PDA

Voir la version complète : 3D and Art



Couerl
02/05/2007, 08h45
3D is still so new that there are really no household names like Picasso, Michelangelo and Davinci associated with it. The general public wouldn't be able to name a single 3D artist if they tried, even though we know scores of terrific 3D artists, hundreds perhaps.

Maybe 20 years from now there will be some household names from guys on this very list, but its hard to say and I wonder if and when it will ever be accepted and gain praise or interest from the public at-large.

Will 3D ever get prestige and recognition as a true art form, or will it always be just a cheap, computer generated fake? :ermm:

bwtr
02/05/2007, 09h58
20 years ago I was a "Well known" national and international photographer to some. And, mind you, for my paintings, an "Associate" of The Royal S.A. Society of Arts!

Ask anyone now-- Brian WHO?????

And just try to get anyone to even look at my stacked up, framed, works! Not even my children or grandchildren!

And, the crazy person that I am, I still produce imagery that no-ones really interested in.

Did Picasso or Vincent have any more fun than I am having though!

ps. It's 112 years since the Impresionists group broke up! Some people STILL consider it (Impresionism) "Modern" art! I guess it's a way to go before 3D is accepted as a proper art form based on that?

crazy wabbit
02/05/2007, 15h47
I think because 3d is such a vast area of specialty, texturing , modeling, lighting and such, that one person alone would not get credit for it.

So I do not think that we will have individual names like that of the past great artists. Also remember there are real traditional artists right now that paint better than old century stuff and yet they do not get remembered in a few decades.

That said, 3d art is going to get recognized for what it does and not who did it.

Think of it, and artist painting has to deal with more challenges, lighting, texture, colors, composition and such, where as 3d does most of all that hard work for you.:hi:

Sketchy
02/05/2007, 16h35
Years ago I struggled to produce "art" from 2d apps mainly portraits and still life. I bought myself a Wacom tablet to complement Paint Shop Pro, which I thought has this unique blending brush that could emulate finger smudging better than what I've seen in other apps. I knew my limitations. I didn't have the eye to produce accurate shades and shadows, not to mention perpectives. Later I discovered 3d apps. I thought maybe it would at least solve my problem in getting accurate perspectives as well as give me some clue on shading, then do the final painting using my 2d app. That's pretty much how I got interested in 3d. Nowadays that's just a miniscule part of 3d apps's features. You can even get accurate reflection by applying a HDRI map!

LOL. I don't know what my point in here and its relevance to this thread. I probably would just have to agree. I can't come up with a big name associated with 3d. I'd guess the reason is because of the lack of spontaneity. The 3d art you see is usually made in months not days. And it could be edited for the hundredth time.

Couerl
02/05/2007, 18h22
ps. It's 112 years since the Impresionists group broke up! Some people STILL consider it (Impresionism) "Modern" art! I guess it's a way to go before 3D is accepted as a proper art form based on that?

It's amazing that you're still doing work after 112 years and I'm proud of you. ;)

Pete Exxtreme
02/05/2007, 19h51
Van Gogh, like many other were not recognized during their life : it takes time to recognize something as "classical".
Nowdays millions of people are producing "art" on their own, and it's obvioulsy not the most talented who gets promoted by the system, but the most profitable in a short term... Art, at least its popular form, is becoming a mass product, cheap and expendable...
3D while new is following that trend to me. But i hope that people that have "something to say" by their artwork (not like me :)) will have recognition one day, 3D just being considered then as another media, no more no less.
:hi:
sorry for my shitty english...

bwtr
03/05/2007, 15h47
Couerl. And I love JAZZ--REAL Jazz.

And going to dances with a 3 piece "orchestra", in a huge hall, with no sound equipment. In the days when you could both hear every note of the music AND talk to your partner and your whispers in her ear were heard!

rickei
03/05/2007, 16h35
Democracy is one of the downfalls of art.

Many of the "old masters" spent their lives, doing work commissioned by the King or some other sort of royalty. This allowed the artist to create without being hindered by a lack of food or anything else for that matter, so that they could create art for the sake of art, and not for a quick buck.

in more modern times, the artist is forced to create "sellable" art, which usually means it needs to be dumbed down, so to speak, so that it will appeal to a mass audience. As Pete said it has become a mass product that is cheap and expendable.

Nate Owens
03/05/2007, 17h39
Brian...
You refer to an era when there were values and something that was referred to as "common" sense, a respect for something, whereas now there is no focus, no respect for people or property or real ability. "Entertainers" who mouth to recorded sound tracks and plagarize others are held in highest esteme and lying, cheating and other traits once deemed dispicable are rewarded on popular tv shows like the survivor fiascos.

