Why is it ok for your friends to vote your image into the Hot 20 if you've been around awhile, but it's not ok if you're a newcomer? Isn't that kind of a double standard?

You have only two standards? Gee, you are missing out. _____ I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.

Oh great... another "Hot-20" discussion. Is it really that important to have a picture in the "Hot-20"?

Yes. It's what I live for. It is the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Without that hope, I have nothing. Why do you want to take that away from me?

where do I find this "Hot 20" ?

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Thats what Im doing wrong l I need a circle of friends.

At least mosca ....you are honest about it :-) nnuu

"Yes. It's what I live for. It is the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Without that hope, I have nothing. Why do you want to take that away from me?" hehehehe

where do i find the "Hot 20" ?

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Dave-So Go to the Poser gallery and clink on the link that says "Hot 20." But before you do, go to my gallery and vote for me.

laughing so hard that she almost chokes on her coffee

ahhh.the hot20...thanks. How many votes do you need ?

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Moska your original question Is quite true. but the big question is why everyone who asks about the hot twenty doesn't go into the gallerys on a regular basis and vote for the work they think belongs on the hot twenty? I certainly think that if everyone votes for deserving pieces they could statisticly outvote the twenty five or so votes that it seems to take a ballot stuffer to get in. so it seems to me what we need is a get out the vote campagn.

i didn't even know there was a hot 20, and surely hadn't paid attention until all the messages concerning it lately. Is only 1 vote allowed per image per person, or can I vote for the same one over and over...if its the latter, why even bother having it? Cause you know the votes are all bogus. I answered my own question..you can click on that voting box forever...do they all get counted, or just the first one????

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Just one.

Ah... just great... I knew it... This is a community of attention-junkies. OK, I took the first look into this fabulous Hot20. Lot's of semi-nude vickies hanging around in temples... Guess I'll have to go and vote for some pink ponies.

"Ah... just great... I knew it... This is a community of attention-junkies." Which explains why you're bothering to post this, I guess... "OK, I took the first look into this fabulous Hot20. Lot's of semi-nude vickies hanging around in temples... Guess I'll have to go and vote for some pink ponies." Good choice. Say what you will about the MPP, Legume's work is like nothing else here. That i itself makes it worth a look.

Hey - I would never say anything negative about the MPP. If you ask me, Legume has more of an artist than all of the nude-vicky-in-a-temple-people combined. At least his pictures have more message than "nude women hanging around in temples look mighty good".

"This is a community of attention-junkies." Uhm whats wrong with that? anyone who posts an image does it to gain the attention of others. otherwise why offload it from your hard drive? again so what? and as for vicky in a temple shure there aare a few of those. but last time I checked LauriS had top spot and Her piece is spectacular and well deseerving of Hot twenty status as well (In my opinion)as many other pieces that are there. as far as pink pony Pix, No offence to legume, they're cute and funny and all, but I am far more interested in ability when looking at any best of list.

No problem with attention - but attention-junkies are something different. But actually this posting wasn't meant all that serious - so don't take it as an insult - it wasn't meant to be one. And I didn't say that all pictures in the Hot20 are nude-vicky-junk. Hey, some of this nude-vicky-stuff like B16's "Tikka" and LaurieS "Happy Samhain" are really good and imaginative. But there is a lot of unimaginative junk around. Ability is good - but you also need some imagination and not an endless repetition of the same picture in a thousand boring versions.

You know what I consider cheating? Making a thumbnail that is only part of the picture. That's cheating. I hate it. And if I suspect the thumbnail isn't the whole thing, I don't click. So there.

Hm... Well... Why do you consider cut-out-thumbnails to be such a bad thing. I dislike pictures without any thumbnail, but cut-out-thumbnails aren't that bad. I actually like them very much - something like a teaser. And what do you mean with "cheating"... How can you cheat in a gallery?

No Prob Joerg, I agree with what you said really but I tempt to lump those things into ability, technical ability, dramatic ability, imagination is an ability in my book and i agree there are often too many bland portraits which don't seem to show any ability whatsoever. And spit I generally agree with you about thumbnails there are many images I won't click on simply becouse the thumbnail is useless to garner any information about the piece from. I generally view the artwork from a dialup at work (I'm the owner, I'm allowed)so dont want to waste the download time.

"imagination is an ability in my book" Well said. Thank you. As for cropped thumbnails: I use them; 200x200 just seems too small to get a good sense of a 1000x1000-or-so image. Better a little teaser, as someone said.

