I've run into more than one person that has somehow gotten the impression that Poser renders are a simple matter of slapping models into a window and pushing a button, and have been told outright recently that programs using premade models do not involve any artistic creation. It got my liver in a quiver, naturally, but I calmly asked this person to do some research on the program before making such statements. That was as much as I could manage at the time before my twitchy fingers started typing things that might not have been so calm.

How would you handle such a situation--what would you tell the person to look at, where would you link them, what would you describe to (hopefully gently) persuade someone that art made with Poser is, indeed, valid art and not "screen shots" or something equally insulting? I'm trying so very hard to be educational and civil, and I'd appreciate input from others.

 I think it's really a prejudice sort of thing, really...   If someone has that thought in their head, it will probably stay there.

There are many definitions of art, everybody has their own.  Many people only think that paintings and/or sculpture counts as art.  That means that metal smithing, textiles, even music are off the list.

I think what it really comes down to...  Does the work move you?  Does it make you feel something?    "You" in this case really has to be the artist, because it's the artist's expression, not how it's interpreted that matters.  (On the other hand, you could make a render that you feel is just an exercise, while it may really strike a chord with someone else...)

With that said, of course, I can say that not every render I've made would I call artistic.  Maybe a couple of them though...

To be honest I would not get into it. Anyone who knows enough about CGI will understand what is involved. There are folks who will welcome a constructive dialog about the subject but they are rare.

For the rest, just walk away, it is not worth the blood pressure.

Frankly, I feel it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that way. I guess their artwork entails finding minerals, digging them up, mixing their own paints and weaving their own canvas ;o). But because art is such a subjective thing, the value is definitely with the person viewing it. For instance, I think Dali's stuff is pure crap, but obviously everyone doesn't think that way...lol.
Laurie

Quote - To be honest I would not get into it. Anyone who knows enough about CGI will understand what is involved. There are folks who will welcome a constructive dialog about the subject but they are rare.

For the rest, just walk away, it is not worth the blood pressure.

I agree completely with Phil.

Life is too short to worry about the critics ... unless your income depends on it. :lol:

Then, maybe you should consider a different line of endeavor if it might affect your health.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Its a common enough question.

You can go through the laundry list.
Choice of model, adjusting morphs, skin textures, makeup, clothing, cloth textures, pose, lighting, composition, background and prop choice, render settings, postwork.  

I sometimes pointed out that a photographer actually makes less choices than a poser srtist does, because he may go out to a garden , and simply pick a view that looks nice. A poser person has to make the garden.

Theres a lot of debate if CGI is an art or a craft.

LOL. The best revenge on critics is to cash in from their ignorance at poser generated art.

they're probably jealous because their package has a comma in the price, but they can't do as well...;)

This is going to become a long thread as it is a favorite topic here.

I think it's all well and good to discuss tools and medium as an aspect of what constitutes art, but this is not apropos the central issue for other CG artists. They already accept that digital images created by using software involving meshes, textures, shaders, and lighting objects are legit. But only if you actually made them, and only if they don't look like crap.

The important aspect of this is effort and quality, taken together.

If you produce a great-looking image by loading state-of-the-art meshes, lights, shaders, and poses, you are an artist, but you are not a CG artist. See the difference? When you do that, you're not doing what CG artists do. It is art, though. But it's not very different from cutting out some pictures and making a collage. The "collage" community may think it is interesting, but the oil-painting community will not even want to talk to you, and will not let you call yourself a painter.

Conversely, if you make great effort to produce your own lights, shaders, meshes, poses, but the result looks like what it is - the klunky efforts of a noob, then you will not be accepted as a CG artist, either.

The CG art community is driven by and respects most the ability to execute the creative vision of the art director, even when the components necessary to do so don't exist yet, i.e. cannot be bought and added to your library. Even if you are both director and CG artist/executor, if your vision is limited to what you can assemble, then you are not a CG artist. You are something else, which has a name. You are a Poser.

