do you think 3d is true art?

[Ghostesper]

my good friend is a oil painter and tattoo artist who is very skilled. Now I've had this arguement with him because I'm a 3d artist and I fully believe that 3d art is actual art. He says that it's "just a cool hobby" that because we use the computer and have the undo option, and set handicaps such as A semitry that it's not real art. That a painter has to has far more precision and skill, same with a real traditional sculptor. So I bring the topic to the Zbrush public and see what you guys think. Hes not saying it doesn't take skill or artistic knowledge, but more so the medium.

[acmepixel]

What is true art?:cool:

[eldee.s]

is tattooing true art? is human skin a true canvas?

art is in the eye of the beholder, anybody who says different is a snob

[spaceboy412]

symmetry and undo are no different than the wireframe under your clay model and smoothing it with a wet rag. early steps.
try this. draw a face 2d. sculpt a face in 3d. which is faster?
i love both, i started out doing 2d for 20yrs, and now 3d for the last 6, i've yet to be able to accomplish what i could with a pencil/ink/watercolor. there are so many things you can fake or allow an impression of in 2d that are very difficult to do in 3d.
let your friend give zbrush a shot. i had one who thought exactly the same.
that being said i have no idea what "art" is. if its expression, then the medium does not matter.

[rolilli]

The never endig discussion "What is Art"

Tell your friend that a traditional oil painting or sculpture is not automatically Art. It can be well executed crap.:lol:

[jaystein777]

Hi guys. I'm an Acrylic painter, Tattooist AND 3d Artist. I also sculpt in clay but I haven't done that in quite some time (but I wish I could).

Creativity is what it's all about, but let me tell you my two favorite tools are the pencil and the pixol. In my opinion 3d art is the highest art form in our age.

And it's only going to get better with solid 3d printing and all that.

[Theocles]

Yes, right on! Art is the expression of your imagination, in whatever form.

[rolilli]

Allow me to quote Scott Adams...

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing wich ones to keep"

I like this enough to add it to my signature:rolleyes:

[splodge]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

2D art is boring for me. It's yesterday's art. 3D is the future. Whether somebody thinks 3D is art or not is irrelevant in the grand scale of things.

I look forward to the day when anybody can create art in minutes. There's nothing particularly admirable about spending seven years creating a static sculpture. If anything it's kinda sad.

[lemonnado]

Art is what the clients pay for...
Rainer

[spaceboy412]

really? so all the other "art" that was never commissioned isn't art? prehistoric cave paintings, aboriginal art(current as well), culture after culture of expression, oh and should we even say Van Gogh.
i'm really shocked at that way of thinking, but to each their own.

[puzzle]

Well....There is no undo button in solid stone. And when you turn off the computer you turn off your art. And good luck getting a 13ft 3d print that can stand let alone last 500 years.

[eldee.s]

really? so all the other "art" that was never commissioned isn't art? prehistoric cave paintings, aboriginal art(current as well), culture after culture of expression, oh and should we even say Van Gogh.
i'm really shocked at that way of thinking, but to each their own.To paraphrase, he meant "Art is what people perceive to be art".

And to get absolutely technical, prehistoric cave paintings weren't art until we labeled them as art. Modern society views it as art, because it was the first step into a larger world of art, but it wasn't created with artistic intention- it was part of a tribal/religious process to bring good luck to the hunt ;)

just sayin

[spaceboy412]

lol

[Disco Stu]

Art happens





For me not in 3d yet most is Illustrations.

[Webhead]

my good friend is a oil painter and tattoo artist who is very skilled. Now I've had this arguement with him because I'm a 3d artist and I fully believe that 3d art is actual art. He says that it's "just a cool hobby" that because we use the computer and have the undo option, and set handicaps such as A semitry that it's not real art. That a painter has to has far more precision and skill, same with a real traditional sculptor. So I bring the topic to the Zbrush public and see what you guys think. Hes not saying it doesn't take skill or artistic knowledge, but more so the medium.
There are many definitions for the word "art."