I agree on the teaser bit. I've heard others complain about "tricking" people to click on an image or visit their gallery before. I don't get it, if you don't want to look at other people's images, why go there? Just dont click. While it is kind of a perk to get something in the Hot 20 (I imagine it is, anyway) and nice to get a lot of views on an image, that is not the reason they're there. They're there simple to be seen. I know it can sometimes be disappointing when you click on a thumbnail and the image turns out to be not quite what you thought (maybe not naked enough?) but so what?? One click and it's gone.

"But there is a lot of unimaginative junk around." lol, i guess that would include people like myself and rio, since we didnt make your little 'talent qualifying' list and are high up on the hot20 right now. now you can bash me all you want, i could care less. but when you insult a very original piece that she spent so much time and effort painting, it irks me. i submitted my 'cheesecake' image, went to bed, and when i woke up i was told by a friend that i had 33 votes. big deal. same thing for rio's image. and yeah i did vote for her and her for me, but thats one vote out of 40 or so. but who the fuck are you to decide who is talented and who isnt? who has imagination and who doesnt? art is the most subjective thing on earth, and while everyone has the right to formulate their own personal opinions on it, they have no right to publicly tear it apart. all i hear are some people bitching because theyre not on the hot20 and others are. i dont like the voting system - honestly i think it should go back to unique hits rather than votes, because friends and popularity will inadvertantly give you a boost to your chances of getting up there. and i know about some of the things that popular artists do here - some, that i wont name here, message their friends and people in their newsgroups asking them to vote for their image. but just because some people do it (and these are pretty easy to distinguish from the rest, since pretty much any run-of-the-mill image or product promo they do instantly pops up in the hot 20), it doesnt mean that everyone does. i havent (to my knowledge) been in the hot20 in ages, and rio hasnt either. the most i will do is send a quick IM to a couple of my closest renderosity friends and tell them that ive posted a new image in my gallery, and they do the same for me. its a simple 'hey man, look what i just painted' type thing. i didnt ask to be up there, nor particularly want to be, but just because i am should i be pigeonholed into some category of talentless, unimaginative losers who have their friends vote them in? as for "You know what I consider cheating? Making a thumbnail that is only part of the picture. That's cheating. I hate it. And if I suspect the thumbnail isn't the whole thing, I don't click. So there.", thats the silliest thing ive ever heard. a lot of artists post closeups of [part of the image so that the browser can see the level of detail involved. also, theres a widespread browser mentality out there that if they see the entire image posted in the thumbnail, theyll figure theyve seen all there is to see and move on, unless the subject particularly interests them. if youre deliberately not clicking on these images, lol, the only person youre 'cheating' is yourself. and as for attention junkies, your little hero legume is the biggest one that ever lived. interesting that some of you look up to someone who messages entire newsgroups urging people to create renderosity accounts solely for the purpose of voting him and his friends artist of the month, and then brags about it. pfft. cheerio, -gabriel

Well, if you ask me, the "Hot20" is the most useless feature of this community. Especially since whole mail-wars seem to be fought over this little piece of idiocy. Comments and ratings are halvway useful features, and I do not remember these features creating as much stress as this stupid "Hot20". IMHO it should be removed. As for me "insulting" you (Blackheart) or Rio: I never clearly stated who I thought made good pictures and who produced "unimaginative junk". I did so for a purpose, because Renderosity is full of people who are all to willing to create a mail-war because someone simply stated, that they were not producing "art". "Art" is a big word - calling yourself an "artist" is not very humble. I work as a "Graphics Designer" (Yeah, even the army needs Graphics Designers...) and I draw, render, post-work and animate for a living - but I would never be so vain as to call myself an "artist". I think you could call my position to an artist similar to the position of someone piling up bricks to an architect. People here love to call themselves "artists" without ever knowing the real meaning of the word. A little humility would serve some people here really well. As for your picture "Cheesecake anyone?", I must say that it is well executed and has some extremely good postwork at that. But it is not very imaginative. Hey, it's a pin-up. There's not a lot of creative things you could do with a pin-up. I would say that it is extremely well executed - but would you yourself say, that this picture is extremely "artistic"? Don't take this as a negative comment - I would wish I could produce such work with Poser. As for Rio - I didn't look at all the pictures in the gallery. Rios "Alternate Realities" is very well done, shows high skills at drawing and postwork and while the idea itself is not new, the representation is very well done. But let's compare this picture with: "Fallen Angel", "I will not fear", "Colourful Glow" or "Adam". I do respect the people for their abilities with Poser, but all those pictures have nothing to do with art. Let's take "Adam": The picture is extremely well executed - but it lacks artistic meaning. Does the picture have any message? Does it tell us anything beyond the fact that Catharina Przezak is extremely good at texturing and postwork? That alone doesn't make it "art". That is no insult - My pictures aren't very artistic either. Just electronic comics... nothing more. To make a long story short: Calling yourself an "artist" is a bit haughty and some people here would do better showing a little humility. There is nothing bad at not being an artist. Being good at postwork, image creation and the like is enough. Joerg

