My answer to the original poster :
Tell her to blow it out her ass!! Oh, wait... it sounds like she already did!!  And by the way, her gallery isn't the only place online to post your work. But you knew that already, so be sure to remind her of just how much she and her oh-so-precious gallery are NOT needed!
And... I really like this one from your gallery...

http://renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1962469&user_id=394664&member&np

Dasquid said:  "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.)"

I hear ya!

Case in point, a couple years ago when I started my own website to display my art, I let some local folks know about it through a forum for a night club called "The Art Bar". Understand right off that 9/10's of the people who frequent this place wouldn't know art if it crawled up their leg and ripped their genitals off! Yet I decided to give the heads up anyway. What this got me for a response was one person who said "Cool stuff" and another person who was obviously a 3d-purist-attention-whore. Yeah, this buttplug then goes on to berate Poser and (no shit) actually offers me a "copy" of 3dsMax right there in the public forum!!!!  When I reminded him of this fact, his reply was "What's the big deal?". Needless to say, I was left both speechless and typeless.  A purist who supports warez...... go figure :p

Art is like beauty ... It's in the eyes of (you know who)  ... ...  ... n'est pas?!

Like most said, ignore it unless you're familiar enough with the field to fight the good fight. The biggest issue in that argument is that CG blends technical acumen, traditional art skills, capabilities that simply are not possible with real world medias of the past, and leaves the barn door open to the imagination. I animate, and have had this argument about creating all content etc, with others. Usually, it goes like this:

MM(mesh monkey): Not too bad of an animation....what did you model it in?
M (me): I'm not a modeler; I animated in Poser and used Vue as my render stage.
MM: (Various hoots of laughter, derogatory comments, outright sneers, etc) Well, take a look at this! I created all of this! Now -This- is CG art!
M: How long did it take you to make that?
MM: Only 6 months, fool.
M: Hm. So, in another 14 1/2 years, you'll have a whole second of footage in the can. Have fun, I have to go check on the 90 second scene I've had cooking for the past couple of days....

That is an example of exactly how easy it is to alter the argument. So many disciplines go into CG, that you can peel any one of them and strip it of any illusion of artistry. An actual mesh is a pretty clunky thing, even at best, without the shaders or textures to give it the depth, perspective, sense of scale related to surface texture. A shader without a surface to affect is nothing but an unreferenced bit of script, the only elegance perhaps a mathematical one. Without rigging, that textured mesh is nothing but a static object. Without lighting, nothing to see; with bad lighting, well.....your massive fortress might look more like a melted Cracker Jack prize. Camera work is just a matter of judging angles, after all. And so on.....

When all is said and sifted, the real test is how others react to what you've set your hands to. I've seen Bryce Balls over water get more emotional reaction than some piece of crap from Max, because the artist using the cheap program created an emotional piece from his content, where the Max worker made all the emotional impact of a just dried sock. I've had a self professed Maya 'artist' swear that Philippe Bouyer's work in Vue was done in Maya, as no $250 program (at the time) could possibly create something like that. Needless to say the Maya ahhtist wasn't exactly worthy of the Sistine Chapel......and Philippe would be the first to tell you that he was no artist.

Never call yourself an artist; let others do it.

As Dale B said:
"Never call yourself an artist; let others do it."

Absolutely spot-on.

It doesn't have to be art to be challenging and fun. As we are learning we work within our limits and push them a little. Sometimes we have a breakthrough. That is enough for me.

Quote -

Case in point, a couple years ago when I started my own website to display my art, I let some local folks know about it through a forum for a night club called "The Art Bar". Understand right off that 9/10's of the people who frequent this place wouldn't know art if it crawled up their leg and ripped their genitals off! Yet I decided to give the heads up anyway. What this got me for a response was one person who said "Cool stuff" and another person who was obviously a 3d-purist-attention-whore. Yeah, this buttplug then goes on to berate Poser and (no shit) actually offers me a "copy" of 3dsMax right there in the public forum!!!!  When I reminded him of this fact, his reply was "What's the big deal?". Needless to say, I was left both speechless and typeless.  A purist who supports warez...... go figure :p

Yeah one of the places I frequent (for shits and grins more than anything else) all the elitist pricks say that autodesk doesn't give a shit about individuals pirating their stuff, they are just worried about companies doing it, because how else are people gonna try to learn it... it is called trial versions and student licenses. one is free the other cheap (compared to the full price item)

One of the many things I like about this place - and in general, the community - is how requests for warezed stuff gets very short shrift.  Maybe it's because there are so many vendors actively involved or maybe it's just because we're all basically nice people.

