“… 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.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken