HOME | DD
i-stamp — In Art
Published: 2011-07-18 11:25:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 1860; Favourites: 52; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
Especially where concerning, imo, MMD/Vocaloid, traced bases, standard Poser models (or the standard models in any 3d program). I don't care how hard you worked with those models and drawings done by other people, the lack of originality reduces its quality to less than something I would consider lauding.Related content
Comments: 50
So, I guess houses don't have much value to you then huh?
I mean if you think about it, a lot of houses are very similar so, not much originality goes into making a house. More hard work does. Same can be said about apartment complexes, duplexes, triplexes, town houses, R.V's and trailers.
If you don't like living in houses I doubt you'd also enjoy living in a cave. I mean, so many people used to do that so it's pretty unoriginal. It's also pretty hard to sustain that kind of lifestyle.
I can't imagine that you like clothes either, I mean you're using the internet so, it's not like you're Amish. I also don't see anything that would indicate that you're a fashion designer on your profile. So, you probably either walk around naked or buy your own clothes.
But oh wait, there's nothing original about doing either of those things is there? There's lots of nudists and most clothes in stores are mass produced or they were once upon a time so it's likely that you're wearing something someone else was.
Even if you buy it used it's still unoriginal because it wasn't always yours. Lot's of other people also buy things used.
Farming is also far from original as well as hunting and gathering. That stuff is also pretty hard work.
Buying food isn't original.
Hygienic practices aren't original, not doing them isn't original either.
I could go on but, I think I will simply conclude my statement with how it is also quite unoriginal to call other people unoriginal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is the silliest argument I've ever heard. First of all, because buildings not designed with originality but with function in mind are not considered visually appealing nor 'art.' If someone dragged and drop a house design that resembled a billion different houses, the design could rightly be called boring. We don't, because it's there to preform a function that's not related to visual arts. But when you drag and drop someone's art into your canvas or program, make tiny tweaks and re-release it... and want to call it visually appealing, it should be expected to be called out as unoriginal, boring, etc. Similarly, if you take a everyday blue sweater and try to wear it to a runway show you'll be bood out, because clothing that is framed as a visual art better be distinctive.
Recolors, traces, drag-and-dropped stock 3d modeling, 'dolls' are not distinctive, not original, and shouldn't be pretended to be so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*booed
*Re-colors, traces, drag and dropped stock 3D modeling "dolls" are not distinctive, original and shouldn't pretend to be so. ( I think a better way to phrase the ending on that phrase might be "shouldn't be paraded or viewed as such" but what do I, a writer, know about English.)
*an everyday blue sweater
*because buildings are not designed with originality but with function in mind they are not considered visually appealing nor art.
^^^ Maybe they aren't considered art to you but people who like city art might disagree. Art is pretty subjective after all, much unlike other subjects such as math or English.
Your stamp says nothing about art it just says "Originality trumps hard work".
They aren't called "dolls" they are actually called "models" and there's plenty of original ones in existence because believe it or not some people actually make their own from scratch.
Sure, I'm not exactly one of those people but that DOESN'T mean that they are about as existent as unicorns.
P.S. I'd love to know why you think my statements were the silliest you ever heard considering I did not say them but, typed them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A contemporary housing development is not 'city art.' They look the same because it's easy to replicate and efficient to construct. If someone tried to call that 'art,' they would be rightly told otherwise.
Originality does trump hard work, in art, which is so obviously implied that if you need me to spell it out to you then there's no help for you. In fact, you seem to just enjoy reaching into the pedantic to attempt to make silly points easily unraveled with the slightest bit of thought. (Really? Pointing out a colloquial phrase like '___ I've ever heard' on a computer constitutes a counter argument? What are you, 12?)
I wasn't talking about 3D models, I was talking about the traceable bit of media circulating around deviantart called "dolls." Look it up sometime.
And yeah, I am one of those people who make 3D models from scratch. (low poly in Maya, high poly in ZBrush, retopo in Maya, render in Keyshot). Vocaloid/Gmod users aren't. They are specifically using dragged and dropped models that someone else created, usually for pretty low-brow parody or what amounts to a machinima. Which is fine for YouTube, wouldn't do in anything that wanted to pretend to be representational of the arts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know Vocaloid is a music software right? It's not a 3D modeling tool. Neither is Gmod. Gmod is a sandbox.
Also, that's awesome you can make things from scratch but not everyone can do that.
See, for a lot of people this is just a hobbie. Some people actually have these things called jobs so they don't have all the time in the world to try and figure out how to use a complex program and make something that they're actually proud of.
Oh, and you're really going to call me a 12 year old? C'mon, 14 year old's do that.
Hey, maybe you could...
Oh, I don't know...
Call me something a bit more....
O R I G I N A L?
While you're at it you might want to do your English homework, it doesn't seem like you're doing so well in that class...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said they were. Got any more irrelevant prattle to add?
I have a job, too. And not one related to my modeling work. Some people dont, and instead rely on the originality of others to make coloring book equivalent media. That's fine, but they shouldn't expect other people to call it art or value it equitably with actual creative works. Go color in the corner.
The shoe fits. You sound like a kid. I'll treat you like one.
