Call me a stick in the mud... While I love Bryce/Poser/EIU, etc, I do consider the traditional media to be more substantive. There something about a person and their canvas that can't be rivaled with a computer. "Art" on the other hand, does appear or fail to appear in all media. I've seen poser works that said "art" to me, though not many. Honestly, most 3d stuff I see is more like the 110mm camera on a vacation snapshot scrapbook showing. That's not to belittle 3d, just an opinion (and no, I don't think my stuff is any different.) I do 3d to get my mind off work when I come home. Its a hobby. When I want to do "art" I get out the pencils or oils. "Art" takes me weeks, months, or in some cases, years to complete. A graphite I did once took 2 years. It traveled with me all over the world and I worked on it a little at a time every week. My sister spent 18 months on her fighting stallion bronze. Some of her oils took almost as long. My brother has works that took as long. Longest 3d I ever did was 3 weeks. Most of my 3d is done start to finish in two or three hours. I guess I equate art to two things. Expression and effort. The expression must stir me. The effort must impress me (and if the expression is really stirring and the effort very light, I have great envy for the talent of the creator). While both expression and effort can be components of 3d, the generally are not (as in my case). What makes the mona lisa so valuable? Take a look, its pretty much a standard run of the mill girl that's rather unattractive. But when you consider the effort that went into making it, that sets it apart from anything else in the world. What about fixing mistakes? In 3d, just highlight and delete. Morph, revert, retexture, whatever. In traditional media... well, you don't ever make the mistake in the first place. No, there are differences and as much as I enjoy 3d, as much as I have looked in awe at a handful of 3d images, as much as I have wished my 3d could look like others, I just don't put traditional and 3d on the same level. (Of course, there was a time I didn't put photography and traditional on the same level either so who knows, maybe I'll grow a bit in the future on this issue.) Again, no one media is "art". "Art" does occur in 3d. Junk also occurs in all media.

'artistically speaking, what is the difference between a man who renders Vicki with DAZ clothes, adjusting her pose and the lighting, and a man who photographs a model in his studio?' None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nil. Nary a one. mac

You have to talk to the model.

"According to folks who get paid to figure out which artist's deserve my tax dollars in the form of a US grant, art is defined as a photo of two dudes taking a leak on each other while a naked midget is in the background trying to unclog a toilet with a crucifix." The NEA hasn't funded individual visual artists since the early eighties. 95-or-so percent of their budget goes to institutions; ballet companies, museums, small presses, symphonies, etc.; the pittance that's left over goes to writers--poetry and fiction in alternate years. If the government's going to extort half my annual income every year, I'd just as soon they held a buck or two back from the satellite death-ray project and gave it to an artist, y'know?

Lapis, good one.

Don't worry about what other people think, just create art. Don't let other's put you in a mold (that is what my daddy always tells me). So what; you use Poser, Bryce, your scanner, Photoshop, a little pencil or paint here and there. It doesn't matter, you are creating art for you and you alone (even if it's for business, it's still your art), the people who happen to view the art is only there for the ride. People don't care how you got to A then B, they just want C the end result. I was just reading that in 3D World and it really hit home. You don't have to explain every little thing you do, your art will speak for you. It's not even how much you produce, you can have 1-3 superb pieces versus 40 mediocre stuff. All people care about is if you have the talent to wow them. If you have the talent you will go far, everyone notices talent even in the humbliest of artist.

Like all technology, it will take a while for others to see digital art as art, but it will come. Just hang in there.

"I'd just as soon they held a buck or two back from the satellite death-ray project and gave it to an artist, y'know?" Haha... I agree.