ART
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

To say that anything with an undo button isn't art, is a totally random statement. A pencil drawing has an "undo" button. It's called an eraser. That doesn't make it any less art just because it can be erased, does it?
They have an "undo" button for ugly, unwanted tattoos, too. It's called a laser.
Does your friend ever use any "handicaps" like photo reference, or is he so great an artist, that he pulls it all out of his head, or somewhere else?
If ZBrush does it all for you, and it doesn't take talent, why are their people who excel in ZBrush, and people who don't? Why do people get better at ZBrush with practice? Why is there different styles of sculpts in these forums using the same exact software?
There are people who use ZBrush who are also adept at traditional media, as well.
Show your friend the artwork below. It was done with traditional tools. Ask him if he thinks that alone makes it art. Then tell him it was done by a chimpanzee. See if he still thinks it's art.

chimp art.jpg

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
ZBrush is a means to an end, that's all.
There are people who think tattoos are art. Fine. That's their opinion.
For me personally, I think tattoos are ugly. I consider them as body graffiti, or even self mutilation of the human body, which I consider to be a piece of art in itself. When I see Megan Fox, and Angelina Jolie covering their beautiful bodies with ugly tattoos, it's a turnoff. Hey, to each his own.

[Disco Stu]

that chimpanse is a total pollock copycat.
He hasnt got any creativity of his own and hes doing it all wrong.

[Webhead]

that chimpanse is a total pollock copycat.
He hasnt got any creativity of his own and hes doing it all wrong.
LOL You tell him that. He's not only a talented artist; he's also an expert in monkey style Kung Fu.

Kung Fu Chimp.jpg

[Jamez]

Art is subdivided into several categories, which can only be defined by their purpose.

I wouldn't categorize a full blown mechanical 3d model of a Corvette engine under fine art, but it's still takes an artist.

I'm a digital fine artist who has incorporated 3d into some pieces that have been widely accepted as authentic. Mainly by older people who have only been exposed to traditional art mediums. Fine art is more about expression, mood, and decoration. That's it's purpose.

Architecture, which is highly technical and must function in the real world, is one of my favorite forms of art. You can't compare it with an illustration in an effort to define art, though. In fact, you can't define art, only categories of it.

[Kerwin]

Art for me is an act of communicating, sometimes at an intellectual level and sometimes at an emotional level. I dislike the premise that art is about "skill" and ergo some truly skilled discipline is more "true art" than others.

The very act of art is more about communicating at some level what is in the mind of the artist to another mind (the audience). The form and technique of the communication is a medium. What I find more and more is that some artists of one medium, because the have become so vested in developing the skill and technique particular medium start to look down upon artists in other mediums because they either do not understand or respect the skills involved. However, that is a sheltered and unenlightened viewpoint. The measure of a medium's success should be measured by its ability to deliver the idea from one mind to another.

As for "undo" or a "computer", I've had those in traditional training. (It's called an eraser and for ink, "Placa White" . . .) and the machinery used is always advancing. The modern canvas of an oil painter is not hand-woven. His paints are not hand prepared. Even his brushes often entail synthetic fibers.

When I trained as a sculptor, to use a dated analogy, there were some who worked exclusively with their hands. Then there fellows like me that had a whole arsenal of rubber brushes and points with which we used to shape the clay in a more controlled fashion more quickly. One among the sculptors felt concerned that using tools beyond his hands was "cheating." It didn't take him long to see the value in the delicate tools we used to form masks for theater before he went out and bought his own set a points.

A true artist will not resist the tools that enhance the ability to communicate in his medium and would not shy away from those tools that would help him communicate. The notion that "undo" or a the mechanism (in this case a computer) somehow disqualifies something from becoming art is bunk, plain and simple. Moreover, the choice of medium is suited to the message. Since I dabble in games as well as advertising, we work in dozens of mediums: 2D, 3D, print, television, music, film with thousands of techniques. The very success of our work comes from artists and craftsman bringing together their techniques in a collaborative way so that whole team delivers the "story" to the mind of the audience. None of us can succeed without the others, so we can't afford to be so snobbish and say to the composer "Well, we're sorry, but non-visual mediums aren't true art because we only respect the skill of reproducing perspective on a sheet of paper . . ." (perspective, by the way, is also a "technology" that rennaisance artists went ga-ga over when it was discoivered . . . I doubt anyone said to Leonardo, "Oh, using that perspective thing is cheating--you should just guess at the vanishing points . . .")

Can one create garbage with a computer? Yes, at phenomenal speed. One can also create junk with paint. To mis-quote an idea from the 50's, "it ain't the medium, it's the message."

The revolt against the computer is often little more than a fear of skill acquired through hard learning being made readily available to a wide group of artisits with less training. It is a sort of artistic elitism around worshiping skill versus the purpose of art. It also smacks of a sort of ludditism, which in a way is sad since artists tend be the ones that are always trying new things in their mediums.