Were those days just flights of fantasy? I think not.
If our generation had to venture across the praries in covered wagons, deal with no 7-11's on the corner or air conditioning everywhere - could they? Maybe, but I wonder.

I just returned from a biz trip to China (some details at my web site (http://www.nateowens.com/images/ChinaConnection.pdf)) - their work ethic and stamina in adverse conditions is quite admirable.

As far as artists becoming a household word (like a guy called Norman Rockwell did in his day) those days are gone. I just keep my head down and plow ahead, doing the best I can... I think the issue is keeping your values and commitment to the skills you have - whatever they are - and the media (3d, oils, watercolor, pencil) is academic... I doubt too many in the public sector could have told you what tools Rockwell used... they just saw the heart of the man in his work. Like the movie said, "build it and they will come" holds true of art as it does of baseball diamonds. I, for one, am certainly not a purist... I mix whatever tools work - the final product is what is seen and remembered or forgotten.

old fart doodler

rickei
03/05/2007, 17h54
Hey Nate. I see your art is about to be mass produced.lol

Nate Owens
03/05/2007, 18h19
Hey Nate. I see your art is about to be mass produced.lol
Looks like it. Thanks :blush:
There was a showroom display in Shenzhen... just a couple of buyer groups from some major chains... they all hit on my things. It's a venture in a new direction - will be interesting to see where it goes.

In the '70s I did a lot of poster art that was in those flip racks (K-Marts and the like) and the greeting cards have had some good exposure since 1980... seems one thing leads to another -- whadda adventure :flower:

(what's nuts is folks still send emails wanting to get posters and cards I did 30 years ago... lotsa luck... but it is gratifying to know that they like it - that to me is the bottom line and what it is all about.)

Couerl
04/05/2007, 19h07
Well, I tend to agree Nate, (Rickie, I'll get to you later on the Democracy fallacy ;) maybe we've seen the last of the Norman Rockwell's and all we are going to see from here on out are mass produced casts and Kmart-art, but I have hope for people who take Art (with a capitol A) seriously. Anyway, all this discussion about "content" and the authenticity police is not by any means restricted to 3D. It is just as hotly contested in "real" Art forums (I use "real" because a lot of Artists don't consider 3D to be Art at all, but rather cheap computer generated graphics in league with plaster casts at Kmart and Target or old black light posters at Spencer's). I personally disagree with this notion...
If you think the use of "Vicki" or "content" is a dividing line in 3D, take a look at threads like this: (It is a long thread about the "demerit" of body casting and pouring bronze to create "Art", but mirrors greatly the content vs make it yourself argument in 3D). I think it was a great read.

http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=2617

Rickie: I strongly disagree that Democracy is the downfall of Art (with a capitol A), because Democracies foster more millionaires than any other type of government ever known to man and millionaires like to spend money by and large. ;)

rickei
04/05/2007, 21h36
Who is Art? do you mean Garfunkel?:w00t:

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying and I am certainly not implying that anything is wrong with democracy.
But many of these millionaires are what we call down south "New Money" they buy expensive cars and boats, a few vacation homes, and country club memberships, but not a lot of Art...Maybe some Frederic Remington reproductions for their mountain cabin.

In the US, "famous" sculptors like Daniel Chester French are famous mostly because the government commissioned them for a public monument. So it's still the government thats involved.
but even then you'll have to go through a democratic committee to vote on what is Art, and that's never a good thing...at least for the sake of Art, or any type of creativity for that matter. It ends up getting dumbed down, to make everyone happy.

Actually, my only point is that obtaining aristocratic notoriety will put you in the history books, faster than selling a bunch of Art to millionaires. Or even better get a commission from the Pope and you're a legend in your own time... And i think that's what we are talking about here famous Artist and not wealthy Artist...right

On the flip side of all of this you could always loose your head, if your portrait pissed off the "Duke of Somethingshire"( i think that's a real place:happy: )

As far as 3D goes. If you can do like Nate and get your 3D art published on Mainstream Magazine Covers(Not CG type publications) Or have your Models, sculpted (by hand/C&C/Zprinter) you are well on your way to being famous. The key to this approach is appealing to the average Joe(or Art) just like Norman Rockwell, or Nate Owens:ermm:

rickei

jbshorty
04/05/2007, 22h43
I've heard it said that making money IS an art. and I am certainly no artist lol

wibble
04/05/2007, 23h11
The problem with digital art is that a lot of people can't relate to how it was created. They can't appreciate the effort that went into creating the art.