We done? We're done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Here's the problem with just cause something does not make it good
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The problem with those is that they're not going to help you improve and learn.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well then your "standards" are close-minded.
You should stop babbling pure shit.
Excuse my vulgar language but people like you aggravate the hell out of me especially when people like you comes onto deviantart or any art based website and talk pure shit about their actual work because they don't meet your close-minded standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If open-minded means giving other people the excuse to fill it with trash than I welcome the distinction. And DeviantArt is one of the only art based websites with no peer review process for submitting pieces, unlike CGSociety, Epilogue, ConceptArt and so forth. None of those things I mentioned would ever be allowed there. Nor would they be allowed in any legitimate real life art gallery. They exist here as scraping the bottom of the DA barrel, purely because this site has no standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Which artists on deviantART do you prefer? Don't hesitate to give examples, although if you just want me to look at your Favourites section, that's quite all right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Much more comprehensive favorites here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How do you feel about people who make their own MMD models and the ones who make their own MMD models and animate them?
I agree with this stamp though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So long as it's their own models I don't have a problem with it. Though some people say 'their own models' but mean 'edited versions of the models built into the program,' and I don't think that's the same thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, it does take a hard amount of work depending on how much you edit
In example
Re-coloring- barely any work & it makes a sucky model.
Adding textures, bones , taking base parts and other parts- lots of work.
You don't know what you're saying. Most mmd models have been edited from a base ripped from a game or made in some other modeling program.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most MMD models are poorly edited bases and their users know only the basics of what 3D modeling entails. Couldn't even tell me the difference between a normal map and a specular map without googling it first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those edited models take no effort at all.
I've made one before but I deleted it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with this in the context of the stamp. To be honest, I could care less about people using Vocaloid/bases/MMD/so on. I just hope they understand that they will be seen in a poor light compared to those who do it originally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well in my opinion, your standards are very much blocked if you can't see the "beautiful"ness in MMD work. Sure, there is lots of crap most of the community makes and then there is good crap.
[link] This is one of my works and by far one of the best things I've ever made with MikuMikuDance. I am a modeler too so I don't quite see your point in this. If the person puts hard effort into making a picture/video look nice, it is art. Art is one's imagination being created in some format and art is composed of everything you learned and the tools around you. Do you not agree?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Working hard with your own product will always produce something more appealing than working hard with someone else's. This is a concept not unique to me and permeates both the fine art and commercial art industry to its core.
You can work really, really, really hard on a collage of images you cut from magazines. But it will never be as worthwhile as a collage made from your own images, your own hard work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
ps: Thank you for ruining my dreams of becoming an animator through studying with free software and character data others have created before being able to attend a collage with 3D animation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In other words....... because I can not model 3D data and only focus on bringing that data to life through animation it is worse then the modelers putting a no background default T pose render from something like Blender?
Or so any 3D animation movie like Despicable Me would be just as good as a basic script with-out the audio/model data/animation to boost it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A collaborative project is not the same as cut and pasting someone else's idea and putting your name on it.
The difference is like using someone's tutorial models in your portfolio vs. building them from scratch. It is not a showcase of your skills, just a showcase of a lack of skill.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was an extreme example but 'using another persons idea' is not the same as 'using their data' which they put up so people could use them.
Also, please do not be offended but this but don't you know that animators do not need to know how to model?It is a great advantage - yes, but it's not mandatory any-where in the world.
But I really want to know, let's say someone made up a short funny story and wanted to create an a short animation (Regardless of what animation program they use, be it Blender, Cinema 4D, Maya, MMD or any other free or burchesable [sorry, not sure how to spell that word] 3D animation/modeling program.For example how a dog tries to chase a cat but the cat is very brave so it jumps the dog instead and chases it around.) with it but I did not know how to model and someone else had made data of a cat and a dog available for public download.Would it be wrong to upload and share it on DeviantArt (and other art sites) when the uploader used free sources for 3Ddata/audio/effects but made up the story, put together the scenery(using many free sources), animated everything from scratch and gave credit to every-one whose data they used?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And 'using another person's data in a collaborative project' is not the same as 'attempting to showcase personal work by showcasing other people's work.' Collaborative projects use teams with delegated tasks to make a big project manageable within a time and budget frame.
Taking someone's model (even if it's offered for free), slapping a couple different skins on it and throwing up some lighting for a simple project is lazy, and tells me that you don't know how to do it yourself.
Animators do need to know how to model actually. Knowing how the topology works is essential for not just utilizing the rigging, but creating the stretch and bounce necessary for realistic motion. You'd be hard pressed to find a professional 3d animator who doesn't know how to build, texture, rig and render models.
If How to Train Your Dragon animators weren't sure how to script a wing flap, they could go to publicly available websites and see how other people are doing it. Then write a script of their own using what they found as a reference, producing a personalized result that fits the theme but does not closely resemble the tutorial script.
If they copied and pasted the script into their project with negligibly minor tweaks, the whole project would be less for the lazy shortcut.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But with MMD especially... people aren't showcasing their work they are trying to ride their bike with training wheals.