When I think of the enormous amount of freebies there are, the gifts I have received and, in truth, the rock bottom prices of the for pay content, I tend to think it's the latter.  

Back to topic...

I build some of my own stuff.  Does that mean if I feature it in my pics, they suddenly become art?  Or half art?  Or half assed?

Just kidding around.  My opinion on the whole art thing has been stated above and at length in other similar threads.  Just do what you do, enjoy it and ignore the comments from the peanut gallery. 

I'd probably say "yes and?" (and have done actually)

I really don't need anyone else to validate what I do - if they like it, fine.  If they don't, also fine.  I make renders for me, not anyone else (so far anyway)

If I ever get a paying gig, provided the customer likes the results then it doesn't matter if it's done in Maya, 3DS MAX or paint

Tell them yup, you agree....and that Hustler isn't porn but a figure pose reference magazine.

missy woot!
:lol:

Quote - I'd probably say "yes and?" (and have done actually)

I really don't need anyone else to validate what I do - if they like it, fine.  If they don't, also fine.  I make renders for me, not anyone else (so far anyway)

If I ever get a paying gig, provided the customer likes the results then it doesn't matter if it's done in Maya, 3DS MAX or paint

That's a fine attitude, but it isn't actually apropros the OP's situation. The OP wanted to post an image on a gallery. The person controlling that gallery said it didn't meet the conditions for that gallery.

So in this case, if you are asking a gallery owner to show your work in his/her gallery, then you most certainly do require that the owner of the gallery validates your work. To say otherwise is just unrealistic.

in that case, I'd be finding a gallery owner with a different set of criteria and not worry about it.
I wouldn't try submitting a CG render to a photography or predominantly oil painting based gallery for e.g.  You have to target your submissions, speak to the gallery owners first and see what kind of stuff they are looking for.  Then decide if your work is suitable.

I haven't used Poser in a long time. I do check in here to see what is being created and honestly some of what is here is simply breathtaking.

Anyone that doesn't consider this to be art has realy lost the ability to open thier mind to what it is they are seeing.

Keep rendering folks, guys like me completely enjoy what you are producing.

Quote - > Quote - I'd probably say "yes and?" (and have done actually)

I really don't need anyone else to validate what I do - if they like it, fine.  If they don't, also fine.  I make renders for me, not anyone else (so far anyway)

If I ever get a paying gig, provided the customer likes the results then it doesn't matter if it's done in Maya, 3DS MAX or paint

That's a fine attitude, but it isn't actually apropros the OP's situation. The OP wanted to post an image on a gallery. The person controlling that gallery said it didn't meet the conditions for that gallery.

So in this case, if you are asking a gallery owner to show your work in his/her gallery, then you most certainly do require that the owner of the gallery validates your work. To say otherwise is just unrealistic.

In all fairness to her, because it makes me feel all benevolent and generous to say so, it's her gallery and she can decide what goes into it...but the emotional invalidation of her little knee-jerk fit about Poser was more personally insulting and daunting than not getting to use her gallery.  So the technical validation can be tied to personal validation IF someone lets it be, which I did for about a day. Now I'd had far more engagement and interest from just reading this thread than I would have from any number of passing comments somewhere else, and been reminded what's really fun about this craft.

On the warez issue--it startles me sometimes when people are just as bold as brass about that.  I've had more than one person offer me 3DSMax before, too, in a sort of "oh, you like Poser? Let's move you to a real program and see what you can do" gesture.  This is usually in response to my asking if anyone can just convert a .max to an .obj or .3ds format.  Because giving me four thousand dollars' worth of software is easier than just processing a file for me. o.O  Okaaay.

Well I think the important thing is you talked to us and you know you're not alone, hey?