-K

[Ghostesper]

WOW! I really appreciate the posts that I've seen here. It honestly kind of hurt my feelings because I felt like my craft was somehow not worth something. These responses have continued to give me support and I really thank all of you that have posted so far. I sent a link just now to one of my friends who was in on this conversation and agreed with my tattooing buddy.

he said earlier and I qoute "you see I'd be much more impressed with your work if I saw you do it in clay rather than on the computer" I asked last night the same question to Ryan Kingslien when he was teaching my class at Gnomon and he said "a bronze sculpture no matter how it was sculpted, once it was cast it's a bronze sculpture" I think it's honestly peoples fears so they go to this place of this manly ego of "if it ain't traditional it's not real art blah blah blah"

[Erklaerbar]

Theres no such thing as "true art". In fact there is nothing unconstructed at all, at least for the human brain. So "true art" is a construction which has as many definitions as there are humans... and probably apes too, not to speak of all other animals that have similar cultural constructs. As long as you feel good doing it, go ahaead please.

[dirtbox]

I used to be a luddite illustrator, using tradition mediums to work on everything from books to concept design to story boarding movies pre production. I was an artist in the classic sense.

I moved on, and IMO up to 3D art after a long self taught battle with the software and came to the conclusion the resulting work is not only art, it's fine art approaching the level of renaissance sculpture.

There is mastery and huge creativity involved, and the end result brings pleasure to those who see it. The medium a creative piece is rendered in is irrelevant.

However, art is far too subjective a term. A dripping tap is art if photographed in grainy black and white.

Either your friend hasn't got a clue what he's talking about or he's jealous. I'm betting on jealous.

[Webhead]

For me, Art is a corpse...
If it`s a recognizable corpse, then it will get treated well and remembered for all eternity.
If it`s not, then it`ll simply be forgotten and got eaten by maggots...

Present day collaborative arts, like movie, game, etc, are a field of massacred bodies.
The bigger it is, the stinkier it become, and with less chance that anyone will recognize any individual body, except those of the beautifully mangled generals and officers.

come again?.jpg

[acmepixel]

My cat is a pretty talented artist. And I've seen some nice work done by elephants.

And don't forget all the Xerox butt-print artists out there.

;)

"Art should be edible, or not at all." Salvador Dali.

[Disco Stu]

that elephant drawing a house and a kid was a fake artist just in case u
mean that one ^^ the thai man behind him was moving his ear the
way he wanted and the trunk followed^^ so is a creative ripoff like this maybe
art?

[EricArtman]

"Art is what you can get away with" - Andy Warhol :D
(http://en.easyart.com/art-prints/Andy-Warhol/Art-is-what-you-can-get-away-with-135393.html)

[neurogenesis]

It's probably the only signifigant visual art being made, because nothing else pays at all. All the great artists have been on the cutting edge of technology. Who knows, maybe monstermaker will be displayed next to van goph in 200 years.

[Disco Stu]

Maybe if in 200 years people call van gogh van goph that could happen :) .
About artist always using the cutting edge of technology that is simply
wrong.
Maybe they got some newer better colours or better tools but the
factor that seperated them from the old artist was always what
they did different and not what tools they used.

As Eric Artman quoted art is what you get away with.
Very little artists are found just because someone likes their works
and gets it into their gallery.
Most have established their artist ego and artist way to talk at an art
university and get displayed in museums thru contacts they got there.
Some may also have great paintings and sculptures but for most "artist"
its the ammount of bullcrap they talk that gets them places.

I dont really see a way of getting ego nor talk sitting infront of a computer
all day.

[renderdemon]

My little humble opinion.
3d is a technical field,you have to know procedures,workflow and so on.
3d needs great software and great computer,if you don't have a great software and a good computer even if you are the new Michelangelo you'll never be able to show your skill.
So,probably old media are more honest,if you are good you can show it more easily.
But art isn't only technique,art is primary a comunication form,you have something you want to share with the world and you use some media to communicate.
It's a new media,give it some time to grow.
Bye

[DanasArt]

It's hard for some people to see a new art form. I think it happens with all new technologies and methods that come out to help artists. To me its just more tools to help accomplish and express what you feel is art. Just because it's not a traditional method or that you used some new tool to help you accomplish your art piece, it does not mean that it's not art. It's just a different form of art.

So yes, I think 3d is true art in all aspects.

[rolilli]

Part of the problem is that most people who do not know about art made on computers think the PC does it all.

When I show a little something I've made, the reaction from that kind of people is most of the time
" You use a program to make that yes? So how difficult can it be?"

