When creating a picture in Bryce, is it not better to create the picture from scratch completely. Someone made the comment theat if the wheel is already created then why recreate it. Well i say if you don't create the wheel then how do u know how it was ever made or if you could ever make it yourself. Also, if there is a wheel that has been made, then build a better wheel. (plese note we are not just talking a bout wheels here, this applies to all objects you create. I agree that it is a good idea for newbies to use premade models, I did, but I only publish pictures in my portfolio that I have completely made myself. Afriend of mine pointed out to me that using preset models in a picture really only amounts to coloring a picture, creating the entire picture is truely the way to go. These are my feelings, what are yours???

PS, the picture above was created as a dedication to the artist Robert McCall, those who know of him and his work will understand.

If the model's out there and I need it, I'm going to use it. A lousy artist can use the best model in the world and never create art of any kind. A good artist can create art with anything. Saying that you should never use a model, just stuff you create yourself is like saying we should never buy a car, we should make them ourselves. Or that we should make everything in out house from scratch. Life just doesn't work that way. Why should art? Models are just tools. It's what you do with them that creates art. Should a motion picture studio create all the props and scenery from scratch for every movie? I don't have time to create models nor do I have any software for creating them. And even if I did, why should I create my own when there are models out there to use? How many variations of a stove or a lamp or a table are really necessary? Do you try to create models increasingly different until they're so individual they become unrecognizable? Can you really create a refrigerator that's totally distinctive from every other refrigerator out there? How many different kinds of couches can you create? If using models is only coloring a picture, then why can 10 pictures using the same model look entirely different? If the coloring statement was the truth, then they should look exactly the same shouldn't they?

And--precisely how did you create the mountains, the water, the land? The objects in the pic are not complicated objects for one thing-no criticism of the picture, but I agree with Bone--how many variations of a sofa or a refrigerator does one need--and the time it would take to create those mundane objects could be better served by working on other elements of the image--plus many of us do not have programs for creating those objects (except for booleans and lattices in Bryce). I would venture to say that creating one's own textures would contribute more to the individuality of an image than creating objects that are already out there--just my 2 cents worth. I don't think this is any 'great argument'. Diane B

Don't mistake art for product....art is in the doing. skee .... my 2cents

Oh, I don't think that's what we are saying. Gosh, no one admires model makers more than I do, I don't think (I KNOW it takes a certain talent and is an art of its own--one which I don't have G). I believe what we're (maybe I should say >I'M<) saying is that it would be almost redundant to recreate those things that are already made and done wonderfully (and far better than I could ever do) and concentrate on using those models imaginatively and maybe creating our own textures to personalize them. When I say 'mundane' I mean common objects--not that they are 'commonly' made--not by a long shot. Its still not a 'great argument'--this reminds me of people trying to 'create' an argument betweent the Mac and PC folks--its a moot question. Diane B

I do have to interject this here, though. This person is the same one that gave a 1 to Harrison for NOT creating his own objects in a gallery pic. DUH?!?!?!?!? Take a look further down in this forum and check out Harrison's objects--take a look at his trout and his saran wrap and aluminum foil. These are complex objects that took a lot of thought, a lot of talent and an artistic vision. Diane B

Making 3d meshes is an art in and of itself. But, like all art, it's not one that everyone can master. Sure I can build a couch in 3DS, or a car, or whatever prop I need. But it might not turn out so good (I'm, at best, a mediochre modeller). So, why shouldn't I use a really superb model created by someone who is much better at that particular artform than I am? Does this make my picture any less valid as art? As an artist, I'm much more interested in the message than I am in the medium. Just my 0.0125 cents Paul

Just posted and found Paul's post--he's saying what I was TRYING to say--I'm more interested in the message than the medium, as are most of us. Guess this qualifies for a .005 cents worth, huh? G. Diane B

Interesting argument guys. I always find that making the models is part of the fun ( and I'm a terrible model maker ). I think a model is exactly like sculpture - a piece of art- and in the vast majority of cases, it's more difficult to create the model than render it.

