a Poser Poem by Thorne We love our Poser program, we love our Poser toys. We love our Poser girls, And we love our Poser boys! There's just been one small question, Disturbing from the start: We have a lot of Poser stuff, But is it really art? I paid for all the textured props, and heaven only knows Where on the 'net I downloaded My little model's pose! I did not make the Poser girl, Nor did I make her map; In fact while she was rendering, I went and took a nap! At least the hair is post-work, Because I had to pop A prefab hairstyle from a tube I found in PhotoShop. Oh! it looks fantastic! yes, It really turned out great... But not one single element Therein did I create. I bought it all or found it free On websites near and far, I made a fine collage of it, and now I am a star! Perhaps then I might sell my work to my adoring crowd! Too bad the Read-Me text file states: No Commercial Use Allowed. Yet still my art has made me proud; It warms my little heart! But I can't keep from wondering, Is it REALLY art? Just something that I wonder about from time to time... =};-}>

lol!!!

Good one, Thorne!

The question about Poser is open -- I consider my work to be "craft", not "art" -- but there's no question at all that your poem is Art!

printing and framing.

hehe... thanks ;o) Cookie dear... perhaps I was drunk at the time? You know what they say, write drunk, edit sober...

lol! That a great poem! ;)

Mermiam Webter defines art as 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art I've always found "art" to be something special... a painting can be art... a soup can can be art... and so on. Art is purely up to each individual... and the magic lies within that statement. Doug Sturk

Doug, do you mean art is in the eye of the beholder, or the eye of the artist? Andy Warhol tried to say a soup can was art, too. I'm not sure I agree, because it is art imitating life rather than the other way around- which to me is at least a sign (no pun intended) of originality. How much originality then, must a piece contain to be considered the artist's art?

So is our Poser work art? Is a poem Art?! Is a soup can Art? (I'm hungry and tired.) Goodnight.

Yep the mundane wins over the asthetic every single time. YAWN...

Ansel Adams didn't create any of the things he photographed. Hell, he didn't even arrange the scenes or lighting.

sorry to keep replying here so much, but that is an excellent point Jackson! Although perhaps a bit of an argument could be made that he manipulated the lighting somewhat. ;o)

... THAT'S the secret! .......................................... isn't it? ;=]

If I paint a picture with paints I did not make, on a store-bought canvas, and with paintbrushes I borrowed from a friend then the final product would still be art. It might not be good art or it could be incredibly moving. A musician plays music that was written by someone else, arranged by another person, and conducted by yet another. It is how the musician takes what is given to himhis palette if you willand plays it. So, the artist's tools may not be of his own creation and that doesn't matter. It's what he does with the tools that makes the art.

This question has always bugged me when it has popped up here:) My opinion is yes it is "art" by the definition, and though I would never refer to myself as an 'artist' I'd say I'd perform the same functions, just as everyone who uses poser or bryce or another 3d program to create nice images or animations for others. Without the input of my mind, imagination and limited skill those props and textures would never become anything, well at least not to me or my audience. True most of us aint Picasso's but hey in my opinion his work isn't art either. I've seen kids who can color better :)

To Art or not to Art, that is the question. hmmmmnnnn :o)

I ate the soup you've mentioned here It contained a lot of stuff I was asked: "Do you want more, my dear?" I said: "No thanks, I really had enough..." Then later in the day it was That my stomach began to roar Unclear to me was then the cause But it all became so sore... Then finally it was set out free And there was this exploding fart The sound and odour was created by me... But.... is THAT really art? :-) Just could not resist... sorry! :-) But I'm not thinking lightly of the whole matter. I have mentioned it before, but if my kids draw a picture it might not be a Rembrandt, but for them it's the highest form of art. And when I see how much work they have put in it I consider it art also. Art is a form of expression, nothing more and nothing less. There are no standards or rules to live up to. Art is art and you set your own rules!!! Even pornography is art, although many people will consider is as garbage, I don't like it either. But still millions of people are turned on by it. And that's the thing about other art forms also... it needs to "turn you on". What must be done then? Set standards for what's considered to be art? Who should judge? It's not a competition in which you can set height, time, length etc. as a goal. It's not some article for which you can set standards for safety, usage etc. Art is still free... let it be! Finest regards, Johnnie...

