Attached Link: http://www.dynagrind.com

It's different.. sure enough. The question gets brought up every few weeks.. I'd take a look back a bit :grins: this opens a can of worms as wide as the grand canyon though. Thank you for your generosity, though! a million hits! Wow! Anz

Attached Link: http://www.dynagrind.com

It's the final render that counts, not the tools when it comes to creating art IMO.

Even with saying that, I'm reluctant to use other people's meshes in my own work and if I do they are greatly modified.

-Jeff

I look at Poser as just another tool to create art. Even using someone elses meshes, objects, etc. you still are creating your own original art. If you were to make a collage using items from a magazine, leaves, pieces of bark, pieces of fabric, etc. is it any less your original art because you used the magazine pictures that were made by someone else, the leaves and bark which are made by nature, the fabric, which is woven by someone else or a machine?

As most people believe, art is very subjective and can consist of almost anything, made in any manner, conveying any message. I don't feel that just because someone might not make the sable paint brushes, create the paint, or weave the canvas to paint on, that they are any less an artist.

Just my $02.

Joan

You could compare it to portrait photography - is it less 'artistic' because your models aren't your own children? ;) Jo

Victoria, Mike, P4's are all tools in this case. Most of us here are hobbyists, not model makers, nor do we wish to be. We want to create and have fun, not spend months trying to make a human figure. That's what Poser (and Metacreations)is/was all about. You might as well condemn modern day painters for not raising the sheep, spinning the thread, and weaving the linen to be able to stretch their own canvases...so they can then begin painting. Is it wrong for a painter to buy pre-made canvases? No. Agent Smith

3D is a very complex world. It requires skill to make good 3D figures and skill to make good textures and skill to make good texturing and... so on. The talent required for each step is not the same, should it be performed by the same people ? Will you focus the same on rendering if you have in mind to finish your model or fix the small black point in your latest texture ? Rendering is really an art as I can figure out each time I try to make a render on my own ;((

How many times do we have to go through this?

I rely on others to do my art for me. I am incredibly grateful to them for taking this burden off my hands! Are they artists? You bet they are!

Its like the elder caveman who grunted to the young rebel cave-artist who just drew a picture on their wall with chalk "thats not art, art is stick and dirt" BT

Geez its ART ART ART......Art has no defenition ART is what you make it to one man a velvet Elivis picture is a piece of crap to the next man its ART....now i've had my little vent :o) look at it this way it took more than one man (i use the word man in the biblical sense btw :o) to do the CGI in Star wars, Pearl harbour etc, like there was texture artists, modelers, animators, so where just doing the same......Steve

Have a look at the collages of Max Ernst. They should answer your question.

Very simple comparison - saying that it's only art if you made the tools yourself (in this case the 3D models) is like saying music is only true original music if your built the instrument yourself. And who bothers with that?? Besides, who cares if it's "art" or not - let's just create and enjoy ourselves.

What is original? Infact all of are copying something and we put our fingerprint on it in our way.Is it wrong? We all have the same basic model and still doesn't look the same. I think is a very good thing to express yourself in 3D art(even XXX-related stuff). Am I wrong?

Well, it's definitely not Piracy since that's a technical term covered by the use license of these meshes. Unless you downloaded the mesh in an illegal way, of course. I think 3d art comprising of other peple's work quite visibly and recognisably, suffers in a way other art does not. You can recognise the work of a Zygote 3d modelling artist in my picture, therefore it may not be wholly mine. If you look at it that way. So how about the photographer who shoots a romantic scene of... the Eiffel Tower? Is it no longer wholly his art? And how about the little old lady sitting next to the photographer painting the same scene on an easel? I would go so far as to say that it is not your art until you do something different and original from yourself to the "subject" or "tool." This is why those pictures that have a lot of work put into them gather the most comments. People know there is a stigma attached to just loading a figure, using default lights, loading someone's pose and textures and hitting render. I guess you can look at it as a handicap - we have more to overcome to even get to the starting line for being considered real art. From another angle, it's a challenge, and it's worthwhile. :)

I have a simple opinion about it: "Do YOU think its art? Then it's art." When others get safety and stability by labeling everything or getting labeled themselves, judge and get judged, doesnt mean you have to follow their lead. You're an individual, you're free to create whatever, whenever and how ever you like, don't give your freedom to others... Maxx :-)

"When others get safety and stability by labeling everything or getting labeled themselves, judge and get judged, doesnt mean you have to follow their lead." TO DAMN RIGHT Maxx o) there far to much put things in this catagory or that catagory these days...be yourself and let your art follow i say :o)......Steve

Is it still funny to hit someone in the face with a pie if you don't bake it yourself?