It's that simple.

Please don't flame me. I'm not saying I agree with this point of view. I'm just trying to explain it because I know a lot of Poser users have no clue why the CG community has a problem with Poser.

My response to such a person would be "Yes, you're right."  That should end the pointless-argument-to-be there and... so what if one person thinks you're not creating art? It's just one person. It's not you.

It's always hard to take stage after BB, but I think Poser is a unique collaboration of
imagination between creators and artists.  I love working -- playing really for me --
with the content others create.  I would never imagine so much of this stuff, but
then I might use it in a unique, but simple way the creator never imagined and
it just fuels the creative process.  Hopefully at least.  For me I know it does.  :)

I think art is the application of creativity and imagination.

And as long as you're having fun ... FTW.  ;)

Right, zigzag, art is the creative use of your imagination to make something that blah blah.

Imagine that you bought some real Barbie and Ken dolls, and you bought some period clothes for them, and you arranged them to look like a scene from Gone With the Wind. You didn't do anything like cut their heads off, or spill sheep urine on them, or spray paint them - you just set them up.

How many art galleries will show that? Zero. So while it is art, it is not gallery worthy art. How about in your neighborhood - would you display this for your neighbor? Probably not. How about for your Mom - would your Mom look at it? Yup. But that doesn't make it art.

Now do the same, but digitally. Still not gallery worthy is it? Same story.

Now go show your image to a true CG artist, perhaps one who actually WROTE HIS OWN PROGRAM as well as the content. You're not even on the same planet.

So when Poser users point to Avatar and stuff and say we're doing the same kind of art, you get LOL.

When people say something is or isn't "art" they do not mean that is is or isn't a depiction of some emotion or event. They mean it has to show some creativity that resulted in some extraordinary effort that most of the population could not reproduce. Argue all you want about the definition of art if you like. The reality is that most people demand some serious effort and skill involved before they call it art.

That's why some "artists" are not accepted as artists. For example, when somebody finds some old broken cans and bottles and glues them together - no matter how much they thought about what they were doing, no matter how long it took, the reality is an 8-year old could do just as well with no planning. It is not art in the popular sense.

the problem is that a lot of poser users dont care what they render. so a lot of renders suck. and now a Maya user see's only bad renders. so he has a negative experience with the word '' poser''.

so of course you are not a a good artist if you realese every bad render with rendertime of 20 seconds. i dont care if you dont want shadows,specular,hair,.....
if it looks like a videogame from the 70's and if the lighting is pathetic then its not good.

the problem is that a lot of artist dont know about the renders from people like Carodan. if everyone would do renders like Carodan then noone would say anythign bad about Poser.
www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php
www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php
look the camera angles. look at the light positon. look at the composition. he is an artist. and the reason it looks so good is because he is a good painter. the guy has experience with art.

art is not about realism.i am not complaining about the lack of shadows because it doesnt look realistic. its because it 100% sucks. even a digital painter that is doing comics will draw shadows.

in my honest opinion

I really would, BB.  I'm proud of what I do with Poser.  God knows I'm still relatively
inexperienced and can't match up to the expert users, but I do believe it's a
unique collaboration of imagination which produces valid, beautiful images.  Not
to mention there's no way in the world I'd ever find willing models to work with me
IRL for say photo sessions as I do my best to try to produce realistic images.  Can
I get better?  Sure.  Of course.  And I will.

When a 5-year old sings the ABC song, is that art? Because music is art, right? Not in my opinion. Not all music is art.

Not all paintings are art.

Not all digital images are art.

Please learn the difference between these two statements.

Most Poser images are not art.

All Poser images are not art.

One of these is true, the other is false.

Carodan's images are art.

Do you know why?

1) They create a strong emotion or reaction in the viewer.

2) The reaction is strongly positive. (Some negative images are art, but most are not. Most are just junk.)

