had a mornings surfing looking for some inspiration, my muse has left town, at the moment and i came across this link on the CGSociety galleries......

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=1064562&utm_source=cgsociety&utm_medium=cgchoice&utm_term=1064562

It absolutely blew me away, i thought i was looking at a profile pic from a biopic, until i read further........I can't wait to start my new course in the near future..........

Wow, what an amazing likeness it is too ;). A lot of ppl there blow me away. LOL

Laurie

Wow..Now if that doesn't look just like photo!!!!

Impressing to say the least...

LOL, from the title, I was expecting Stan Musial - not that I would have known the difference in appearance. 1st class work at any rate. I'm not sure I've seen a VRay rendered portrait before - very nice.

Wow! Amazing work!

Somebody else had posted this image here on the forums a couple months back...

After decades of looking critically at the genre of photorealism in other media I come away with the feeling that I do when looking at all such works. Why Bother? How is this art? ( have to digress by saying that I'm a fan of Chuck Close's work, but then he has expressionist elements to his creations and plays with focus and other elements).

OK. So this is a photorealist image. You have to ask then, considering the intent of the work, is this a good photograph? Is there art to this photograph? At this point in time static cg photorealism of this sort is about as exciting as looking at a sears mannikin draped in a freshly skinned human epidermis.

i dont recollect mentioning "art" per se in my op primorge, the level of work , detail, and i guess many many hours that went into producing the mesh alone, let alone the skin textures is surely something to be appreciated....................it isn't just a photo reralisitc image it is an amazing piece of modelling imho.............................

Ok. You're right. It's not art, it's quite a bit of work though.

yup, cgsociety is rather WOW inducing.

whether the resulting image is art is open for debate, it might be even a bad shot from a portraying point of view. But making such a character definitely is a serious proof of craftsmanship. Which is a good reason for presenting it. My 2c.

Quote - Ok. You're right. It's not art, it's quite a bit of work though.

Isn't a sculptor who can make a block of stone look like a real person art? Sometimes its the technical things that make all of it worthwhile. LOL. If it wasn't art, then I think everyone could pull it off ;). As it is, it's art, and skill and patience..hehe.

Laurie

I do have to take issue with your it's not art statement primorge, my first post was talking about the skill involved in the modelling aspect, but put it all together, modelling, texturing, rendering, if it isn't cg art, then i don't know what it is, is a virtuoso of a synthesizer any less of an artist than the player of the grand piano?,

the OED defines "art" and yes i know i'm getting into a whole quagmire here, as

1 [mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

the key words imho are "primarily", not excluding other emotions

and "typically" , other forms are described as art too

 the community of renderosity lists xxxx number of "artists" online, are there no artists here? or are they only those that follow a mainline form of expression,

my opinion is, if it inspires you then it can't be a bad thing. What do you classify as Art and if you don't mind me asking, why in your opinion should this not be considered as such..........

It's art. Just about all the renders we make that aren't merely test renders are art. Just as our kids' crayola drawings are art.

Is it good art?

That's a different question entirely.

Ok. my response was a shorthand of your response to my initial comment as I was heading out the door to work. Just my obtuse way of making a joke.

Of course it's art... a tremendously boring work of art. That's not to say that I don't respect the craft involved (anyone who's even remotely fiddled with modeling or Cg imagery realizes the skill it takes to create something like this). BUT, it's all craft.

Don't misunderstand, the various (tech)niques of photorealism are great, the whole medium is deeply rooted in the attempt to emulate real-world phenomena. I think these techniques only become really interesting when used to depict imagery of a fantastic, Magic-realist, or surreal nature. That's just my opinion in regard to art. It needs to inspire something more than "wow! that's... technical."

I'm surprised nobody hauled out the old knuckle-scraper reply of "Well, let's see you do it then".

"Isn't a sculptor who can make a block of stone look like a real person art? Sometimes its the technical things that make all of it worthwhile. LOL. If it wasn't art, then I think everyone could pull it off ;). As it is, it's art, and skill and patience..hehe."

Ah, Laurie (wink, hehe)... I know about 15 different fine art instructors and professional artists that would shoot beer out of their noses if they had to attempt to answer the question you posit. And let us not forget... Anyone can make art. Heh.

I actually have quite a bit more to say about this subject, but I'm tired and just feel like being a voyeur right now.

Bet ya nobody even bothered to look at the work of the artist I mentioned earlier...

blown away by technique (amongst other things).

