Quote - I just thought it was ironic that someone who frequents Render-otica and possibly has sold pose sets there identifies himself as Catholic. Not that I have a problem with that.

Even though vintorix was wrong to leap to assumptions about your political beliefs, I can't help noting that some Catholics have been leftist to the extreme.

Personal view - I think you can look and even buy some of the products at Render-otica without buying into the whole scene as it were, although others would no doubt disagree, Catholic or not.  Depending on your view of life it can provide some products that work well in Sci-Fi scenes that are not available on other sites.  

Religion has much to do with how we live this life and, depending on the religion, may be the next.  Politics has a major effect on how we live so being religious does not really exclude politics be it left, right or centre. 

And anyway...politics not allowed nor religion. :P And I completely understand why.

Laurie

I sorry I mentioned the word "left" because that has nothing to do with it. I don't really care if he is right or left or belong to the Jacobites dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of England and Scotland. I am only tired of whining old phrases and obscure puerile jokes I've heard a thousand times before. It is the equivalent to kitsch in art. The über computer nerds have their places but unfortunatly art is not one of them. He needs to get back to his old Mad magazines and wait a few years because he has a lot of growing up to do.

Hobbiest, aspiring artist or professional no matter what we belong to, we all take our business seriously.

Wait a minute!

So you're saying Stefan could have put SSS into Poser 7 if he hadn't been trolling some programming forums and ranting at VB users?

Yep, sounds plausible.:closedeyes:

Well, here's something appropriate I heard on Detroit in Overdrive on Planet Green: An artist is someone who makes something out of nothing.There were artists who collected trash and made art. One took thousands of shoes and made art.

It's all how you put things together, and what it says at the end.

IMO, it seems pretentious for an artist to proclaim his work "art", seems a judgement that should be left to others. And is also a moving target between individuals.

Ok I take a stab at the difficult subject of what is art. Start with "anything can be art", Ok very well but still there are  quality differences such as  between a Mercedes Benz and a Volkswagen. Both are cars but, you get my drift? So what constitutes quality in art? We could have a bunch of experts vote but as you know, 10 000 "art experts" are educated and let loose in the world every year. They all have to make a living. So maybe it is better to try another way. I propose a simple formula, the best art is the one that last longer. Some say that a movie can be art. Ok but try to show a 30 year old movie to a young person. Or even 20 year or 10 year old. Obviously a movie is not of the same quality art as Michelangelo's David. And here we go. It has the drawback of that we don't know right away, we have to wait, but it is better than nothing.

Edit: And what happened to the bulk of all the "modernist art" that was so praised and lifted to the sky in the last 50 years after Picasso?

?

Quote - I just thought it was ironic that someone who frequents Render-otica and possibly has sold pose sets there identifies himself as Catholic. Not that I have a problem with that.

Let me help you out a little: It wasn't "possibly", it was "definitely". I found it to be a nice challenge, actually, since I'm one of the few pose set makers -- here OR there-- who actually know what joint limits are.

Hell, I'll give you one more bit o' info to let you scream "...hypocrisy!": I also ran the R'otica servers for awhile. Why? Because Diane is an old friend of mine, and I don't leave old friends stranded.

I still have a mountain of friends there, and I still happen to enjoy their company  (OTOH, Jesus hung out with prostitutes too, no?)

Never claimed perfection, nor will I... reaching it would make me cease to be human.  You want proof that I'm an old sinner? There it is. Does it bother me? Occasionally. It is something I'll have to deal with eventually. OTOH, I will still strive for the ideal in spite of it. The process was long overdue anyway. I was born into it, left it as a rebellious young man, then came to my senses a couple of years ago and have begun to return to it. Maturity takes time, and that's what I'm moving towards. The important part though is to keep moving, even if you never reach it.

Quote - I can't help noting that some Catholics have been leftist to the extreme.

I believe that I know who you're talking about, and TBH? They claim it only to get votes, and little more. Some of 'em should have been excommunicated a very long time ago, and the fact that they haven't is more of a proof of just how tolerant the Church has been all this time, than as a mark of their own rebellious moral outrages. Without delving into politics, let's just say that one doesn't promote certain agendae and policies that is in direct opposition to major Church policy concerning the sanctity of life (not going to mention anything by name, but it should be fairly obvious), and still claim the title.

Trust me, those folk get more prayers and hopes of coming to their senses than anyone else I know of.