3) Even I, an expert with the same tools he uses, cannot reproduce what he did. Yet he is not an expert with these tools.

No question - Carodan is an artist.

its true that you get an emotion from hes render.

I'd ask him to define his terms. That should take a while. Then I'd leave, because he's obviously a snob, and his opinion is the only one that matters (to him).

Some of the most beautiful work I've seen is done as ice sculpture for the Ice Hotel in Sweden, and Native American sand painting. Very simple mediums, with stunning results. It's not the brush, it's the skill and vision that guide it.

Absolutely nothing!

Art is a very subjective thing.  What is art to one person, isn't necessarily art to another person.

You aren't going to change their opinion, so why even bother trying, or even worrying about what they think? You don't need to defend your choice of materials/programs to produce what you consider to be art.

Well, I asked da NaySayGuy what he thought "art" was and ...
(after doing some extensive research)
.... he gave me the following for your viewing pleasure ... or not ... your choice. :lol:

• the (Poser) products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

• the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

• a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"

• artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"

• ‘Art’ is a French language play by Yasmina Reza that premiered on 28 October 1994 at Comédie des Champs-Élysées in Paris. ...

• The Art(e) of Romance is the fifth studio album of Argentinan melodic hardcore band Fun People, issued by Ugly Records in April 1999.

• Art is a male personal name, both in its own right and as a diminutive form of the common name Arthur.

• ART is a proprietary image file format used mostly by the America Online (AOL) client software. The ART format (file extension ".art") holds a single still image that has been highly compressed. ...

• ...  Art is the third album from the Australian rock band, Regurgitator, released in 1999.

• Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging (Poser) elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. ...

• See also: Bart, Cart, Dart, Fart, Hart, Kart, Mart, Part, Tart, Uart*, Wart,

NaySay thought you might like to know the above ... ;=]

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

*Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter (an IC, e.g., an integrated circuit)

P.S. I think da NaySayGuy stole (borrowed?) all of the above from the web.

P.P.S. In case you were wondering ...
"Plagiarism" is when you steal text from someone ... :blink:
"Research" is when you "steal" text from multiple sources. :biggrin:

Quote - Carodan's images are art. ...

... No question - Carodan is an artist.

BTW - I agree with BB totally.

If one did not know that many of the images in his gallery were created using Poser, they could easily be mistaken for photographs. (IMVHO).

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Wow long thread (I didn't read it :) But I want to chime in. Based on my mood I will do one of the following:

1. Fall to the ground with my eyes rolling into the back of my head, this got me through grammar school.

2. Pull out a laptop and push a button and create a pre-formulated answer right there on the spot.

3. Tell them to do things that involve eating certain bodily cast off, or doing thing to themselves that is probably impossible.

I all seriousness I compare painting a room with a roller in twenty minutes or painting a mural with a smaller brush that might take days or weeks. In Poser there is a big grey area between pushing a button and using a lot of time, talent, experience and sometimes luck to create a render. At what point does it become art? At what point is it just pushing a button. Does an artist looking at a model constitute cheating like they are tracing? How can you call impressionism art then? What about sculpture using existing objects? So photography isn't an art because someone loaded a figure (a model) or prop (you get it) and pushed a button?

While they are pondering all this I THEN drop to the floor and let my eyes roll back into my head.

I really wouldnt argue about it ... everyone has their own opinion about what "art" is.

its a waste of energy and breath ......

Sit them in front of the films UP or Avatar & ask them if they think they are art, if they say no just walk away laughing.

its not so simple. if a man uses hes urine to writte hes name in the snow is that art?

just having M4 standing on grass with one infinite light is not art. its needs to be somehow special.

Quote - Sit them in front of the films UP or Avatar & ask them if they think they are art, if they say no just walk away laughing.

the lighting in the movie UP is to me lighting perfection .

i bow down to the lighters from Pixar.