Im staying out of this one :)

Here's my 2 cents. I personnally am an artist in more than 1 medium. I create music on 2 professional synthesizers (which at one time were not considerred to be music instruments and now everyone listens to them whether they know it or not many times.) I also oil, water paint and sketch and am much better at these than I am with Bryce. Many time I mix both models and my own booleans. Thus said, I can say I am qualified to answer here. Everything we do today is born off the backs of others gone before. Great minds before any one of us ever thought of 3d creation and art were laying down the foundation for us. If Egomania or whatever his name is that started this thinks for one moment that anything he is done is original... wake up! There is no new thing under the sun...especially in art. Stop ripping the flowers up and start smelling them. A true artist sees either with his eyes or mind and says "I can create music for the eyes to behold." P.S. the picture above took what...all of ten minutes to create and render. Yet, you have paraded it as art. Which it is. But it is also something that provokes no deeper thought than what it took my eyes to see it. Art makes the soul ponder and wonder. when someone describes your work as POWERFUL...then you can start an arguement. It's like creating a man from nothing and asking God for the dirt....and then telling God..." Hey, God...look what I did." and then God says to you..." OK. now do it without my dirt."

I personally (usually, now that I know how to model) try to model my own objects for a pic, but sometimes what I want is beyond my abilities, or there's something out there that's exactly what I want and far better than I could ever make myself. I'll take that if I need it. There's also the point in exactly how far do you want to take this idea? You could go so far as to say that since you're using Bryce, which was made by talented programmers, which I've often considered an art (but that's a topic for another discussion...) then you're also copping out... It would only be right if you made your own 3d program to create your images... And from that, you could also take it that since the programming language and program was created by someone else... you can see how far this can go.. Put simply, artists have their own preferences, and using tools created by other artists is not cheating, and art is not just a collection of the models.. it's how they're used, arranged, textured, etc. Hell, I've seen a urinal set on its back and signed by an artist called art. (Titled the Fountain.. ick.. art history class is all coming back to me now.. AAAARRGHHH). So while you choose not to use models created by other people, don't think you're "superior" to those people who do. Just look at it as another approach. Of course, this is just my opinion. Umm... Just noticed I'm ranting. I'll stop now. Rosh

Me Too Fast Traxx. Hawkfyr

Personally I have built my own models and i've used other peoples models aswell (mostly my fathers :P). I agree that constructing your own models brings more satisfaction then using someone elses but you also have to understand that there are some things people just can't build, for instance, do you use the preset trees etc.. in bryce? You didn't build those. You can nitpick stuff all you want, I've downloaded some of FastTraxx's models to pick apart and see how he built them, used a few when playing around, built some of my own, really dosn't matter to me if others are using each others models aslong as the people who made the model don't mind. Just my two cents. F3nix

:)~

I agree with Rosh- it depends on how far you want to take it. Is a portrait artist a fake because s/he only paints real people instead of making them up? Are sculptors of stone less worthy unless they forge their own chisels? Is a socially motivated artist inept because s/he is merely reflecting attitudes molded by the very society portrayed? The materials and tools used are only incidental to the artist's intent. What counts is what you do with them. That's really the only thing that differentiates high art from low production. I've had discussions with extremely competent 3d modelers who readily admit they couldn't put together a pleasing composition to save their life. And then there are those who consistently produce provocative work with only the most rudimentary understanding of their tools. If the multiple skill sets come together in a single person, the results can be quite interesting. But it is quite demonstrably not a requirement.