My post is directly in reference to the inflamatory comments made by petereed. I have been an artist most of my life, working in various mediums, from watercolor, to pencil, photography to airbrush. Thoughout all of school, my main focus of study was art, and learning everything I could from technique, to history. In short, art is my life (so is music, but that is yet another form of art.) I didn't originally think I'd give your ludricous post any attention whatsoever, but after considering your views, I figured that in your own mind at least, they are legitimate. (though a little bit of formatting and grammar would have made it much easier to read). I admit of course, that the fact that I have created models, textures, poses, etc... poser content if you will, puts me in the category of what you call true Poser artists. But before I did that, I was a simple Poser user. I took the bits and pieces that other artists had laid before me, and turned them around to create my own vision. Is this not what (with few exceptions) MOST artists do? Take for example a comic book pencil artist. Once in a while, one comes along with their own unique and individual style, but more often than not, they are using the tools laid before them... their collection of old comic books, the images they remember from the artists who paved the way for them. Take any other style of art, and the same can be said. what artist out there cannot say they've been influenced by the works of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Picasso, Dali, and so and so forth... the list continues nearly to infinity. Poser art is the same. People are simply using the tools available to them to create their vision of art. And one day, as I did, they will reach the point where they will attempt to construct original props, models, textures, figures, and more for their work. When I started to draw, I learned how to do so by examining other art before and attempting to recreate it. I know of many other artists who had done the same thing, in order to develop their skills. My own partner in crime, John K of Platinum Dragon Illustrations (he and I are in a partnership now with a new line of figures... you may have seen the first of them, the Warlords Collection Barbarian, on sale at DAZ) started out the same way. His original artwork, which has been the very guide by which I have designed the models for the Warlords Collection figures (and Musclebound Michael last year, BTW), has got to be some of the most amazing pen and ink artwork I have ever seen. He has a talent in that medium that I could never hope to reach, yet he has turned primarily from pen and ink and made his new medium digital art. He uses Poser and Photoshop, primarily. Does the fact that he creates images with these now instead of in a "traditional" medium make him any less of an artist? It shouldn't, and in my eyes definately does not. Art is an expression of self. You use the talents within you and the tools available to you to best express yourself, your own views, and you do so however you can. The important part about art is what it means to the artist. And I don't mean to the professional artist. any person who can devote their time and energy to express themselves, be it through a song, a poem, a short story, an image, a sculpture, even a newspaper article, is an artist. (okay, maybe not necessarily newspaper journalists... they pervert the truth to express falsehoods far too often for that to be considered art). My point is that if someone is able to put a part of themselves into something, it is art. They don't have to be a master painter, or have gone to school for years studying sculpture, or even be able to draw soemthing more than stick figures. Art is self-expression, plain and simple. As for Poser art, it is no different. whatever the final resulting image or animation from a Poser render is, it is something that the artist expresses a part of themselves, their views through. That is what makes it art, no matter how good or bad another may find it.

[Everyone seems to be missing a major point in this endless debate. Why is it that whenever digital art is mentioned, people automatically compare it to traditional painting, sketches, photography, or whatever? If you produce digital art YOU ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MEDIA!]

I think the debate began by just that...Blackhearted's opening statement laments Poser creations as not being accepted on the same level as traditional art forms...he stated...

[all of a sudden all of these 'great artists' who work in traditional mediums are having some of their limelight stolen by people who work in 3D, and mainly poser. they think all poser art is somehow 'easier' and requires much less talent than 'real' artwork]

My point is most of the imagery in a Poser creation is not the result of the work of the creator. The computer does the majority of the work. Do you know how long it takes some artists to learn how to portray a fold in cloth, it's texture, or create the look of different metals, or clouds. In Poser the computer does it all for you. You just move stuff around. If you really believe that it takes equal talent to pull a figure into the Poser window than it does to actually draw one that looks half as good...I got some swamp land in Jersey I'm trying to sell.

What makes ART what it is has to do with the what the artist had to aspire to in order to create it. The years and years of perfecting one's talent to create a Michaelangelo or DaVinci work of art can be clearly seen in the work of ART. One views it and knows the work didn't happen overnight. Every detail was the result of effort above and beyond the ordinary human experience. That's what makes the work of art inspirational. In all it's greatness it says that a human being can through long, intense effort rise up to produce with their own hands a sight as magnificent as what we are given by our Creator who gives us the breathtaking sunsets or a lovely flower. It also implies that if one human can we all can and therein lies the seed of inspiration. We aspire to do the same.