WOW, that's who it was in those Marvel movies.

aren't some of the truly great works of art by old masters exactly that though, there are any number of photorealistic depictions, the only difference being the fashion at the time and since) to compliment the model or patron and further the fact that the only comparison available was other art of a similar nature. Fashion changes and i dont neccessarily see realism a bad thing, without the attempt to capture real world likeness wouldnt the art world be stereotypically cubist or impressionist by that very thought process. I did indeed look at the work by the finger painting artist Chuck Close, i could think of many artists who use unorthodox methods to produce great work, but my point is this, if you browse the rendo forums a majority of posts are "how do i produce realistic" snow, grass, hair, skin, leather, glass, car paint, diamonds etc etc etc etc, the list is seemingly endless. Does that mean that the attempts to produce realism, especially photo realism, detract in someway from the finished product and make the end result boring?  . I find the whole process of trying to achieve realism far more interesting and intriguing than rendering an image in a toony style or pixelising it or splitting the channels. Thats just my opinion of course, I also am confused when you say "I think these techniques only become really interesting when used to depict imagery of a fantastic, Magic-realist, or surreal nature" The reason it confuses me is how you can compare realism in a surreal image, the skin may be great, the hair perfect, but what are you comparing it to, real life or another surreal image?.  I didnt just think the model was technical, i also thought it was extremely photo realistic btw

I guess what I meant when I used the term surreal is the impossible depicted within the visual tropes of conscious reality, or "Damn that looks totally real, but couldn't possibly exist", or an image that looks unlike something I would ordinarily see in my mundane, waking reality but has the qualities and cues of reality... Probably why I'm such a big fan of CG special effects.

I wonder how Stan would feel about this artists depiction?

Since I've become interested in CG art I've encountered this expression "the Uncanny Valley" which seems alot like post-structuralist ideas of abjection. Wonder if anyone has written anything comparing these topics?

... and don't go dragging out Andre Breton's definition of surrealism, please.

Wow, two discussions of art in two months – at Renderosity! As I said in the previous one, most 3D realism leaves me cold as it seemingly concentrates all of the artist’s energy on the subject at hand with nothing left for meaning and context. I love steak but I want the salad and the baked potato and all the other things that make up a good meal. That’s the best way that I can express it.. In this case, , I’ll grant that it’s art in the broad sense. I’m not sure that it was intended to be Art with a capital A – it’s a showcase of technique – modeling, texture, lighting etc. I assume that if the creator was doing Art, he would have least included an environment that put the figure in some kind of context, e.g. sitting at the drawing table etc.

I was looking for some works by Bouguereau the other day – yes, part of my taste tends toward Bouguereau, Alma-Tadema and so on. I ran across this website, Art Renewal Center. Now their manifesto is actually in favor of [traditional] realism, as opposed to modernism, but I find an interesting parallel in their case for ‘storytelling,’ which is what I sometimes find lacking in 3D photorealism. – and yeah, the uncanny valley thing too. At any rate, I found Fred Ross’ keynote address (linked above) interesting reading. Standard disclaimers, not an artist, only a consumer, only took one post 7th grade art history course and post-structuralist abjection sounds like what happened to the Tacoma Narrows bridge to me ÷)

Fred Ross

Interesting link there, lmckenzie... And true in regard to the attitude one might encounter at a fine art school if you express a penchant for narrative in painting. "Well, this is merely illustration". It's one of the reasons my major changed from painting to sculpture (well that and sculpture had less crowded studios and there was more of an emphasis on solid technique, craft, and less noodling... the painting department was where you would go to smoke weed). Anyway, thanks for the link.

Check out this Walter White (Bryan Cranston) render @zbrushcentral. Is it art? Who knows. Is it awesome? Yes!

it's a picture of an actors face.

... and I predict the reply will be "but the skill and the this and the that".

it's a picture of an actors face.

Amazing technical skill, but once I get past the eye candy, and sheer technical virtuosity these people are skilled enough to have, I tend to think"so what"?  Where's the drama, the emotion?  Just my opinion.

Quote - LOL, from the title, I was expecting Stan Musial - not that I would have known the difference in appearance. 1st class work at any rate. I'm not sure I've seen a VRay rendered portrait before - very nice.

I've met both of those Stans, each a MARVEL in his own right. That is some dynamic work I must say! Thanks for sharing such a great link!

Kind of like listening to Return To Forever (although RTF is some serious virtuosity). Come to think of it though, at least Return to Forever takes you on some kind of journey. Where does this take you other than the Un-Uncanny valley of TV Guide?

