Blade68 In reply to kissmypixels [2008-02-29 22:13:39 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

I really loved the colours

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Blade68 In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 07:09:34 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for your apology. I think we all have our pet peeves.

I agree completely that were I to model from scratch my images would have a more unique and personalised feel to them. But as stated earlier I have no real aptitude for modeling.

My current choice of tools allow me to express myself artistically, and as this is my primary goal, they suit my needs. If others are moved or inspired my my work then that for me is just icing in the cake.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Velldune In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 06:10:19 +0000 UTC]

To this comment I agree. The more personalized artwork you can make with off-the-shelf materials, the more satisfying and enjoyable and unique it is.

As for YOUR gallery, Blade68, it is as Wallcrawler did first exclaim, very good Poser-tooled artwork and I'm going to send you a note with a few questions on the how you did a couple things!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Blade68 In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-20 23:35:51 +0000 UTC]

My 3D journey actually started in Lightwave, where I discovered I had zero talent in creating models. Lightwave led me to Poser where I found my real calling.

Does one need to build the camera to excell in photography?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wallcrawler62 In reply to Blade68 [2008-02-20 23:59:06 +0000 UTC]

All poser art looks the same, its the same characters with the same blank expressionless faces. They have the same materials, overly saturated objects with incorrectly scaled textures, and poor lighting. You may call what you create "art" if you want, but that doesn't make you an artist.

"Does one need to build the camera to excel in photography?" No, but thats a poor justification. Before digital photography did the photographer have to use a darkroom? Develop the film? Even with digital photography good photographs can't be made by anyone. Is all photography art? No. Artistic Photography at its heart is about contrast and composition. Poser is about taking a bunch of stuff that other people have created and throwing it together in a scene and calling it yours. Even if its done well, as in your case, it doesn't make it anything special. Art should be something very personal and user created, I can't justify calling something art, when the creators materials are those created by others. Learning a true 3D modeling program is the same as learning any other art form, it takes time and practice. It takes no "talent" to create 3D models. Really anyone can do it, its just a matter of learning how to use the 3D program. They are just a tool, the same as a pencil, a brush, photoshop, etc...There are hundreds of tutorials all over the internet and websites dedicated to teaching 3D.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Velldune In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 03:48:42 +0000 UTC]

Let me begin by saying that I am not attacking Wallcrawler62's right to present his perspective on "digital art" versus "traditional art" as there are some aspects in which hand-eye coordination, composition, and manual dexterity do segment one artistic medium from another, in which certain tools may make the "artist" do their work easier and thus be considered less "masterful".

Nor am I defending Blade68's artistic works or the tools with which she uses. But I am going to tear down this argument that what Blade68 does is not "art".

"Does one need to build the camera to excel in photography?"

No. Cameras are tools that can be manufactured by people who are not artists. Same as brushes, and 3D objects, to use Wallcrawler62's own words: "It takes no 'talent' to create 3D models".

"Before digital photography did the photographer have to use a darkroom? Develop the film?"

Actually, in the early days prior to commercial vendors, yes. But let's keep this to modern analogies. No, the artist who waves the tool (camera), does not have to develop their own film anymore. In fact, with digital cameras, there is no film, but there can still be effects generated "in-camera" with filters, f-stops, lenses, and lighting and focus and you can replicate some of the effects one might get from actual darkroom accidents.

I think Wallcrawler62 should refine the argument for art as a result of the tools... "Art should be something very personal and user created, I can't justify calling something art, when the creators materials are those created by others."

So by your own criteria, the artist should make their own paper, and their own charcoal or lead, in order to create a drawing?

No. See our point about manufacturing cameras above.

So what is Art then? Please refer to the free online encyclopedia: [link]

"It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation."

If Wallcrawler62, by his own namesake, is to draw a picture of Spiderman... is that art - given that the materials used to create it, and the original character design are not in fact creations of Wallcrawler62?

Yes, it can still be called art if Wallcrawler62 is trying to express an emotion or idea using the visage of Spiderman, or her may be drawing Spiderman for the sake of depicting Spiderman because he likes... Spiderman - thus displaying his affinity for the comic wall crawler.