Even more fun - post here and ask for discussion on how to improve or take the image in different directions. I have a lot more fun discussing an image than making it.

Well, colour me naive... and here I really thought that Max and Maya users were so dedicated to their craft / art that forking over thousands of dollars for the software was considered a acceptable investment. That really burst my bubble.
But it does put a different spin on things. Too bad that Autodesk and them don't follow E-on's lead and produce lesser expensive versions, as in, truly affordable, like Vue Esprit is more affordable than Vue Infinite, and upgrading to Vue Studio is not an insurmountable ask.

In today's economy, asking four + grand for software of an individual hobbyist is completely unrealistic. Might as well make it 40 grand. So, it'll be either people who use it at work (the company buys it for them) or professionals who can write it off as a business expense but for most of us it's not an option, at least, not one we can approach and still stay married. Those elitist artistes who set standards of this type... can one assume that not only do they turn a blind eye to illegal acquisition of software but some actually encourage it? The end justifies the means?

Quote - Well I think the important thing is you talked to us and you know you're not alone, hey?

Even more fun - post here and ask for discussion on how to improve or take the image in different directions. I have a lot more fun discussing an image than making it.

I definitely know that now. :)  And I may just do that...I have an image I'm working on now that I might want some input on in a while!

The kids playing with 3DS Max are getting the educational discount, which I've always thought was a shame. The educational license is only good for a year. Between educational discounts and warez, it's totally unfair to the hobbyist and semi-pro small studio, though they do offer financing for the small studios... if your credit's good.

But it doesn't really matter. You don't really need them with Blender's improvements (have you seen what it can now do?!), and DAZ's and Poser's refinements, there's not much need to have anything from Autodesk.

Do the naysayers also argue that film and photography isn't art because it uses actors and models?

Please take a look at my latest work. I'd be interested to know if you think it is art.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2028195

Quote - But it doesn't really matter. You don't really need them with Blender's improvements (have you seen what it can now do?!), and DAZ's and Poser's refinements, there's not much need to have anything from Autodesk.

Unless you want to use MentalRay or tight integration with VRay

@Minyassa: The opinions you described in your OP are probably less biased than the answers you get here - in a Poser forum...

I agree with the gallery owner, you mentioned in another posting, who said the difference is if you created the models and textures yourself. Everything else is posing and staging where the software rendering does most of what finally comes out as an image. To compare it with photography: It's not art when you set up a scenery in a studio and find the best lights for it. A photographer not only combines that he also knows his tool and what he shoots is what he sees in the preview, but no 3d software preview shows the image as it is in the render. A lot of Poser users barely know their tool and their renders show it. Not everything which is inspiring or creative to us is art. Judging the galleries probably 10 % do really artful images, in my opinion. By the way: you know that art critics are generally hated by artists? Film critics are hated by all involved in film making AND the audience. Nevertheless I trust some film critics more than my best friends if I decided which film I want to see because they have a professional eye on what they see. The Poser forum is the most unlikely place where I would expect a honest critic that could help me if I were out making art.

Quote - The Poser forum is the most unlikely place where I would expect a honest critic that could help me if I were out making art.

If you had said the Poser "gallery" instead of "forum", I might have agreed with that.

But in this forum, in the Rendo criticism forum, and especially in my forum at the Node Cult, you will get criticism and assistance to improve whatever it is you as an artist think you should improve upon.

The gallery is for "ooh lovely picture" comments, the forum is for critical comments on what you did wrong in your latest masterpiece & how you can fix it to make it better. :D

Yes, the gallery. I remember in the forum was even a discussion thread about the gallery that dealt with that. Please read my former posting with "gallery" instead of "forum", it's  mixed up.

Most of the truly gifted artists never talk or act like they are superior to everyone else..   in fact, they often talk and act as if they are worthless hacks who rarely have anything of value to contribute to artistic endevour, however are producing some undeniably beautiful work...  why?  because they know what has been done already by masters and also know they will never produce anything equal to that...  but does that make them throw in the towel and take up coin collecting??   nope...

I've always had more than a small amount of suspicion for anyone who goes around talking as if they are a 'great artist' and only give negative feedback to most everything else they see..  