==

Quote - Personal view - I think you can look and even buy some of the products at Render-otica without buying into the whole scene as it were, although others would no doubt disagree, Catholic or not.  Depending on your view of life it can provide some products that work well in Sci-Fi scenes that are not available on other sites.  

Same story here. I have no desire to encourage many of the themes there. At all. I find some of it completely repugnant and disgusting. OTOH, I'm not going to hate on the folks there who do, so long as it remains purely within the realm of zeros and ones, and no one is in reality being attacked or harmed. To wear out an old phrase, I will defend to the death their right to make that particular flavor of art, even though I find that the stuff is personally repulsive beyond belief. 

Best I can do in that area is to gently remaind folks that people (women in particular) are not objects to be harmed or abused, but rather to be appreciated. Surprisingly, the vast majority of folks there agree.

==

Quote - I sorry I mentioned the word "left" because that has nothing to do with it. I don't really care if he is right or left or belong to the Jacobites dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of England and Scotland.

...not my fault you shoved your foot in it, right up to the pelvic floor. ;)

Quote - I am only tired of whining old phrases and obscure puerile jokes I've heard a thousand times before.

Ah - but first you insinuate that everything I said was pedestrian and common, now you start slipping in that some of them are "obscure". It doesn't help your argument much by shifting gears like that without first engaging the clutch. Make up your mind already.

Incidentally, there was no "whining", much as you would like it to be. I've happily crushed your arguments at every turn, and this 'OAMG you're so unoriginal!' tripe is the last argument you have left. 

Quote - The über computer nerds have their places but unfortunatly art is not one of them.

Without us, you'd be stuck in the same place as Bob Ross, pal. We did you a favor there. ;)

Incidentally, I have seen performance art written in C++ that would make a grown man cry (example), if only he were capable of understanding it.  

Here's an economy-sized clue for you: Just because you are completely incapable of understanding (let alone appreciate) it, doesn't mean that it magically does not exist. I suspect that your posting speaks more to your own narrow-minded failings than to anyone else's. I also see that you recognize that fault at least subconciously, which in turn forces you to lash out in blind anger whenever someone calls you on it. 

PS: That was Cracked magazine that I referred to with an earlier link, not Mad. At least now I know which post pinched your nerves so badly... or was it the one-handed typing crack? 

Let me end this wee missive by repeating a worthy quote... a bromide, but one that is nonetheless still true:

==

Quote - IMO, it seems pretentious for an artist to proclaim his work "art", seems a judgement that should be left to others.

The sad part is, some artists think that pretention can replace creativity and talent. 

ok now we're onto what is art?

a subject thats endlessly debated here, (use the search Luke), there and everywhere for the last few thousand years with no one able to give an answer?

really? you want to retread that again....?

where's that facepalm picture...

Forget art. I want to know what causes women to completely go nuts at the sight of high heels and/or makeup in a store. 

Not that I complain about the results, mind, but if you've ever seen it happen, it is a sight to behold. 

Quote -  I propose a simple formula, the best art is the one that last longer. Some say that a movie can be art.

Now we're getting somewhere!

(...there's hope for you yet. ;) )

Quote -  It has the drawback of that we don't know right away, we have to wait, but it is better than nothing.

I love the theory (seriously, I think time is an imperfect metric, yet makes the best filter and judge), but thanks to relative perishability of file formats, how do you think it would work viz. CG art? Opening a .jpg file 300 years hence may not be possible at all. Changing the format by necessity destroys the original pixels, even if the results are perfectly reproduced.

We're seeing some of the phenomenon even now, outside of art. For instance, open a Word Perfect file made in 1994. Or an Office 97 .xls file with Office 2010. Doing either destroys part of the original, making it lost. 

Now imagine opening a .max file in the year 2112...

A lot of the solution can be found in using strictly open file formats, so that future software can stand a chance of faithfully reading ancient files... something that proprietary formats may find impossible a century hence. 

The second part I want to tease out is the reproduction. Up until now, reproducing a work of art has always left imperfections. Now the fidelity is almost perfect... if it is done right. This may well alleviate some of the first part, but I suspect not all of it. Web-friendly .jpg files introduce compression, thus a loss of fidelity. Over time, file corruption happens. Different image processing apps will process the file differently.

Quote - Edit: And what happened to the bulk of all the "modernist art" that was so praised and lifted to the sky in the last 50 years after Picasso?

Quite simple: It got filtered. The collective judgement of Humanity was passed, and few pieces survive to today.