They seem to think no other skills or even inspiration is required than to start the program and let it do it's thing.
Like giving someone a pencil and paper as "the program" and the rest will follow without some personal input.

[3000critters]

When I was a boy, I used to draw with pencils of different hardness, carbons, colored pencils and the like. Not as much because I liked the different effects that I achieved with the various combinations of media, but because I was constantly seeking to interprit to paper, the image that I saw in my mind.

Needless to say, I never accomplished any of the ideas that I wanted to achieve. To me, my childhood art looked decent enough, but the realism that I wanted to express was not there. I was never satisfied because I was never able to translate to paper, or canvas or any other surface that I worked on, what I saw in my mind with the tools that I had.

And now, many years later, 3D art has given me a new chance at achieving that always elusive effect that I could never have achieved with more traditional medium.

Am I cheating because 3D modelers, render engines and textures have made it much easier to manipulate nurbs and surfaces and pixols to try to more accurately reproduce what I see in the mind inspired by external inspiration?

If, with constant tweaking and editing of a Vue scene, populated with imported objects that I took the time to built in Hexagon, a somewhat decent looking critter sculpted in ZBrush from ZSpheres and textured with the artistic efforts of very talented artists, I can somehow produce a somewhat visually realistic-looking render which I then take to Paint Shop Pro for a few more tweaks, should the final product, a digitized rendered 3D scene be automatially considered less than a photographer's work?

Or less than an oil from someone's canvas? or a watercolor, a sculpture?

Like a painter (who more than likely does not make his/her own brushes or canvas), photographer (who certainly did not build the camera or the film/flash memory that it uses), or a sculptor (who may not be a stonecutter or chiselmaker to supply his/her art), or a columnist (who doesn't produce his/her own pencils or the pc/mac that he/she relies on) or an architect, a musician etc., the spark that inspires my efforts and the hours or days that it takes to produce a final 3D output, still begins in my mind.

And the artistic effort that it takes to achieve the final product and the satisfaction of completing something that I can then share with the world, is just as strong now, as it was when I was 10 years old, and sitting at my little table. That is why I spend quite a few hours on it. That is why I spent quite a few dollars on this, my, and our need to be artistic.

The question should not be, whether using specific artistic tools that were designed by people for the specific use of developing 3D art to produce an inspired work by others, be considered art or not because of the quickness in speed that it takes to produce a 3D something, or because of the fact that the elements that make a composition may not all be one's own, but whether the output of an artist's efforts, regardless of media, be considered art because it is a representation of one's ideas, translated visually, via an individual's preffered medium.

Yes, other people make those textures, yes groups of people build those computers, and others write those programs that make our preffered artistic 3D efforts possible, but nobody but the individual artist took those tools and resources and used them in an inspired way to produce something that others say; "wow, that's cool, let me wallpaper my pc with it," or "hey, that's o.k. looking," or "man, I wish that I had the skill to make something like that."

Some spend months with oil paint on their hands, clothes and canvas to produce works of art, others splat moist clay on a spinning table and work until they form something magnificent. And for us, sitting in front of our computers a few minutes or a few hours a day with ZBrush and/or other programs is our way of expressing our ideas and accomplishing visually what one could not with colored pencils and pastels.

Bottom line is, art is an expression regardless of how one chooses to accomplishing or not accomplish it. And, in my opinion there really is no such thing as a lesser or inferionr way of expressing onesself, only that there are different ways that people go about it. And by all means, friends and fellow ZBru****es, Build, Sculpt, Create, Learn and enjoy.

That's just my two cents and a pixol.

[Davy]

...well, your sculpture is art :)

We are just talking about different techniques. And nobody should classify yours as non-art based on techniques.

I bet you will impress artists if you turn yours into a wooden sculpture:
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=71822

Davy

[Lartist_Formerly_Known_As_+]

I used to work as a tattoo artist and in doing so, worked with a number of people who felt the same way. It's the same argument that older people have who think that music that was recorded on vinyl or wax sound better than mp3 format. I think that this argument is only fought by people that are afraid of change and have no idea about the medium. I will say this about tattoo artists, for the most part, the "art" that they do is tracing a photocopied image of some flash art that a person wants tattooed on them. There are some tattoo artists that are really stunning, Paul Booth does amazing work, but for the most part, they are hacks...like carrot top. Same goes for CG artists, as well. I think that the important thing to remember with art is that it is an expression of the person's soul and emotion. Regardless of the medium, if it is visually stimulating, and can bring about some sort of emotion from you, than it has served its purpose. Also, has anyone looked at the modern art section of your local museum? There are some atrocious works of so called art that are so bad, I think they gave me cancer.