Pixar are truly dedicated to their art, they actually flew down to South America to visit & climb the real mountains they based the mountains in the film on.

science4grownups.com/archives/2009/05/29/general/the-real-world-behind-ups-paradise-falls-530

 Because I can draw and I can paint I was employed by my local council for a number of years as an artiist. Sadly, though, I have very little art in me. Poser,and other cgi programmes can liberate the artistist in people who do not have the draghtmanship of others Art and the ability to draw are just not the same thing I doubr Rembrant and the pre-raphellite brotherrhood would have shunned cgi

I do very much appreciate all the responses this thread has gathered. I think in this case I am simply going to have to write it off. The issue is, unfortunately, whether or not I have permission to continue to post my work in a gallery that the site owner had no trouble with letting me post in a couple of years ago, but when she found out that I don't actually model my own figures, that was the issue. Nevermind making my own textures and shaders and painting a lot of details by hand...nevermind creating my own morphs with magnets and deformers...nevermind creating my own lighting, backgrounds, doing my own postwork, etc.  All that matters to her is that I don't create my own meshes, so...she can (insert really crude suggestion about impossible physical acts here). 

I do find it interesting that this question brought up arguments between Poser and users of other CG programming, while I was thinking originally that my own question was based upon this person's simple dislike of anything that isn't hand-drawn lines on paper or in a painting program with mouse or tablet. Lots to think about there as far as how far one must customize to legitimize. A'course, when it comes to arguments between programmers and Poser users I tend to just think some people are snobs and leave it at that, because I've been to fairs where the ladies that make everything from scratch are very kind and gracious to the ones that use mixes, so I've seen pleasant manners demonstrated without the effort causing any harm to either party. ;D

"Now go show your image to a true CG artist, perhaps one who actually WROTE HIS OWN PROGRAM as well as the content. You're not even on the same planet."

What about using stock figures, but that I've previously remapped myself, so as to take different textures from that that they were originally intended.  Do renders made from these count as original content and art in any way?
dph

i think texturing a figure is not art .

maybe if its stylized

Quote - ...  All that matters to her is that I don't create my own meshes, so...she can (insert really crude suggestion about impossible physical acts here).  ...

re:"(insert really crude suggestion about impossible physical acts here)" ROTFLMAO :lol:*
Done there, been that. :lol:

*- - - - - -

 * May I suggest that you ...

1. Download a (FREE) copy of Wings3D *(<-click link)... it's loads of fun to use !
2. Play with it for a minute or two ...and then ...
   3a. Make a couple of (VERY simple- 10-15 polygons will do nicely) meshes ...

You can quit at this point because you have made a couple of your own "meshes!"

What follows is optional ...

3b. Save you "mesh(es)"  ... (use the Wavefront OBJect format - it works quite well ... ;=] )

1. Import your mesh(es) into Poser ...
2. Go into the Setup Room to create some bones for your mesh ...
3. Save your new figure(s) in the Figures Library ...
   7 Make a couple of (VERY quick) renders with your "new" figures ...

Now when someone says ... "Do you make your own figures?" ...
You may proudly answer ...

"Why yes, yes I do, doesn't everyone?" :biggrin:

Case closed.**

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Quote - i think texturing a figure is not art .

maybe if its stylized

Sorry to disagree but ... it is an art form unto itself ...

Right dph? :biggrin:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

It's a very subjective subject.

You can create art with Poser, but very few do.
Is it CG? No.
But at the same time, I have seen Maya student showreels... which had Victoria in them.
Turbosquid thrives on the high end content and people obviously buy it, so not everyone models everything from scratch.
Comparing Poser with Avatar is silly. That's a whole other level and should get you laughed at.
However...
Avatar was not made by a single person, who modeled the figure, textured it, animated it, lit it and integrated it.
No. That was done by a team of people, with specialized modellers, texturers, animators and so forth.
So most CG people can't point to Avatar and say "I do stuff like that" either.
I've seen superb 3D Art done in Poser.
I've seen superb 3D Art done in all manner of high end programs.
I've also seen the crap people produce, no matter what application they use.
Just because someone uses a high end application with several 0's behind the first number, doesn't mean they automatically produce top notch stuff.
And just because someone uses a low end app doesn't mean they can't produce high end imagery.

