Just something I've been musing over - I can't quite make up my mind, and I'd be interested in other people's opinions. First, I'm new to this whole 3D art stuff. I played with a demo of the original Poser years ago (when I worked only with traditional media, mostly oils), and hated it. Since then I've occasionally stumbled across a piece of badly-done Poser porn on the net, and hated it even more. Recently I saw some GOOD poser work, and thought, "hmmmm...." Then I got Poser 3 as a coverdisk freebie, played with it for 24 hours (pretty much non-stop!), and then bought P4. I love it. I love the effects I can get, I love how easily I can experiment with composition and lighting, but I have this niggling thought: Since almost 100% of the figures and props I'm using are someone else's work, to what extent can I regard the end result as a piece of my own 'original' artwork? I get this guilty feeling that I really ought to be only using models that I've made myself. Which is silly, because I've no clue how to do this, and even if I did, I suspect it would take forever to do even one picture... So, when does a poser scene become 'art'? I know that if I do a nude, or portrait, or landscape in trad media, I'm not creating the subject - just as I haven't created Posette, or Victoria or Michael - it's (hopefully) in my interpretation of it that the 'art' lies. Do you guys feel this applies equally to poser? And am I just being too fussy, and asking stupid questions? (entirely possible!) John

Basically, if it conveys a message to the viewer, then, IMHO, it's art. Of course, the quality is entirely subjective, as is whether or not a message s actually conveyed. If a picture conveys meaning only to you, then it's a grey area - some such are purely onanistic, while others have so many layers of possible meaning that they are veritable masterpieces. Best thing to do - post. If people react, then be proud. If they don't, keep plugging away.

Sorry, I didn't mean to retread old ground! (but it's new to me). yeah, I take your point. I just got a bit uneasy about seeing the same characters and props in so many different pics. Plus I'm probably a bit neurotic about the 'originality' thing (when I worked in oils, I even started my day by grinding the paints :) ) John

Not silly and not stupid. Think of yourself as the director of a movie. You didn't write the script, didn't give birth to the actors, didn't train them just influenced their performence in a setting that was created by an art director. Yet, it is your vision, your camera, your lighting and in the end your film, your art. Q

Q, that's genuinely helpful. One of those insights that are so blindingly obvious that you can't see them until someone points them out, and then you want to say "Doh!" and slap yourself on the head. Thanks! John

My pleasure. enjoy, Q

Hi Morphy; welcome to this little madhouse we call R'osity. You had no way of knowing that this comes up here from someone new every few weeks. Actually it's been a while now, and was about due! I was just thinking the other day "Hey, the 'art' question hasn't come up for at least three weeks..." Maybe we should have a forum specifically for moving thes threads into, so we can just refer people there. This topic has seen some extensive and ludicrous arguments here, as well as some very good and elucidating points, which brings me to this: Valandar: Very well said. I'm looking forward to seeing your work, Morphy. Welcome to us.

I would think it depends on how you define art. If I remember correctly photography started as an outgrowth of painting. I believe the term "painting with light" comes to mind. Having said that does a photograph taken with a "Point-and-Click" camera represent art. Some photographers would debate you on this topic. While some painters would say: "no a photograph should never be considered art". I would think it depends on your point of view. I dabble as a hobby in creating images that interest me in Poser. I think of it as therapy for my stress that builds up during my day job. Hard to find real dragons, monsters, rogues, demons and beautiful models to photograph in scenes of mayhem and mystery. Take a look at my gallery page on renderosity for examples. I would think putting together scenes in images for enjoyment by yourself and others would constitute art. However, I do not think I would get favorable reviews from the New York Times Art Critics. Just my two cents worth.

Hello Morphy, I have a degree in fine art and I too thought the same thing. Is it art if I use things others have created like skin textures and buildings. After using Poser for a while I've found out that I enjoy using things others have created and using them my own way and using them to create things that I see in my head. I love doing watercolor, working with clay and photography but I also love working with Poser. Doing so allows me to use Photoshop and Bryce to enhance scenes, colors and textures. Recently I started scanning my watercolors into my computer then using Photoshop to enhance the colors. At first I thought it was cheating but then I was like... hey..who cares they look better! Just like I'll pay up to $20 for a tube of paint I don't mind paying a few $ for a model I can use over and over again and thank heaven for the people who do freestuff "hats off" to them. Eventually the paint will go and I'll have to buy another tube but the model will last as long as my computer holds out. I say use any medium you can get your hands on to express yourself and get together with others to share ideas. I see it all as collaboration. Just my two cents... 8^) happy rendering!

Well, I work with Poser but do all my rendering in Bryce. I use objects and textures that I have downloaded, but I have never yet used anything downloaded "as - is", I always make changes in the textures, frequently in the models, etc. I do sometimes model items from scratch, though my skills in that area are far from extensive. Still, if because I don't make everything I use from scratch, what I do can't be called art, then NO painting can be called art either, unless the artist 1) spins, weaves, finishes, stretches & frames his own canvas; 2) grinds ALL his own pigments from scratch (i.e. from raw mineral ores); 3) makes his brushes from scratch - including turning the handles on a lathe and gathering & processing the hair; 4) distills his own linseed oil & turpentine from sap, ... Need I go on? Tools are tools are tools are tools. It's what's done with ANY tool that constitutes art.