If Blade68 decides to use a 3D prop that she created, but puts it into the hand of a 3D model that someone else created (See art example here [link] ) then is her image considered art?

Why, by the definitions of art... yes it is.

Wallcrawler62 and anyone else who wishes to dismiss the creations of people, using other people's materials, as Art, should reconsider their argument.

Now, if the argument is to decide whether Blade68 is talented at the art which she is generating... (see wiki again for this exceprt) "Traditionally the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery, a concept which altered during the Romantic period..." You would have to compare Blade 68's use of her tools (and the works generated) to those of her peers.

Wallcrawler62's own words again: "Even if its done well, as in your case..." I trimmed the exceprt her precisely because his next statment is in fact faulty logic "...it doesn't make it anything special." As Blade68 explained that Poser allowed her to find her calling. And what did this tool called Poser allow Blade68 to do? Create compositions that expressed some kind of idea or emotion, or were in their own right, depicting elements for appreciation.

Blade68 is an artist using the tools of Poser and whatever else she uses. If nothing else, Art is most successful at generating emotion and/or discourse. As proven by this discussion itself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wallcrawler62 In reply to Velldune [2008-02-21 04:30:48 +0000 UTC]

Art is subjective. Art is whatever the hell people think it is. I don't need to look at the stupid online encyclopedia. You want to call poser art, whatever, but I work my ass off for my skills in 2D and 3D. I'll do real 3D while you pretend.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Velldune In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 05:19:37 +0000 UTC]

You presume that I do not create my own 3D works, and I can understand the quick judgment based on the limited number of pieces I have posted to my own gallery here. But I will simply reply that yes, I too hand-craft my own Nurbs and Polygons (see the doors and handles in the background of my artwork "Nelle" for one example on DA).

You cannot argue that Blade68 is not creating her own textures, nor setting up her own lights, and material shaders, and manipulating the objects within a 3Dimensional space, and modifying camera tracks (which it appears she is doing all of the above). So I can reasonably conclude that your argument for "Doing real 3D" means that a 3D artist is one who models in 3D. If that is your sole criteria, I grant that you are correct in your summation of some of the "artists" you argue against if they can be judged solely by that factor. But I would point out that your simplification of the craft is outdated. 3D art has become broad and deep and there are many specializations within the industry.

In summary, YOU may in fact be a better 3D modeler than myself or Blade68, but she or myself might be a better texture artist, or animator or light rigger, etc. than you. Perhaps Blade68's trials in Lightwave proved that she did not want to be a modeler, but she wanted to get composite render results faster and decided to use off-the-shelf content in order to express her ideas quicker. Not a 3D modeler does that make, but it certainly displays her abundant creativity.

As a self-proclaimed 3D modeler (3D artist), do you have any specific recommendations on a modeling or all-around software package that might be easier to learn or introduce someone to 3D modeling than Lightwave? I wonder if Blade68 has tried Zbrush or MudBox or Rhinoceros?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Wallcrawler62 In reply to Velldune [2008-02-21 05:30:49 +0000 UTC]

Ok, whatever. I'm sorry for being a dick and make assumptions. I'm just pissed because I'm mostly tired of seeing poser art and people thinking its the greatest 3D ever created. To me it all looks the same and I think an artist should try to have their own style which Poser really limits you on achieving. Its mostly because the poser characters are so much a part of the program that they are easy to pick out.

I use 3Ds max. Its pretty easy to just start using but I couldn't say that there isn't one better out there. I shouldn't say that its "easy" but it can be picked up fairly quickly if you have someone to teach you or if you are good at learning from tutorials. I taught myself Photoshop but it took years. 3D Studio Max can be self taught, but all 3D programs are intimidating in the beginning. From my understanding Maya is pretty difficult in the beginning but reaps big rewards once you start to learn it. I'm trying to learn some zbrush and its been pretty difficult for me so far. I don't really know much about any other 3D program.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Gillbob316 In reply to Velldune [2008-02-21 05:29:15 +0000 UTC]

There's far too much lawyer talk going on in this arguement.

If you're gonna argue, be concise and speak plain english.

No wants to read all this crap point/counter-point, philosophical dictionary crap.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Velldune In reply to Gillbob316 [2008-02-21 05:53:57 +0000 UTC]

I believe all my points were in plain english, give or take a spelling error here or there.