"Rios "Alternate Realities" is very well done, shows high skills at drawing and postwork and while the idea itself is not new" wtf-ever im not going to get into a flame war with you, nor am i going to dignify your posts with any more responses. you have an opinion on art, thats great. youre entitled to it. but if everyone shared that opinion, this would be quite a fucked up world, since according to your criteria, people like frazetta, boris vallejo, alberto vargas, etc dont qualify as artists, since all they do is pinups.

hmmm Joerg has some mighty big balls.... and thats all Rio will say.... :x bites tongue

You should not run around, telling people what their opinion is. Actually, Frank Frazetta qualifies as an artist to me, while Boris Vallejo doesn't. I am not quite sure with Vargas. By the way: Frazetta did a lot more than just pin-ups. He is in one league with the Hildebrand brothers or people like Michael Whelan. Vallejo on the other side lacks imagination IN MY HUMBLE OPINON. Thats all - my opinion. Obviously we have very different opinions on what qualifies at art. I have no problem with that. I do not intend to flame anyone - but I do intend to present my opinion. If this bothers you - hard luck. At least I bothered to explain my position - something that you as well as most of our "I am an artist"-people here at renderosity failed to do. Sometimes I would love to have a serious discussion about this issue... Joerg

Rio, this is not personal for me and I did not want to insult you. I really respect you ability with Poser and your abilities with postwork-tools. But would you yourself call your work "art"? Is it necessary for your work to be "art"?

damn straight i call my work ART!!! stands up on her soapbox and SHOUTS: "I AM AN ARTIST!!! and you saying otherwise, IS an insult. Necessary has nothing to do with it, it is what it is, and YES what i do is art, not just what i "consider" to be "Art" as you say, but because it is. Look it up in the bloody dictionary dude. I paint, therefore i am. and i AM an artist.

Well, if you like... I always thought that "artist" was a title given to people, not claimed by them. Seems I was wrong.

Hello, Just bookmarking the thread. Thank you, Nancy Deer With Horns (SophiaDeer)

Nancy Deer With Horns
Deer With Horns Native American Indian Site

"people like frazetta, boris vallejo, alberto vargas, etc dont qualify as artists, since all they do is pinups." Illustrators, I'd say. It's a fine but real distinction. And there's nothing in the world wrong with being an illustrator. It's like the distinction between Louis L'amour and William Faulkner: L'amour's sold more books, is loads more fun for most people to read, but you wouldn't call him an artist. Genre/formulaic work rarely crosses the threshold into capital "A" Art. Raymond Chandler the obvious exception. Not trying to pick a fight here--I admire lots of what I see in the Hot 20, and wish I had the time/patience/talent/tablet to acquire the truly amazing postwork skills often on display there. And Blackhearted's MP stuff is firts-rate, A+. I joke about the Hot 20, but I've learned to take the whole thing for what it is, mostly--a big ol' ass-kissing contest. Which is fine.

I always thought that "artist" was a title given to people pish posh, whatever you say dear... sighs since when did being an artist have to entail so many guidelines? <-- RHETORICAL QUESTION If i say i am a chick, then i am, if i say i am a bitch, then i am, if i say im an Artist, then i should be...and i dont think its such a stretch of the termm "Artist" to proclaim so. i feel i have the right to call myself whatever i want. What i am is not dependent on someone elses opinion of me, nor should it be. Thank you very much for your opinion, theres mine.

bah. the only arrogance i see here is that displayed by a few people who are jealous of the talent of people like rio. that, and envy. i think shes an artist. there. now its a title given to her, and not claimed by her. you talk of imagination? what scale do you use for determining the degree of imagination? and at what exact imagination threshhold does one procure the title of artist? i just cant believe someone can be so bloody arrogant and conceited as to JUDGE imagination. or to declare himself capable of stating wether or not someone else is an artist. does the mona lisa show any imagination? i dont think so. i think its a boring piece, and isnt even that well executed. thats MY opinion, and im entitled to it. so therefore is davinci not an artist? hmm.. but a lot of his works, and the works of the early masters, are COMPLETELY devoid of imagination. i dont think there is any way to classify artistry. if someone uses a stick to draw some lines in the sand in patterns, they could be an artist. i think every single person in this world is an artist to some degree. now thats MY fucking opinion - stop trying to proclaim that somehow yours is the 'correct' one, because all youre coming off as is arrogant and envious. and i cant believe you said that boris vallejo isnt an artist. lol.

lol silly, thanks babe... now simmer down ;) play nice boys, or thou shalt be punished.

