This bit of wonderment has been running through my mind lately.

With all the wonderful characters, objects, and the multitude of accompanying textures and poses for them - coupled with the software that allows us to place them just so & add lighting, shadows, & other effects - can many of us justifiably call ourselves 'artists'? Whenever I work on something, I more likely than not feel like I've just rearranged a room. Yeah, I'm the one who put the couch here and hung that picture there and put that plant on that end table, but what hits me is that I'm not the one who created the objects.

Does anyone else here think the same?

Oh my. This again -- BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES!!!!! LOL -- okay, I know exactly what you mean. Whether it's someone else's work or my own, and all I can see is a laundry list thanking everyone from Anton to God for this or that or the other, I start to wonder... Okay, what did I do? Anything? Just arrange them into some "vision" and call it my own? That's one reason why I'm so reluctant to put anything beyond the "Backstage" stuff into the galleries. Unless I've really worked with a character and done something to make it utterly mine, I feel like I'm stealing somehow. I'm not really doing anything, just shoving this here and conforming that there. It's InstaArt, just add water, serves 6. But that's just me. Others will -- and you can depend on this -- think otherwise.

LOL, you know I have as many 3d models as I like given to me by Mike, and no matter what other models I get, it is up to me to make a composit that includes or excludes them...sometime I feel like you, until I ask Mike to try to come up with a composit and he just sits here in wonderment. Mike is a creator of 3D models, his own designs and imagination, gives them to you all and me and we compose a scene from our imaginations and our own talent, and you must not think of yourself as not an artist because you are a creator. You do the work, you put it together, you are the artist....some people can't composit, some people can't model, some people can't do either....we are all here because we are a few people in the world that love this, it is a passion for many here, including me, looking for acceptance through our work and art and passion, if you add all the people in the world we are only a few. A gentle man posted a simple picture here a few weeks ago, everything in his picture was made by someone else, but he put it together and it touched my heart, just the look, added a light and created a beautiful scene. That is art, that special touch. You are an artist, creator and composer. Sharen

What are you trying to do, get the Poser forum shut down? But seriously, it's a great question, one that we can only ultimately answer for ourselves. I think context matters, and concept (are you just arranging things so they look nice, or is there some interesting, ulterior motive behind it all?), and originality--making the image not about the props and textures and lighting, avoiding content that's easy or sentimental or cliched. But that's just my .02-worth.

If u think so maybe moddel some yourself with 3dmax rhino or lightwave or something cinema4d !! otherwise grab a pencil and paper ... that is what U and only U made then otherwise .... i havent got a problem with it .. ;)

That's like saying a modern artist isn't an artist because someone else made his/her paints, brushes & canvas. Like saying Steven King isn't an author because he uses a store-bought typewriter & paper. Like saying those who model meshes aren't creative because they bought the computer & software. A composition in poser can be bland, trite, banal, or startling, stirring, moving. I've always felt that if any creative act or object communicates a change of state, a response, an emotion between the originator and an observer, it should be considered art. It's the RESPONSE that counts. Where the materials came from doesn't matter, it's how they're USED. Perhaps I don't express myself as clearly as I wish, but this is my honest & heartfelt belief. Render On!

You're doing yourself an injustice. Is a photographer just a technician because they merely press a shutter release. Of course not, they select the subject, viewpoint, lighting and exposure to create the image they want. Using Poser to create images is no less valid. So there :o) Baz

I do two different kinds of art, and I generally switch back and forth between the two. I do what I call "doodles" where I am working out something, such as lighting, or a pose, or a certain combination of clothing, trying out a postwork technique, or beta testing. Those pictures are usually made up entirely of someone else's work. All I have done is compile elements together and postwork it. Those images satisfy me after I finish doing something long and involved. Nine times out of ten my "doodles" turn into something bigger. I just posted a "geisha" doodle to my gallery, and the process of making it gave me a ton of ideas for a full blown scene. In a week or two, I will probably re-visit my ideas when I am ready for a bigger project.

The long and involved images take a lot of work and thought for me, even if they are made up of elements by other people. My Bryce images are almost exclusively of the long and involved type. =) In those cases, there is a workflow involved that takes hours or sometimes days because I am a perfectionist. Scene composition, lighting, texturing, and rendering takes about half the time, and postwork takes the other half--or more. My most recent piece took 30 hours to complete, not counting 9 hours of render time. Then I did my fun little 45 minute geisha doodle as a cool-down. Are my doodles art? Not really.. but I learn something every time I do one.

