ZBrushCentral

do you think 3d is true art?

Community
#41

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.

#42

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

#43

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.

#44

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 :wink:

#45

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. :slight_smile:

#46

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. :smiley:

#47

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.

#48

Cryptic but maybe that is art!
These type of questions always create a distinct irritation in me.
To be an artist? To be doing art? etc etc.
After fourty years of working as an “artist” which has become a term I really do not like to be called I can tell you that when I cook a really good rabbit stew a la Provincial that all the other “art” can get lost for that eating period.
It does not matter one bit what you use or in which medium you work.
The problem is that there are far too many talkers about art and far to few real doers and unfortunately there are far too many critics that have never ever experienced the workflow of any art form. Then there are far too many people doing art degress and becoming art lecturers who are totally useless to us art workers. The problem is that there is no answer to this rather stupid question and really any person who states that this is art and that is not is actually a total fruitcake.
Hard tones but that is the state of things.
If you really need to be concerned whether your work is art or not then all I can say is you are still pretty “young” etc - the only person that can actually answer this question is YOU for yourself! In other words you need to have the strength and arrogance of your own knowledge and conviction.

#49

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! :slight_smile:

#50

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’

#51

:smiley: 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…

#52

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

#53

: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 :smiley:

#54

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

#55

You forgot one…

[[attach=148128]ClarisWorks.gif[/attach]]![ClarisWorks.gif|249x263](upload://rtm7DQnKhlqNfS7hAkUWP40wjBp.gif)
#56

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

#57

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.

#58

Second that Kravit

#59

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

#60

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.