"if someone uses a stick to draw some lines in the sand in patterns, they could be an artist." Depends on the patterns.

"play nice boys, or thou shalt be punished." Promise?

"Depends on the patterns. " and who, exactly, is in the position to judge wether or not those patterns qualify as art? if they qualify as art to at least one person (including the person making them), then they are.

nod i agree ;)

Okay, Bh--if you say so. But that makes the idea meaningless. According to you, saying you're an artist is just like saying you're an oxygen-breather or a food-eater. So big deal. Who isn't?

Well, Blackheart - at the moment you are the one who seems to claim to be able to rate imagination. While I am saying that one shouldn't call himself an artist, you seem to consider yourself able to give this title. As for the Mona Lisa - Well, no one ever said it was his greatest piece of work. Actually the Mona Lisa is considered to be nothing more than a training-piece. What makes Leonard an artist? Well, for one point you could take the point that without Leonardo, you wouldn't have Poser. Leonardo daVinci was one of the people who discovered perspective and began with 3-dimensional analysis of the world surrounding him. He questioned church-doctrine and was one of the greatest architects of his time. He faced multiple charges for his scientific discoveries as well as his drawings. He also risked being put to death because of his anatomical studies - which were forbidden at that time. For short: While some people here are sitting before their computers, posing around with a programm and calling themselves "artists", people like Leonardo daVinci not only risked his life for his art, he also created the basics for what our "artists" of today are using. Or let's take people like Mucha, who influenced a whole period of art with his drawings, who gave a new definition to image-format, space-distribution and posing. 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. And that is one reason, I would never dare to call myself an "artist" - I rarely create something new. My web-pages have to look like some design that has already won a price, my pictures in the gallery are just comics. Well, maybe my shortstories are something new, but I wouldn't call this art. Now let's take Renderosities "Pin-Up-Production-Artists". Could you tell me what is so imaginative and new about these pictures? What makes posing some pre-created nude person before a precreated background, using pre-created textures and pre-created poses so goddamn artful? No way! I admit that Rio's picture is nicely done and shows a great deal ability with Poser, Photoshop, Painter or whatever was used. But the theme isn't really new. Well executed, but not an innovation. If anyone may call himself an artist just by the virtue that he or she is able to use a program, the word "artist" looses all meaning. If anyone doing some basics with poser is an artist, what are men like daVinci, Mucha, Manet, Monet? If anyone may judge any other person an artist, the word looses all meaning. I certainly won't be so bold as to consider myself to be able to say who is an artist. But I do think I can say what I do not consider art. And that's all this is about: My position. I do not consider these people artists. If you consider these people artists - well fine. I am lacking vocabulary here, but let me put it like this: Calling yourself an artist is vain. There is more to being an artist than just making nice pictures. And what is so bad about calling yourself an "Illustrator", "Graphics Designer" or something similar? There is no hierarchy between those names, making the artist any better than the "Illustrator".

"Now let's take Renderosities "Pin-Up-Production-Artists". Could you tell me what is so imaginative and new about these pictures? What makes posing some pre-created nude person before a precreated background, using pre-created textures and pre-created poses so goddamn artful? No way!"

Yeah! You'all aint no freakin artists!! What the hell....what a dirty rotten trick to play on all us dammit!!

LOL heh Joerg...you cRacK me up

so then lets agree then, that there is an art to "art", youve made a lot of valid points. "Calling yourself an artist is vain" but this i just cant agree with, and that is my main and only argument. vanity would be saying you are the BEST artist... but again imma have to bite my tongue on this one, leave that at that, and agree to disagree. ;)

Just a bookmark. In and out. See ya. Bye now. Off to work on my macaroni/bottle sculpture thing.

"Off to work on my macaroni/bottle sculpture thing." ??

Jeorg! You should be ashamed of yourself! That has to be the largest unmitigated piece of drivel I've had the joy to see all afternoon. You make toys that I can dress my dollies up in with one hand and insult your very customer base with the other??? Kind of like talking out both sides of your face there, eh? I had noticed someone making these wonderful textures for your product the other day and had just about decided it was a "must-have" until I read this. You can personally think anything you like about me or my "art", but if you wish to sell me something- don't rub my nose in it.

Rio!! Your picture "Webbed" is out of this world!!!!! Just gorgeous!

In a world filled with causes for worry and anxiety...
we need the peace of God standing guard over our hearts and minds.
 
Jerry McCant

Just being nosy, I wonder why Joerg has Ki on his wishlist...?? Didn't you do Ki, Blackhearded? Lighten up people. "Art is subjective". I am outta here JV :)

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

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

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

"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!

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.