just to be clear, i'm all for unique works.  and i understand what you're saying.   but the original poster asked about specific artists works, and how to get their "X factor."   so you can give advice about how to be different, but that will work counter to the request.

the guidelines i posted aren't ones i follow in my own work, because they don't suit me.  except for the simple scenes aspect, and that's just a personal preference/style (well, and because i like art photos and dance photos that use a similar style).  but i wasn't trying to help the OP make images like i would, but images like the artists listed. 

but if you make a thread about how to make images that aren't your standard Poser image i'd be happy to join in, if you think i'm qualified.  older stuff, not the recent stuff where i focused on tech more.

cobaltdream,

Well it was mentioned how people have different opinions but at least one thing is true, you and I have  the same opinion over what is art. I presume that you regard the spectecular painting that you have as portal to your galley as your best work and I wholeheartly agree. It is magnificient! Worth 1000 covers of "Elle". I can also see that you have spent very much time learning Poser into every detail. I am sure that not many have a so profound knowledge of Poser as you have. But now it is time to forget the technique and give your audience (I include myself) what they crave, namely more like "Reaching for Life".

http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?page=3&userid=36595 

oh, you're sweet!

i dunno, though.  those photographers and models make a lot of money for the cover of Elle. it's making somebody happy.  ;D

Quote - ...You are right of course you will never get people to agree what is art. A chimp was an artist according to some. ...

That statement always evokes a compulsion in me to regale the masses with my own definition of "Art."    Suffer through it or scroll down to the bottom and read the short summary.   :) (altered a bit from my original post in another forum to be more concise and appropriate)

My personal definition which I believe most people would agree qualifies as one which describes "Art" :
**
"Art is a creation which attempts to convey more meaning than that which is purely represented by only the sum of its parts."**

Strictly speaking, a picture of a man walking his dog in the morning mist could only be just that - a record of a man walking his dog. However, artistically it may have merit as the artist's expression of one man's loneliness and the thanks he may feel that he has one companion that will not willingly desert him as he treads the lonely streets of life.

Yet, that representative record of the man having walked his dog is not "Art" unless, and only if, the producer intended to convey a message which is more than just the depiction of a man walking his dog.  That intent is entirely necessary.  Some "Art" generates its own message over time.  This is "Art by proxy."  A War Documentary photographer working for the Military and recording events for later historical analysis may have no idea of the significance of a few pictures.  But later, as events progress, that simple recording of events takes on a life of its own and wears the cloak of Art well.   Yet, the intent was never there so, in the correct sense (IMO) it is not "Art."  The Artist's intent to create "Art" is necessary otherwise it is not Art.  It doesn't matter what the viewer interprets, only the intent behind the creation.

Because "Art" is more than just the sum of its parts, it is open to interpretation. That is why it is appreciated by so many people. Each person is free to interpret the specifics of the overall message and use their own experiences to fill in the gaps. Some "Art" comes with "directions"-
Explanations explaining the artist's intent. To me, good Art needs no third-party interpretation unless it relies on events and social mores which the viewer may not be aware of. Such would be the case with political satire being viewed by residents outside of the country of origin. They may understand the surface meaning of, for example, a man falling flat on his face. But, they wouldn't necessarily be aware of how poignant a message such a depiction represented.

Dealing more directly with the point at hand, there are also forms of expression and communication which are not properly "Art" in my opinion. They may be informative, such as a picture of a person used for recognition purposes or just purely demonstrative - "This is what happens when you insert tab A into slot B." But, they're not necessarily Art. They are "utilitarian." They are presented to directly convey the information they contain or solely presented for a singular, self-explanatory reason that is not larger than the sum of their parts. 

For instance, a "Fashion" image designed to show off the clothing is not, necessarily, "Art."  But, an image that has a woman in a sassy/saucy pose with good expression along with a "Sassy Dress" clothing item is Art.  It conveys something more than just the sum of its parts.  *You too can be a sassy woman in a sassy dress for only $150! * Commercial advertising has been doing this since Day #1.

When looking through galleries, one must discover the Artist's intent.  If it is not evident and there is no greater purpose apparent behind the depiction you are seeing other than to show of its components - It is not "good" Art and may not be Art at all.  However, IF the artist intended it to be artistic and express a meaning greater than the sum of its parts it still is Art... Just very "Bad" art.  If the Artist had no intent to create anything more than a utilitarian render, such as a render of a product's wireframe so we can see the mesh, then it is not Art at all. 

To sum: Everything surrounding the definition of Art is completely dependent upon the intent of the creator.  Whether or not it is good or bad Art depends on how skilled that creator is at communicating their message.  If that message is easily evident, it is "Good" Art.  If it is elusive, overshadowed by other faults or apparently absent to the viewer, it is "Bad" Art.

wow.  i'm much simpler. to me, art is any creative work with that made for no specific purpose other than the experience of interacting with it.  as opposed to design, which is made to accomplish some goal.  technically, fashion photos would be what i define as design.  not a value judgment, just that art, by definition, can't fail, but design can.

Quote - wow.  i'm much simpler. to me, art is any creative work with that made for no specific purpose other than the experience of interacting with it.  as opposed to design, which is made to accomplish some goal.  technically, fashion photos would be what i define as design.  not a value judgment, just that art, by definition, can't fail, but design can.

"art is any creative work with that made for no specific purpose other than the experience of interacting with it."

Would squeezing a "stress ball" be Art?

Art can fail at conveying its message.  But, the creation of Art, good or bad, can not fail as long as the intent is there.  The strength of its success rests in the skills of the creator and the ability of their audience to interpret it.

But, as I said, it's "my" definition I posted.  I may feel it's entirely and completely 110% undeniably accurate and meritorious.  But, that's just my opinion and everyone has one, especially relating to "Art."   Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart is infamous for the remark  - "I'll know it when I see it." (regarding pornography)  That goes the same for "Art" as well for most people. 

"I'll know it when I see it."  haha

Kenneth Clark said something similar in his famous BBC TV series, "I don't know what civilization is, but I think I can recognize it when I see it"

Allow me to paraphrase him: "I don't know what Art is, but it is too little of it at Renderosity"

Whew.. that was a lot of reading... and thanks for all the cool comments about my "style"

I have to confess... I do postwork, I take my rendered poser image into PS, lighten it a bit with the 'ImageAdjustmentCurves"... then I remove half the noise from the image using a filter called "neat Image"... and then increased canvas size usually with white or black as the colour. make thumbnail, save both images and post. See and you thought it was all done in poser... got ya!

In so far as getting the face and pose right... pure luck.... but... use good reflective eyes... point them at the camera, and move that mouth around with a puker lips (center and wide)... there really is nothing special that Poser doesn't already provide.

Lighting is based on a good IBL set... yeah, I've changed a few parameters here and there... but after 5-6 years doing this stuff, i should have learnt something eh... nope... still playing... still experimenting.

And... right now... I prefer to do figure images... I do a lot of promotional work for merchants as you all well know... some good... some really crappy... just goes to show I don't know everything. I do love playing with this Poser game though, just don't seem to be able to get a good score everytime.

And there is definately no painting on my images... honestly... I really wouldn't know where to begin painting hair or clothes or the like. Like morphs on a figure, I just spin dials on hair figures and find something I like.

Now I better bugger off and work on another image... yeah... I know... same old, same old... but I like them.

Deane