The audience can't help but ask questions like:

"Is it computer generated?"

"Was it difficult to make?"

"Did the artist use a special program that allowed him to make the sculpture within just a few hours?".

I think a lego artist is more likely to be appreciated than a 3D artist. Most people can relate to the effort that goes into constructing a lego model.

So ultimately, it seems that it isn't so much the art that makes people respect an artist. But instead, it's the effort they put into creating their art.

Examples:

Artist #1: "I clicked on a few buttons in this modeler program and it created this really exciting and dramatic scene."


Artist #2: "I carved this statue of a cow from marble with just my finger nails. It took me 20 years to create it."


So which of the above artists is going to be rememberd 200 years from now?

wibble
04/05/2007, 23h19
and Van Gogh was crap!

If he hadn't have been such a drama queen, he would never have been remembered.

People love the fact that he cut his ear off.


I'm gonna chop off my penis after writing this post.

Here's my latest work of art:



:crying2:



wibble

jbshorty
04/05/2007, 23h25
lol Let the bidding begin... do i hear $1 ?

wibble
04/05/2007, 23h35
lol Let the bidding begin... do i hear $1 ?

$1 for my penis!? :[

I suppose it's a start. :huh:

Couerl
04/05/2007, 23h51
Hehe. :)

It's a good point you bring up, the amount of effort being somehow universally tied in to the value of the art itself and yes, I think most people feel that we just push a button and whammo. Instant masterpiece, I have yet to find that button. ;)

Pete Exxtreme
05/05/2007, 00h01
Hehe. :)

It's a good point you bring up, the amount of effort being somehow universally tied in to the value of the art itself and yes, I think most people feel that we just push a button and whammo. Instant masterpiece, I have yet to find that button. ;)

If so, what about Conceptual, or PostModern Art ? :)
Mark Rothko well known paints are just "raw" colors somehow, but isn't it art ? :wub::wub:
Well, it's probably crap for a lot of people who would prefered a picture of Britney S. with her autograph :w00t:

Sketchy
05/05/2007, 03h17
Picasso's art is crap to me, but it is worth millions of dollars to others. There are people who can never draw/paint human heads, but are excellent in producing still-lifes or landscapes. They are still called artists. So what is art? Art, to me, is an individual thing. It's mainly to please oneself. It is art because you enjoyed doing it. The hell with the opinions of others.

Fast forward we now have what we call WIPs or interactive critiques. Others' opinions are more important than ours. The individuality is lost. People are so obsessed into ultra realism. They talk about global illumination, ambient occlusion, radiosity, etc. You go to Blender's forum people are making a big deal out of this new SSS shading feature thinking that such feature will finally make their human model as realistic as humanly possible. It's as if humans actually look like candles. This has got to stop.

This, I think, is what makes 3D users restless. They can't stick with one app.

bwtr
05/05/2007, 03h31
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder--and it's something that is "learned" by lifes experiences.

ART is NOTHING to do with beauty. For those who study art and art history, the art in art is taking the learning of the past and adding to it.

So saying a particular style of art is ,say. rubbish, is really a lack of understanding about the works creation, in time and place.

Time and place.

That is where, maybe, some 3D artists will, in retrospect, be added to a Hall Of Fame. There special works which greatly added to the contemporary sum of knowledge.

Some of us are painters, some of us are craftsmen. Who of us will be amongst the few to be acknowledged as true "Artists"?

Sketchy
05/05/2007, 03h42
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder--and it's something that is "learned" by lifes experiences.

ART is NOTHING to do with beauty. For those who study art and art history, the art in art is taking the learning of the past and adding to it.

So saying a particular style of art is ,say. rubbish, is really a lack of understanding about the works creation, in time and place.
You then just contradicted yourself by saying it is a lack of understanding. Why? You just said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Couerl
05/05/2007, 03h45
If so, what about Conceptual, or PostModern Art ? :)
Mark Rothko well known paints are just "raw" colors somehow, but isn't it art ? :wub::wub:
Well, it's probably crap for a lot of people who would prefered a picture of Britney S. with her autograph :w00t:

Yes, all good points. Speaking of Brittany, remember last year the sculpture of her pregnant on a bearskin rug giving birth, the guy is at it again this time with Paris Hilton, dead on an autopsy table from driving drunk. She's an "interactive" art piece, clutching her cellphone with her tacobell dog hovering over her. This to me is not art and just an exploitation of the media.

http://www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=58204149&day=27&startmonth=4&startyear=2007

Couerl
05/05/2007, 03h51
Sketchy I agree with you that a lot of people are telling themselves, "If I only had this one more tool, I'll be good"... SSS and all that does not a better artist make, but rather they just add to what an artist can accomplish. I don't think I'll be one of those household names in 20 years by the way, I do 3D because I just like the idea of making things in 3 dimensions and actually like the modeling part more than anything else.
I do welcome new tools anyway and I love to see what people do with them.