[50'sKID]

Interesting thread. I think the question depends on who you ask. There seems to be a real hesitance in the general public to accept something you did on a computer in the same reference as something they can touch. I have come across this recently looking into showing my work at Summer Art Fairs. Most of which do not accept prints, which is all you can have with a computer, but in the same breath, accept Photograpy, which is nothing but digital prints. The same can be said for most Galleries,... with growing acceptions. Hands-on art just has a more personal attraction to the art buying public. I'd argue that the top row of ZBC shows some of the greatest art and artists in the world. 50.

[Super Glitcher]

Read it again:

art 1 |ärt|

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.


..by definition yes. I personally don't think it's in the eye of the beholder to determine. A particular pieces personal value, of course - but it's definition as art, absolutely not. Art is definite. Peoples tastes however are subjective, uncertain, influenced by culture, society, religion, so forth and so on. None of those things have any place as judge. Filter for yourself, of course. Filter for others, please don't be so presumptuous.

Art doesn't magically come out of paint brushes, needles... or computers. It comes from people.

[jamespthornton]

3d is an AMAZING art medium. It puts an artists skill to the test more than ever. Do not be ashamed of your medium. Yet most 3d is not intended to be categorized under "fine art". Most of it is for entertainment or marketing. That doesn't exclude it as an authentic fine art medium, though.

I create "fine art", or try to, it's my job. I've used graphite on bristol board, prisma color pencils and nupastel, airbrushes, digital painting, and I foresee 3d playing a large role in my career.

ZBrush IS sculpture. Rendering IS composition. The SAME rules apply. Your weaknesses will show.

Too often 3d looks less artistic because it lacks looseness and rhythmic lines, while focusing too much on small stuff. The SUM of the piece has to work, just like a drawing. Therefore, most artists will have MORE luck just drawing. Remember that:

NO amount of detail or realistic lighting will ever correct a piece with incorrect proportion and form.

To me, this makes 3d one of the truest of all tests.

However, most 3d is under a different, equally respectable category of art.

"You can't define art, only categories of it."

I feel that this thread is directed at "fine art", yet most 3d isn't ever meant to be framed, matted and sold in galleries for people's homes.

[Morph Division]

I think we should forget about "fine art'' or ''art''.

3D and technology (to name a few) is redefining our perceptions of the human experience and beyond.

What might be considered art is usually behind the curve as it takes society a while to digest.

For example you may be aware of an Australian artist ''Stellarc''.
Recently he had a human ear grown off the back of a mouse, and grafted onto his arm...well IMO the technology behind his work is more profound than his sentiment...another work was a virtual head which used 3D to communicate to an audience, although it wasn't AI it pretended to be...however Benjamin Button was by far more moving and impressive.

There are more examples but my point is the definition of art is irrelevant.

cheers

[broadstroke]

3d can be quite technical and scientific at times, and seem a lot less appealing because let's face it, 3d is computer assisted especially in rendering, but it does require a strong, far reaching skill set that you need to have in order to make the computer assist you in a good way.

Isn't 3d what a lot of artists aspire to? It's a wonderful form of illusion making where you can control color, light, texture, movement, level of realism etc more than any other medium and make changes as you improve.

Ok, there are a few cons about digital IMO - it's not tactile, it's not 'set in stone' .. there are far less mistakes kept, and mistakes do help a piece. The idea behind the undo button being bad for art is akin to always choosing to erase/wipe away mistakes instead of working with them. It's more of a natural progression if you just leave in 'mistakes' and see what you can make out of it. I believe this approach can be applied to digital work too, so it's up to us how we work. And the bottom line is - who cares what anybody else thinks of the medium you enjoy? Just do your thang.

[jamespthornton]

I think we should forget about "fine art'' or ''art''.

I just don't want people to think that their 3d is any less artistic than a painting. Most 3d just serves a different purpose. It's equally as respectable.

A lot of people do create "fine art" with 3d though. Just don't get wrapped up in worrying about how authentic your digital work is.

I work in an art gallery. We can tell you first hand that society fully accepts digital art as an authentic "fine art" medium. We sell it all, and the digital stuff actually sells more! We're in Kentucky, too, so don't sweat traditional barriers!

People are actually fascinated with the use of the computer to create. Showing them how we draw and sculpt on screen is great selling point. They see it as the future, and so do I ;)

[broadstroke]

The only problem I have with saying 3d is the future is that it implies people won't use real paint, soapstone, clay, whatever the case might be, in the future - IMO those things you touch with your bare hands, smell, see with the naked eye are SO important in our artistic development, even if we intend to use digital for our daily work.

