i wouldn't touch this discussion with a 10 ft. Naked Vicki in a Temple.........

I Believe that anything that is created from our imagination is ART... Anyone who puts what is in their imagination onto paper, computer, or whatever to share with others is an artist and can proudly call themselves that, without being classed as vain The most beautiful thing about any form of art be it a painting, a render or even an artistic food dish is that at least ONE person will feel joy from seeing what u created...To bring a smile to the face and joy to the heart by something created from ur imagination,is wonderful..Thats what I believe anyway

Bingo we have a winner.

Hehe, that was fun...

Okay now that everyone got that off their chest how about a deep philisophical discussion?

Joerg sed: "There is art in creating the works that Mucha created - there is no art in repeating what he did in Poser. Everyone is capable to copy something that was done before. Creating something new is the real art." Yeah! Right on , man! I mean, really... cummon. For SO long, most so called "art" has been mostly, by whatever means, just placing different colors in varying degrees on whatever medium, to create a 'picture' of some kind or another. Always the SAME old colors that have been used by all those so called 'artists', for thousands of years. Sheesh. we must of seen em' ALL by now! Nothing new. Nothing innovative about THAT. We should start using NEW colors! Then we can REALLY start making "new" "innovative" "real" "art"!! Don't get me started about "music". More than half of my income comes from "original music" I make. But God forbid, I would NEVER call myself a "musician". I'm SURE that EVERY note I've ever played, has been played before.

In 1961, Henry Matisse's painting Le Bateau hung 41 days upside down in New York's Museum of Modern Art. Nearly 116,000 people passed the painting before the mistake was noticed.

Anyone who thinks that all judgement about art is subjective ought to read more.

My favorite color is.......... plaid!

"Anyone who thinks that all judgement about art is subjective ought to read more." Bravo! Bravissimo!

Well at least BH and Rio are making some valid comments all the way across the boarderrdown, the board LOL @ Norbert, cummon mancome up with some NEW notesyou pathetic excuse for an artist:-)

"and who, exactly, is in the position to judge wether or not those patterns qualify as art?' The culture. Art is a cultural construct; we get our ideas about it from what we read and who we talk to and where we grow up. And now from television, God help us, and the internet. "if they qualify as art to at least one person (including the person making them), then they are." I disagree. I grew up in an unabashedly elitist, high-art-driven environment: both of my parents had formal training as artists; my great-grandfather was also a painter, who showed in the Paris Salon in the 1890s; a lot of my friends are full-time, professional artists trained at RISD, Yale, etc., folks who routinely sell in the five-or-six figures. That's one kind of culture, one kind of very specific aesthetic. The prevailing aesthetic here is of a different order--conservative, craft-driven, and largely informed by illustration, commercial graphics and other forms of "popular" art. The difference between Faulkner and Louis L'amour, as I said. Is one better than the other? My father would've said yes, unequivocally--that the ambition and reach of the high art tradition is, has always been, the engine that pulls the caboose of popular culture. But you know what he wanted to be when he was a kid? A Disney animator. Which shows that evolution is possible. And, god help me, I do hope for a stretchier, deeper degree of exploration and discussion here, although I know that's a lot to ask.

@Rio: Well, like I said: I may well be lacking some vocabulary here, as the word "vain" seems to be more insulting as I actually planned. It was supposed to confer the meaning, that one should not call oneself an artist, but let others decide if you are an artist. How would Democrit been seen by history, if he would have called himself "a great man". Being a humble person is never wrong. Cesar on the other hand, used to view himself as "the great general" and "the best of leaders". Well, Cesar is also seen as a person with a very serious inferiority-complex. I do not wish to get in a heated and insulting discussion with you and I do not want you to bite your tongue every time you write something. I find this discussion with you most interesting. Like I said: I do not wish to insult you. Maybe this discussion just shows that we have a seriously different view of what an artist is. @Flaxynn: Well, I can't force anyone to buy my product. If anyone thinks he could use the product he or she should buy it. If not, well - my income isn't really based on the renderosity marketplace - it won't hurt me. As for my position in this discussion: Well, why should I be ashamed of myself? At least I saw this as a discussion. It seems you are unable to discuss such things in a civilized manner, seeing a discussion as an exchange of insults. @JVRenderer: You may have missed the fact, that I do not consider myself an artist. I do consider myself an illustrator and graphics designer and I have no problem with using pre-created stuff to achieve something. As for Ki - Ki has a manga-esque morph in the package - something I could use for an online-comic I am doing with a friend of mine. We thought about using Aiko for this comic, but Aiko never found much interest in the community which resulted in only a very few items being constructed for her. All in all: I need not live up to my high standards for being an artist, as I do not consider myself an artist. I openly admit, that I am using other peoples innovation to allow me to create my images. But I am also not calling my pictures "art". Joerg

