"What eowyn and others, who provide light sets, poses etc, are doing is doing the work for us not providing tools." (shrug) - when I go mountain-climbing, I prefer to take my little Minolta QT-si instead of the Maxxum 5... the little QT calculates F-stop and shutter speed for me, so I can concentrate on capturing the shot whilst not falling off a cliff. Tisa (?), you're using the same tired argument the old photogs used when they found their years of hard-won skills rendered moot by the advent of auto-focusing auto-aperture, auto-shutter SLR cameras. Now, any fool can buy a digital camera or a cheap SLR (like the QT-si, which runs a mere $250 at Wal-Mart), slap in some Kodak 800-speed film, ship the roll off to the developers, and whomp out prints with the same technical quality as the world's best photogs. Wanna know what the difference is? It's simple: Composition, lighting, mood, and the photographer's sense of moment. Also, there is a vast difference between snapping a digicam card full of piccys of a quiet stream at the local park, and dragging one's ass and 50lb of assorted gear for 5 hours to 3200m above sea level on a steep mountainside, just to capture the first blush of autumn surrounding various places along a waterfall-laden mountain stream. I did just that very thing yesterday, and just for fun. And yes, I'd do that hike again tomorrow if the clouds come rolling in just a little... Same deal with Poser, except you get the added bonus of hanging around a computer and being on yer ass all day :) BTW - I noticed your gallery... not to be a snot or anything, but do you own the copyrights/negatives to the images you used? And if so, how much did the rights/model's time cost you, especially in the nude and doing (what appears to be) soft-core porn? I'd always wanted to venture into human model shoots, but the cost had always been a factor... a real huge factor if he/she is to get naked in the process. /P

well...i can't legally copywrite this, so will pass it along. I'd always wanted to venture into human model shoots, but the cost had always been a factor... a real huge factor if he/she is to get naked in the process. provide a "get bimboed" service to those who come for regular shots. show 'em how much fun it would be to put their face and body on a v.vicki. for what it's worth...poser does have alot of avenues, if we can get out of our temples....everything from autocrash reinactment, crime scene reinactments, "bimboing" regular folk...theatre staging. think...outside....the...box.

completely agree with you Penguinisto and Poppi. It's what I've been saying or trying to say all along.

"autocrash reinactment" Defined as: What happens with P5 on some users' systems? ;0) As for the original sentiment of the thread, I see no merit nor validity to the views that are presented. All of the items used in the example are but merely resources and tools to facilitate the resultant art. Just as painters do not mix their own paint nor weave their own canvas nor fabricate their own brushes, the Poser artists need not model their own figures to be considered an artist in their own rights. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the majority of photographers create their own scenes to be photographed; but usually rely upon pre-existing strucures, bnature, people, etc, to create their art. The majority of artforms rely, to some extent, upon pre-fabricated materials in order for the art to be expressed.

"As for the original sentiment of the thread, I see no merit nor validity to the views that are presented. All of the items used in the example are but merely resources and tools to facilitate the resultant art." My point exactly. "Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the majority of photographers create their own scenes to be photographed; " Err, I sorta violated that maxim yesterday... by luck I found a fresh iridescent-blue dragonfly corpse (must've froze the night before), so I set it on top of a rock, photographing it as if it were a live one. There are lots of tricks and tips like that, things which you can put to use to make life easier on you. Incidentally, I don't look at myself as one who creates when I sunburn film, but rather as one fortunate enough to record the beauty that I do find. Good photography is more in Christopher Colombus' line of work than Michelangelo's... the best stuff has to be hunted down and recognized. All in all though, photography is still art, just at a different yet parallel level. Err, Tisa - if you agree with what I said, then your question as per this thread has apparently been answered ;) /P

something else to consider: even with total earnesty, someone could crush their own pigments with amazing chemical precision, sew their own canvas and gesso it into a weave as tight and smooth as silk, and paint their own painting with the finest homemade camelhair brushes to be found, taking six months to do the whole thing... but the result could well look like complete and utter dogshit. Or, it could force you to physically drop to your knees in the presence of such mastery and visual power. conversely, someone could buy a powerful computer, Vicky, a pose set, a light set, a character set, a sword (what?) some conforming clothes, enough p-shop actions to basically do all the postwork for you, a backdrop or two to stick Vicky in, and do the whole thing in less than 20 minutes, from power-on to the completion of final render. But their results could well come out with enough beauty to make a convicted wife-beater shed awestruck tears of rapture upon seeing it. Or, it could be utter dogshit too... That is a precise statement of how I feel towards art in general and the definition of what makes an artist. So if it obviously isn't the tools that make the artist, why the complaint about eowyn's product? /P