At timew I'm a hack and at times I'm not. I rarely however use premade stuff exclusivly in my images. I most often create the textures I am using, Model my fare share of items. And the lighting and compose the scene myself. If using object that others have created is not art, then Photography is not art, A still life or a sceneic painting in not art. As they mimic or reproduce real live objects. If you must, think of yourself as a virtual photographer. As in real photography you have your subjects and arrange them and frame the photo then take the shot. Photography can and it considered art, so there is nothing wrong with what we do. Only the tools are different. although in my oppinion a person who works with the primitive tools like a brush and paint are the true artists. If we were to use the origional vreation of a image as being the measuring stick, the only abstract or comtemporary are would qualify as they have no resembence to any natural or man made object.

Lucy_Fur, I've had the same thoughts you do. But at the same time I also realize that my ideas are really the art. I am just using Poser and the models as a means to create that image. The props, figures, etc are just tools. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone who makes those objects. They are not easy to make and can be time-consuming to construct. Bless the modelers. However, it is what you do with them, your ideas, and the message you are trying to communicate that make art. Anyway I am sure someone will add a point I hadn't thought of and blow my whole theory. :)

Wow! 3 people posted at nearly the same second I did! Lot of strong feeling on this subject!

Leather-guy - I disagree with you on the breakdown of things into their base components of paint, brushes, paper, typewriter, mesh creation software, etc. G That's not what I meant. These are the tools with which to actually create - I'm talking about using premade items like Vicky & Mike & their derived characters, objects like furniture, buildings, and other props that have been made and textured by other ppl.

pnevai - I think you got it for me - like photography (which I do a bit of G) - setting up a scene that conveys a vision in one's mind or capture a point of view. Thank you hugs

And thank you all who have (so far) responded :) Tis good to get other points of view on which to ponder.

Bingo Baz. Ditto Leather guy! The art IS in the composition. ... and the photographer comparison is perfect. I see very few subjects in photography that were created by the photographer, but I see a lot of art in photography. What the photographer creates, or for that matter any artist, is 'a composition'. The tools and skills merely vary with the medium. ...

Yeah luce, if you just plop stuff onto a scene yeah it ican be art but you arent really an artist, more of a director. Sure Jerry Bruckheimer and George Lucas make great stuff, but are they masters of the arts? I am an artist, but thats cause I create stuff from scratch, using very little premade.

True. Leonardo didn't make his own brushes, paints, and canvases, after all. Oh wait, he did ....

Not sure myself... I've gotten to where I can (and do) build pretty much all of the image with my own computer - Props, scenes, backgrounds, and (hopefully) soon, characters. I also make it a point to morph and mold characters into something I had in mind, instead of sticking in the stock character... IMHO, a good character should be able to withstand such molding and morphing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against using others' freely granted work as a base, and I do purchase quite a bit in the store when I feel the want to do so. OTOH, I tend to get more satisfaction from an image made entirely from components I've built myself. As for the question of Artist vs. Composer, let me pose a question for you: If the whole purpose of art is to tell a story with a given media, then what lack of art is there when someone builds and renders an image made from parts others have built, and merely arranged so as to tell that story in the best way possible? /P

Well if you think of it..... many "Artists" devise their images from real world physical aspects.... Ex. Da Vinci, one of the world's greatest engineers and artists of his time, IMHO, painted the Mona Lisa from an actual person. In essence to couches and such ... the "Arranging a room" is a form of art as it is an expression of the artist. As to the arts of painting, sculpting, etc... yes it is very different but is still a form of art as to it expresses the emotions, thoughts, etc.. of the creator in a graphical/pictorial manner.

So in my opinion, is digital graphics a form of art and are we that make these graphics artists. I would have to say yes to both. I'm not sure how most people design their images, but I try to put my heart and soul into the image as I did with my latest image in my gallery (Titled "Sadness") That image made me depressed while I was making it.