Whenever someone says "Poser is crap, you should use 3D Max" or some such thing, I always say "It doesn't matter what tool you use, if the USER'S ABILITY isn't top notch, then you get crap. Regardless."
So don't question what application someone uses. Question their level of skill - and don't judge the skill by the tool. If I hand Poser to someone who only knows Max, they will produce crap -- until they know how to use Poser to it's fullest capability. It's that simple.

I actually found that people who do CG professionally, and who know their stuff, aren't as quick to jump on the "It's all crap" bandwagon. The naysayers are usually hobbyists. The professionals know about time constraints and learning curves and what tools, hardware and setups you need to do a proper job.
Most of us can't afford that, and they are well aware of it.
I've never had someone look down on me for making an honest effort and trying to do the best job I can, with what I have. Instead I got tips on how to improve something, occasionally some headscratching when I say "It can't do that" and other solutions were offered instead (or a downright "Heck, I don't know how you did that, but if it works...")

There will always be naysayers.
I'm ignoring them. :)

I don't think Poser users CLAIM to be CG artists. I don't.

But is what I do devoid of art? Well, let me ask this: "Is a photograph art?"

If it is, I argue so are Poser images.

The photographer selects of sets up an existing scene in space.
The photographer selects and poses an existing model (usually a human or other animal)
The photographer examines/selects/controls lighting.
The photographer decides on composition/angles/poses
The photographer attempts to impart meaning/storytelling/beauty into his images.

Every statement above can be true for someone using Poser.

LukeA may have created the set for me... Nature did it for the photographer.
Daz created Victoria... created the model for the photographer.
Bagginsbill may have created part of the light tool... JTL built them for the photographer.

I submit that what I'm doing with Poser and what a photographer is doing is kindred work. If you don't agree, fine. Go read LukeA's post (item 3, to be exact) for my sentiments. If your view is a photographer is not an artist, then we have no common ground to discuss the issue.

As with photography, I suggest that most renders are on a par with snapshots. It is the user who can bring together elements in a harmonious, meaningful way who is the "artist" (if a photographer can be considered an artist.) The rest are virtual instamatic camera users, and create work worth just about as much artistically. (I know this to be the case... I've taught photography at the college where I retired. Most student's work is dreadful until they start studying what makes a good photograph!)

And I agree... most Poser users are at just about that stage in their artistic abilities.

My $.02

Quote - > Quote - i think texturing a figure is not art .

maybe if its stylized

Sorry to disagree but ... it is an art form unto itself ...

Right dph? :biggrin:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Let's just say that I believe that the figures that I use have been imprinted to an extraordinary degree with a certain finesse of my own.
dph

I think we all have an internal landscape that sometimes we see in our dreams, and sometimes, if we think of ourselves as artists, musicians, sculptors or whatever, we are lucky enough to be able to illustrate in a form that others can see.  That can take a multitude of foms, from scratchings on a cave wall, to the work (for example) of Millais, Picasso, Lou Reed, Steven Spielberg, the Ramones or any other form of visual or other self-expression you care to name.  As long as what you have created reflects that internal vision and is the best you can do with the tools you have to hand, then it's no-one else's damn business what tools you use.  Sure, an awesome ZBrush sculpt will blow your socks off and represents a serious amount of effort in it's own right, but does effort expended= great art?  My own opinion is that no, it doesn't.  I've had this argument over and over, across at CGSociety.com, where the mere mention of Poser causes rivers of blood to flow and immense flame wars to break out -  funnily enough, now that I've started making serious money with Poser, the critics over there have crawled back under their ZBrush-rendered rocks (I was one of the first people in the UK to own ZBrush and I love it, so don't go there), and are now silent.  I also have an honours degree in Fine Art (painting) and the History of Art, and I remain convinced that Poser is a perfectly valid method of creating art, as is all CG.  To attempt to differentiate between various apps and say that the output of one is art whereas the output of another isn't, is to denigrate all CG art, and is tantamount to saying that someone who makes pictures using paint made by company "x" is an artist, whereas  someone using paint "y" isn't...a ludicrous argument.  Art should be a representation of what you want to portray; the only rider I would add is that, if you want to be able to look yourself in the eye is to say that you really should strive to make your pictures the absolute best that you can, if you don't you're cheating yourself and your creations become devalued.  Just my two-penn'orth.