"Err, I sorta violated that maxim yesterday... by luck I found a fresh iridescent-blue dragonfly corpse (must've froze the night before), so I set it on top of a rock, photographing it as if it were a live one." Although this is true in the sense that you 'created the scene', it does still follow the same maxim: You neither created the dragonfly nor the rock (pre-existing structures; unless you have "powers" that others would be envious of), yet you combined the two (along with the lighting and other aspects) to create a photo that appeared as if the dragonfly was still alive. Therefore, in that sense, you "creatively" combined the structures and the scene elements to produce art.

"Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the majority of photographers create their own scenes to be photographed..." Actually, quite a few do. A substantial amount of photography is involved with table top work for product shots or still life. Another huge segment is fashion based. In these instances the photographers choose or control almost every aspect of the "scene", including its content. In fact, it is interesting to compare the fashion photographer to the hypothetical digital artist as per the original question. The photographer "buys" the characters when hiring the model. S/he doesn't "buy" the pose but the pose often follows the trends and styles of the moment. Props are typically purchased rather than constructed from scratch. The lighting frequently follows standard setups to achieve the desired effect. As for textures, there are limits to what one can do with a model's complexion and the clothing being advertised will certainly not be altered in in any significant manner. So what is left for the photographer to do? Apparently quite a lot- which is why some fashion photographers eat hamburger while others command fame and fortune for their stylistic efforts. - Jack

"Actually, quite a few do. A substantial amount of photography is involved with table top work for product shots or still life." Not to be argumentative nor try to derail the thread, but I would venture to say that the "majority" (key word) of photographers the world over do not "create" the scenes of which they photograph. In the example of the "table top work for product shots or still life", one could contend that the photographer did not create the table, subject, etc, that they are photographing and, therefore, they did not create the scene. I think that the quoted passage was taken out of context. Bascially, the inclusion of that statement was a direct contrast to the original poster's apparent belief that in order for art to be art, all aspects of that art must have been originally created by the artist. Therefore, to apply that mentality to the specific art of photography, one would say that every "prop" within the photograph would have to have been originally made by the photographer his-/herself in order for it to be considered art. My response is basically refuting that to be the case and attempting to show the original poster that many of the items we consider art have elements within them that were not originally created by the respective artist. To state that the art that is produced is any more or less art than someone else's depiction of art, IMHO, is absurd.

Cyberstretch, No argument. My point was that the photographers in my example created their scenes but not the individual components of said scene. In other words, what you are contending is precisely what I was saying by offering a real world and common example. Nor did I say that such photographers formed a majority, only many- certainly enough that they cannot be ignored. I think my point and your point have more in common than you think. - Jack

jval, Could be. After awhile my eyes do tend to get crossed reading through the many posts. No harm intended or done, IMHO. ;0)

What's the problem? It's not expensive and not everyone can do post rendering work or, for that matter, do they want to. Art is for all. My wife ( no artist ) once spent days and days copying a book cover and she was so happy when she finished it. By my standard of work it wasn't anything special but she was delighted with it...who are any of us to deprive so called none artists from the pleasure we get from creativity end soapbox back to work Mon

The problem, as I see it, is that some people are trying to impose their definition of "art" upon others. Art is highly subjective and, as such, its definition can be different from person to person. One example I will use from personal experience is the "junk art" or "junk sculpturing". (ie, Taking junk/trash and making a piece of "artwork" from it.) To me, the majority still looks like junk, accurately placed junk, but junk nonetheless. Therefore, by my personal definition, I would not call this art. However, to someone else - and I would think especially the artist, it could be more "artistic" than some of the finest ancient marble sculptures. Therefore, who's interpretation is correct? "Art is in the eye of the beholder."

::reading this thread and wondering (1) why it's gone this long and (2) why hardly anyone's gotten the joke::

If the butt of your joke doesn't laugh... is it still a joke?