Joerg (sorry about the mis-spelling, my father's name was George, got used to "eo") Maybe it was your "vain" comment or maybe it was the way you seemed to be looking down your nose at the very people you are trying to sell to that just rubbed all my fur backward. Probably should have put a smiley after the "ashamed" comment as I usually use the particular turn of phrase in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Your arguments (I mean that in the mildest sense) are articulate and to the point and you are indeed entitled to your oppinions, just as others are entitled to theirs. I can still think it's drivel, just as you condsider most art and I use this term loosly--->"modern artists"<--- drivel. In a majority of cases I would agree with you. As for CGI, who has created a standard for this medium? It IS a medium just like paint and canvas, pencil and paper, etc. The very people you are discussing this with (in certain circles) could be considered trail-blazers of a sort in CGI. I have seen these and many others take a program that has been described as a "grown up version of paper dolls" and do amazing things with it. Is it "art"? I guess that's where I tuned in. I choose think it is. Does that make these people "artists"? As I don't follow any criteria for being an artist other than "one who creates art" I would say, yes indeed.

Actually I didn't wish to get ever involved in exactly this kind of discussion. Well - now it happened anyway. I am not looking down my very nose on those people. To look down on someone, you have to feel yourself above them. This is, where I think that some people misunderstood my point of view. I do respect those people for their abilities with Poser, Photoshop, Painter and whatever programm they use to create their images. I respect the ability to use such programms. I consider myself an illustrator - and there is nothing negative about this. In some areas, an illustrator ist far more capable than an "artist". An artist by the very definition of the word, creates "art" - whatever that may be. An illustrator creates illustrations. Illustrations are informative graphics, carrying a message, but no artistic idea. When I was 18 years old, I also liked the idea of being an "artist" and I was very shocked when my grandfather commented, that my drawings were more illustrations than artistic drawings. It hurt me at first, but it grew on me. I tried to create "art"... And it was pure junk. Not worth the paper it was drawn upon. It took me about 2 years to realise, that there was nothing bad about being an illustrator. I created sets of tarot based on art nouveau-styles or bauhaus-concepts. I created computerized versions of ancient books, mimiking the illuminations of 11th-century monks. I developed my own style at illumination, combining 8th to 11th century illumination with art nouveau-vegetabile patterns. Today, I have no problem with not considering myself an artist. Artists create art - I create things that look good and make a page or folder or whatever, pleasant to look at. I earn money with my illustrations. So why should I consider myself an artist? Is it necessary to consider oneself an artist? Does it help me to consider myself an artist? I think not. "Artist" is a word I would use for people who lived for the art they created. Picasso, Dali and comparable people are artists. I am certainly not, because Picasso certainly had a very different approach to image-creation than I have. His approach was expression - my approach is information. He expressed feelings, I try to convay a certain information. Can you imagine Picasso doing business-graphics? I cannot. (Well, he probably would have been able to do business-graphics - but I doubt that their informational value would have been acceptable.) Can I imagine myself doing something like "Guernica"? Well, certainly not. Maybe this explains why I do not consider people here to be artists. I consider most people here to be illustrators. Many of them far more capable than I am. But not artists. And I do not see anything bad about this. Both have their places. Why would I not consider someone doing a pin-up an artist? There is a simple reason for this: Respect. As a piece of art, most pin-ups aren't really much. As an illustration, I need not rate a picture by it's creativity and artistic content, but by the abilities of it's creator. If I call someone a gifted illustrator, I respect his abilities. If I call someone an artist, I respect his artistic abilities. So, if a picture seems not to be overly artistic to me, should I call the person creating it an ungifted artists? Or should I rate the picture by the excellence of it's execution, calling it's creator a gifted illustrator? being honest, I guess it would be better to view that person as an illustrator. Why is it so important for everyone, that they create "art"? Do you really wish to be compared to such standards as Rembrand, Dali, Manet or Van Gogh? I guess this is a comparison most of us would loose. But compared to people like Vallejo (Who I despise for his endless repetitions of the same basic theme.) or Frazetta (Whose pictures I love for his great personal style and weird ideas.) and numerous other fantasy-illustrators, some of the images here at Renderosity are really good. To bring it all to a point: I did not wish to insult anyone. For me, artist and illustrator exist on an even level. Calling someone an illustrator is as much an honor as calling someone an artist. But I would rate an artist by other standards than an illustrator. I can respect many people here as great illustrators. But like I asked before: Would you yourself call an endless repetition of the same theme (In this case "Nude vicky in a temple") "art"? This is no rating - just a question. Admittedly, I was somewhat shocked by Blackhearts aggressive reaction after my first posting. His reaction made any further discussion with him useless - and instantly polarized and poisoned the atmosphere of this discussion. Thanks a lot, Mr. Blackheart - aggression and insults are just what a discussion needs to become really useful. This also caused my admittedly somewhat stupid remark about vain people, calling themselves "artists" - that wasn't really helpful either. Please excuse this. I hope you can understand my position from my current "drivel" and that not accepting some people here as artists is not mean't to disrespect those people but is - in my way - a sign of respect. Joerg