The point I make is that using another persons models means that the work u have created is not entirely yours, using the land and skys provided by bryce are tools that are part of the program, models u DL then bring into your pictures are not part of the program and are not yours, thus any pictures you make with those models are not entirely yours and you are in essence just coloring a picture. If you do not know how to make models then find out how, if you are not good at it then get good at it. And using analogies like cars and painters are not valid, this is 3D graphic arts, a new medium, an artist creates everything from scratch, and a car is a material possesion, neither of these has anything to do with 3D graphic Art. Using models that someone else has made in your pictures amounts to quick and easy paint by numbers work, and is not the same as an artist that makes every model in a picture and composes the entire picture or animation. If you insist on using someone elses models then you had better put a line in the description that acknowledges the model maker or makers. Otherwise what you are doing amounts to plagerism Another $5 worth of thought, but I think u will see my point

Im still staying out of this FT

Agamemnon, you're a snob. I'll leave it at that because to say more....well, your comments are so ignorant and biased as to enrage me, and I'd rather not turn into another flamer.

Well, I didn't stay out of it, but I plan to just not read this thread any longer. The $5 (?) worth of thought is ludicrous--I assume he also believes that Poser is not to be used by these rules. I'd be really anxious to see all his objects--I've looked at his posted images. Diane B

Ok, seeing as how Agamemnon isn't even reasoning anymore, just stating his ideas without any real logic or support behind them, I'm agreeing with Bonestructure and Diane B.. you're a snob (putting it nicely), and I'm ignoring this thread as of now. Rosh

I did see your point. I just don't agree. 3D graphics may be a new media but this should not be confused with being a new art. Your argument is not new either but has been going on for longer than we both have lived. It has already been tested and rejected by the art world. Marcel Duchamp was a painter, intellectual and theorist who's works and opinions had an enormous influence on art. Here's a direct quotation of his circa 1917. "It is not important whether 'Mr. Mutt' had made the work with his own hands; what mattered was that he had chosen it. Therefore the creation was not important but the idea and selection was." He was a leading member of the Dada school, which subsequently led to Surrealism. Though Surrealism died as a movement in the late 40s- early 50s its influence can still be seen almost everywhere. As such, Duchamp cannot be lightly dismissed. How sad to witness the rise of 3D graphics as a contemporary expression of art yet see it held back by old prejudices. I could go on for page after page just listing the titles and artists of works that are well regarded even though based on the work of others. But why bother? I think I'll just drop out of this now.

I almost deleted my last post because after rethinking it, thought it was a little 'mean spirited' and that's not something I like to have associated with me. However, its not really inflammatory except it does seem a bit snide in regards to the inferences of A's objects. I retract and apologize for that but still maintain that if we are going to take this to the 'source', then that means not using preset materials (SOMEone made them--not us), nor Poser, nor much of anything, etc. Just because it 'came with the program' does not mean that somone else didn't create it. Better dig into the Deep Material lab G. I'm a professional full time textile artist and this reminds me of the argument for 'natural' dyes as opposed to synthetic--even I perpetuated that for years and taught 'natural' dyeing (but of course it used chemical 'assists'-LOL). However, I outgrew that nonsensical idea with a bit of critical and logical thinking and now use what works for the object I have in mind. This seems in the same vein--it IS snobbery and false 'elitism'. Now--finis with this thread for me. There are lots more important things to do in Bryce than argue about what's 'pure'--reminds me of some of the same arguments I've seen for ONLY using Bryce and not doing any post work AT ALL. Silly!!--at least IMO. I'm always impressed with someone being able to create a wonderful image w/o post work, but I just don't think we should feel its somehow 'cheating'. Diane B

Oh, I have to add jval, that I particularly loved your 'surreal' gallery since you brought it up (and the fractal women/men are wonderful--I think I've seen those before when following one of the fractal web rings. They slightly remind me of the advertisement for one of the printer companies that shows a herd of zebras and then points out the woman riding the zebra--she has become 'part' of the image. BTW, yours were made BEFORE the ad came out--wonder if they saw yours LOL). Your post just popped up as I replied. Excellent points BTW. Diane B