We can draw a different parallel, though: Consider Paul Gauguin. In his day, he was laughed at, his work considered pedestrian, and generally his paintings were thought of as pure crap. He was IMHO the Poser user of the 19th Century. Yet, in spite of all that, his work is worth a fortune today, and is widely considered to be pioneering and incredible now.

The judgement of time is one fickle mofo, isn't it? 

Is "what the artists says and how he says it" still interesting over time is turned into a boring diatribe of fileformats, snoring already.. Perfume? High heels? I don't know why I bother, wait I don't! :)

Bye.

"What is art?" is a worn out, debated and beaten to death subject. Everyones opinion on what it is is just that - everyones opinion. And know the beauty of it? You're all right. Why eternally debate something that is personally subjective to the extreme? Enough already.

Can we move on? Sheesh.

Laurie

"What is art?" is a worn out, debated and beaten to death subject"

Not for me Laurie. No. But I am not so stupid (anymore) that I try to speak about art in the Poser forum.

and yet you will. again. just for the arguement. sorry, seen this from you before....

vintirix,

If you are going, I do want to commend you on your debating skills. Especially since this is in your second (?) language. I see this thread has been popular..

Thank you richardson, I enjoyed your posts too!

I agree that it's pretentious for somebody to refer to his/her own work as art.  leave it to  art critics to go through the formal process of comparing it to relevant examples, for better or worse.  I know everybody hates art critics, but it's a dirty job and they are trained to apply aesthetic standards in what should be an impartial way.

that's the difference between us and cgsociety - we have no artistic standards and they've got standards we don't understand, which is apparently enough of a problem to cause these arguments and ad hominem attacks every year.

Quote - I agree that it's pretentious for somebody to refer to his/her own work as art.  leave it to  art critics to go through the formal process of comparing it to relevant examples, for better or worse.  I know everybody hates art critics, but it's a dirty job and they are trained to apply aesthetic standards in what should be an impartial way.

that's the difference between us and cgsociety - we have no artistic standards and they've got standards we don't understand, which is apparently enough of a problem to cause these arguments and ad hominem attacks every year.

Hey there Nancy,
I wanted to weigh in on critics of any sort. How many critics can do? If they cannot do, how can they critique? It is all subjective views. If one person likes it, and another doesn't is that all it takes to label it crap?

At worldconfrancisco, when I bought my LE of Elric the Demon Slayer from Michael Whelan, one individual at a party later that night argued that I would not have bought (*or even liked) that print if I knew the story of Elric the Albino Elf! Now there is a real idiotic statement! I did not care about the background of that particular character. I was just struck by the raw sexual, masculine line of his bod! There, I was mesmerized by the pic as I came around the corner in the gallery and it was just there! In all of it's power. So who cares if a critic would or would not like it? I like it. And everyone who visists my home always comment on it too.

Sometimes what makes art is not what is readily seen, but the little nuances you find as you come back to a piece. The best compliment I have ever rec'd on my own art is from a person that stated he loved the image because he was always finding some new little detail that he missed. So that is what good art does as well. It keeps your attention.

And yes, I find critics for the most part useless.

HugZ!
Ariana

Quote - Is "what the artists says and how he says it" still interesting over time is turned into a boring diatribe of fileformats, snoring already.. Perfume? High heels? I don't know why I bother, wait I don't! :)

Bye!

So that which you do not understand or comprehend... bores you. Got it. 

Enjoy wherever it is you run off to, though I suspect you'll be back. Again. And again. And again.

Maybe if we talked about T&A instead? 

The thread topic has nothing to do with what is art.

Threads about so many things here turn into what is art.

I lost interest again because all you people do is argue about what is art and then declare that there's no answer to that. Who cares? That's off topic.

The topic was - do you feel like a cheat as characterized by the CGS community?

Everybody knows that a "copy" of art is no longer YOUR art. You cannot just claim something is your own when it isn't. That is the crux of the issue - not whether these Poser renders are art or not, but rather that Poser renders are essentially institutionalized plagiarism. Like collage.

Who cares if you "posed" it - if it's not your creation, the pose is original, but the image is largely made of plagiarism - plagiarized mesh, plagiarized rigging, plagiarized materials, etc.

There's no refuting that. The question is does composing the scene (choosing costumes, posing, lighting, and camera, etc.), i.e. being a virtual producer/director of the photo shoot qualify you as a CG artist. I say it doesn't. It qualifies you as a producer/director. CG artist is not the producer or director - he is the guy who makes the assets from nothing.