When the computer does the majority of the work it's not the same.I am more impressed with the program and programmers of the software that it does what it does than the one who used it to produce something. In fact, I'd be more impressed to see someone draw the folds of one sleeve of a bent arm than to look at the result of moving a poser arm and the computer putting the folds where they belong and be properly lit and textured.

[Bottom line, with simply posing and lighting other people's stuff, it's still very much possible to create art; artistically speaking, what is the difference between a manwho renders Vicki with DAZ clothes, adjusting her pose and the lighting, and a man who photographs a model in his studio?]

Photographers who approach the medium as an art study art in an attempt to capture the elements that have come to make up great works of art. The lighting in a DaVinci painting or any great painting not only portrays the mood, but creates designs that control how the eye enters, scans and exits a piture. It also creates a design in itself. Those photographers whose works are regarded as being artistic...you can believe...have studied traditional works of art and have tried to capture the aesthetic nuances that are found in such works. Just having a model pose and adjusting a light ain't gonna kick it. The photographer is lighting to capture designs and elements inherent in good composition, again which can only be done if one studies what has been regarded as artistically good design and composition. He also doesn't buy someone's preset computerized lighting schemes to light his subject and then claim credit for the result.

Poser creations can be very beautiful and creative but as for the initial point made that started this thread...it's a far cry from being on the same level as traditional art. I know when looking at a Poser image that the computer did most of the work and I'm not as impressed as seeing what a human can do with his own hands especially when it's magnificent because it says "This is the human potential you can aspire to also, if you so chose" And I am greatly inspired!!!

You go, dawg!

[My post is directly in reference to the inflamatory comments made by petereed...I admit of course, that the fact that I have created models, textures, poses, etc... poser content if you will, puts me in the category of what you call true Poser artists. But before I did that, I was a simple Poser user.]

Hi Drax...seems that while you were typing your message I was working on mine. But, don't get your shorts all tied up in a knot. Anyhoo...I do regard your making of models and textures more akin to being an artistic endeavor. It certainly requires more than just moving the stuff around. If you can say that your poses create a design within the composition or are made with some aestethic reasoning other than just...say...raising an arm with a spear because the figure is about to spear a tiger...I'd say you are being artistic about posing. Having an eye for design and composition is acquired and developed. Just moving a poser arm or leg is not the same. But hey, these are just my humble thoughts on the matter. You don't have to agree.

Very well, Peter... frokm one "artist" to another?.... why don't you show us some examples of your own "art". I don't recall seeing any of it in the galleries here (so perhaps you could show us through example, so we better understand your position).

First: As a "real artist" working occassionaly in non-3D mediums, I figured it was safe to read the post without worry of growing a second evil head. I think I'm OK, but my neck is itching a little on one side. Second: The medium doesn't matter. Art is what someone, somewhere, appreciates in an artistic way. A pink pony is as much art as the Pieta, because someone looks at is as "art". Assembling stock pieces and cutting and pasting is called a collage. I think most of us agree that a collage is a form of art. Third: Poser can be a great tool for more traditional artists too. I occassionaly so something in Poser to use as a model or design in my solid art (I do sculpture and carving when the mood strikes, as well as manuscript work). I can do a scene or a figure in Poser, using different angles and lighting, and use it as a base for my modeling work. Its a lot easier than negotiating with a model (on any number of levels). Also and scenework and lighting for a flat solid (oil, charcoal, etc) can be done first in Poser or Vue or Bryce over and over again until it's just right, then used as a template for the physical work. Each can enhance the other. Fourth: Barbie can be art too. A photo or painting using Barbie as a theme is as much "art" as a painting of a soup can. Even the lines and modeling of Barbie has its own esoteric value. Don't dish Barbie. More people appreciate Barbie as art than people appreciate an old master. Just because something is mass produced doesn't make it any less beautiful or meaningful in someone's view. Barbie rocks (although I'm more a GI Joe kinda guy myself). Fifth: Just because someone doesn't post thier work here doesn't give anyone a right to dis them for it. I admit I do take the opinion of someone who does post more seriously, but all opinions are valued, especially those that disagree with me. I learn more from one negative post than ten positive ones. Sixth: I still can't spell, and I'm too lazy to cut and paste a comment into word, run the d*mn spell checker, and cut and paste back here.