First off, I have no doubt that it is art. I dont think whats really at issue with 3D art is using meshes made by others. Just as a painter uses pre-made canvas, brush and paint products, the 3D artist uses pre-made meshes and computer programs. The real question I see here is: How original is your 3D art? If you use someone elses meshes, light sets, poses, and textures; how much of you is in your artwork? That is the biggest distinction between traditional mediums and 3D Graphics, IMO. Even though a traditional artist uses a brush that was made by someone else, they still have to perform millions of unique brush strokes and choices of color mixing. The end result is an image that is uniquely theirs. A 3D artist that uses Vicki, but spends time making custom morphs, textures, lighting, camera angles and postwork has also made their work uniquely theirs. While a 3D purist might argue that its not art if you dont make the mesh yourself, I could take that a step further and argue that purist isnt making art if they dont create the program that makes the mesh. That kind of logic is a silly as telling a painter their work isnt original because they didnt make the canvas its painted on. So I find the ultimate question of is it art or not to be rather silly. Art is not a fact; art is a feeling. Art is something we each experience differently and therefore can never be defined like so many people wish it to be. When an artist puts something of themselves into a work, I find myself most moved by it. That is my opinion on what I consider art to be. It can mean something entirely different to you and it would be no less valid.

How about the guy with buckets of fluid cheese splashing it all around the room...

art (t) n. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 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. The study of these activities. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice (Joyce Carol Oates). arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. Artful contrivance; cunning. Printing. Illustrative material. If we make it, it's art. It may not be good art, but it is art none the less.

beauty (byoo-tee) n. pl. beauties The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling: The beauty of the venture is that we stand to lose nothing. An outstanding or conspicuous example: Hammett's gun went off. The shot was a beauty, just slightly behind the eyes (Lillian Hellman). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English beaute, from Old French biaute, from Vulgar Latin *bellits, from Latin bellus, pretty. See deu-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

As far as art is concerned, I think what you take away from an image when you view it is much more important than what went into the image when it was created. Modeling in itself is an art form, but using the model as a tool to create an image is no less an art form than the creation of the model. If I did a painting and used a likeness of a sculpture in my painting, are not both the sculpture and my painting both art. Different skills and techniques, but still art.

"Is it Piracy?" - No. If I bought it or follow the terms of use, the end result is all mine.

"Is it talent?" - Absolutely. It's also learned.

"Does it matter?" - No.

Well, let's be a little more discretionary about how we bandy about the word "art" here, okay? IMVHO, we use it with far too much largesse. Like I said in another thread on a similar topic, just because it looks pretty over the couch doesn't make it art. And how do we draw that distinction? Hell if I know. All I can tell you is that, in my field, I see a lot of people who call themselves "actors" and would pretty POd if I or anyone else said something to the contrary. Still, you can look at them and see it just ain't happening. Well, at the risk of sounding like an elitist snob, the same holds true with our over-reaching generalizations of "art". We seem to want to think that everyone can be an artist by just making the attempt. Well, uhm, no. Calling yourself an artist and your work "art" doesn't automatically make it so, no more than Julia Roberts has any right to call herself an "actress". It's a tough one, no argument about that. But let's not do a disservice to the people whose work is indeed Art With a Capital A just so we can make everyone feel good about themselves.