Then you get the morons who swear that no matter what you do with poser it is not art because you did not make every damned thing in the scene, but they will use a figure from make human and suddenly it is ok.

I was in a drawing class  a couple years ago and the professor told us to make an image with non-traditional media. I made sure that it was ok with him that I used poser before starting up. So I started working on this big recreation of Artimesia Gentileschi's Susanna and the elders, I had most of the scene set up and ready Had Susanna and one of the elders posed and was loading the second elder when poser crashed. Like any good poser user I had saved but when I tried to reload I found that the file was corrupted. There went about a whole days work.

I had several hours left before class so I just threw together a render that expressed my anger at technology in general.

this was it   http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1793811&user_id=69584&np&np

The title is fuck technology As I wrote in the description of the render  immediately upon projecting the image on the wall people started in with their claims that it was not art and that I did not even have the rights to the image. It was all the same elitist bullshit that you get from  max and maya users all the time.

My professor is one of my favorite drawing professors ever he not only told them that they were wrong, he asked what was the difference between collage and poser? They clammed up at that point.

I was kind of in a hurry so I missed the odd angle her right leg is at so that is a flaw that I wish I had not missed.

EDIT:

Oh I often like to bring up a point that is likely true, That the vast majority of individuals using max and maya are using pirated copies (most people don't have 10k, or even 5k, to just drop on a program like that) and most people actively using Poser actually bought it.  ..... (yeah I know that there are a lot of people who have bought max or maya on a student license, or they are really rich or something, but I am willing to bet that a large amount just pirate it.)

graphic artists who paint with classical methods (oil, goauche et al), sculptors in marble
or bronze, people who draw with pencil/ink etc. don't consider 3D renders to be art, but
as poser users it doesn't harm us in any way, just amongst ourselves, to refer to ourselves
as artists.

just try not to do it with any of the aforementioned artists, as they'll greet any such
conceit with a mixture of derision, fear and loathing IMVHO.  they are threatened by 3d apps
and they know their era is coming to an end.  but not just yet, mind ye.  e.g. look at the attempts
of poser users to do what cartoonists do with ease.  we see nothing but confusion here even
with the simplest concepts, like how to do dynamic line work.  maybe somebody will write a book
or at least buy olivier's shaders so they can get to base 1, anyway.

Tell them Poser is just a tool. In the right hands it can produce art. CG art.  Yes, it is CG art. It's done with a computer... it involves graphics... it's CG art. Simple. All software packages are simply tools.

Most of the people who have a problem with Poser have a problem with the pre-made models. Either they have a problem with the human form (some people have been brainwashed and conned) and/or they don't like the easily recognizable looks of un-morphed Poser and DAZ models.

If the proper composition, color and lighting rules have been followed and it evokes a feeling, who can't call it art?

CG Talk/CG Society is frequented by more modelers than anyone else, so there is a strong anti-pre-made anything bias going there. Very few there have done anything remotely close to the quality of Poser or DAZ models and doubtfully ever will (if it was fast and easy to model, we could all do it - it's not the same as learning how to draw and paint, which also require talent). And if someone does, the idiots there will claim it's Vicky or Michael unless they've already been anointed as modeling gods. I've seen it happen a few times.

