Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: I want to know: Does using Poser make you feel like cheats and not real artists?

FutureFantasyDesign opened this issue on Sep 10, 2011 · 342 posts


philebus posted Sun, 18 September 2011 at 11:40 PM

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.