I believe there's nothing like a messy palette to learn color relationships, or viewing a subject with your naked eye to see, hearing the sounds around you and taking how you feel in that environment and injecting that into a piece of art. Whether you're painting, sculpting or whatever.

3d is a good experimental/learning tool as well.. it's just not the real world and we should never lose sight of that or lose our connection to real life. :)

[jamespthornton]

I still draw with graphite, charcoal, and nupastel on bristol. I still paint and airbrush some. However, to me working digitally is much more artistic and intuitive. It is real world art to me. The more creative freedom one has, the more artistic exploration it opens up. It's also worth noting that I do a lot of 2d, which is easier to compare to painting.

There are many creative barriers with natural media.

Mixing paint is silly compared to a color picker. Constant cleaning sux. When drawing very detailed with graphite, you are always smearing the work lightly and having to rework it. Oil doesn't dry for 6 months. Airbrushes randomly spit out bad paint. Creating from life isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Aside from still life (which can be done digitally) there's very strict time constraints. Life moves, and art takes a lot of clock. When painting a landscape, you often have under an hour to capture your lighting before it changes. That improv can add to it, but still it can be more frustrating than fun. I prefer photo reference.

In the end, the same exact rules apply, just with less standing in the way of the creative flow. The only thing I miss is working outside in the sun all day :cool:

I still enjoy natural media because it adds variety to my life, but nothing will ever be as in tune with human creativity as digital art. This is merely my opinion from my own experience though, and I truly respect all other's thoughts on this. :D

[broadstroke]

Mixing paint is silly compared to a color picker.

I have to disagree 100% with that statement because color mixing on a canvas or palette for instance is about understanding and working with relationships, it's an additive thing and has a great flow. Using the color picker in a computer software is very different - it's a sort of disconnected thing and doesn't really have a flow.. a messy palette really helps you understand and use that knowledge when working digitally.

I also have to disagree that there are creative barriers when you work with natural media. That's not true.. if you are a master of any particular media, why would there be any barriers?

Like I said in an earlier post, I think 3d is great, and it requires a lot of skill and it gives artists a tonne of control. But seriously, 3d is not the real world. Sitting at a computer fabricating things that are normally shown on a computer screen or perhaps printed, is not real, it's from inside a computer.

Anyway, I'm saying they're both great and honestly I don't understand why anyone has to feel the need to say either is better.

[jamespthornton]

I also have to disagree that there are creative barriers when you work with natural media. That's not true.. if you are a master of any particular media, why would there be any barriers?

I respect your opinion, but natural media just blatantly has many limitations that cause the creative process to be inefficient. Hence the slang "starving artist". Artists have always struggled because it just takes too long, and time is money.

Digital media has changed that for me, and I know exactly why - it has alleviated the creative barriers of natural media. It's not like art isn't hard enough anyways, trust me I know, it's how I eat and pay bills.

Mixing paint vs. a color picker IS a creative barrier for instance. No, I'm not talking about learning color relationships, I'm talking about efficiency and speed in selecting and laying down a very specific color.

Sure, you learn what colors look good together and how they blend by smearing them around, that doesn't make it efficient for the workflow though. You waste time and you waste paint, both equal money, which not all artists are worried about. It's not a hobby for me though.

If I spend 5 minutes mixing to achieve a specific color, that's 5 minutes of painting that didn't happen. Over time, that crap adds up.

That's just the tip of a large iceberg of creative hold ups that don't exist in a digital environment.

It's no biggie, I just have spent a lot of hours with natural media and know it's several weaknesses. Digital art is more free for the creative at heart, and is just as authentic. Any other perspective is simply outdated.

HOWEVER, I will say that, because of it's limitations, you can learn a ton from natural media that you may not be forced to adapt to when working digitally. So see, we're both right! :)

[eldee.s]

true, but I've spent more money on software and hardware upgrades than I ever spent on paints in my entire life.

so starving artists are still starving, we're just spending our money on different types of 'paint'

[jamespthornton]

:D Yeah, but once you get it down, you're MUCH more likely to create a career out of it. Soooo.....when you add it all up.....

[broadstroke]

James,

Sounds like in your case you're feeling liberated by digital.. for me I am more liberated by real paint and brush - from just three primary colors I make any color I want in seconds.