"Enjoy wherever it is you run off to, though I suspect you'll be back. Again. And again. And again"

Sure. Let's make an agreement that I return after 3 years. Then let us see what has happened to you and what has happened to me. And for your info I was a programmer for more than 20 years before I sold my company so I could work with art. Lead programmer, not a mere administrator.

You're right in that the topic itself can be boring.

OTOH, it has spawned some thoughts off on their own... the big one that got me thinking was longevity. Vitronix inadvertantly sparked it in one of his posts by mentioning the time and digital art in an unrelated manner.

So how exactly does one preserve digital art for the long haul? Artists of old never had this problem... marble and oil paintings, if carefully tended to, can last for centuries. Not so IMHO with digital art. 

As a sysadmin, I already see what a mere 10 years can do to files created awhile back. Hard disks fail. Magnetic media decays. CD/DVD-ROMs fade into unreadability. Proprietary file formats become lost and/or mis-read by future file readers.

Fortunately, Poser and non-binary D|S files are text/ASCII, so reconstruction can be done with enough time and effort. OTOH, what of the compressed/binary formats? 

Something to definitely think about as time passes...

Quote - "Enjoy wherever it is you run off to, though I suspect you'll be back. Again. And again. And again"

Sure. Let's make an agreement that I return after 3 years.

Certainly... why not? Barring a change in attitude or outlook, you'll lose the same arguments then as now, and be just as wrong then as you are now.

No skin offa mine either way. shrug

Quote - And for your info I was a programmer for more than 20 years before I sold my company so I could work with art. Lead programmer, not a mere administrator.

If you say so. Then again, on the Internet no one knows you're a dog.  ;)

But hey, weren't you going to run off, pretending victory while dodging the debate? 

Well I am not arguing! I opted to buy PP 2012! and I am so excited, because hate, love it, it is my new baby and I am going to have FUN!

:D
Ariana

Quote - The thread topic has nothing to do with what is art.

Threads about so many things here turn into what is art.

I lost interest again because all you people do is argue about what is art and then declare that there's no answer to that. Who cares? That's off topic.

The topic was - do you feel like a cheat as characterized by the CGS community?

Everybody knows that a "copy" of art is no longer YOUR art. You cannot just claim something is your own when it isn't. That is the crux of the issue - not whether these Poser renders are art or not, but rather that Poser renders are essentially institutionalized plagiarism. Like collage.

Who cares if you "posed" it - if it's not your creation, the pose is original, but the image is largely made of plagiarism - plagiarized mesh, plagiarized rigging, plagiarized materials, etc.

There's no refuting that. The question is does composing the scene (choosing costumes, posing, lighting, and camera, etc.), i.e. being a virtual producer/director of the photo shoot qualify you as a CG artist. I say it doesn't. It qualifies you as a producer/director. CG artist is not the producer or director - he is the guy who makes the assets from nothing.

 

Well, I've already expressed a lack of interest in being called an artist but I am intersted in what folk use to judge others. I guess you can create a sub-genre of some kind and call it CG art, setting a definition to exclude what you want but that is not enough to not call it art per se - only that it isn't part of your defined sub-genre. Which isn't very interesting.

One element, common to much of what is called art, is composition. Be it sculpture, paint, collage, or pixels, there is composition of existing elements. And a painter may be a technical genious, creating absolute realism, but if even if their composition of pigment to make a form is excellent, if their composition of painted forms is poor, their art will be the poorer for it. The question here then is at what point/scale does composition become a relevant factor in making the result art rather than plagarism. But please, something non-arbitrary and objective, or it just won't be interesting.

Everybody knows that a "copy" of art is no longer YOUR art. You cannot just claim something is your own when it isn't. That is the crux of the issue - not whether these Poser renders are art or not, but rather that Poser renders are essentially institutionalized plagiarism. Like collage.

Who cares if you "posed" it - if it's not your creation, the pose is original, but the image is largely made of plagiarism - plagiarized mesh, plagiarized rigging, plagiarized materials, etc.

I would agree with that but then I am not an artist just an hobbiest playing with 3D.  The only problem I have is that over the years people have seen art in a pile of bricks, a tent with names scrawled on and an un-made bed.  I could of course go on, but none of these so called artists made the bed (quite literally) the tent or the bricks.  I suppose it doesn't help that I am not educated to a high enough level to see this as art but I suppose it does show that no-one will ever agree on what is art. 

Moving back to the thread, it really is a loaded question in that I do not see what I am doing is art and therefore how can I possibly see using Poser as cheating.  I have a vivid imagination (or I am totally mad is another viewpoint) but never had the skills to draw or paint to any degree that pleased me.  Thanks to Poser I can give my imagination a tool to bring my thoughts to others, the others being family and friends.