Is art art or not? Hey who knows. Its art if you say its art. I remember seeing a TV programme about the building of the Tate Modern. Just prior to opening the gallery mamagement were snagging the building. Imagine my amusement to see these twits discussing whether the planks of wood stacked in one corner were builders leftovers or one of their displays, or whether that stone bench was for sitting one or an artists "Art". If you want it to be art then just say "Hey cant you see what it is I`m trying to say? " B)

Attached Link: http://fairygoodtime.com

Good one Thorne :-) What is art? Art is all you do, to share your personal fantasys and illusions with others. Music, pictures, words, photos, ... all this is only to try sharing your own personal feelings. If other people can feel what you want to say, then you have created real art. Robert

In the year 2002 we can measure the weight, density, length, width, volume, shape and mass of tissue...but how do we measure the soul or the life within the tissue? Likewise, we can measure the texture map, the mesh, the postwork, but how much of each do we need to transform the elements into something unique. The artist is an alchemist working with the components relative to each other and themselves to create something different from its parts. Black added to white creates grey, in grey we see neither black or white but only the grey...likewise a texture map added to a model added to a mesh-morph or a pose becomes art when we no longer see the texture map, the mesh-morph or pose but see the combination as something different....

Art ?, When I get something even slightly good looking out of Poser I consider it a miracle !! But. I agree with the post above, when I can see what you intend for me to see, that is succesful " art ".

Taking elements and manipulating them to your vision is art. Craft is a very misunderstood word and is deemed as lesser than art when in fact it ist the individual process by which art or anything else is created. Craft suggests a practiced art, where the artist has refined their process. The ancient world understood this better as everything they made was seen as art and decorated accordingly. It was the advent of machinery that took the idea of art out of the creation process because man/woman was taken out of the process. Computers have brought man back in to the process because we are not die casting, but working hard to individualize the materials given. Why else would Mike2 have so many morphs? Each of us has a style even if we have started with the same materials, thus we are again artists. The funny part here is that in other definitions of art, fine art is usually considered art without practical application or function (painting, sculpture) and crafts is art with practcal function (clothing, furnature design}. In that case we are fine artists.

"How much originality then, must a piece contain to be considered the artist's art? " The 'art' in Warhol's soup can was manifested in his ability to get us to look differently at the things around us

I cannot answer Thorne's question even to my own satisfaction, and the replies above were truly wonderful. I always think of myself as "the director" when I am working on a Poser scene. I see a computer generated image as being like a film. The director uses actors and writers, designers and technicians to express her/his vision; to actualize it. The "artistic" part comes in, I believe, when the first inspiration comes to us of the picture we wish to create; the emotion we wish to express. Yes, a lot of craft and sometimes luck go into the finished product. But even with the exact same poses, models, textures, etc. at our disposal, all of us will choose to acquire different ones, and will combine them differently, with different post-processing. We each have a different style. If self expression is art, if bringing diverse elements together in order to make a conscious visual statement is art, then yes, it is art, I think.

I shudder whenever I hear someone dismissing another person's work as " non-art " There are many things wrong with this.. However much, or little, talent an individual has.. what you are seeing is "their" art. It may not be as good as yours.. but it is them, expressing a vision.. and it then becomes a big part of "them". To insult it is to insult them. I don't mean, pointing out ways to improve certain areas.. that is fine. I mean condemning them as 'non-artists'. Isn't it possible that the most beautiful piece of art on this entire site was 'merely posed' by someone who created none of the models, textures, etc.? I admire modelers very much.. but don't condemn others simply because this is not their area of expertise. Many times this stops people in their tracks. They give up pursuing their artistic visions. Maybe they would have evolved into an artist who even you would have admired? Maybe their work is already great.. and we're just not advanced enough to realize it, as has happened with so many great artists, in history? Or maybe they really did suck.. but they derived pleasure from 'trying'... and sharing their efforts with you? Who are we to crush this part of their 'being' ?

I like sparrowheart's comparison. The writer, actors, set and props departments, lighting director, sound engineer, composer, costuming, makeup, etc. produce the actual pieces of a film. Most directors do none of this. But without a doubt they produce art. Much of it pedestrian, some of it great. The question is should the director claim/be given credit for it all? At our scale, we can have people who do it all - from building the models, painting maps and editing files, to arranging, lighting and rendering the scene or animation. No one excells at doing everything involved; most don't attempt to. I've always had a fairly liberal definition of art as attempting to creatively realize a vision that goes beyond the simple assembly of the obvious components (craft). We surely disagree on where Poser stops being simple assembly and becomes art, but most of us have seen, recognized and been inspired by it.

what says the Wolf on this matter????? i remember first the days of elementary school.......we cut various pictures from magazines, glued them all together in a manner pleasing to the eye, and it was called art.....one day, years later, there were those who scavenged the junkyards for just the right pieces of scrap metal......they were welded, beaten and formed into great hulking monsters of form and grace, and it was called art.........i think that no matter where the pieces come from or who originally creates them, having the vision, as gryffnn has stated, to take those pieces and realize that vision is the mark of an artist.........and that's all i have to say about that.........