Nate Owens
05/05/2007, 04h40
Hmmm... don't think I ever did any black-light felt posters... :(
and I don't think those figurines are plaster, but what do I know...?

I just work for a living like all the other millions of writhing humanities... I'm sort of glad to be able to do something I like... I could be a pea-picker or a chicken plucker - and it's for sure that none of my anatomical parts are worth as much as Van's ear or wibble's dingus :w00t: .

I suspect it ("art") may fall into two camps... both of which are like the wind which can blow one direction and then the other. The times change but the mechanics are the same.

1: The art can appeal to the current "heartstrings" of the masses (at one time that may have been the Norman Rockwell fantasy of idyllic American Pie) which also changes like the wind.

Or...

2: The art can be declared wonderful by those who, for a fleeting moment, have the ear and admiration of the people - yesteryear it was the pope who said Michelangelo could paint and then made him paint his ceiling - Mike hated it I think - ... or in more recent times, movie stars and authors of the moment who declared that Andy Warhol's tomato soup cans were awesome masterpieces.

It may be sad but true that the mainstream doesn't have a clue (or a care) what art is, unless someone "important" tells them what to like. - - - sort of like that tale about the emperor's new clothes...lol

My personal admiration and awe is for any (human) who can do what Michelangelo did with one piece of solid rock... totally mind-boggling - regardless of how many years it took. (sorry, cg artists)

bwtr
05/05/2007, 04h50
Sketchy! That is what I was saying. Art and beauty, in themselves, have no reason to connect.

I can love a piece of work for it's Art, but hate it for it's "beauty"!

It's a concept that is very hard to grasp at first but, when you can become an, well, "appreciator", it really does broaden the experiences of "visual gratifications" I suggest.

A camera, a pencil, a brush,watercolour, oils,-------3D programmes-----all are only tools that are only a means to an end --not the end! We tend to carry on about the how when the really only important thing is the end result.

As has been said in earlier threads, no one(other than our fellow crafstmen) really cares about the hard work and effort put into the end work. But the community will still give works one, two, three "star" ratings anyway! It was the story line!!!!!!

Sketchy
05/05/2007, 05h08
I'm not actually contradicting anybody here especially when I say "art is an individual thing." I call it art because you enjoyed doing it. For in the final analysis we can never please everybody. When I say that Picasso's art is crap doesn't mean it is not art. Perhaps I could have been more politically correct by saying I just don't appreciate it.

Talk about time and place, Van Gogh's artworks were not appreciated during his time. His originals are now worth millions of dollars.

(We should all pat ourselves in the back because we have a passion for this thing called 3d. We are among the luckiest people on earth. Most people can't stay at home for long. They feel restless. One friend gambled his way to bankruptcy. Another spends hundreds of dollars going out every weekend and goes home drunk.)

bwtr
05/05/2007, 05h55
Sketch, you said "I call it art because you enjoyed doing it"

YES YES YES!

But, would you, if you were not trying to better your effort with-- "the next one"?

Who cares, really, if your work is not appreciated? All the fun is in the learning--the challenge--TO ONES SELF!

Couerl
05/05/2007, 07h07
I could be a pea-picker or a chicken plucker - and it's for sure that none of my anatomical parts are worth as much as Van's ear or wibble's dingus :w00t:


Hehe:
"If I didn't start painting, I would have raised chickens". Grandma Moses

95 year old painter lady, good catch! :)


http://thinkexist.com/quotes/grandma_moses/

bwtr
05/05/2007, 07h14
Painting/Art?/3D--------SEX!

Why do YOU do it?

