, however that is how many other groups see us. 

Its wonderful that there are so many poeple out there creating content for both open source and commercial use.  I've seen incredible works accomplished with it.   However, as much as it diversifies our toolboxes I fear that it hurts the creative process just as much.   Instead of bringing to life the creative vision, many are concerned with making the best use out of the newest prop. 

There are many, many works that are just single figures standing, staring.   Where is the life?

As 3D artists, what is our goal with Poser?  Are we trying to bring surrealism and impossibility into the scope of tangibility?  Or are we aiming for the old addage of 'art imitates life'?   This is perhaps a rather personal question that only individuals can answer themselves.  We may never have a public consensus.  

Now for those that may be offended by what I've said this far, please know this is not my intention.   I realize I don't have a gallery to speak for, that I'm a beginner and have a lot to learn.   However, I feel that despite that, I am bringing a valid point to the forum. 

I would love it, if we could some how create a trend focused more on composition rather than technicality.   Art cannot rushed, if such a mindset means that one becomes not as prolific as he or she may have been, I don't see that as a bad t hing.  Because I truly believe that what will result is work that shows a deeper expression of the artist mind and soul.  

Now what are other peoples thoughts?   Lets keep this thread civil  : )  I'm not trying to start a flame war or hurt anyones feelings. : )  Have a great day all!

Charles

Its been my experience that the voices of many critics become muffled when seated.

Porn IS ART. :-)

stahlratte

Quote - Its been my experience that the voices of many critics become muffled when seated.

And, also .... sometimes quite difficult to bear if one is seated near them when they belch. :woot:

Quote - Porn IS ART. :-)

stahlratte

Some porn is art, some porn isn't.

My opinion on the matter?  Is the goal to display human desire and sexuality or is it to make a profit.   When profit becomes the sole motive, then I think it ceases to be art.  

Quote - > Quote - Porn IS ART. :-)

stahlratte

Some porn is art, some porn isn't.

My opinion on the matter?  Is the goal to display human desire and sexuality or is it to make a profit.   When profit becomes the sole motive, then I think it ceases to be art.  

I'd say that's the same with Poser! When profit's become the sole purpose of your creating stuff with and for Poser, you cease to create art!

Art is expression.  Either of pain or pleasure, or just some kind of emotion.  If it touches you, then it is art.  I do a lot of my own textures and models for my renders to tell the stories I have inside of me.  I have painted, sculpted and drawn in colored pencil and always strived for realism, for crossing the tangible bounds into the intangible.

If you see the intent behind the artist's render, it's art.

 If it's just throwing a naked woman on top of a bunch of random props arranged by someone else, it's a brain-fart.

Art is a form of non-verbal communications.

That's the best layman's description of Art I've ever read Joe! Thanks! (I'm calling it a layman's description cuz it's one I can understand and agree with and I'm a layman.) :m_wave:

Where's that dead horse when you need it?  Oh yeah, awaiting my sequel to this:

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1209298&Start=1&Artist=SamTherapy&ByArtist=Yes

There is no such thing as "Art".  Any definition is flawed.  No disrespect to JOELGLAINE but art can be none of the above, or more, or less, or something totally different.  Nobody who has ever lived - or will ever live - can know enough about anything to be able to draw a line in the sand and say, "Everything this side is Art, everything that side is crap".  Ain't gonna happen, unless you happen to be the creator of that particular body of work.

For example, I could walk you through my gallery and tell you which is which and you may be surprised at some of the answers.

On the other hand, you should also read "Onion-Peelings" by Aleister Crowley.

No offense intended, but, fundamentally, who cares?  The question is unanswerable - I agree with Sam, definitions of art are so subjective as to be meaningless in any kind of global context.

If you like what you're creating you're ahead of the game.  I think this is the most important thing - when your drive to create results in something you can appreciate yourself.  Creating something that seems good to you is pure gold.

If other people like what you're creating (whatever the reason) it's gravy.

People worrying about how what they do is perceived are confusing a need for attention and praise with their drive to create - this can only lead to unhappiness in most cases.  If you're doing it for money that's another thing - the goal has changed from pleasing yourself to pleasing your customer and your "art" is going to have to take a back seat to the customer's desires - this can also lead to unhappiness in some cases.

Don't worry about the labels and keep on creating because you like creating.

It's really that simple.

"This above all things--to thine ownself be true." --Wm Shakespear

unzipped hit it.  My definition of art is mine.  Not a dictionary, just mine as what I see art to be.  I love what I do, and if others like it, so much the better!  ^__^

That may be what drives some of the "NVIATWS" posts.  A desperate need to have people say how great they are, or something like that desperate need for attention.

God not this bloody thread again....

OMG... this thread again...

(unsuscribing)

I'm with jarm and Casette.  Get a life.