“I've met both of those Stans, each a MARVEL in his own right.”

Heh, heh. I was thinking the Say Hey kid would have made an interesting subject – not too many dark skinned characters in these exhibits, and perhaps a different rendering challenge. I was reading an article on sfgate.com earlier, said the temp was 47. Nice night, er’ morning to be sipping Irish coffee and looking out at the lights ÷)

I sort of knew he (Cranston) was an actor, but couldn’t have picked him out of a lineup, so I looked up his pic before looking at the render. Spectacular work – I’m not 100% on the shaved head but otherwise, a perfectly fine ‘photo.’ Is it art – I suppose in the sense that a publicity still might be art. Is it a technical tour de force – absolutely. Would I ever be moved to look at it again, other than as a stellar example of 3D imagery – no. Does it evoke any emotional response beyond ‘ ’Wow!’ ? – no. As celebrity portraiture could Annie Liebowitz blow it away in her sleep – absolutely. 

Again, I’m not sure its fair to judge these renders as works of Art, as I’m not sure they are meant as anything other than a showcase for technical chops. (Acknowledging that mysticeagle did not post as an example of art per se). Maybe the Stan Lee image would have been too clichéd by half had it shown him in his studio, faraway fantasy look in his eyes, with Spiderman lurking in the background, but it would have conveyed something about the man - that there was actually a human being in there. That’s not to say that an image can’t work without that type of context, many, (especially portraits), do. There is however, IMO, a certain magic in the camera (at least in the hands of an artist) that captures the life force of the subject. Maybe the natives who feared having their spirits taken by the camera were right in a way. I don’t know what it is, expression, mood … but its missing from most 3D realism, and without it, you’re left with a kind of digital simulacrum that doesn’t quite cut it, Maybe that’s the uncanny valley. Without anything else to involve the eye, these isolated figures may really emphasize it.

I agree with so much of what you say, yet I feel "art" the word has been taken by the creators of said "art" to only encompass their particular views. I think and this is just the view of a guy who will never produce anything outstanding, that if it inspires you, if only for a moment, if it makes you go "WoW" or invokes any other kind of positive emotion then It can only expand your view of things. I find much of "modern" art, trashy, tacky, designed to make the biggest buck rather than anything else. It doesn't invoke anything other than "how much are they asking for that piece of rubbish", If you just look at the Stan model as a "piece of art", then I think it decrys from the skill involved, unlike a pile of bricks or a tent the artist once slept in, which seems to involve a complete lack of skill but an eye for the pointless, talentless, urbane marketing genre that artists like Mz Emin invoke in me. Crap is fashionable, because some arty farty critic said " it invokes the true expression of blah blah blah bs bs bs bs" etc etc. Art therefore is surely in the eye of the beholder not in any preformed dictionary definition , is this model "art", in my view in it's own way ,yes, more so than the work I mentioned above in my opinion................

"I think and this is just the view of a guy who will never produce anything outstanding"

You're not referring to me are you?

...If so, I'm perfectly able to defend myself with a little slideshow of my traditional medium work which has sold in professional galleries. We both know that as with anything in art "outstanding" is merely subjective.

was referring to myself :), i couldn't possibly know what your views are or whether you are a guy or not :)

oh, ok. Thought I was going to have to endure yet another critique, but this time by a less sympathetic or 'mediated' crowd.

...all right, back to trying to build this damn elevator for esther.

this is one of those debates where there is no wrong and no right answer, no winner nor no loser, it would be singularly stupid and wrong of me to sabotage the debate by personally insulting other posters, so i didn't.  i am more interested in other peoples perceptions than any egocentric desire to come out on top..........

I do enjoy a good discussion.........

"I find much of "modern" art, trashy, tacky..."

suppose you don't care for the works of Jeff Koons, or the Chapman brothers, or any of that Saatchi collection work? Trashy and Tacky in the right hands is a thing of beauty. Trashy and Tacky in the wrong hands is about 90% of what you see being done in MP promos.