For the last few years I have had calenders printed with the renders I have done over the year that I like the most and give them away to those close to me.  Do they think it is art, I'm am not sure but most are amazed that a computer can produce these images.  Do they know I use other's people's work, not really as Poser is a mystery to them, of course my wife does as she sees some of what I spend at Renderosity and SM.  Strangely she still likes most of what I do but she knows I am no artist.

Quote - Who cares if you "posed" it - if it's not your creation, the pose is original, but the image is largely made of plagiarism - plagiarized mesh, plagiarized rigging, plagiarized materials, etc.

There's no refuting that. The question is does composing the scene (choosing costumes, posing, lighting, and camera, etc.), i.e. being a virtual producer/director of the photo shoot qualify you as a CG artist. I say it doesn't. It qualifies you as a producer/director. CG artist is not the producer or director - he is the guy who makes the assets from nothing.

Isn't that exactly the point the guys on CGS sniff at?

Isn't that exactly the point the guys on CGS sniff at?

Yep. I've heard it called the "paintbrush argument". As in someone can only be called a "real" artist if they create everything used in their work. Which for traditional artists would mean sticking every hair into their paintbrushes ;)

It's not seen at CGS either, it's here as well. A while ago when I made a vue version of a background prop (which allowed artists to use photos for backgrounds) someone complained I'd ruined all their hobby for them, because they liked placing every single tree in a scene!

Personally I think that, and the CGS argument that "pure" art can only be created by making everything in a scene, is BS.

If anything it's hey 'look at me , I'm a self inflicted masochistic martyr to my art" and it doesn't impress me. I think a good artist knows how to combine their diverse skills and tools to achive an end result.

Quote - I agree that it's pretentious for somebody to refer to his/her own work as art.

I strongly disagree.  I believe the artist/creator is the only person qualified to say whether or not something is art.  Not that it's great art, or even well executed.  It's how I'd categorize some of my stuff, since it had a point over and above the final image.

Anyhow, I can call myself an artist because that's what it said on my job description at Infogrames/Atari.  :) 

it just hit me

we've had religion and politics...

anyone invoked Rule 34 and Godwin's Law yet? my bingo card is not complete ...

Quote - Anyhow, I can call myself an artist because that's what it said on my job description at Infogrames/Atari.  :) 

I was once described as a Piss Artist... does that count?

Yeah, why not?

Quote -
I was once described as a Piss Artist... does that count?

Depends - was there snow handy when it was applied to you?

It seems a little strange that we find this sort of argument in the CG environment. While there is a great deal of snobbery to be found in the mainstream art world, if you speak to many artists of today, there is a lot more freedom in what they will call art - and a whole debate over the legitimacy of plagarism in the creation of new art. If it is used to create something new, even by just giving it a new context, why is that not art?

It is also all very well saying that you are utilising something made by someone else but that completly ignores the challenge to identify, non-arbitrarily, at what stage composition stops creating art.

Honestly, I do think it a mugs game to declare something isn't art - but what bothers me is that people do it without even attempting to engage with the challenges of doing that. They seem oblivious to them, either because they are not interested or that they are ignorant of them.

If they won't engage with the debate properly, why do they bother judging others? In what possition do they think they are in to do so? But perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps those concerned are aware of the arguments and can put forward a reasoned case of their own. Sadly, they tend not to share their insights, instead making such declarations that someone is a producer or director rather than an artist, while making no effort to explain why a producer or director is not an artist.

It gets boring quickly.

And now I'm bored.

...but invoking Godwin's Law would make it fun again - but I'm damned if I can see a way to do that in this debate.

Quote - Everybody knows that a "copy" of art is no longer YOUR art. You cannot just claim something is your own when it isn't. That is the crux of the issue - not whether these Poser renders are art or not, but rather that Poser renders are essentially institutionalized plagiarism. Like collage.

Who cares if you "posed" it - if it's not your creation, the pose is original, but the image is largely made of plagiarism - plagiarized mesh, plagiarized rigging, plagiarized materials, etc.

There's no refuting that. The question is does composing the scene (choosing costumes, posing, lighting, and camera, etc.), i.e. being a virtual producer/director of the photo shoot qualify you as a CG artist. I say it doesn't. It qualifies you as a producer/director. CG artist is not the producer or director - he is the guy who makes the assets from nothing.

Um....No.

Actually, oh Hell NO!! 