It is interesting to see how the question itself is perceived. Welcomesite seems to take it as bashing but I assure you it was not meant that way, and it is a legitimate concern I have had. Contrary to the idea that is is putting others down, it is a humbling thought to me to realize that whatever I am doing, I am standing on the shoulders of giants as it were. Paints and brushes don't count, neither do microprocessors or cathode ray tubes.

But then the fact that someone can stipulate "No Commercial Use Allowed" REMOVES my finished piece from the realm of being exclusively "MY" art, and implies rather strongly that the IMAGE of the model, texture map, etc. in question as I have used it in my picture still belongs to the creator of said item. Therefore if anyone has that power over my picture, to dictate whether I can sell it or not, it is no longer my art, but a collective work of everyone involved. Suppose the canvas maker or the company that puts the paint in the little tubes made that kind of conditional requirement on their products? Again I am not making any judgement calls here or saying it is right or wrong, just bringing the ideas out for discussion and throwing in my 47 cents worth to boot. Cheers! =};-}>

The ancient world understood this better as everything they made was seen as art and decorated accordingly. It was the advent of machinery that took the idea of art out of the creation process because man/woman was taken out of the process. Computers have brought man back in to the process because we are not die casting, but working hard to individualize the materials given. << Wonderful point. In fact, the whole world of work and learning has started to recover from the time-clock-punching industrial era; we are quickly returning to the 1700's, when work and life were more unified and less regimented. >> The funny part here is that in other definitions of art, fine art is usually considered art without practical application or function (painting, sculpture) and crafts is art with practcal function (clothing, furnature design}. In that case we are fine artists. << But what I produce is illustrations and animations for college "courseware" (interactive textbooks). Doesn't that fall into the zone of practical function, rather than art-to-be-enjoyed? (That's why I consider myself a craftsman, not an artist.)

Oh dear Ockham, if it were only so! What has happened is that everything is now a "superstore" i.e., it is part of a soulless corporation or worldwide conglomerate. Well in that sense we are returning to feudal times when everything was owned by a few, and everyone else was dependent on the mercy, goodwill, or lack thereof of those few. It is the downside of capitalism, which word with its implications of "Money is God, God is Money" still gives me the shivers. Love your Razor btw, and I use it often... (teehee)

Art can be practical... in ancient times, it usually was (from pots to fountains, etc.) My Jeep, which is hevily customized and even decorated, is considered art to me, even though I couldn't cast a single piston, let alone build/design the rest of the engine or body. The orient has always had an interesting take on others' work and art... some oriental cultures consider using others' work in their own to be a form of flattery and praise towards the original artist (so long as due credit is strictly maintained, of course.) In many Japanese art venues, restrictions on further use would be anathema to the very concept of art. A sensory experience that invokes emotion, be it for good or ill. The stronger the emotional reaction, the better the artwork is. So what if it was more assembled than carved from raw block? That in and of itself is part of the appreciation: An original image built entirely from scratch (character model, structure, backgrounds, etc.) gets a far stronger sense of appreciation from me than one whose artist parks 'Vicki in a Temple', slaps on a couple of clothing items, and doesn't even bother to pose the character uniquely, set the lighting, set overall color, or anything else. Art, being subjective, is all a matter of degree with me. /P

Art? When you do it, probably. When I do it, I doubt it, but it certainly can look good! I was up 'till 2am last night mucking about with poser, (first time in months :) Experimenting with my new toy (maxxed out my laptop's RAM) It's a group shot, and it's fairly easy on the eye :) But is it art? Hardly... :) later jb

P.S. Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts on this subject. It has certainly given me some fresh ideas to ponder. And that is why although we have had this discussion before, it will always be open to interpretation and there will always be a new perspective from which to view this interesting subject. Thank you all again! Thorne =};-}>

I love my Poser paintings; No need to wipe hands on my shirt. But is it worse or better Than a scribbling in the dirt? To the child who draws a cloud, His "art" is not just toys. It sets free his emotions, Like Loneglyph's dumb Stick Boys. Who's to say it's art or not, Or Posers are all phonies? Or armored Vickys are more valid Than Magical Pink Ponies? Pink Pony made me laugh, And Loneglyph's Stick Boy made me cry. If Poser art can evoke that, Then why do you ask why? If Leonardo were alive, He'd clap us on the back For keeping art and love alive, Not for the skills we lack. If you and your art are quite good, Then your art's quite a sight. But if you suck like me and mine, Then suck with all your might. Art's not about the pose or lights Or controlling your paint splatters. Our joys and hates and laughs and woes-- That's all that really matters. So focus not on texturing Or the angle of your strokes. :) Instead, believe in life and love And the feeling it evokes. Then post your art and dust your hands, Turn and hug your neighbor. And look through all the art techniques At the love put in the labor.

well said, Sgt.

