Quote - I just feel like going and kick the guy in the nuts for being such a pompous ass...

That might make you feel better, but I can guarentee you it won't improve your artwork one little bit. Rather than kicking him in the nuts, you should buy the guy a beer and ask him to crit more of your work in more detail. You see, he knows what he is talking about and he was offering you some very valuable pointers, but in your indignation you missed them completely.

The most important point he makes is this one: "It has nothing of the artist's "fingerprints" on it". That, right there is what is wrong with most Poser art and it is why the Max and Maya crowd on the one hand and the traditional graphics folk on the other all say that Poser isn't really art.

The most important ingredient in any artwork is the piece of the artist himself/herself which remains in that artwork when it is finished. Art is only art because of the 'fingerprints' of the artist evident in it. The simpler the tool used to make the artwork, the greater versatility and subtlety is possible with it*. And more of the person wielding the tools gets into the work. Spontaneous decisions can be made if the tools are direct and simple, a brush, a pencil, a lump of clay, and it's why something hand-drawn or hand-made is so persuasive.

*Now some might argue that more versatility and subtlety is possible with a tool like Poser than with a tool like, say, a pencil - because it gives you more 'options'. The trouble is that Poser (or 3D rendering in general) is so hugely technically complex that very few of us can ever hope to get beyond a very basic grasp of what the various buttons do. We'll never master it in the way a good pencil artist has mastered his/her pencil. On top of that, most pencil artists started young, most Poser artists discovered it only recently.

In reality, while making a picture with Poser we have to expend a lot of energy 'taming the beast', grappling with the complex technical aspects and we don't get very much opportunity to instill something of ourselves into the work, it's even easy to forget that that was actually the point of the whole exercise. Poser is really not the ideal medium for self expression because it is so damn cumbersome, and unless you are skilled enough to really impose your will on it, there's a sameness about the images it produces.

As your critic friend said, the Max/MAya people who make everything themselves have more opportunity to leave their marks on the work, but the downside to that is that there's a huge mountain of additional technical skills needed to pull it off.

I really think you should re-read his comments. His criticism was that he couldn't see enough of you (as an artist) evident in the image. I haven't looked at the image, I don't need to to know that his comment applies to a lot of Poser art.

Quote - "Are you upset at the eternal poser prejudice or..."  etc..

I create my my pics to satisfy me, not anyone else. Very occasionally, I create something that I think that others might appreciate. On those rare occasions, I publish the result. I ignore any criticism that doesn't reflect any helpful advice on the final render.

Cheers,
Diolma

the above is fair comment and i would do the same.  just saying i don't like it isn't good crit. saying something in the render doesn't work for me because a, b, or c does. often an outside eye spots something we miss. it's like playing patience with cards. it's always the guy standing over our shoulder who spots the red queen for the black king. often wwe get that close to our own work we can't see the wood for the trees jmo

billy

Quote - > Quote - I just feel like going and kick the guy in the nuts for being such a pompous ass...

I really think you should re-read his comments. I haven't looked at the image, I don't need to to know that his comment applies to a lot of Poser art.

Here, hear, for a good succinct analysis of what's "wrong" with Poser art. Or rather, with a great deal of mediocre art. I have looked at the picture, and I've been biting my tongue ever since. The only thing that stands out about the picture is the size of the mammaries. Otherwise, it is little more than a imitative visual cliche. That is, not only is it a cliche, but it is a cliche of a cliche.

I would state that opinion more gently if the artist had not announced his desire to harm the critic. That reaction suggests a misplaced estimate of the picture's worth and an inability to accept criticism that is preinfantile. If the artist is so thin-skinned that he can't endure even the most objective criticism, he's foolish to post his pictures in art forums, where people who actually can assess them might see them. Fire up the ole' Epson and show them off to the boys smoking outside the school. "Duuuuuude! Look at the tits!! [snort] [choke]"

PS: On the subject of "putting yourself in the art:" On the one hand, I agree that great art has a "self" put in it, as in "self-expression" (which does not, as some folks believe, mean "doing what you want" but "transferring your self into something else..." a bit like making love as opposed to masturbating). On the other hand, I think all art does, in fact, express the self, but the self it expresses may not be one we meant to express. And it may not be one the rest of us care to meet. And it may, in fact, be a self characterized by lack of imagination, creativity, or charm.

well siad mick

billy

Quote - The most important point he makes is this one: "It has nothing of the artist's "fingerprints" on it". That, right there is what is wrong with most Poser art and it is why the Max and Maya crowd on the one hand and the traditional graphics folk on the other all say that Poser isn't really art.

Oh, that is so so so so so true.

Yet it is nothing about Poser or 3D per se, but about the badness of the way that so many people use Poser. It is not the fault of the medium. It's like photography - any idiot can pick up a camera and press the button, which the reason that 99.999% of photos have no artistic merit.

There is a site I frequent which uses a rather poor gallery software. The gallery page shows you thumbnails that are all auto-generated, i.e. the image shrunk to thumbnail size; plus it shows you the date posted (only). Now there are some artists who post there, I just have to see a glimpse of the thumbnail and I know it's their work, and I'm right. That's because they are artists, and everything they do is imbued with their personal style.

It's still Poser.

Quote - Yet it is nothing about Poser or 3D per se, but about the badness of the way that so many people use Poser. It is not the fault of the medium.

Well the medium is difficult. I think that a lot of Poser artists are pleased just to get a convincing image (believable pose, clothes and textures) and an okay render (okay lighting and shadows). To get beyond that takes a huge amount of skill. First you need the same experienced eye that all other artists require, the eye that can see the difference between a picture that is working and one that isn't, the eye that can figure out what it needs to make it work. That's often regarded as a natural talent, a gift, something you either have or you don't.

Then, in addition, you need the specialized technical skills to twiddle a bunch of confusing dials to bring about whatever changes your discerning eye has called for. These skills can be taught, and I'm sure a good number of XSI/Max/Maya users have some formal training, but I reckon the vast majority of Poser users are self-taught and just don't know enough to get the software to make the images they are aiming at.

Given that Poser is, in a sense, like 3D clip-art, with everyone picking stuff from the same giant catalogue to use in their work, the odds are stacked against your average Poser user producing unique, exemplary work. Those who do succeed are to be commended. But as long as everyone has fun doing what they do, it's all good.

Actually, if the artist's objective is something like  organic realism, the medium is a problem, because it is a digital meduim imposing order on an analog subject. Personally, I consider the organic vs. mechanical (call it analog/digital or meat/metal, same difference) problem the most fundamental problem of contemporary Western thought, and digital art is just one more, relatively minor, instance of it. Analog reality is not reducible to ordered equal units. Quantum physics has put that bit of scientific dogma to bed with no pudding.

M

Actually, if the artist's objective is something like  organic realism, the medium is a problem, because it is a digital medium imposing order on an analog subject. Personally, I consider the organic vs. mechanical (call it analog/digital or meat/metal, same difference) problem the most fundamental problem of contemporary Western thought, and digital art is just one more, relatively minor, instance of it. Analog reality is not reducible to ordered equal units. Quantum physics has put that bit of scientific dogma to bed with no pudding.

M

I always thought that it was the opposite, ie quantum physics proved that 'analog' reality was made up of indivisible units (of energy and matter) when everyone had been thinking it was one continuous stream. The word Quantum/Quanta itself means discrete unit BTW

In any case it is very refreshing to see the previous few comments around this place. I wish more poser users thought the same way as you guys so that we could see better quality work. Usually i find a lot of Poser work to be quite dull simply because it is so generic (even if executed brilliantly) I mean if it was work done in Maya or MAX, then at least you could forgive the cliches cause the technical difficulties are enormous. But in Poser where everything is so much easier and you get a lot of stuff prepackaged for you, i would think that at least there would be more originality in theme, but its usually the opposite. Never quite understood that frankly...

Quote - I always thought that it was the opposite, ie quantum physics proved that 'analog' reality was made up of indivisible units (of energy and matter) when everyone had been thinking it was one continuous stream. The word Quantum/Quanta itself means discrete unit BTW

Like the wave/particle argument: We are both right. It's that indeterminancy element of quantum physics that I was referring to, not the idea that there are discrete units. It's not the unitary nature of reality that is "anti-binary," it's the lack of uniformity. I'm way out of my scientific depth here, but I think the difference between a chemical photo and a digital photo is a good analogy.

Digital photos present data in a uniform grid. A rectangle of 0,0,0 surrounded by eight 255,255,255 rectangles the same size and shape is a minimal eyeball. Crisping the resolution simply means more, smaller rectangles and more discrete colors, possibly more than the human eye can distinguish, laid on a grid, the dots smaller than the "circle of confusion." Magnifying the image eventually brings the regular polygons back to the foreground, so to speak. Think of the difference between magnifying a digital photo and an analog photo.