----------------- From WordNet (r) 1.7: artist n : a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination [syn: creative person] ----------------- From WordNet (r) 1.7: illustrator n : an artist who makes illustrations (for books or magazines or advertisements etc.) I guess it kind of depends on your POV...

Well, I hope someday to hear your refer to me as an Illustrator, and if I refer to you as an artist, please consider it a compliment. ;-) Emptions run somewhat high around here, especially the endless "what constitutes art" debacle. If you ever want to really get stung you're probably safer poking a wasp's nest while your feet are mired in quicksand rather than ask that question- LOL! shakes your hand and reminds herself never to post to the forums after midnight.....!

A thought, are cave drawings art? Afterall they've never been done before the cave people came along. Another thought, I am not an artist, there fore I will not judge an "artist". I will only appreciate what I like and shut up on what I don't like JV

"A thought, are cave drawings art? Afterall they've never been done before the cave people came along." Damn right they are.

I would consider them to be art. After all a lot of what we have today started with these drawings.

Just to chip in with an answer to Joerg - do I want to be compared to Rembrandt, etc? Yes, actually. Not in the sense that I expect anyone to say that I'm in the same league (that would be ridiculous) but in that the same principles applied to the deconstruction of a painting by Rembrandt can be used to deconstruct a computer-generated picture. How does the artist approach the use of light and colour? How is the picture composed? These are questions one can ask in the same way about an oil painting or a Poser picture.

But that is an area, that I would attribute to the illustrators area of image-creation, as it is mostly technical.Use of colour, light and spots-of-interest is a technical, measurable thing. In this way you could of course compare yourself with any artist.

I think it's a cultural thing Joerg. I would agree that there are very few if any artists at this site but plenty of compositors and illustrators; some good some bad. I would agree that the term artist is one that is bestowed by ones peers and contempories and I for one amongst most of the illustrators etc that I know would feel embarrassed to claim to be an artist. However, it is dangerous to say this at this site. It usually causes petulism, stamping feet and bad language.

I am definately an illustrator. That's what I got Poser for... to support stories, and I am not ashamed to say so, LOL!