To me, a good poser artist is someone who doesn't allow the limits of the program to restrict their vision. If Vicki won't bend that way, or no one made the right kind of hair, or none of your light sets QUITE work, the poser artist will work around those limitations with her own imagination and creativity, whether that means making her own morphs or solving the problems in postwork. I view Poser and Bryce as tools to make creating the types of images I like easier; digital art is much less expensive in the long run than traditional media. ONE art class (drawing, no painting) cost me 420 dollars in materials for 12 weeks. I can't imagine spending an amount like that every 12 weeks to keep myself supplied. =)

yeah, he based it off real things but he put it onto canvas. otherwise it would be some image in his mind long decayed, and she would be a body in a grave

In the poser world, to me, a person's imagination is what makes him an artist. There can be 50 million Vicki and Michaels floating around out there but what a person does with them is art. I can't draw or paint worth a flip but I think I do have a good imagination. I strive to at least, even though using the wonderful materials provided that I could NEVER make, change things to show people the "me". Poser has allowed me to make graphics I could never other wise make. And yes, I give vredit where credit is due but I still say I made this! LOL

For me, Art is impossible to describe. To say that using poser to create images is not art, is like saying that using a camera, or an electrical musical instrument is not art. What matters is what is done with the tools available to you. Perhaps you make pretty images that come close to photographic quality. Whether those images are art depends on what those images convey, and how effective they are at conveying their message, regardless of how you strung those particular pixels together. I spend little time in the galleries. Mostly, because there are too many pictures, and the web doesn't always behave very responsively; so I get bored and move on to something else. But when I do browse the galleries, I always encounter at least one image that makes me pause. Those pictures are more than a bunch of colorful lights. They convey something personal to me. That is what art is about, regardless of the tools used to create it. eric

Interior designers are considered artists. Do they actually create something in the room? Not usually. They have the artistic ability to arrange things just so... to use this shade of paint, to use this furniature. They also get paid quite a bit to do it. Yes... I am a Poser user... and yes, I consider myself a Poser artist. Not everyone does. But who cares... I can finally start putting form to the limitless visions flashing thru my skull like some twisted strobe light.

I feel the same as Leather-guy. I look back at my crappy first images then look at the stuff I'm coming up with now and yes, I feel it's considered art. It's not as good as some but it's mine and it's improving all the time.
Not everyone with the same tools will produce the same type of image at the same quality.

Interior designers are considered artists Only by themselves... =)

Interior designers are considered artists
Only by themselves... =)

And the people who hire them!

Ooops...here goes the Poser forum. Mosca...you rat...YOu know the pink pony, and fluffers helped just as much as my thread on "Show and Tell"... There is alot of sameness in the Poser gallery. All of you are making good points. But, how many Shardes in close to default poses must one look at? We have an awesome number of tools at our disposal, in this wonderful world of cg art. Yet, in my not so humble opinion, i see so many renders that focus on the "item", or "items" being displayed. this is opposed to focusing on the creativity of the individual artist. with all the v2 and m2 morphs available, all the textures, all the props, scenes, and poses....well, all the sameness in the gallery makes me wonder about who is creative.... creative, to me, is having a story in my head...FEELING something special. i get disheartened with the poser gallery.... AND THEN...AND THEN....Someone like davidho blows me away with their display of talent. Or, SkoolDaze, in the Bryce gallery. Go figger. Pop...Pop...Poppi oh, yeah....God, if you are listening....Please, bring back my c&d.

OK, here's my take on this topic. You are an artist, because the story you're telling with your image is strictly your own. You might not have created the objects or the textures, but the story you're telling with your image is yours. Only you can put in the emotion and the spirit of the image. The objects don't do that, they just add the environment to aid the feeling that you're putting into the image. Art is more than just the picture, it's the feeling and the meaning that you're put into it. That's where the art is. In the composition, not the elements that were used in it. There are some people who can't compose to save their lives. I know people who couldn't arrange an image no matter what they did, yet there are folks here in the forums who create images that are just astounding. That's where the art is, not in the objects, but in the image itself and the passion that inspired the image. So, yes, Lucy, count youself an artist. Melanie

Ok this might call for a test :) Why not let someone pick a few items from the free stuff area, everyone do an Image and see what happens :) Some may look alike but there will be some that are a lot different. Art is what the individual conceives in his mind. So anyone game? Let Lucy Fur, pick maybe 3 items, everyone download them, give an image size to work with and see what happens :)

That sounds like fun to me.

Sounds cool... I'm in :) /P

Some of us make art, some of us just play. Take a look at the gallery of Heart'Song and compare it to mine. She's an Artist, I'm just playing. The difference is clear and immediate. -WTB

Now we need someone to Pick the items :)

Same here. Who picks the items?

(Very very off-topic) (The Mona Lisa is a self-portrait)

In 1960, Director Alfred Hitchcock made a movie called PSYCHO.

You remember: Janet Leigh in the shower, Norman Bates, the old creepy house on the hill...