I've read your posts before, mystic... you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy to me. It's just that photorealist portraits in CG are kinda my Vilters Hi-poly thingy.

i can understand that primorge, in the same way that tiny model figures depicting violent scenes and sculptures of balloon animals and the like leave me completely baffled. Am i to look deeply into the psyche of the artist and unravel some childhood repression and marvel at the complex and deep significance of the form, because for the life of me I can't. I think to myself, ooo look a stainless steel balloon dog, or oooo lots of G.I Joes decapitated. No disrespect to any of the artists, I'm sure they have a following, but I for one can't grasp the "art" involved in these creations. Outrageous they may be, portraying the banal or grotesque may be the intention but i can't work out for the life of me, what on earth they are trying to achieve. I certainly don't look at them and say to myself "this has awoken in me a fresh realisation of mans inhumanity to man" or "the atrocities of war shall never be forgotten", I have conscience and google for that lol

Various Art forms are the marmite of the creative flow, you either love them or hate them, each to his own, I just find it enlightening to try and understand what makes people tick, what tickles their fancy etc and on the odd occasion there is a debate in the forums that doesn't get locked after a dozen threads that actually perks my interest and allows me a brief insight into the workings of the rational of other members, it's all food for thought in my small volume of knowledge having ventured into the creative world relatively late in life.....

From my perspective the Chapman brothers diorama 'Hell' is a technical tour-de-force, in terms of Jeff Koons' work he has the distinction of creating the largest work in porcelain ever with his 'michael and bubbles', another astonishing technical feat. Ironically, you're in the company of many High-brow art critics in your dislike of this work. There's a sense of barbarians at the gates with these kinds of pieces (when they manage to infiltrate the fine art world) that I enjoy beyond their strictly technical appeal... But then I like comics, pop- surrealism (you know, like the stuff you see in Juxtapoz), etc.

You want to really get an aesthetic ulcer you should check out Koons' basket ball and vacuum cleaner pieces! Perhaps a little derivative of R. Mutt, but I think that's the point...well that and a meditation on the beauty of design in mundane objects, commodity fetishism, and a wink at the fine art world in general.

Maybe the way i am approaching the view of the cg model in the op is from a different angle, and that imho creating realism is more technically difficult to achieve and therefore something to aspire to to learn the intracacies of your chosen medium. I don't know that much about the technicalities of the creations on modern art or the inspiration or motivation for their creation, in my uninformed way, i know what inspires me, what makes me take a second look, what makes me wonder how, rather than why, they did it. I do find that a lot of modern pieces are asking you "why did i do it" rather than "do you like it, does it move you". If I have to compare art to music, i guess I prefer music that is in tune, rather than the modern "classical" that jars every nerve in your body and leaves you screaming "stop turn it OFF"...

ps I like metal, classical, opera, some electronic, rock, blues, as long as it is melodious...

in my younger days i was know to shake my golden locks to motorhead, but maybe appreciation mellows like age........

As for the giant porcelain ornament i will have to agree to disagree with you.......

That's not art. It's just a good carving of a woman on a bed! Technically excellent-no doubt.

Just kidding by the way.

Quote - Here's a little image of a work of art made from a chunk of rock before electricity and computer assisted art came around. Guess what? you can stand in the room with it.

blown away by technique (amongst other things).

Very impressive! Carodan has done some work using Zbrush to create crags and wrinkles on M4 that give an impressive look as well. I do appreciate photorealism. It is art from MY perspective.That said-the skin on the forehead is not QUITE real. I can easily tell it is 3D

Primorge-if no one of us cared about closer approximations-why are we not all using Posette, Dork-or Vitters favorite low poly figures? Evidently most of us want a closer approximation of reality-which brings up the interest in Lux Render-and the Reality plug in.

Does the Stan Lee likeness MOVE me? Well-not so much. But I appreciate the effort.

Quote - had a mornings surfing looking for some inspiration, my muse has left town, at the moment and i came across this link on the CGSociety galleries......

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=1064562&utm_source=cgsociety&utm_medium=cgchoice&utm_term=1064562

It absolutely blew me away, i thought i was looking at a profile pic from a biopic, until i read further........I can't wait to start my new course in the near future..........

"Maybe the way i am approaching the view of the cg model in the op is from a different angle, and that imho creating realism is more technically difficult to achieve and therefore something to aspire to to learn the intracacies of your chosen medium."

You raise an interesting point in that one of the generally accepted norms of art making is the necessity of learning the rules before you can break them. My point is that works like the one you have cited demonstrate a fantastic adherence to the rules but fail to transcend beyond that. Most of the 'masters' of art (and yes, modern art too) have shown in their early works a facility with the rules, it's only later in their oeuvre that they begin to transcend and produce masterpieces.

What?!! You mean this "Art" thing is entirely SUBJECTIVE? Dang! :-)

Ironically, I am seeing a banner for Dreamland Models collaboration with Baggins Bill creating realistic cars on a realistic lighting set bty BB. I went "Ooooh!" http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=459108

Quote - this is one of those debates where there is no wrong and no right answer, no winner nor no loser, it would be singularly stupid and wrong of me to sabotage the debate by personally insulting other posters, so i didn't.  i am more interested in other peoples perceptions than any egocentric desire to come out on top..........