As always, Legume cuts through all the crap and presents a reasonable and consise assesment. I am a little depressed he didn't post a pink popnie with his post. I live for a fcking pink popnie. Maybe one in fcking drag... A breath of fresh air (so long as you avoid that finger).

blackhearted... i agree with u on that people aren't good at all aspects in Poser and it's natural for people to take short cuts, but unfortunately with the availability of all these props, textures etc etc. it's making SOME people too lazy to try doing things themselves and i think this is the aspect that non-posers look down upon...

There you go Doc, stirring the pot with a paint mixer set on high :-)

In a way, this seems like the old "I had to walk 10 miles through the snow to get to school," cliche. Technology makes things "easier" and some will always see this as a reason to devalue the end result. By this logic, a novel created on a word processor can never be as good as one written with a quill pen. It must be deeply rooted in the Puritan work ethic, this idea that if you didn't study for years, live in a freezing garret and eat gruel, you can't possibly produce anything of artistic value. Somehow, you haven't suffered enough I suppose. This kind of elitism flourishes in a realm like art, where so much is subjective. Any true artist who is passionate about their work should not be moved by such criticism. The audience, except for those who let critics make up their minds for them, could not care less how a work was produced or what tools were used. In the future, Poser may well incorporate far more sophisticated faetures which will make things like lighting and posing incredibly easy and make postwork to fix flaws unnecessary. When that happens, will those who now use those tasks to define "artistry" change their views? If the computer can cycle through thousands of poses, light setups and special effects, allowing you to pick your favorite will it be art and if so, who will the artist be, you or the computer? More importantly, if the resulting image touches you, moves you, makes you laugh or cry, does it matter? Art, even commercial art, has no value except to the extent that it produces some emotional response in the viewer and/or the person who created it. Until someone creates a cybernetic soul, there are no digital or analogue emotions. Quibbling over how the work that produced those emotions was created is a strange exercise indeed.

Attached Link: http://www.knology.net/~zaara/image_7.htm

I am not an artist, of any sort. Given pencil and paper, my best efforst rival those of a particularly untalented two year old.

But, give me a 3D program, a few textures, lots of coffee and half a night, and it's a different story! I am able to translate images in my head into 3D space. I have never been able to do that in a 2D medium...thus, I am no artist...in the traditional sense. 3D programs, specifically Poser and Cinema4D XL, allow me to express ideas in a way that was never available to me before. 3D allows me to visualize things in a way that has never been possible for me before.

I think that we are on the cusp of a new medium. IMO, the current state of this medium is rapidly evolving and 10 years from now...hell, five years from now...the artscape will be totally different from what it is today, and we will see posts from people complaining that "Holo-art" is bogus and lamenting the "good old days" when an artist really had to work by plotting vector points, lathing splines, and texturing polygons.

In short, I think that those who naysay artist expression from a 3D medium are only being dogmatic. And dogma is the condition that exists when learning has ceased and processes have stagnated into ritual without true meaning.

I don't care what anyone thinks. If I had had to use oil and brush, with my lack of "traditional" vision, talent, and training, I could never have created the attached image. But art or not, I enjoy looking at that image and marvel that I, who am barely able to scribble an outline on paper, created it! The act of creating that image brought me great pleasure. If anyone else likes it, that is pure gravy. If anyone doesn't like it, that is personal taste and I fail to understand why such a matter of personal taste should be a point of contention or insult.