A "real" photograph resolves, as you magnify it, into irregular blobs, not 2D shapes. I suppose the boundaries of the blobs may be fractal (I'm not sure how fractals fit in here, but they occupy a place in my theology similar to the heresy of randomness), but I'm dubious, since fractals are regular and halide stains don't seem to be.

Well chemical photos also use particles of silver halides as their 'pixels' so that is also digital in a sense since the light is recorded on these discrete elements. That is where the term 'film grain' comes from and refers to how fine the particles are.

But I understand what you mean here, that there is too much rigid structure in anything to do with computer systems and they may not accurately duplicate real world or organic phenomenon. I know for sure that im able to appreciate real paintings better because i can see their paint strokes and smell the paint rather then the impersonal nature of CG work. However IMO this is still no excuse for people to make tedious art. Many artists overcome the limits of CG to produce breathtaking work that they never touched outside their wacoms. Look at some of the work of Linda Bergkvist for example:

http://enayla.cgsociety.org/gallery/

She works entirely in digital media (in painter and photshop i believe) and yet produces beautiful work. It really is all about the artist, not the tool (2D or 3D or analog or digital)

intriguing image, geep. OS X and vista have something called "sub-pixel rendering", hence you may have a pleasant surprise when you get a copy of the latter.

Thanks Nance,

re: sub-thingies

Um, maybe so, but you kain't "sub-pixel" the pixels on yer moniter, kin ye? :biggrin:

;=]

Quote - Well chemical photos also use particles of silver halides as their 'pixels' so that is also digital in a sense since the light is recorded on these discrete elements. That is where the term 'film grain' comes from and refers to how fine the particles are.

But I understand what you mean here, that there is too much rigid structure i...

However IMO this is still no excuse

I'm in complete agreement with your second point. My impression of the grain is silver halide particlxes is that no matter how much you magnify it, it remains irregular. It's the irregularity that gives it "life," and getting that with a digital photo is always a bit of trickery. Like, as I said, generating "random" numbers.

... or just using Anti-alias ............ or Uncle Other Name ...... if Anti is not available.

;=]

Quote - > Quote - Yet it is nothing about Poser or 3D per se, but about the badness of the way that so many people use Poser. It is not the fault of the medium.

Well the medium is difficult. I think that a lot of Poser artists are pleased just to get a convincing image (believable pose, clothes and textures) and an okay render (okay lighting and shadows). To get beyond that takes a huge amount of skill. First you need the same experienced eye that all other artists require, the eye that can see the difference between a picture that is working and one that isn't, the eye that can figure out what it needs to make it work. That's often regarded as a natural talent, a gift, something you either have or you don't.

A.Y. Jackson was asked which was easier, watercolour or oils.

"It's all difficult," was his reply.

I'm replying a little late...but it looks like you ran into what I call an "Art Snob,"
DarthBobVilla. You'll find them in every field of art.  I'm a professional writer, and for many years, I hosted a writer's forum where similar arguments often arose, only the fight would be about literary work versus mass market writing.  Some writers feel that anything written for the mass market is certain crap--just as some artists feel that any artwork made with Poser is somehow inferior.  Such a critical conclusion just makes the snobs feel better about their own artistic efforts.  Ignore such people.  They're shallow and not worth knowing anyhow.  Do the type of artwork that you like to do; for art, above all things, is an expression of creativity.  :-) 

Bobette

Quote - I'm afraid I will have to agree with the judge on this one, seems like most here at rendo and across the net who do nude figures always get the most responses, I guess the moto is "when in doubt do a nude" all the lustful teengae boys will say, "hey thats one hell of a render" what a great skin texture, then we have all the cute anim crap or maya dolls or whatever you wanna call that sh*t
I keep on wondering when all the cutsie junk will die, keep seeing more and more poser dolls popping up in the market place, who is buying that crap? what on gods earth is it used for?

Unfortunately I am having lots of fun with the maya doll and aiko type characters. I can't draw them but they make a great start for an illistration and as a web designer illistrated people are the in thing right now amongst alot of women owned businesses. They want cute adorable illistrations for their websites. Personally I would love to see more respectable clothing options and props. Not everyone wants their finished renders wearing skirts with their butt cheeks hanging out or shirts with their boobs hanging out. I am not saying they are not all creative art just not something I am in to. And I am sure I am not alone in that.
Shannon