I do enjoy a good discussion.........

Speak for yourself, Eric Walters... I have no interest in trying to make poser act like a high end app. Couldn't care less about Luxrender, Reality, days long renders with trying to perfect every little glistening oil droplet on the edge of every little pore.

I personally like higher poly figures because you can morph them into further unreality, and transform them into something that comes closer to being mine. Until that time where I can develop my skills enough where there is no need for pre-made content (and who knows if that will ever happen) I'm kinda stuck. The dilemma of an artist that enjoys representational, figurative work and is new to the medium of 3d (which frankly is the least purely intuitive medium I've encountered).

...this is kinda like going to a hot dog eating contest and realizing that you dislike hot dogs.

"What?!! You mean this "Art" thing is entirely SUBJECTIVE? Dang! :-)

Ironically, I am seeing a banner for Dreamland Models collaboration with Baggins Bill creating realistic cars on a realistic lighting set bty BB. I went "Ooooh!" http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=459108"

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that good ol' BB has already verbally demonstrated his disdain for the Rendo Poser Forum... It's pretty bad when THE leading Poser photorealist proponent and technician abandons ship, dontcha think.

I think pushing the boundaries of the medium is what makes it fun. I found painting with a knife more technically challenging than painting with an array of brushes designed to do a particular job. In the same way that trying to achieve realistic effects in poser/carrara/ds is in my view more challenging than adding postworked effects. i'm not disputing the skill involved in mastering the other programs, I suppose in one regard i could be considered daft or crazy for trying to achieve or learning to achieve that level of realism in only the one program, how possible it is, is really only decided by the determination of the user to make it do x, or y. Some of this determination on my part is dictated purely by finances, in so much that I cannot afford the high end apps that people so often seem to assume are the stock of us all. I suppose in the same way that painters reuse the same canvas or board several times.

I can understand people who say "OK its a good likeness, but there's no background, no context, " I can even understand those who say "there's no emotion in it", yet, so many great portraits have exactly the same pose, similar background, same facial expression, some night say they are devoid of emotion and are purely the result of an artist fullfilling the demands of his patron, individual points of view that are no less valid than the opposing view, maybe the crux of what makes art so varied and personal in it's followers and viewpoints.

Nice to be free, huh? well sorta free.

...off to Hell (um, I mean work).

It's an absolutely brilliant bit of work, very realistic though you can still tell it's CG. It'a stunning likeness of Stan but it's not a great portrait. My question is, what are they going to do with the skill they've shown? If they're only doing this to show how realistically they can create a CG portrait, it's nice, but so what. If they are not going to apply this skill in some artistic way, it's nothing more than an exercise in adroitness.

Coldrake

“… so many great portraits have exactly the same pose, similar background, same facial expression, some night say they are devoid of emotion …”

Exactly, as I said, portraits are often devoid of that context. My point was that (for me) the skilled painter or photographer working with a living human being can capture something that the digital artist rarely seems to do – even with a human model. It seems that it should be possible The problem may lie more in the viewer than the artist, but then I didn’t invent the term ‘Uncanny Valley.’ It is what it is – at least for those of us left in a state of pre-climactic frustration. People are arguing over whether Kate Middleton’s new portrait looks too old. I haven’t heard anyone say it doesn’t look quite like a real flesh and blood human being. Maybe the problem has been solved. I ran across this while looking for something else as always.

“… This is the first virtual human animated sequence that completely bypasses all my subconscious warnings. I get the feeling of Emily as a person. All the subtlety is there. This is no hype job, it's the real thing ... I officially pronounce that Image Metrics has finally built a bridge across the Uncanny Valley and brought us to the other side.”

I agree that ‘wow’ is an emotional response. Emotion and inspiration are too personal to apply an arbitrary standard emotional response in defining art, so I’m not trying to denigrate. Grasping crudely for articulation … I used to wonder what philosophy students studied for, other than to become philosophy professors. Being awestruck by technical accomplishment is great, if it inspires people to do something [C]reative. If it only inspires them to create another piece of technical wizardry, then we’re back to the endless Mobius loop of whether technique in and of itself is art, i.e. personal and entirely subjective. For me, if ‘wow, that really looks real,’ is my first response, I generally know that’s as far as it’s going to go – engage analytical brain, what render engine, how many texture maps etc. Its like seeing another hot actress or model – oh baby – OK, next. OTOH, there are portraits of long dead, ribbon coifed renaissance princesses that I’ve come perilously close to falling in love with. 