My Two Pence,
Zaara
zaara@knology.net

hmmm, two women at once. hmmmm. legume, you go guy. Can we see another fantstic work like maybe a pink pony in a temple with a sword? Petereed, feel free to post your work so we can evaluate whether or not you're a master CGist or a blowhard. I agree that media comparison is different. Heck, don't compare and oil with an acrylic, or a graphite with charcoal. But here's a thought that many overlook.... There are those who say they can't draw a line on paper if their life depended on it. I've always encouraged people to try. People are often sensitive to criticism after spilling their guts for the first time. ........... But Computers help people get over that. The timid who have never explored their artistic side are getting more and more interested in it because of the easy introduction through programs like Poser and Bryce. If they move on to the traditional media, then they are better persons for that.

I am a Poser user but I came here without obeying! Forgive me!

My my my...so many opinions! While I stand by by opinion that Poser art does not rise to the level of traditional art...I do enjoy the program and all that everyone does with it. For whoever asked to see something I've done here is a little something called "Patty

I also work with Cinema 4D and Bryce. I'm a Motown fanatic and have had the fortune of doing some things related to the Motown artist like the Former Ladies of the Supremes. Here they are followed by the Bryce image I made for their Sept. Newsletter

Here is one I did for their June issue done with Cinema 3D

Like everyone else who uses the computer to do their thing I enjoy myself. But I would hardly say they rise to the level of a DaVinci or Michaelangelo. Cheers!

Actually, Peter, that painting is very well done. Nice work :)

A minor point: I have no problem with artists like Toxic Angel and Blackhearted posting their heavily photoshoped images. For me, it's something to work towards. Without their images, I wouldn't know the potential of Poser. So I say: Don't think twice about posting those awesome images, Gabriel. Your work isn't intimidating, it's inspiring.

Most people here have used a camera and taken photos, but how many of you have ever taken 'Art Photos'? Most people here have Poser and have made renders, but how many of you have ever made 'Art Renders'? I render for fun, art is irrelevant. Lately i have just done 2D work, painting with brushes in Painter, so maybe i am a true artist now :)

When it comes to art, the only thing I compete against is ennui. /P

[hmm...after several years of art classes (as electives), I made several important discoveries..can't draw, can't paint, and don't work well withceramics..;) If a mechanic wants to go through life with only a hammer in his toolkit, then hopefully he'll only do nails..;) 3d progs are a godsend for me, since my motor skills aren't sufficient to reliably repeat a drawing..;) I think any artist is someone who makes art]

Hey Nu-be...you are indeed an artist. If Poser is your tool to express you artistic inclinations then go for it. I bet that the several years of art classes have helped you to appreciate that there have been some who just had that "gift" to draw and paint as have the "Masters." And for those of us who do not have the "gift" nothing takes the place of perseverence. I know a lady who never did any art her whole life, that is until she hit her 50's. She just thought she'd try and now she's in her 60's and has blue ribbons for her paintings. I'm sure that your years of classes show progress and were not in vain. It is however, a real gas to have these computer programs to go beyond our wildest dreams. It seems some have misinterpreted my point about traditional art. But I think you can agree that there is a whole lot more to what goes into a traditional masterpiece than what we can achieve with the computer.

I see that you are a Strata 3D buff. I give a thumbs up to your being a digital sculptor. I enjoyed your renditions of the Mellotron and the Hammond. I had a Hammond M-100 when I was a teen. I played that sucker to death. I can still play a mean "Clarinet Polka" : ) I missed that ol organ...that is until I found out that the computer...yes...the computer gave me my ol Hammond back. There's a company called Native Instruments that makes a software version of the Hammond that you can even move the drawbars just like the real thing. And talk about the real thing...it sounds just like "the real thing." They even produce a software version of the Mellotron. The sound is identical to the real thing. Just plug in your MIDI keyboard and go. Uncanny!!!

My father taught painting and drawing at the college level for 35 years, and he believed anyone could be taught to draw, with practice (some need more practice than others, obviously). He was a Yale-trained painter who started out in ab-ex and ended up a super-realist; he was a master craftsman, and many of his students went on to become well known in the NY art world. He used to say that drawing is a largely mechanical process--a matter of connecting the eye and the hand, no special "gift" required. My own experience as a writing teacher has shown me that "talent" is about 40% desire, 58% hard work, and maybe 2% some other, mysterious thing that makes some students "get it" faster than others. Knowing how to draw has about as much to do with making art as knowing how to change your oil does with building a car from scratch.