Yeah, the question "Is it Art?" can always be countered by the question "But what is Art?" - it's a very boring circle.

Now, the idea that Poser Based Art is looked down upon is correct - it's apparently creeping into the publishing world too (someone has suggested that it's a response to the "dead eye" look).

I can only suggest that the best way to make your poser art better is to first try and tell a story with your image (if you're going for illustration as your thing) and/or secondly to try and create an emotional or intellectual response in your audience - pretty much anything else is a "test render" (a practice piece more than a finished work).

For publishing in print purposes - put in more post work in a paint programme. I've noticed that a lot of the time something that looks fine and rich on a screen can look dead/lifeless in print. The RGB/CMYK crossover can be a real killer for a start but I know for a fact that images that have been worked over with a digital brush look far more "alive" than something with un-worked 3D render shading (face, hands etc). The RGB of a 3D render will look amazing on screen essentially because it's backlit and mixing up into luminous shades - but when it's transfered to CMYK for printing a lot of those rich colours are dropped into a mix of black to create tone - bleugh! It can actually look "dirty".  You'll see high end print shops/services will offer extra colours and metallic inks so your poster will look more "alive" and suffer less from the CMYK curse.

Re: "Porn IS ART"

"Erotica" is the correct term for artistic filth and naughtiness, heheh. "Porn" is unartistic filth and naughtiness." "Pron" is the stuff stored in your husband/boyfriend's "stuff" folder on the harddrive. "Pjorn" is any image depicting the act of love between two overly blonde people in a pinewood sauna...in the 70's...on a fur rug.

Cheers

Yeah, the question "Is it Art?" can always be countered by the question "But what is Art?" - it's a very boring circle.

Now, the idea that Poser Based Art is looked down upon is correct - it's apparently creeping into the publishing world too (someone has suggested that it's a response to the "dead eye" look).

I can only suggest that the best way to make your poser art better is to first try and tell a story with your image (if you're going for illustration as your thing) and/or secondly to try and create an emotional or intellectual response in your audience - pretty much anything else is a "test render" (a practice piece more than a finished work).

For publishing in print purposes - put in more post work in a paint programme. I've noticed that a lot of the time something that looks fine and rich on a screen can look dead/lifeless in print. The RGB/CMYK crossover can be a real killer for a start but I know for a fact that images that have been worked over with a digital brush look far more "alive" than something with un-worked 3D render shading (face, hands etc). The RGB of a 3D render will look amazing on screen essentially because it's backlit and mixing up into luminous shades - but when it's transfered to CMYK for printing a lot of those rich colours are dropped into a mix of black to create tone - bleugh! It can actually look "dirty".  You'll see high end print shops/services will offer extra colours and metallic inks so your poster will look more "alive" and suffer less from the CMYK curse.

Re: "Porn IS ART"

"Erotica" is the correct term for artistic filth and naughtiness, heheh. "Porn" is unartistic filth and naughtiness." "Pron" is the stuff stored in your husband/boyfriend's "stuff" folder on the harddrive. "Pjorn" is any image depicting the act of love between two overly blonde people in a pinewood sauna...in the 70's...on a fur rug.

Cheers

Quote - God not this bloody thread again....

Not only that, but in stereo -> http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2646160

"Art" cannot be clearly defined because what one person considers "Art", another doesn't.

"Art" is subjective.

"Art" comes in all shapes, colours  and sizes.

"Art" comes in a multitude of themes and genres.

"Art" can be man-made or made by nature.

"Art" is in the eye of the beholder.

"Art" can be in such a form that it can be appreciated by 1 or all of the 5 senses.

"Art" can be healing or hurtful. It can be soothing or stress inducing. Basically "Art" creates emotion, even if not readily noticed.

"Art" can be found anywhere and everywhere.

A true "Art Enthusiast" will have a broad mind when it comes to art and even if it's not to their "taste" recognize it as an expression of creativity, and not compartmentalize it into narrow catagories.

Quote - I'm with jarm and Casette.  Get a life.

The only thing worse than seeing these threads over and over again is seeing the same people post about how tired they are of seeing these threads over and over again.

Here's an idea - if you can see you aren't interested in the thread immediately, don't fucking read it.

Get a life indeed.

Attached Link: Sistine Chapel

WRONG!  All great Art has been done for money, look at Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel.  If you think that he went to so much trouble to create Art fo Art's sake, then guess again!  He was paid!
DPH

No, it isn't.

Why should it be "art", whatever that may be? Because you could then call yourself an artist and feel important?
You're important because you were born, are alive and breathe. But not more than anyone else.

Time to start having fun instead of asking stupid questions.

Yeah, the question "Is it Art?" can always be countered by the question "But what is Art?" - it's a very boring circle.

Now, the proposition that Poser Based Art is looked down upon is correct - it's apparently creeping into the publishing world too (someone has suggested that it's a response to the "dead eye" look).