I don't know about anyone else..  but personally I don't give a shit what tools you are using, if I feel inspired by an image then to me it works and qualifies as 'art', even if it was created using crayons...

When people say this doesn't qualify as art or that doesn't because of blah blah blah..   you have to wonder what motivates them to make a statement like that and what they hope to gain from it... 

I use poser, photoshop, 3d max, etc., because I just really enjoy using the tools available on PCs, I think the possibilities are endless and any tool that is that powerful has value, regardless of what anyone else may say about it...    am I an 'artist'?   I don't know and don't care...   it's the enjoyment I feel from having the tools at my fingertips and seeing if I can create something that makes me smile..  or laugh..  or cry...  or cringe with fear and that makes me want to keep clicking that render button...   if I ever produce something 'great' so be it, but I won't quit on it unless I decide I'm tired of it and am ready to move on...  :o)

M

.............its not the size of your program , its how you use it  !

If I'm not an artist because I render images with Poser then I want a bagginsbill button setting in my poser so I don't have to spend hours and hours creating the scene and doing the post work.

People take models like V4, A4, and other 3D models to create thousands of variations that don't look anywhere close to the original model.  To me it's like working with clay. Clay looks the same at the start, but it's the artist's creativity and skill that turns it into art.  People who create pottery or stone carvings didn't make the clay or the stone, but it's what they did with it that made it art. Painters didn't make the paints that they use and that tube of paint starts off the same for everyone else, but it's the artist's creativity that turns it into art.  Poser and other 3D rendering programs work in the same manner

By the way. I'll be waiting for that bagginsbill button setting on the next update of Poser 8  LOL
**
**

Well I consider this art

http://miguelcolucci.deviantart.com/art/Prometheus-152631484

Art is subjective, but I agree with BB when he says Most poser images are not art. There's also a conceived difference between art and CG Art, where on the latest you build all the models and the scene from scratch, look at http://www.zbrushcentral.com/ to get an idea.

Heheh. I figured this thread would bubble along for weeks. And it is. It is such a sensitive topic for Poser land.

I understand the reasons for the consternation on both sides. It is true that some people dismiss any individual Poser art without even considering what it took to make, based solely on the collective body of work produced by the Poser community. This, they should not do.

However, I think that some Poser users would have the same attitude, if the topic were something else, such as cooking and the notion of "chef" versus "cook".

Consider - imagine you go to a restaurant and you eat:

1) A beautifully arranged Caesar salad on a lovely plate. However, it came from a Stop and Shop (grocery brand) bag with croutons and dressing already prepared by the factory. (Still damn good, but the local "chef" did not make it. He did choose the plate, and did toss the salad with the dressing, adding a bit of chopped anchovy, and arranged the croutons.)

2) Garlic shrimp and pasta with vine ripened cherry tomatoes. Except, it came from a frozen bag of Bertolli, made in a factory. (Bertolli is restaurant quality food, according to Bertolli.)

1. Fresh cream cheesecake, topped with candied strawberries. (From a Sara Lee box.)

If you ate this meal (along with a good wine and nice atmosphere) and nobody told you that all of it came from factories, you'd probably say it was an excellent meal, and the restaurant was great. No doubt, it was food, artfully prepared. If you paid around $24 you might even proclaim it a bargain.

Imagine your reaction when you walked around the building and saw the restaurant's trash can with the Stop and Shop salad bag, the Bertolli bag, and the Sara Lee box. Heheheh.

What if I take a photograph of a famous actor from a movie, use my vast collection of Posette and Dork face morphs to morph either Posette or Dork to look like him, and then remap the body to take the V3/M3 skin texture of my choice, and texture her/him in the Mat room.  What if I change the default values on the textures to be something different to enhance the skin texture even more.  What if I then pose them in a setting that I created from a vast array of discrete props, some of which I modified in either UV Mapper/3ds Max or both.  
Would that constitute art?
dph

(...I will not get sucked into debates about what is art.....I will not get sucked into debates about what is art....)

I haven't read this whole thread, but this general debate has been ongoing over the past 100 years at least and probably much longer (in modern times certainly since Duchamp first plonked that urinal in an art gallery, and remember the dadaists were making collages long before this).