Everyone should just do their thang, enjoy it and not give a damn whether anyone else thinks it's authentic or true. lol This whole discussion we're having makes me laugh.

Take care

[jamespthornton]

:lol: We must be bored....

.....that or I'm just tired of looking at the piece I'm working on. Sometimes it's good to step away from it, get into a pointless forum discussion, and get back to it with fresh eyes! Later, when I'm tired of it again, we'll debate about what's better - Microsoft Word, a type writer, or pen and paper!:rolleyes:

-cheers :D

[Blaine91555]

That which creates emotion in the viewer is art. Or so I've always believed.

[Super Glitcher]

:lol: We must be bored....

.....that or I'm just tired of looking at the piece I'm working on. Sometimes it's good to step away from it, get into a pointless forum discussion, and get back to it with fresh eyes! Later, when I'm tired of it again, we'll debate about what's better - Microsoft Word, a type writer, or pen and paper!:rolleyes:

-cheers :DYou forgot one....

ClarisWorks.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:zb_insimg%28%27148128%27,%27ClarisWorks.gif%2 7,1,0%29)

[Kravit]

If a can of **** can be considered art, anything can lol

[Hamilcar]

Ok for some reason I felt a need to add my 2 cents. Many interesting comments here and all are quite valid. I think making some differentiations would be useful when having this discussion. IMHO I think there is a difference between craft and art. Just because you make something from scratch does not automatically qualify it as art. Also a few people have mentioned the commercial value and relevence of CG work; a works monitary value will not determin wether or not it is art.

In the end I think only the artist him or herself can tell you if it is art, after that it's up to the viewers to decide and if they argue about it that's a good thing.

[Sebcesoir]

Second that Kravit

[RorrKonn]

I am a Artist and a Poet, Do not need any one to tell me other wise.

[renderdemon]

I think that something that sometimes is lacking in digital art is the message,the communication,simply doing some models/illustrations isn't art,it's creativity(which it's good,but it's more a personal thing,art is something that can be shared.)
Look here,into the forum
We have thousand of hulk models,wolverine,captain america.gollum,essentially the subjects are always the same,and depend on the general trend.

Computer graphics is a tool for making films,videogames,multimedia products,illustrations,these fields have to attract people,so even if technically can show great works,there is always a compromise,the goal is to sell,to make money.
Computer graphics for me have to mature a bit,it's not fault of the medium itself,but how it's used.
My 2 cents.
P.S
Sorry for my english.

[brettSinclair]

No the computer does it all.... :D

[eldee.s]

Sitting at a computer fabricating things that are normally shown on a computer screen or perhaps printed, is not real, it's from inside a computer.which makes it less real because.....? This is kind of a medieval line of thought if you think about it. Does something have to be tangible to be real? Is Van Gogh's Starry Night less real because it's not a painting of a real place? Is it the paint on the canvas that makes it real, or the idea inside his head (which- ironically enough is intangible). I can imagine painters at the turn of the 20th century chastizing the use of pre-made oil paints rather than mixing pigment and oil manually, because it wasn't true to the artform. Honestly, it's the idea that comes out of your head that is art. The human imagination and perception is art, not the paper it's printed on, the type of canvas you use, or the monitor it's displayed on.

[jamespthornton]

No the computer does it all.... :D
I know man, I love the new keyboards with the "make art" button. What a time saver. Who needs talent these days? I have ALL of my Wacom express keys buttons programmed to it. One touch strip is set between the "realism" and "abstract" buttons, and the other between the "contemporary" and "modern" buttons. It's awesome. ;)

[broadstroke]

which makes it less real because.....? This is kind of a medieval line of thought if you think about it. Does something have to be tangible to be real? Is Van Gogh's Starry Night less real because it's not a painting of a real place? Is it the paint on the canvas that makes it real, or the idea inside his head (which- ironically enough is intangible). I can imagine painters at the turn of the 20th century chastizing the use of pre-made oil paints rather than mixing pigment and oil manually, because it wasn't true to the artform. Honestly, it's the idea that comes out of your head that is art. The human imagination and perception is art, not the paper it's printed on, the type of canvas you use, or the monitor it's displayed on.

By real I did not mean true, valuable, important or anything like that. By real I meant part of the real, physical world. It is a fact that if something is inside the computer (whether entirely computer generated, somewhat computer assisted in rendering, or completely from scratch) it's not part of the real world, to touch, smell, etc etc.