Amen.

My art is my life and my lifelong passion, and Poser art is not the only art I do. ;o) Different strokes for different folks my friend. =};-}>

What other kinds of art do you do Thorne? [just curious]

geez geep ya puttin' me on the spot? sculpture, charcoal, pen and ink, watercolors, and best of all my piano, which I have been playing since age 8. (Not the same one.) you know, all that "artsy" stuff. ;o) Oh and crayons and chalk on the sidewalk. Can't forget those.

These last comments made me stop and think about the difference between my Poser work and the other art I do. Batik, painting, drawing... My other work seems to show my more primative side in subject matter and technique. I guess I need the balance of the two. I will tell you that drawing and painting hair is much easier than creating it here in Poser and it never suddenly leaps 10 feet above my characters head because I accidentally touched the wrong button. (Will I ever learn not to do that?) Some people need to give themselves alot more credit than they do. This is all art. Oh, and in the list of credit to "real" artist's works, you forgot that pee in a jar has been displayed as the serious work of one "artist".

you forgot that pee in a jar has been displayed as the serious work of one "artist" It was actually a Crucifix in a jar that contained urine, and if I remember right, the piece was called "Piss Christ". I didnt get to see it when it was on display, but a friend of mine did, and he said the curious thing was watching the reactions to it -- after being suitably outraged by it, several patrons went back to other, more inaccessible pieces and tried to figure out if those were supposed to be inflamatory as well. In other words, it made them look at art more closely... which, in a way, is terribly ironic.

Your right VirtualSite. Funny, I'd forgotten about the crucifix. The point I was making is that art is subjective in all it's forms - what does it mean or express for the artist and what does it mean or express to me? Some art is very memorable, but whether it is good or bad isn't the point, art just is. In this particular case, the artist didn't make the jar or the crucifix as far as I know. As for the urine, yes he made that as most of us do freely and regularly. It was assembled and envoked a reaction from viewers, the artist included. It is art. So why question whether work done in poser is art just becase it is assembled? The trickier part of the question has to do with the ability or inability to profit from the assemblage of freebies as artists usually can do. If credit is given and the copywrtten parts are not accessable, I don't see the problem, particularly if anyone can download for free the same parts. Maybe those who don't want others to profit from their work with out some payment to the creator should charge upfront. This would surely cut down on the avaiable freebies, but would end the issue of when free isn't really free. I don't know, just a thought.

But now I look and my post is gone.

Well gee Doc post it again! Maybe it timed out while you were composing your response? It used to be my attitude that technical excellence was everything- this because I got tired of looking at really BAD work being touted as wonderful art. Oh yeah, well the medium is the message... that puts a different spin on it entirely. I make no bones about it- my work is intended to be illustration, and all my artist heroes- Maxfield Parish, Norman Rockwell, Brian Froud, and many others are or were illustrators, which is given a different meaning than "fine Art". I suppose if Leonardo had put the Mona Lisa on a wheaties box it would have been considered illustration too, but I'm not sure.

Well, Thorne, I did post it pretty late last night (or so I thought), and I was dog-tired...It was some bit of doggerel like this: If magic ponies make you mad please stop a bit and think is it just the pony or is the viewer pink??

Now, ....... THAT'S good!!! ;=]

I'll be damned - Maxfield Parrish is among my favorite artists! When I put together an Unreal Tournament CTF map called Suicidal Pride (it was a 3/4 scale model of RMS Titanic, and it's still available at planetunreal.com), I couldn't find any authentic period artwork, so I used Parrish's art instead to decorate the ship. The results were better than I had ever anticipated. /P

He was simply awesome in his use of color and the background details, and subjects of course. He painted a lot of faerie tale scenes on magazine covers, as you know. The music video by Enya entitled "Shepherd Moons" contains several works inspired by Parish, particularly the waltz "Carribean Blue", which is a visual treat of Parrish paintings come alive! (And yes, there are FAERIES in it!)