Now, emotional response is predicated, to a degree, on the emotional background (baggage) that the viewer brings to the work. I think that part of mine is anxiety (perhaps age related) about the future brave new digital world. Schools have cut back on art education and there is a notion that the only way to engage young minds is through some flashy, cyber pad interface. Poser, as we all know, was designed as a tool for traditional media artists. Today, I suspect it would mostly be used solely as a digital art tool. There’s nothing wrong with that, but are we headed to a point where one striking feature of the medium (the ability to mimic photographic reality) becomes an end in itself. I’m not worried about the professionals – Disney, Pixar etc. know that it is only a tool in service to the greater goal of storytelling. At the Poser level though, where many people have no formal background in what have always been the foundations of art; I wonder if the pursuit of the best SSS algorithm, the most physically correct shaders etc. may not be taking the place of those fundamentals. I tend to doubt that even the modernists are too obsessed with the angle of the wrist when slinging paint on the wall or the exact formula for the preservative used to embalm the dead cow. Doing CGI definitely requires technique. I suppose I see a potential for it to become like a religion that has lost its basic precepts and only concentrates on the rituals. But that’s just my doddering, semi-senile view. If it inspires folks and keeps them off the streets and my lawn, then it’s a good thing.

Well said.

Emily is definitely impressive. Would like to see more footage, though.

"OTOH, there are portraits of long dead, ribbon coifed renaissance princesses that I’ve come perilously close to falling in love with."

I can second that... there's something about those kinds of rare portraits (which frequently are totally non photorealistic) that have an effect unlike the sort of response you would get from a photograph.

If I owned an original, knowing that she was there when it was done, and molecules of her perfume were probably embedded in the pigment, they might find me wasted away in front of it ÷)

I should make it clear that I’m not opposed to Poser users learning advanced digital technique, nor do I suggest that they have to study art – I’d be out on either one. Both are laudable and probably necessary to being really accomplished. I don’t however think that they are mandatory for the purpose of simply being creative and having fun, whatever the value others may place on the result.

I agree with your comments, Emily is an amazing piece of work, I do feel though that the attempts to create realism within the confines of the one program are far deepr reaching than we first imagine. Taking the example of Poser for example, I wonder in all sincerity how many people have been drawn to it in recent years because of it's advances in shaders, SSS, the application of nodes to create semi realistic materials, If I were to put myself in the shoes of a first time user that wanted a program that was A) not mega expensive B) Versatile C) with a good stock base of content, I think I would be still drawn to poser becuase of exactly these points.

I do believe that the improvements (or not depending on your perspective) have opened the doors to many who otherwise might have skipped cg art entirely in the belief that you needed to master a handful of programs to create something you were proud to put your name to.

Whether much of what is created is art, is a matter for the broader base of users to decide amongst themselves.

I think every piece of art still carries something of the creators personality with it, whether it be a modernist sculpture, cubist painting or mesh figure, I sort of equate it to the human equivalent of the pantone pallette, some use similar shades, others use a more vivid selection, yet each in its' own way becomes an extension of its' creator.

The reason for creating it et al the motivation behind a particular work being created in a particular style are individual to each artists, but the future of it is in my opinion only really of any consequence to the professional artist who hews a living with mallet scarred hands or brush or keyboard calloused fingers or other digits or orifices.

I guess  what I am saying in my usual long winded roundabout way, is that for the majority the future usefulness of any piece matters not if the initial reception of it invokes the kind of discussion we are having, whether it be an exercise in adroitness or just a combination of learned skills displayed well.

Poser was my first experience with 3d so I kind of have a deference to the app... I recall having never even touched a computer and a graphic designer aquaintance of a former girlfriend plopped a Mac G3 down next to my easel. It came installed with Poser 3 and a really early version of photoshop... needless to say my painting took a back seat for a while. Well, that computer eventually went the way of the scrap heap... as did any further pursuits of digital art. It was only many years later that a computer found its way back into my possession.

And... here I am. I have to say though, there was something more spontaneous with the limitations of early Poser and my knowledge of the medium. Now there are so many options to go along with poser that there is more creative pressure to be 'Serious'... if this makes any sense. ZBrush, IDL, etc... sure is a lot different than trying to make posette (or whatever doll that was) look sexy in front of a .jpg of a waterfall.