A couple of years ago, Universal Studios decided to remake Hitchcock's movie. But not just remake. Their idea was to reproduce the veteran director's film as closely as possible.

To that extent they intentionally copied (filmed) every line of dialogue, every scene, every camera angle, and every editing choice exactly as had been done by Hitchcock in the 1960 version. The only differences being that the cast--of very good actors--was different, it was shot in color, and Hitchcock didn't direct it.

The result: Hitchcock's original is still a classic, and the remake is a piece of crap.

The reason: artistry...

Cave drawings from 10,000 years ago is art. The tools the cave people used were rocks. Not so long ago we have paint and canvas, and there was art. Computers came along, and we have electronic art. 100 years into the future, who knows. The tools are different, the creativity is still there. Art, is still subjective. If you have an audience or critics, you've got art. Here is a definition in the dictionay: Art = The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. NOTICE the word ARRANGEMENT I rest my case. Happy Rendering!! Joey V

Bravo Joey :)

"See through me, this land of Khohl, that warms the touch of my hand." Pharoah Ahkenaten - Heretic During the reign of Ahkenaten the Heretic, Egypt's art prospered due to his almost extreme patronism of the artists, and reached it's highest levels of achievement ever, as is illustrated most notably by the Bust of his second wife, Queen Nefertiti that most are familiar with. I think these words describe how I, a modeller and texture maker, mere creator of tools feels about the art some of you make from what I have created. Through your hands and eyes, your inner vision, imagination, and sense of design, I then become an artist. I thank you :)

"OK, here's my take on this topic. You are an artist, because the story you're telling with your image is strictly your own."

But what of images that don't tell a story? What of images that tell a SHORT story, like "She took a shower", "She's fondling herself", or "She's standing naked holding a sword"?

What ratio of style vs content determines what is art?

"Here is a definition in the dictionay: Art = The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."

That's a very broad definition. By that definition, EVERYTHING could be art from a Bacon Cheeseburger assembled from various ingredients to create a "beautiful" sandwich, to the "Happy Meal" box it comes in. It also presents the narrow idea that art must be "beautiful", which is a subjective term. YOU might think the Venus Di Milo is beautiful; Ted Bundy might think a dead coed with her head stove in is beautiful. I can only assume the writer of that definition meant "aesthetically pleasing by popular standards", which is also crap because those standards are artificially created and foisted upon us by those who taught us what we should "like" and what's "pretty".

Art is not always pretty. Sometimes, it's downright gruesome. Sometimes it makes us laugh or cry. I'd guess the person who wrote that definition isn't an artist at all...but then again, if the writer assembled that definition from words, technically it validates ITSELF as a work of art.

If you go by that specific definition, then YES, you're an artist. But does that really mean jack squat?

I'm so in on pokeydots idea... this isn't really related to whether or not we, as poser users, are artists, but the whole idea is interesting... As far as, "Am I an Artist"? goes... shrug who knows... I make pictures that I like... I don't really consider myself an artist, but others have told me differently... this argument has been had before... people say you're not an artist if you're making your image with poser (or whatever application), because you didn't make the figure, and you didn't make the clothing, and you didn't make the props... well... did the painter make the canvas? The paint? If it's a portrait, did they make the person they're painting? Landscape? Sunset? Poser is the canvas... the figures are the paint... YOU are the painter...

Hmmm, I think Ima gonna go find a cave and some rocks and start carving Vicky and Michael on the walls and invite Mr. Squat to view the finish work Hehehe :)

Okay, off topic, but still....... Some years ago, I lived in SF and was a member of a motorcycle club called the Barbary Coasters. We were a fun group, and on occasion we'd have "movie nights", which was usually an excuse to rent some S/M or leather-oriented porno flick and have a few laughs before heading out to the bars. Okay, so on this one particular night, Steve (my now long-gone mate -- RIP, buddy) and I shared one highly excellent joint before heading out to "movie night". By the time we arrived at the host's loft, we were quite thoroughly and pleasantly stoned. So the movie starts. Black screen. Pretentious voice over: "I am the artist. You are the canvas, Together we paint... (and titles up at this point) THE BLACK CANVAS." Then underneath, in this terribly elegant script: "The Dungeons of Europe" -- at which point Steve looks up and giggled, "Oh #@&%$! It's a &%#@(&#; travelogue!" -- which, of course, set both us screaming with laughter as everyone is watching this oh so serious s/m film. We were, natch, thrown out. But to this day, any variation on that phrase causes me to giggle. Thanks, Cin-, for the memory..... =)

Well, Lucy, Picasso didn't make the couch either before he painted it, did he? My view on this is simple: It's the impression the image makes in the mind of the viewer that counts, not the process to make the image.