I think one of the problems is that art really defies a concrete objective definition (a work of art can be effective given certain criteria but not others and still be powerful), and we all know how slippery subjective opinion is.

The issue raised here is really one relating to the of appropriation of ready-made elements used to construct a work (similar to collage) and whether this practice somehow intrinsically disqualifies the result from being art. My response would be no, but the result still might fail to qualify based on other criteria - what the image maker chooses to do with those elements etc.

People creating all their own content are bound to add that process as being integral to 'their' definition of what makes a resulting work or render 'art'. As a painter if I grind and mix my own pigments then I'd probably say that this process has some bearing on the final painting, but it doesn't necessarily affect the way I choose my subject or how I compose my painting. Just because I grind and mix my own paint, it doesn't mean the resulting painting will be a work of art. I think the same is most likely true of CG rendering.

Exactly. As I said in my first post in this thread:

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

I don't care if you spend 1000 hours grinding paint or adjusting UV maps, if the result is really no different than an unskilled child produces by slapping together a V4 with a bought texture, and the image has no style other than what you accidentally get by rendering without gamma correction, and the composition is great but the message is really nothing whatsoever to keep your attention for longer than it takes to dismiss it, then guess what the reaction will be.

Furthermore, despite what the first post said "regarding x is not art" the real issue was a CG artist dismissing Poser work as not being CG art.

We don't have a dictionary definition for CG art, but I'm pretty sure I know what the CG art community thinks it means as a whole, and it means painting, not collage. It means creating scene elements to match the vision, as opposed to matching the vision to the scene elements you happen to have or buy or download.

Argue all you want, but if your vision is Ben Kingsley, but you only get it looking sort of like it by adjust morphs for 80 days, you're NOT a CG artist.

Go to CGSociety and find the Ben Kingsley image. You'll see what I mean. No amount of dial spinning even comes close - spend a million hours you won't come close.

Quote - I don't care if you spend 1000 hours grinding paint or adjusting UV maps, if the result is really no different than an unskilled child produces by slapping together a V4 with a bought texture, and the image has no style other than what you accidentally get by rendering without gamma correction, and the composition is great but the message is really nothing whatsoever to keep your attention for longer than it takes to dismiss it, then guess what the reaction will be.

Really!?  I DO declare.... upon my troth!
dph

Heh. I mean no disrespect DPH.

I count myself as decidedly NOT an artist. I am a pigment grinder, and I spend a LOT of time doing that because I enjoy it. I have never thought that any of my renders are art.

I don't consider myself an artist either, but most of my renders I think to be kinda nifty.  Also, I think that I've put enough personal endeavor and modification into my figures as to qualify as NOT being out of the box, or bought straight from the nearest super market.  The cherries may have come from a can, but I've stirred them around with fresh mint grown in my garden, added other spices that I picked up here and there, so I thnk that I can declare a certain amount of originality to my work.
Just today, I took a Gerald day prop, the Georgian Window room, and ran it through UV Mapper Pro to remap the walls base boards so as to take some Victorian Wall paper textures that I picked up as a freebie for another prop altogether.  Then later, I took a copy of the same prop and loaded it into 3ds Mas and knocked a hole in the wall where the Window was so as to created a doorway, so that with both copies of the prop in my Poser Pose Room, I have a complete 4 sided room, with a door on one side and a window on the other.  Now I assembling tables and chairs so as to make it a Victorian Guesthouse dining room.
But of course, for the purist, none of this is art, just craft.  But fine craftsmanship isn't a bad ideal either.
dph

Exactly! Fine craftmanship, no doubt.

Can anyone answer "are we welcome on Deviant Art"  I read their agreement and it seems since we are not making our meshesd and textures, we are not.

of course we are.  I have a DA account and portfolio

Quote - Exactly! Fine craftmanship, no doubt.

Bagginsbill, I would point out that a lot of 'Original' CG art, done in 3ds Max, is based on ready made primitives: Sphere, Cube. Cylinder, Plane, Cone, etc.
I too often use similar Poser Primitives in creating my scenes: Walls, Walkways, Floors, Ceilings, Door Posts, Glass Panes, etc.  To what extent does this not match what the Max artist does so as NOT to qualify, since BOTH rely on ready made geometry as the foundation of a scene?
dph

"Just because I grind and mix my own paint, it doesn't mean the resulting painting will be a work of art. I think the same is most likely true of CG rendering."