Computers do enable artists to produce work at a faster rate and as such most commercial studios use them for production art. In production, specifically with digital technology, you can (and are encouraged to) 'cheat' and cut corners wherever possible to save time/money. Whether that's with masking tricks, projection master, or cutting and pasting photos. In this sense there is a huge difference between natural media and digital media.

If you're producing art digitally for yourself (and enjoyment of your patrons) you can choose to work slower if you wish, and do everything from scratch. In this case the process wouldn't be as different between natural media and digital media.

We have to remember that digital paint software, digital sculpting software and so forth was pioneered by industry pros who did things the old school way and found that computers could speed up production and literally do some of the work for us. Digital software is an emulation of natural media and the real, physical world that we interact in everyday.

I believe only the artist him/herself determines if their work is art or not.

Take care

[renderdemon]

By real I did not mean true, valuable, important or anything like that. By real I meant part of the real, physical world. It is a fact that if something is inside the computer (whether entirely computer generated, somewhat computer assisted in rendering, or completely from scratch) it's not part of the real world, to touch, smell, etc etc.

Computers do enable artists to produce work at a faster rate and as such most commercial studios use them for production art. In production, specifically with digital technology, you can (and are encouraged to) 'cheat' and cut corners wherever possible to save time/money. Whether that's with masking tricks, projection master, or cutting and pasting photos. In this sense there is a huge difference between natural media and digital media.

If you're producing art digitally for yourself (and enjoyment of your patrons) you can choose to work slower if you wish, and do everything from scratch. In this case the process wouldn't be as different between natural media and digital media.

We have to remember that digital paint software, digital sculpting software and so forth was pioneered by industry pros who did things the old school way and found that computers could speed up production and literally do some of the work for us. Digital software is an emulation of natural media and the real, physical world that we interact in everyday.

I believe only the artist him/herself determines if their work is art or not.

Take careI completely agree,and I don't think there is anythyng wrong in saying this.
Illustration work(2d classic works made with oils,aerography,and so on for cover books)is another field where you have/want to go fast,time is money.
I remember that I read more than ten years ago how Boris Vallejo(excellent illustration painter) did his commercial works,doing photographs,scaling these photos bigger with a machine(camera lucida)and using the tracing paper to transfer this drawing on the board(to be honest also the renaissance artists used some techniques to transfer the draws).
He is skilled and can work without these helps,but time is money.
I think in 3d is the same,if you do something for yourself how many time you put in it isn't important and the work is more genuine(MHO).
Bye

[jeffwalt]

Ask your friend to try using Z-Brush, he might re-think his comments. It takes just as much skills to create, sculpt and paint as it does to be a tattoo artist. Let him watch you use Z-Brush, he might switch careers...;)

[jamespthornton]

I use erasers, including an electric one for detailing, to basically "undo" things in a controlled manner. I use stencils, french curves, painter's tape, and frisket to "mask" things. I've used projectors and grids at times. Some use tracing and transfer paper. Back in the airbrush days, I even used to create stipple effects by deflecting or ramping the spray off of a playing card! It was great for dirt or pavement! This list could go on for pages, but it's like saying someone is cheating by drawing a straight line with a ruler. Most digital tools are just another form of a "real" tool.

All artists would be cheaters if that's how we define what is authentic or not.

I do see where some digital output seems more gimmicky. However, that doesn't make all of the great digital art out there less authentic. The amount of thought that goes into a piece definitely matters, and shows.

[SalmonGod]

"We have to remember that digital paint software, digital sculpting software and so forth was pioneered by industry pros who did things the old school way"

Which brings up an interesting thought. What art forms are there which have arisen primarily from the digital world?

Video games come to mind. Their production involves creation of art in traditional styles (painting, sculpting), but then those assets are combined into something entirely different. They are complex digital works designed to offer an experience to an audience. Many may not feel very 'artistic', but others do.

Or maybe web design? There are plenty of experimental and/or hobbyist websites out there which function as art pieces more than anything else.

[Morph Division]

"Ask your friend to try using Z-Brush, he might re-think his comments. It takes just as much skills to create, sculpt and paint as it does to be a tattoo artist. Let him watch you use Z-Brush, he might switch careers..."

Thats funny, I was a tattoo artist for about 5 years (all personal clients and custom jobs). I also freelanced as a traditional commercial sculptor until a friend showed me zbrush...its been all digital ever since...not to mention theres more work in digital medium.

It is the combination of so many disciplines which I found appealing about 3D.

btw nothing does quite replace that feeling of hot flesh and blood as you illustrate on skin....always gave me adreline :)

I don't think it wise to claim an authenticity in art...if we did then there would be nothing to improve on.