The people using this software are combining the skills of a photographer, interior designer, and graphic designer. Many of them are also adding sculptor and fashion designer. If it isn't art then there's a lot of professions in the art world that have something to answer for as well...

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=133907&Start=1&Artist=jenay&ByArtist=Yes

the real artist wants to tell a story - he is creative and arranges things in a new way and order (whether selfmade stuff or free or bought ones) - i am quite happy with all the freestuff - there are phanatstic things around there :) i love using them. then comes the time i wanted to create my own stuff, be creative as mentioned above. so i am learning with 3d modellers and so on. but i know - my creative capabilites are restricted - there are things i can do very well - other which are impossible for me. so i decide to use or buy that stuff i can't do myself. that's ok. instead of struggeling in wasting time for things i can't do myself i use my time to be creative and use things other people created. but i am still learning (if i find time) to get better and better in modelling. here is a small picture i created with collected stuff (only few things are made by myself) - i must admit: the idea of this pic is not new (in fact i saw a similar scene on a poser anyhwere) - but i wanted to interpret it for my self - make it better ... posted this one some weeks age - but i think is is very suitable for this discussion ...

NightWatch by Rembrandt ARMOUR by Klink Armory, PIkes by Ralph Armory, WOMEMS CLOTHING by Harriets Clothing, MENS CLOTHING by Williams Weskets, DOG by Barks Breeders, DOG COLLAR by Doggone Inc, LAMPS by HiLit, BUILDING DESIGN by House of Houses, COBBLESTONES by Stony, JEWELS by Sparkle Plenty, SHOES by Poorsole, etc, etc, etc. That old compositor just used all the canvas for credits, no room left to paint the picture.

hi ron, must post this addtion: that's true: there are so many half nude temple girls around here and there - but i love them all! that's my kind of vision i have: to create ancient mythic realms, rich of colors, textures, beautiful girls, magicians and warriors. in my teenage years i had this visions, i wrote phantasy stories and painted (but never was able to paint human bodies well enough, i was only good in architectural monuments and landscapes.) poser now gives me the first time the means to create scenes i ever dreamed before. it's a phantastic tool and my favorite hobby at time (i am not a graphic professional...) i am not so much interested in creating everyday scenes... (ok: i admit: temple scenes, pillars, and so on could become boring - but you could use these sets for your own stories as environments...) love this discussion :)

I don't necessarily think a piece has to tell a story to be great art, but I will admit that my favorite pieces in my own work tend to convey something.. an emotion or a small piece of a story. These are also the pieces that few people look at or comment on here in the gallery. I am fine with that. I make art for me. If others like what I have done, great! If not, that's also great, because the hours I spent making something look the way I wanted it to brings me a peace that no other endeavor can or does.

Okay, no one else seems to be picking the items, so I will... Look for it in another thread, and what the hell, I'll make it a contest of my own! So there! 8-P~~~~~~~~

I'm too lazy to read all of this innane nonsense... here's my devils advocate counter question. If you don't consider a poser user an artist... then you also don't consider any Photographers to be artist either, after all, all they do is take a picture. Ansel Adams must be rolling in his grave by now. (I'm being sarcastic) Doug

Well, if we want to address that... Adams was not only a master of composition, he also used the negative to selectively increase and decrease the contrast in any given area of an image. It wasn't just point and click, since, as he himself said, his real work didn't really even begin till he got in that darkroom. No doubt we have many very good Poser artists out there. We also have what I could consider extremely good craftsmen. But at the same time, as Poppi points out, we also have a lot of people who slap one from column A with one from column B, hit the render, and call it "art" -- which it ain't. Sorry if that busts anyone's bubble, but it just ain't. Art means you put something of yourself into it, not just an opportunity to show off your ability to mix and match accessories. Someone pointed out that interior designers are considered artists, even though they don't make the furniture, and sometimes that's true. A good ID can create a mood in a space, improve a room's traffic patterns, disguise a construction problem -- in other words, work with the materials at hand. But someone who just slaps together a room isn't an artist, sorry. We really use the term "artist" much too broadly around here, folks. Way too broadly. If you put your Vicky in a default pose and slap a few pieces of armour on her, then shove that into a ready made temple set, don't expect me to consider you an artist by a long stretch. You may know how to cook, but that don't make you an Iron Chef.