Reminds me of my 7th grade teacher said.  "Everyone owns a pencil, but it's what you do with that pencil that makes you an artist."  said in reference to learning how to sketch.

 Whenever someone says 'You're using Poser? You didn't make those models? You didn't paint those textures? That's not art!' I always reply, 'Tell that to a professional photographer. He didn't make his models, his scenery, his sun or moon.'

Quote - > Quote - Exactly! Fine craftmanship, no doubt.

Bagginsbill, I would point out that a lot of 'Original' CG art, done in 3ds Max, is based on ready made primitives: Sphere, Cube. Cylinder, Plane, Cone, etc.
I too often use similar Poser Primitives in creating my scenes: Walls, Walkways, Floors, Ceilings, Door Posts, Glass Panes, etc.  To what extent does this not match what the Max artist does so as NOT to qualify, since BOTH rely on ready made geometry as the foundation of a scene?
dph

Well, by analogy to cooking, simple primitives are like simple ingredients, such as milk, oil, eggs, water, flour. We don't expect a chef to design and build a tractor, buy a farm, plant the wheat, harvest the wheat, and grind the flour. That's not what makes a chef. "Cuisine" does not require that you construct every component of the meal from raw atoms.

Now some chefs will sneer at others who don't make their own pasta from flour, eggs, and water, but used manufactured pasta instead to make Lasagna. Here is a gray area, where the great chef makes a distinction, but ordinary consumers might not. This is your CG Society CG artist.

Then there is the guy who opens a package of Stoffer's frozen pasta and puts it in the microwave. Nobody thinks that guy is a chef.

And it isn't just about what level of ingredient you're using. There has to be some merit to the result.

I don't care if you spend 9 years adding spheres to a scene and carefully positioning each one, you can still end up with something that isn't art. Why? Because I could write a program that does that automatically and finish the same scene in 10 minutes.

I've seen "artists" artfully assemble dog poo and put it on display. Sorry - that just isn't art. My dog does just as well - all I gotta do is put a pretty plate under his butt.

So, if you were to look at my Firelight series, would that constitute art, or merely craft: taking into account that I was trying to reproduce scenes from a movie using screen shots of same.
dph

all true...

isn't there another thing to consider though..?   or perhaps it's best stated with a question..

What is art for???   Does it serve some purpose?   and if it does then does it not succeed insofar as fulfilling that purpose even if it only does for one single person looking at it or experiencing it in some way..?  

any form of art if it happens in a void it doesn't mean much, but even in the eyes of only one person it can be a great thing that has meaning...

just a couple more thoughts on it...  ;o)

M   

*Exactly! Fine craftmanship, no doubt.

...and that's the thing that often gets mixed up IMHO. In fact art has nothing to do with skill or even effort. When I was a child I often heard the saying "Kunst kommt von Koennen" - "The term Art comes from Skill". Then I went to school and did my first outdoor painting and decided to paint part of the clouds in a dark purple as to me it looked as if we will get a thunderstorm later. In the end I was not really satisfied when seeing what others painted: Bright blue skies with white clouds, the colors matching exactly what the eyes see. But my teacher comforted me by saying "Kunst kommt von Kuenden" - "The term Art comes from bearing witness".

I hardly would consinder most things I do art because, most of them tell of nothing but beauty, skills and so on. Sometimes I have the feeling that I want to capture something, a mood, a feeling, something I read about... and that's where things get difficult. This is far harder than "just" trying to achieve a result that is close to technical perfect.

A far better example than my attempts on painting is an exhibition we had here a while ago. The artist did nothing but paint canvas on stretcher frames with different shades of blue, yellow, red and green. Then he decorated four empty exhibition rooms each with one color. I had "this feeling" that I often have when it comes to abstract paintings, I felt fooled. Then the lady from the local newspaper came and wrote a large article about how skillful and thoughtful and whatnot this artist is - and she decided to ask himself and so, under his photo, I found the simple sentence: This exhibition is not about painting or even images. I wanted to offer the audience the chance to stay in the rooms and feel the colors, to make the experience of what a color does to them.