I can only suggest that the best way to make your poser art better is to first try and tell a story with your image (if you're going for illustration as your thing) and/or secondly to try and create an emotional or intellectual response in your audience - pretty much anything else is a "test render" (a practice piece more than a finished work).

For publishing in print purposes - put in more post work in a paint programme to get it away from a default 3D Render sort of look. Also, I've noticed that a lot of the time something that looks fine and rich on a screen can look dead/lifeless in print. The RGB of a 3D render will look amazing on screen essentially because it's backlit and mixing up into luminous shades - but when it's transfered to CMYK for printing a lot of those rich colours are dropped into a mix of black to create tone - It can actually look "dirty".  You'll see high end print shops/services will offer extra colours and metallic inks so your poster will look more "alive" and suffer less from the CMYK curse. So knowing where your work is going to end up should be foremost in your mind during the planning I guess.

Re: "Porn IS ART"

"Erotica" is the correct term for artistic filth and naughtiness, heheh. "Porn" is unartistic filth and naughtiness." "Pron" is the stuff stored in your husband/boyfriend's "stuff" folder on the harddrive. "Pjorn" is any image depicting the act of love between two overly blonde people in a pinewood sauna...in the 70's...on a fur rug.

Cheers

No, creating images with Poser isn´t "Art" but DIGITAL-Art !

All images that you do with the help of a computer is a special category of it´s own and we all need software for it. The artistic knowlede you need is Fantasy and the ken how to use the different softwares. Without it, nobody will be abel to create a good and interest image.

Alike if you use a pencil for drawings or Poser, you have to know much about proportions, light and shadows and also anatomy. Also Poser-Users are in the need of good color-combinations, knowledge of Makeup, hairstyle and fashion.

And not enough, Poser-Users also have to know much about classics paintings and also much about photography as we are abel to create both stylez (without a pencil and without a camera).

So if someone will ask me if I could made a good drawing with a pencil, I would also ask if he/she would be abel to change the hair,skin and eyes of Vicky with poser and if he/she could do professionel settings with firefly.

Each category of art has it´s own style and materials to work with. We have chosen Posen - who cares?

Sivana

Quote - No, creating images with Poser isn´t "Art" but DIGITAL-Art !

"Art" or "Digital-Art" is still "Art"

Yes, it´s also Art, but a special category and not to compare with classics art. That´s the crucial factor.

Quote - Yes, it´s also Art, but a special category and not to compare with classics art.

So what are the boundaries of "classical art" ?
It won't be long before (a decade at most) before there will be some digital art that is considered classic.

This debate happened when the impressionists started. It happened with Dadaism. It happened with Picasso. It happened with Photography. It happened with Motion pictures. It happened with animation. It happened with Modern Art. It happened with Warhol. in 40k BC, I'm sure there was some punk in the cave who looked at the wall and said 'man, that s#!t ain't art.' Poser art takes more creativity than photography - easily so. More work as well. But like photography, it is also subject to 'snapshot work' - and yes, a lot of that gets posted to the galleries here. But also like photography, that says nothing negative about the artists. Was Ansel Adams an artist? Just try to deny that in art world...

Art is what you make of it!
So I've been told.

Quote - When profit becomes the sole motive, then I think it ceases to be art.

I know a lot of graphic designers would take issue with that statement. As much as art through history has been about expression, it has also been about profit and politics and yes - sex. Some of the most famous works of the 'classics' were done for no other reason than making a buck... Da Vinci, Leonardo, Mozart - all often did what they did to put food, wine, women, and song before themselves.

"Some of the most famous works of the 'classics' were done for no other reason than making a buck...
Da Vinci, Leonardo, Mozart - all often did what they did to put food, wine, women, and song before themselves."
Human nature being essentially lazy, if there hadn't been a profit motive, if the classic artist hadn't had a patron that they absolutely HAD to please, it's debatable if they'd put the amount of effort they did into achieving the excellence that they did. 

I do my art for myself to be honest. I use poser, and 'DAMN WELL ENJOY IT'....so who cares what others think?

I do agree that a figure staring into space isnt art, and i also agree a naked vicky in a temple aint protraying anything...... but i suppose people will do what they enjoy... I also believe art means different things to different people..... one person may think a naked V3 in a temple is fantastic, whereas another person wont..... Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we where all the same?

In my art (if u wish to call it that), i like to concentrate on nice curves of the woman's body, colours, shadows and mood... if you look at this link, i betcha somebody could say this pic was a naked V3 in a temple...(or arch lol) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1194078** All i'm trying to say in these large paragraphs of mumbo jumbo is art is how it is percieved by a person.....**

I mean jeez....some guy thought a bag of rubbish was art...and thats saying something..... see my point??? I did have a point right lol....