Thanks Diane. I've always been attracted to surrealism & am somewhat miffed that it was dying just as I was being born. Regarding my fractal people & the printer ad, it just reinforces that nothing is truly new & I'm certain someone else probably did something similar before I did too. I suspect that the individual that invented the wheel was criticized because the sun was already round!

actually diane. the printer ad was based on the work of an artist who was popular about, oh, 20 years ago. I don't recall his name but he turned trompe l'oiel (SP) around, and instead of making flat objects look 3D, he placed models (always nekkid wimmen as he had excellent taste) in front of or in an environment, and then painted the models to perfectly match the environment, then took photos of that. He did quite astounding and beautiful, and sometimes disturbing work. I wish I could remember his name for you.

Firstly, the comments about making our own computers, cars and the like deserve only a snide, GET A LIFE and mature up, that is NOT the argument. I am very surprised to find that so many of you are happy to do nothing more then color a picture like a child with crayons then so be it, the rest of us will make our own models and be proud of our work, and be able to say to potential employers that we made EVERYTHING, in our pictures. so good luck to you all, and lets remember, I don't think that the 3D animators at ILM used any preset models for the podracer scene in Star Wars I. I will not push this point any farther, cest la vie

no, you've already pushed it far enough to totally piss every other member of renderosity off, which is exactly what your little eliteist post was about. What's wrong? Not getting enough attention at home?

I wonder where your textures came from Chris-S

I was going to try and be nice, but oh well patience are gone. Agamemnon you act as if your gods gift to the 3D world, got news for ya, your works no better then anyone elses here, dosn't take much to impress me, Bonestructure for instance i'm not sure if he makes his own models but some of his stuff is really nice, my father (Harrison2) goes for a extreamly realistic point of view, and I've seen alot of other very nice artists here, none of which have the pompus arogance you have towards everyone else, the point of this forum is to come together on common ground and help each other and show of our work not for you to piss everyone off for no reason other then what seems to be a sick enjoyment out of it, you call everyone here children yet you are the one that acts as such, you used ILM as a example, well and no offence to anyone here but there is one HELL of a diffrence between them and us, you really should brush up on those social skills if ever expect to go anywhere. Small sujestion, keep your mouth shut if you intend to insult everyone. F3nix

hehehe

Gee, if I could afford to work on a Cray Mainframe with 8 zillion megs of memory, and I could afford every single ridiculously priced 3D program like Maya and 3DS, yeah, I'd make some models that would kick big ass. But I can't even afford to buy food or pay my bills and I'm working on the Bryce demo and doing the best I can so....shut yer mouth bone, before ya say something nasty you'll regret

Yes, modeling is an art... but so is rendering. I've seen many model makers who make absolutely fantastic models, but don't have a knack for visualizing a scene and making a render. Saying that one who uses models made by others is not an artist is a bit like saying a photographer isn't an artist. I liken rendering to photography. You need to be cognizant of composition, camera, lighting and texture in order to render. The subject in a photograph is really no more important than the other aspects I mentioned above. In fact, I have had an award-winning photograph published nationally that has no subject... it's simply abstract textures and light (sunlight and fog - nothing else). Take two people with identical camera equipment and set them loose at Yosemite or the Grand Canyon - or wherever. Give them each a weekend to shoot as many photos as they like. Depending on skill, one may make photos that barely qualify for a vacation snapshot album, while the other may make museum quality prints. Neither of them CREATED the scene they photograph, but one is an artist - because he or she captured a unique vision of an existing "set." It amazes me when I see people criticized for using someone else's model in a terrific render. It's as if the people criticizing are saying the only person who deserves credit is the model maker. Speaking as one who has spent days on texture maps, lighting and post-production on an image only to be told I'm not responsible for the work, I can personally attest to the fact that the model is only a small piece of the final product. End of rant... ;) -sk

ScottK. All good points and a well rounded argument. Lets hope that's the final word. GG