And of course a collage can be art. Just think about this famous album cover
http://socialbydesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/2421135485_de8cc56203.jpg
You can do something likewise with Barbie and Ken (and their indestructable smiles) and consider it art because it may make people think.

By following this theory (and of course it's only one theory amongst thousands) Michelangelo's David is not art but finest craftsmanship - if there would not be that callus on the thumb that may want to tell me that David was a thumb-sucker *

Here's an unfortunate case they are talking about over at DAZ, where a Deviantart member was tossed out of a group for plagarism for not crediting his DAZ models used in his render.  The comments made in the second screencap are along the lines of what are being discussed in this thread...

teturo.deviantart.com/journal/30389571/

Disclaimer; I don't know either party, but thought it was germane to the discussion here.

Talk about your "dead horse."  Good grief!  This kind of thing pops up persistently and is obviously never going to go away.

As far as what one might want to "... tell someone ...", you might want to start with "Take a hike."  As an argument, this can never be won because it falls into the realm of "point of view" and/or "opinion". 

Save yourself the trouble and just keep on keeping on to ... er, coin a phrase.

IMO documenting your work and crediting content creators is generally a good thing. While some sites like Renderosity  have a fairly relaxed attitude about it , others are obviously more hard-lined. I personally think that is a mistake but they obviously have their own philosophies and agendas. I would note that the Deviant Art example you linked to relates to a group within that site - I have no idea since I don't frequent it whether the parent site is so scrutinising.
It might seem heavy handed, and I don't know all the details of that case, but rules are rules if you play the game on a given site or in a group - 'When in Rome' and all that. If something has been misunderstood or misinterpreted by the admins or users then that's worth clearing up, otherwise accept the flack.

From my point of view even if an artist doesn't include credits where the render is posted, so long as they are prepared to do so when asked and don't dishonestly pass off other people's skilled work as their own, I don't see the problem. Proactively crediting is useful but not always practical (if a lot of ready-made elements are used and time is limited). A lot of people hold to the opinion that since they payed for an item they shouldn't have to credit ('why should we have to do their advertising for them?' - well, if they make good stuff and we want to see more...), but I do think it's at least fair when someone enquires.

There are often times when browsing the galleries here when I wish there was slightly more info posted with renders giving specific details of third party content, software actually used to render, whether postwork was involved etc (but this is another long running debate). I can't complain as I don't always include those details myself.
For me though this isn't a question of attempting to qualify the competence of the artist based on what they actually did in every minute detail. For me if it's an interesting image, composed competently but more importantly that it resonates something beyond the sum of it's elements, then I can accept the artists input. That has value to me.

In the Poser and Daz hobbyist domain it might seem particularly relevant to credit all the elements used in renders since for the most part we don't make all our own items - although we may tinker, adjust and refine what we buy or pick up as freebies. But generally we don't - it's not the game we're playing. We're collaging, composing, concentrating on the ideas, or just simply having fun.

Serious or fun, ther results can still be art - don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If a group or site doesn't like how you do things, either see it their way or find somewhere else to play.

Quote - Talk about your "dead horse."  Good grief!  This kind of thing pops up persistently and is obviously never going to go away.

As far as what one might want to "... tell someone ...", you might want to start with "Take a hike."  As an argument, this can never be won because it falls into the realm of "point of view" and/or "opinion". 

Save yourself the trouble and just keep on keeping on to ... er, coin a phrase.

Part of the point of forums like these is that we can have living and ongoing debates. Often different people come along and say exactly the same things as other before them but in a different way. This does have value for the ongoing life of the community. New generations of folk are coming to this game all the time.

*Part of the point of forums like these is that we can have living and ongoing debates.

• You are so right! Usually I stay away from subjects like this but this thread is different as people keep it civil and IMHO on a pretty high intellectual level. *

Quote - For me though this isn't a question of attempting to qualify the competence of the artist based on what they actually did in every minute detail. For me if it's an interesting image, composed competently but more importantly that it resonates something beyond the sum of it's elements, then I can accept the artists input. That has value to me.

thank you, this is how I think of it... 

:o)

M