I always use Scott McCloud's definition of art. Anything that is done for a reason other than fulfilling basic survival needs (food, water, shelter, reproduction, etc.) is art. That includes painting; sculpture; preparing a gourmet meal; creating an image with Poser; or blowing a raspberry after the sabretooth tiger that was trying to eat you, missed, and is now tumbling down a cliff.

I don't worry about creating "ART" - I either tell a story visually or just amuse myself and hopefully my viewers. There will always be some that like it and some that don't. There will always be some way to make it better (there will always be some differences in defining what really is "better"). It's not really art if you're still alive anyway [grin].

Wow, yes, I've felt that way too. Like they're someone else's characters. I guess that's why I spend so much time making custom morphs and custom textures for the characters. And morphs and textures in the right combination can go a long way to produce and original work.

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

You ask a good question. The opening page to the family site has an oil my sister did, a lightening shot she took, and a bryce/poser image of mine. I think the CG folks who can do other media, such as oils and graphite, etc, are artists inside and merely look at CG programs as just another media. Those who cannot use anything but a computer are, in my humble opinion, people who may some day become artists. Take a look at the girl sitting by the tree at night. That's the low res vickie imported into Bryce with the Aged Film photoshop filter. Some have said "Now that's art". That said, my sister and I are having a disagreement about the family site. She feels that the folks who are interested in fine art might be put off by my CG stuff. Granted, some of my stuff is cheesy, some is not. (note to self... clean out the cheesy stuff). So the phrase 'fine art' has popped up to differentiate between the traditional media and the computer art in our conversations. I don't dispute that. I do view oil, bronze, graphite, etc as fine art and photos and 3d as something else. Will CG ever reach the status of fine art? I doubt it for one reason, its not one of a kind. There's only one oil, one portrait, etc. Reproduction attempts are always different. Bronze work tends to be more mass production and fine artists tend to control this by limiting the number of sculptures that are made before destryoing a mold. When it comes to CG, print to your heart's content. Yeah, there is a difference and no matter how nice the image looks, CG in my opinion will RARELY ever rise to the level of art in terms of how the world views art. Then again, these days, just about anything passes for art to the untrained eye or the idiot who really has no clue what they are buying or looking at.

Thanks, and an apology! If I'd used my brain for a few seconds before posting my message, I'd probably have realised that this is a frequent question! But, hey, I'm suddenly in this exciting new world, and sometimes thought gets lost in the fun of it all! But now for something fresh and interesting! I just had this idea for a REALLY and original pic... It involves Vicky, and a sword and a temp... uh, maybe not :) John

Lost another one! sigh

This has been asked many times before, and I always give the same answer: I'm pretty sure that Michelangelo did not manufacture the table he used as a prop in the famous painting "The Last Supper. Nobody questions him as an artist for that reason. If you throw in a table prop somebody else made in your Poser scene, why should they question you? "Art" is about the message the image conveys, not the process that was used to make it. There is a difference between "artistic" and "technical" aspects of a picture. Both can be discussed, but they should not be confused with each other.

Is it art when people staple egg cartons to a wool blanket, spatter it with purple paint, add xmas lights, and a picture of Richard Nixon? The answer is yes... I think of the models as the Canvas. Look at the work people do with coming up with clothing, textures, hair eyes, poses and expressions, lighting etc.... If that doesn't sway you think of photography.... Photographers are artists of light and compostion how would digital art be different?

Attached Link: http://darksarcasm.epilogue.net

I may be a bit old fashioned.. but I could never believe that computerized art is complete.. It may be interesting to look at.. but I cant see that the image you create is truely something that comes from YOU! I do not get how something created on a machine could possibly convey YOUR thoughts and feelings.. I dunno.. I cant really put how I feel about this subject into the correct words.. but I do not think it is right to classify digital art as true art.. I believe that you should have done it with your own hands in some way.. welp.. I know Im probably gonna get burned for that.. but ya know.. thats just my opinion=)

I used to beleive that. Sometimes, I still do. My generation faced the same question about Photography, Cinematography and even Picasso's work or (before that) the Dada mouvement. Perhaps GI should be considered as pop art more than anything else, but I must admit, that when I'm modeling, it feels like I'm sculpting. The mind set is practically the same. When I'm texturing it almost feels like I'm painting. When I'm posing or animating, I face more problems and must find more creative solutions to these than any photographer or cinematographer except, perhaps, for those who documented the wars. These days I use these tools to work out a scene, to compose and experiment with lighting, before going into the studio to make the photo with real people, lighting etc. It's an interesting question...must admit. Q