My experience has been the folks with the problems have 1) never made any art, 2) are nut jobs or 3) are wannabes parroting the prevailing wisdom of the forums. Real world pros do not have that bias or lost it a long time ago.

Art is subjective and many from other art fields may have problems with it. You also have the people who prefer real humans over CG humans in movies. Lots of biases out there. So be prepared to have a thick skin about your CG art.

Quote - Carodan's images are art. Do you know why?

1) They create a strong emotion or reaction in the viewer.
2) The reaction is strongly positive. (Some negative images are art, but most are not. Most are just junk.)
3) Even I, an expert with the same tools he uses, cannot reproduce what he did. Yet he is not an expert with these tools.

No question - Carodan is an artist.

And this is precisely why I say I am not an artist. My images do NOT create a strong emotion/reaction in the viewer. I do art for me, to explore concepts I'm learning on here and RDNA and so my images are explorations of those concepts, like gamma-correcting materials and light's inverse-squared falloff and some of the cool materials you can make with a shader, but do those explorations constitute art?
No.
I have shown my images to people at work (nurses and wardies and even some surgeons) and watch the reactions. No "Wow, this is amazing art!" or anything along those lines. It's like: "sheesh, that stone (behind my figure) looks so lifelike" and "her skin is so soft"... yeah, "too soft for skin" is what is really to be understood.

I don't think comments on the gallery here constitute a real feel for your "artwork's" true artistic value. People who post often have an agenda, one that's been discussed to death in another thread.

Perhaps, eventually, I will create a piece of art. But for the time being, it is not my intention. I want to learn the skills first, so that "Poserism" is minimised and the artwork's impact is maximised.

Carodan's images have achieved that.

If someone told me my work wasn't art I'd say, "OK". and end it there.  Honestly, I really don't give a damn if people think my work - any or all - is art or not.  

Tell them Art lives in Apartment 9B and has no time for their nonsense and walk away.

Thank you all for making me realize it really doesn't matter what someone else thinks! I appreciate that...I do put a bit too much stock in others' opinions sometimes.

As it turned out, the person in question WAS a CG snob after all. She made a point of telling me how many college credits she had in animation. I was so impressed I...yeah, something rude. Anyway, thanks all.

"Art" is that which is predefined and supported officially by your government.  If its not on the approved list its not art. :)

Quote - "Art" is that which is predefined and supported officially by your government.  If its not on the approved list its not art. :)

That sounds like a rather cynical and narrow definition, and I seriously doubt that it'd stand any close scrutiny.
dph

Quote - > Quote - "Art" is that which is predefined and supported officially by your government.  If its not on the approved list its not art. :)

That sounds like a rather cynical and narrow definition, and I seriously doubt that it'd stand any close scrutiny.
dph

Thats my point. Individuals, organizations, religions, and even governments, throughout history have tried to define, set rules for, "what is art".  About all that can be said for their efforts is they failed.

I like the quote from that judge defining what is porn, "cant define it but I know it when I see it". The definition is uniquely individual and should remain so IMO.

Art moved into my flat and left the toilet seat up and now I can't get him to leave!

"I like the quote from that judge defining what is porn, "cant define it but I know it when I see it". The definition is uniquely individual and should remain so IMO."

I define as porn to be anything that warms my cockles!!!
dph

Quote - I define as porn to be anything that warms my cockles!!!
dph

Did you set fire to your trousers again? :tt2:

When you think about it, art is whatever YOU (everyone) want it to be to YOU (everyone). Lightwavers will tell you a perfectly positioned & lighted teapot is art, for some Poserers it's Naked Vicky with sharp objects in hand. It's all relative & personal to each one of us.

*"I define as porn to be anything that warms my cockles!!!
*dph"

Did you set fire to your trousers again? "

Yeah!  My breeches they be a burnin'!!!