ZBrushCentral

do you think 3d is true art?

Community
#21

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.

#22

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

#23

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”

#24

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.

#25

Now that we are at it, I would like to state on, for me, what Art is.

For me, Art is a corpse. It is something that its creator created and left in this world after he gone to the next.
If its a recognizable corpse, then it will get treated well and remembered for all eternity. If its not, then it`ll simply be forgotten and got eaten by maggots, then rotten away along the flow of time.

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.

— Aye, these are my extension of the idea that [Art is its creator]

#26

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.

#27

come again?.jpg

#28

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.

:wink:

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

#29

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?

#30

“Art is what you can get away with” - Andy Warhol :smiley:

#31

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.

#32

Maybe if in 200 years people call van gogh van goph that could happen :slight_smile: .
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.

#33

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

#34

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.

#35

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.

#36

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.

#37

…well, your sculpture is art :slight_smile:

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

#38

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.

#39

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.

#40

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.