I've worked in real-world media, oils, pastels, etc. There are programs available for a 'puter, that can do a pretty good job of mimicing traditional media. I like stretching the envelope with "so-called" computer art. It's just as demanding, maybe more(think of all the functions, etc. you need to master). When I see some of the work done just here, alone, there is no doubt that real art and artists exist in the computer world, as well. The average guy on the street doesn't become an artist with a graphics program any more than a chimp with a brush and paints becomes a Michaelangelo. Art is much more complex and etherial than that.

"The average guy on the street doesn't become an artist with a graphics program any more than a chimp with a brush and paints becomes a Michaelangelo." But if you give a thousand chimps a thousand brushes, they'll eventually paint the entire contents of the Louvre.

[He used to say that drawing is a largely mechanical process--a matter of connecting the eye and the hand, no special "gift" required.]

This is quite true. Yet I would venture to say that there are still those who are gifted in the arts. One can, with practice become quite skilled at developing the eye-hand connection and draw very well. On the other hand I know there are those who did not have to spend the time required to reach such a level. They just could. Same can be said of music...like Mozart...as a child he could do things musically that defied explanation. Or take jazz keyboardist Sun Ra, who also as a child, could hear a complex song one time and then sit down and play it note for note at the piano. Some singers just have the pipes and some don't. To have been born with the physical mechanism to me is like having been given a gift.

[ My own experience as a writing teacher has shown me that "talent" is about 40% desire, 58% hard work, and maybe 2% some other, mysterious thing that makes some students "get it" faster than others. Knowing how to draw has about as much to do with making art as knowing how to change your oil does with building a car from scratch.]

If you're going to build a car you better know something about the purpose of the oil and how it is going to be implemented in the cars function and how you will incorporate it's maintainance in the car's design. I get you point, however. And, I agree with your 40%, 58%, 2% analogy on talent. But I would venture to say that some do not have that mysterious 2 % that makes the difference. Call it talent, a gift, or what you will, there is such a thing. If nurtured it can blossom to artistic beauty. Take Adriana Caselotti whose father was a vocal coach. Not everyone is gifted with the pipes to sing opera. You can train all you want but if you don't have the pipes...you don't have the pipes. If you do, with training, as Andriana obviously did have, by 18 years old your vocal mechanism may be molded to become the beautiful voice for Walt Disney's Snow White. Shame that Disney ruined her career for years by not allowing her to publicize that she was the voice behind Snow White.

Does this mean that there are only talented/gifted people who make art. Absolutely not. Talent means nothing if not nurtured. I'm sure there is someone who's probably making a living in Appalacia as a lumberjack who had talent that was never nurtured or realized. On a sour note...if these computers keep getting more and more sophisticated there will be no one developing their talent.

It's wonderful if one has that mysterious innate ability without having strived for it. But, there are those that may not have been as blessed who have made the difference with their 40% desire and 58% hard work. Unfortunately many who have not been so blessed hate or idolize those who are and are too lazy or ignorant to realize that they make equally magnificent contributions to the world if they would just put forth the effort and persevere. Some turn to the computer and let the computer do the work. Some turn to the computer and use it to do the work. There is a difference. Where you draw the line is just an opinion. And like noses...everybody's got one.

Hey Charlie Tuna, that water looks great. I really like how you got the relfected colors rippling throughout the surface. It reminds me of an Impressionist pastel painting. Really nice! By the way are you any relation to Tina? She lives at the zoo here. She's billed as the only rock singing fish. LOL

The water was done with a fantastic photoshop filter from Flaming Pear called 'Flood' :-) btw, I don't think I'm related to Tina unless dad was somewhat of a cod :-)

Flaming Pear? How to get this filter?

Just do a Google search of those very words. They make great photoshop plugins.