'Naked temple vickies' is something of a code phrase for a lot of us, I suspect. While it could for some mean any nude female render in a preset 'archaic scene'... For me, when I use and hear the phrase I think of 'preset all the way baby'. Something that involves little more than grabbing a figure, applying a post from the pose library, adding in a single backdrop prop, and hitting render. Or a similar level of no original content by the artist. Note how I didn't mention anything about cameras or lights... Often these works stay in a default camera or a default light. Or sometimes one of these is the only original thing done... So in my book, you can have a 'temple vicky' even when you're not using either a temple nor a vicky... And at the same time you can put vicky in a temple and leave her naked and get art. 'temple vicky' is just a 'term of art', or idiom... like when I might saw 'cool', I am probably not referring to temperature, nor whan you say 'what's up?' are you usually asking a person to tell you what is above them... My personal 'bar' for a temple vicky is often set with the so called 'character' phenominon - where people use the face and body dial-presets of others. To me... this is the easiest thing to do original work with. With so many potential face morphs on a figure like Vicky, I should never see the same 'face' twice in the galleries unless I am looking at the same artist doing a series... If all you do is take a premade dial preset and render her/him, it drives me nuts...

Hi arcardi

I understand what your trying to say. Naked V3 in a temple is a phrase, but you do see alot of images that are exactly that, V3 holding some sword that she probably couldnt hold anyway... lol

I've never used a sword in a render yet.....

If all you do is take a premade dial preset and render her/him, it drives me nuts... <-- that drives me nuts too, but beginners cant help it, as at first its all they know usually.... nowadays i try  do my own morphs, body/head....so its unique. When i first started poser i used to use other people's morphs, but now i try either adapted others morphs so they look better, or make my own.... Regarding poses i do the same method...or start from scratch which is a pain in the ass lol...

After ive rendered i always paint over original textures and stuff anyway so my stuff hardly ever looks like my original render.... It depends on the artist, some people dont postwork as they see it as cheating.....

I looked in your gallery & saw your dynamic witch post, i liked that..good work on lighting

Anna

A defining aspect of art, in my opinion is what seperates murder from man-slaughter.

If you run over some bloke by accident, you can get charged with murder.  Whereas if you bring a gun to work to blow away some bloke who made you mad, that is murder.

What is one primary difference between what someone makes to be art, and something that someone may take as art? 

INTENT

Argueably, all 3D CGI is art.  Even the nude vickies stuff because someone,somewhere modelled the forms, did the textures and shaders and such.  Given that--IF you intend to make art, what ever you get from that work results in art,I guess.

Like Javanese shadow-puppeteers, we take the forms done by others and tell our own little plays.

I think this is the thread that never dies because new people (like me) come along and like their perceptions and misconceptions challenged by open discourse about what we think.

^__^ V,,

Attached Link: Better uses for them

Not denying the fact of that perception, but is it valid? Prejudice doesn't have to have a rational basis and it's very hard to change that perception if those that hold it don't want to see past the surface to get the more of the whole picture. Those that want to hold that limited view can safely be ignored since they're are worth bothering about.

NVIATWAS are done many levels of skill and shouldn't be all lumped into the same category that those that dismiss the wide range of Poser image do. I did a whole advertising campaign using the NVITWAS since they were recognizable icons to use as spokepersons.

Quote - As 3D artists, what is our goal with Poser?  Are we trying to bring surrealism and impossibility into the scope of tangibility?  Or are we aiming for the old addage of 'art imitates life'?   This is perhaps a rather personal question that only individuals can answer themselves.  We may never have a public consensus.  

As you can tell that from the replies that  "public consensus" is a long way off if not impossible since the goals are many and varied, as you pointed out so if you realized that why didn't you follow through on it and include it in your premise? It does change your initial question quite a bit if you include the different goals to be a lot more flexible in what is considered "art" There is an equally old adage in response "I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like" That's why you can't worry about what others conception about "What IS art" and focus on what you like doing.

Quote - I would love it, if we could some how create a trend focused more on composition rather than technicality.   Art cannot rushed, if such a mindset means that one becomes not as prolific as he or she may have been, I don't see that as a bad t hing.  Because I truly believe that what will result is work that shows a deeper expression of the artist mind and soul.

That comes with practice, and there are artist here with all different levels of skills. some that are just learning the tools and some that are accomplished in composition. It is a learning curve that covers all parts of the spectrum if you look at the galleries over time you can spot signs of evolution among different artists. There is always an influx of new artists that continues the cycle.

i personally like the (almost) NVITWS images...so long as they are well done, interesting and pleasing to the eye.  I don't really care if my art makes a statement or fits into a category, because for the biggest part, I make it for myself, to express daydreams, feelings, etc.  If someone else sees something compelling in it...great...but if not...that's fine, I'll just keep on because of the joy making it gives me.  It's all subjective and a matter of perception and tastes anyway....as it should be.