If you want concise back and forth, just read the first and last paragraph.

If you want the cliff notes:

Person A believes that Poser is a shortcut and doesn't demonstrate skill in 3D modeling.

Person B agrees that Poser isn't a 3D modeling package but argues that the artistic means justify the artistic ends.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

moonbeam13 In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 03:42:24 +0000 UTC]

funny that you should leave such a hateful comment when there are many others that would say the same about colorists and those that do fan art. Perhaps you should learn some tolerance instead of being such a spiteful character because an artist is defined subjectively not by your black and white mindset.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wallcrawler62 In reply to moonbeam13 [2008-02-21 04:11:51 +0000 UTC]

Artists work hard at 3d to create original pieces that take hours of modeling, texturing, and lighting. This is what poser does: If I went through deviant art, took other peoples 3D renderings, stuck them in a strong composition in Photoshop, and manipulated the images slightly to make them all fit in, would that be considered my art? Poser gives you the tools to "pose" as an artist. Its a way for people to bypass the learning of 3D and go straight for the end result.

Fan art is ones personal interpretation of characters that exist. Directly copied fan art isn't very original but its good practice. There's nothing wrong with using ones own abilities to recreate characters and scenes that they like. If poser was translated into 2D, it would be like copying and pasting images into a composition and calling it an original work of art.

Colorists may have the shape of the art laid out for them, but it takes true skill to artfully add emotion and depth to pencil or ink work through color.

I don't know if you were taking a stab at me with your "fanart and colorists" comment, but I know what skills I have. Anyone can throw stuff together in poser and call it art.

Its not that difficult to learn 3D, I hate the idea of a program doing most of the work for you. Poser does the blood sweat and tears, while the "creator" reaps the benefits.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

moonbeam13 In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 12:57:06 +0000 UTC]

I really disagree with you but it's a stigma that will follow many kinds of artists the fact that you go out of your way to push someone down just blows my mind. Your sense of humanity is flawed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wallcrawler62 In reply to moonbeam13 [2008-02-21 15:27:01 +0000 UTC]

I wasn't trying to attack her personally. I already apologized to her. I just don't like how to me, all poser art looks very much the same. It is easily distinguishable as poser art, and this means that the artists tool for self expression leaves less room for originality and self expression.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KuroshimaKenshin In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 04:45:56 +0000 UTC]

I know nothing of 3D art, Poser, or anything of the sort and I won't claim to be. I'm a writer.

But even if Poser creates the models for you, the organization and coloration of those pre-rendered models in a creative manner is still something I would consider art.

Granted, it would be better if you could make the models yourself, it would be even better since it would introduce yet another way to express the idea you were looking for, and it would be completely yours.

It just seems really elitist and hateful to say that something "isn't art". Your opinion is not fact, so you shouldn't state it as a fact. You should have said "I do not consider this to be art."

Or you could consider not saying anything at all. You are obviously entitled your opinion, and constructive criticism can be helpful. But when that criticism steps into the bounds of plain insult, it might be best if you just kept it to yourself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wallcrawler62 In reply to KuroshimaKenshin [2008-02-21 05:06:03 +0000 UTC]

So I have to state that my opinion is an opinion? I'm just going to state it and the person reading it can take it for what it is. I wasn't trying to intentionally be a big dick. When I said anyone can learn a 3D program I meant that people who know poser should try to move on. It makes you a better artist. Blade said she tried lightwave and couldn't really do it for whatever reason. That just makes it sound like she gave up. There are other 3D outlets. My problem is with poser itself, and how all poser art looks like its well...poser art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KuroshimaKenshin In reply to Wallcrawler62 [2008-02-21 06:42:51 +0000 UTC]

Well, it's good to know it wasn't intentional. I have nothing more to really say then. Your points were well articulated, and I cannot really argue with them.

I suppose, really, just about anyone would be able to tell it was opinion. It's just when people phrase things like that, to me at least, they come across as... well, big dicks.

Anyway, to be productive to the artist, I like the look of your work. Maybe you should look into practicing your 3D so you don't have to rely on Poser.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0