Sketchy
05/05/2007, 16h23
Sketchy I agree with you that a lot of people are telling themselves, "If I only had this one more tool, I'll be good"... SSS and all that does not a better artist make, but rather they just add to what an artist can accomplish. I don't think I'll be one of those household names in 20 years by the way, I do 3D because I just like the idea of making things in 3 dimensions and actually like the modeling part more than anything else.
I do welcome new tools anyway and I love to see what people do with them.Well, I'm just as guilty as a lot of people. I still find myself struggling whether to buy this other 3d app or that one, then revert to why can't I just stick with what I have? I have Vue4, TrueSpace 6, Shade, Amapi Pro, Carrara 5 and Hexagon. Of all, I'm most comfortable with Carrara 5 and Hexagon. There's absolutely no doubt that you can model anything you can imagine with Hexagon. The only reason why I use Blender's modeler is because I still have an old PC and this openGL lighting I can't control in Hexagon.

About Carrara, well, I thought long and hard about it, opened it for the first time in weeks and see what it can do even just on surface. Man, this is more than enough for my needs.

I revisited these images that comes right out of Carrara 5's box. You can see them in the Scene Wizard. Each took about less than 1 minute to render. I don't know who made them.

crazy wabbit
05/05/2007, 18h29
Call me crazy, but I truly believe that carrara does and can do most beautiful scenes. The ease of use and image quality are top notch. Carrara 6 and beyond will be even more amazing.

Nate Owens
05/05/2007, 21h21
Painting/Art?/3D--------SEX!

Why do YOU do it?

Art?.... Because I have to...

nothing to do with money, I'd do it if I never got paid to and I'd do it if I was on a deserted island and all I had was sand and a stick. I've never been addicted to drugs, but art for me is one addiction that I love. :innocent:

bwtr
06/05/2007, 02h55
I think most who are really into artistic pursuits occasionally have those episodes where the art takes hold of your mind and body and you get the fealing of being a second person, standing behind yourself, watching your hand being creative without your instruction.

When you are finished, you look at the end result in amazement and wonder where that idea and effort originated.

I know this is not an uncommon thing for artists--really a WOW!

crazy wabbit
06/05/2007, 04h43
I think most who are really into artistic pursuits occasionally have those episodes where the art takes hold of your mind and body and you get the fealing of being a second person, standing behind yourself, watching your hand being creative without your instruction.

When you are finished, you look at the end result in amazement and wonder where that idea and effort originated.

I know this is not an uncommon thing for artists--really a WOW!


Did you have too much carrot juice?:huh:

Nate Owens
06/05/2007, 05h53
Don't think I've had any of those episodes.
Sounds like what mediums and spiritualists refer to as "spirit writing."

There are times when I make an accidental "edit" to the art that I decide I like more than what I really intended.

I have been known to compulsively doodle on napkins and paper placemats in restaurants... never had any complaints about doing it though.:happy:

I think wabbit has been spiking his cawwot jewice.... so, wabbit, do you ever have nightmares about being chased by Elmer Fudd with a shotgun?

bwtr
06/05/2007, 06h47
I thought I was an "odd" one with these experiences but quite a few of my artistic friends report the same.

Maybee it's the Australian "WATER" we drink!!!???

crazy wabbit
06/05/2007, 14h20
so, wabbit, do you ever have nightmares about being chased by Elmer Fudd with a shotgun?

Right now I carry my bow and arrow and will kill that son of a &^%$:blush:

Dann-O
15/05/2007, 14h30
Art will always be subjective and time spent doing it has a bit to do with it too. I am strange I think Cartoons good ones are among the highest art forms out there. Many people think there is a lof of automation and the software does it all. With no vision with no effort there is no result.

Nate Owens
15/05/2007, 19h16
..... I am strange I think Cartoons good ones are among the highest art forms out there....

Aaaah... a man after my own heart! Way to go....lol

Sketchy
16/05/2007, 02h22
Art will always be subjective and time spent doing it has a bit to do with it too. I am strange I think Cartoons good ones are among the highest art forms out there. Many people think there is a lof of automation and the software does it all. With no vision with no effort there is no result.True. To me the time spent in doing it doesn't really matter. The result is, which will always be subjective. Yup, I'd appreciate caricatures more than ultra-realism or an obvious attempt of it. It used to be that digital tools were invented to mimic traditional drawings/paintings.

LoneGunman
16/05/2007, 10h12
......Who cares, really, if your work is not appreciated? All the fun is in the learning--the challenge--TO ONES SELF!......

Yet "we" are posting it to the public places (or forums) in hope someone is gonna appreciate it...

Apparently lot of peeps care (including myself). Logic. Go figure :p

bwtr
16/05/2007, 11h03
Maybe. But then I laugh at my own jokes!