I take exception to the sometimes rampant misuse of the term 'plagarism'. My creative origins are in text and words; a plagarist is a thief, pure and simple.  You could make that claim of a Poser render if the maker of the render took some resource from another without their permission and claimed it was theirs (which would include using warez). Or any other application; the big boys are not immune to a lack of ethics in the user. The next level would be to take an existing image, recreate is faithfully, and attempt to claim it was yours. Neither of those circumstances occurs very often, do they?

The content issue is simple: the content creator makes it. Chooses to sell it on the open market. Sets usage terms, and retains the IP rights as creator. If I buy their product, I have -purchased a liscence- to use said product within the limits (or lack thereof) in the included readmes. Free content is exactly the same; downloading it is the same as agreeing to abide by any restrictions included. There have been more than enough incidents over the years to prove that actual plagarism or out and out content theft is =not= acceptable and responded to quickly and usually harshly.

Like it or not, the Poser crowd follows the professional production model regarding content; what you can't make or lack time to make in house you farm out to contractors. Almost none of the big houses can do it all....or do it all in the timeframe they have. So they outsource. Sure there is artistry in well made mesh. But without equally talented rigging, it is just a static thing. Without good texture and mapping work, it is just bland, monocolored stuff with no perspective, and nowhere near the depth and appearance. Without good lighting, it doesn't matter how sexy the textures are; how tight the shaders are coded. You either won't see them, or the clash of shadows and mismatched color ruins it. If you get the composition wrong, the output will be unbalanced at best; atrocious or actively nauseating at worst. That's one of the many reasons I prefer animation; I understand that the artistry is not in my chosen tools; It's in me, how I use said tools, and what I use them for. Yes, I purchase figure meshes and set meshes. I also do every other bloody job in a production pipeline, from scriptwriting to foley to scoring to post. Instead of wasting years to try and learn one fundamental step, I outsource it to those who do know it and focus my creative energies elsewhere. The output is what matters (unless you are talking solely about mesh engineering, obviously). No bloody mesh by itself will =ever= touch anyone other than another modeler with emotion. As part of a synergistic whole though, that mesh can be the framework for something that does. If my output gets the appropriate emotion out of the viewer, I did it. If not, I try and figure out where I went wrong and try another approach  the next time out. But a bare framework is not a finished product, any more than the world's best deco setup. It's either combined or nothing but parts. And there will be a list of credits at the end giving kudos to those contractors who helped.

You're arguing about your contribution. I'm arguing about the semantics of the phrase CG Artist.

Everyone in the pipeline is an artist. But what is the role denoted by the term "CG Artist"?

By analogy:

In music, you are not a "composer" if you merely perform the works of others (player), or you conduct the performance (conductor), or you arrange the score followed by the players and conductors (arranger). That's why you see albums with a credit like "Harry Nilson - Composer, Arranger, Conductor, Pianist", and not simply "Harry Nilson - Musical Artist".

When those are four different people, they are all still musicians, all still artists, but those four jobs are different jobs and have words to identify them.

Quote - You're arguing about your contribution. I'm arguing about the semantics of the phrase CG Artist.

Everyone in the pipeline is an artist. But what is the role denoted by the term "CG Artist"?

By analogy:

In music, you are not a "composer" if you merely perform the works of others (player), or you conduct the performance (conductor), or you arrange the score followed by the players and conductors (arranger). That's why you see albums with a credit like "Harry Nilson - Composer, Arranger, Conductor, Pianist", and not simply "Harry Nilson - Musical Artist".

When those are four different people, they are all still musicians, all still artists, but those four jobs are different jobs and have words to identify them.

 

 

Or...CG Artist can refer to someone who produces work that is Computer Generated. To keep to analogies, Film has a range of divisions such as Directors, DPs, Script Writers, etc. Within that industry there is the Auteur, which is not a perfect analogue but serves better than CG Artist, lacking its ambiguity.

Yes - auteur is very close! Gene Roddenberry was auteur of Star Trek. But he was not an actor, or director, or script writer, although he personally chose every one of those individuals and then morphed them with his personal vision.

This premise of CG Artist as auteur is exactly what the CGS community denies. It is at the heart of what it means to be a Poser artist.

Now -that- interpretation I can agree with wholeheartedly!

And with the tightening of definitions, it makes more sense out of the divergent mindsets. And the fundamental incompatibility therein. But even more importantly, it gives credit for creativity in =either= endeavour....at least when such is shown.

Think its about time for the debating to end. And it has gone off topic quite a few times.