Hi, I'm not an artist, I'm a hobbyist, I "doodle" with a computer :) However if Picasso did "doodles" they'd call them art... :P later jb

They probably would -- after all, he was the one who paid all his bills by cheque because he knew the signature was more valuable than the cheque and no one would ever actually cash them. Strange but true.

just because it looks pretty over the couch doesn't make it art.<< And conversely, just because it looks pretty over the couch doesn't mean it's NOT art. =) In fact, the "art" hanging over the couch is just another element of the art that is the entire room design/decoration.

This is why those pictures that have a lot of work put into them gather the most comments.<< Ummmm..not true. I see a lot of comments on images that take less then a day that have the same three components in it. A babe, a sword and a scene. I see images of pink ponies that according to the creator took less then a couple of hours on occasion with HUGE number of comments. I see fewer comments on work that I know takes longer then a day to do and has had a lot more love and sweat put into it. Huge numbers of comments on a singular image in the Poser gallery have less to do with talent then popularity, sad but true. :) However, there are exceptions. It's all in how it effects you, not necessarily in the amount of work put into it. That being said... Is it art? Art is in the eye of the beholder and the creator, it's a very intimate relationship both ways. To put any type of limitations on the words "art" or "artist" can put us down a slippery slope of snobbery and elitism, both which are deadly to creativity. Even if all it evokes is a "wow" factor, then it's art to someone. Is it piracy? Only if the software is illegal or you use products that are illegally gained, or if a copyright is broken. Is it talent? You betcha, if it is ART then it does involve some type of talent, even if all you have is the vision. Does it matter? Depends on if it's piracy or not :) Although it could still be art and be good, just sad that it's pirated. :( Digital art is just another medium to use to create art. Some are better then others, just as in traditional mediums. Some are just hobbyists, but let me tell you, I've seen some hobbyists here that have done pieces that just blow me away. And I've seen some established artists crank out the same stuff over and over again. So, it's like football "On any given Sunday" anyone can win, or make art. <<Calling yourself an artist and your work "art" doesn't automatically make it so, no more than Julia Roberts has any right to call herself an "actress".>> Ahhh...but at the same time, if you work at the craft of acting, for good or bad, you are still an actor/actress, just maybe not a good one. :)I would think the same would hold true for art/artists. Otherwise, who is in charge of telling whom when they cross that line and become an artist? You, me, them? Being an artist is from the heart and soul, not from someone else's outside judgement. My two cents worth :)

Being an artist is from the heart and soul, not from someone else's outside judgement. I wish I could agree, but I can't. I mean, we all want so desperately to be able to express that inner soul we all have, and in our rush to do so, we call ourselves "artists". Well, okay, maybe I can design a set that would run circles around a lot of people out there, but don't ask me to change the spark plugs on my truck without medical assistance nearby. Still, I muddle through. But just because I have the drive and the initiative, does that make me a "mechanic"?

3D art, to me, is comparable to art direction in a film (which I consider very much art). In most films, a lot of "models" are bought, rather than created for budget and time constraints. If you are filming a library scene for instance, do you really need to create every book in the set by hand? Not really, but the vision of the library's look is the art. The art director of the film, though responsible for the look of that film, is usually rarely the one who actually creates the things that he uses. He either has other artists or products that are bought. Much thought and feeling goes into pictures that are created, whether there is use of other models, or not. I've seen some pictures where you'll see a certain model or prop and go okay, not bad, while another picture using that same prop will blow you away. That to me is the art, not where ya got the elements from.

The fault I have in the argument above is the analogy that making one's own brushes is the same as using other artist's models. It's not. What it is similar to is using Poser or Photoshop rather than a canvas. Most artists wouldn't make their own paints or write something like Poser/Photoshop/Etc. However, when you are using another person's models, you are using their artwork in your own work. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it's clearly not the same as the analogy everyone seems to make.

Just my 2 cents...Art is art...enjoy...

Funny how people need logic and definitions by others to make up their own mind...

If there's no armadillo in it, it's not art. PERIOD.

uh huh...

I subscribe to the definition that art is anything that doesn't relate directly to survival. Which makes just about anything people do some kind of art. Whether it's good art or bad art is left as an exercise to the student. I am unsure as to whether armadillos relate directly to survival, or not. That's a toughie.