But have you considered that there are a lot of modelers that set restrictions for re-model or changing the data internally?Although I do admit it is lazy when people don't work with lighting and at-least try to arrange decent scenery.Oh and one more thing, people who don't animate the scenery (especially in MMD) really bothers me.
It is possible to learn with-out 3D modeling skills that is where at-least being able to draw comes in very handy (which unfortunately I can't do well so I try to reference and try to do the key-poses/connecting-poses well)so a person will understand how the anatomy of the objects works and what would be plausible and not look awkward.
I really agree (no sarcasm) about not "copying" another persons work if they have offered a tutorial or sample as you stated because that truly is laziness.
Why I think even people who use lesser programs and aren't good yet (like myself) really post these things here in hopes of getting critique (no asspats [pardon my language] or anything like that but real cirque) and/or advice on how to do it better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People who build grid tracing images are on training wheels too, that doesn't mean they should showcase it.
Like I said, I'm all for practice, just not posting unoriginal work. You'll get a lot more helpful critique out of displaying works you've actually done, with your own skills, than with someone elses. If, for some reason, I wanted to post something using a default or borrowed model, I would post it in a forum with a specific question to other artists. Not in my gallery. Even if I did post it on my DA account, it would be in the scraps section.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True.
That I understand (made me remove the practice from years ago) but about critique, it's just the community surrounding the program is not used to critique.
DeviantArt and YouTube are basically the only 2 sites the people who use the program communicate by, please tolerate us a bit longer until the community develops enough to have their own place for these things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh there's lots of websites where you can post works in progress using references to get critique, just not for posting training wheels pictures as a statement of your accomplishments, because it really isn't. There's no training wheel competitions, awards, commissions or jobs. And it doesn't belong in your main gallery. At least if you're going to post it to DA, post it to scraps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well that may be true but then that would terminate most of the artwork you have ever seen. Not everything everyone uses is their own produce and most of the time it isn't. So what is your view on photoshoppers? Not ones for magazines but of ones that create anything at random.
Well you see, there is a very thin line between those. Very thin that it isn't visible, your own images are still not yours. If you are talking about photography, those images aren't yours if your thinking the way you are. They belong to the person who owns each little bit of that picture. Example: The landowners, the actual person in the picture, the item owners within it, and the company who made the actual camera. Those are the items and they are "stock." If you think the way you do, everything around you is stock and nothing is yours unless you have your name and copyright over it. Thus making everything you created by artwork not entirely yours. How exactly is this even "your own hard work."?
Another thing, most MMD users making scenes, correctly? They are the same as photographers of models, just digital and have the ability to go at farther lengths. How exactly can you go about calling a photographer on his "own hard work."?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see you don't read my full message and didn't even answer my question. Don't reply back what you want, I want answers lol.
Photoshop is an editing program. You edit a canvas into something.
It may not be as impressive or as valuable but it may be better. I'm also a PMDEditor, one who edits a model to make it better looking and have no problems with the physics, bones, etc. I know it doesn't make my hard work surpass the original model creator but it does make everyone like the model better.
Well answer my questions.
Well you see, there is a very thin line between those. Very thin that it isn't visible, your own images are still not yours. If you are talking about photography, those images aren't yours if your thinking the way you are. They belong to the person who owns each little bit of that picture. Example: The landowners, the actual person in the picture, the item owners within it, and the company who made the actual camera. Those are the items and they are "stock." If you think the way you do, everything around you is stock and nothing is yours unless you have your name and copyright over it. Thus making everything you created by artwork not entirely yours. How exactly is this even "your own hard work."?
Another thing, most MMD users making scenes, is this your opinion? If it is, they are the same as photographers of models, just digital and have the ability to go at farther lengths. How exactly can you go about calling a photographer on his "own hard work."?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just because I don't accept your definition twisting doesn't mean I haven't given you an answer.
"Photoshop is an editing program."
No, it isn't. It can be used as an editing program, but saying that it IS an editing program is as silly as saying that when you're painting a canvas traditionally you're 'editing a canvas into something.'
"better"
Not to anyone who matters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AGAIN. You fail to answer my other questions:
Well you see, there is a very thin line between those. Very thin that it isn't visible, your own images are still not yours. If you are talking about photography, those images aren't yours if your thinking the way you are. They belong to the person who owns each little bit of that picture. Example: The landowners, the actual person in the picture, the item owners within it, and the company who made the actual camera. Those are the items and they are "stock." If you think the way you do, everything around you is stock and nothing is yours unless you have your name and copyright over it. Thus making everything you created by artwork not entirely yours. How exactly is this even "your own hard work."?
Another thing, most MMD users making scenes, is this your opinion? If it is, they are the same as photographers of models, just digital and have the ability to go at farther lengths. How exactly can you go about calling a photographer on his "own hard work."?
Answer those god damn it.
Who matters? The big real modelers in the MMD community that are overseas do care. I've gotten praise from the original model creators themselves and I am friends with them. They matter, they make money.
As to you, you do not matter, you do not make any money off of your opinions lol
Unless you do, you better watch where exactly you put your opinions, especially off of my friend's page and our group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your question is the equivalent of saying 'The sky is green, why don't you like green?' You're changing the definition of the word to suit your purpose. 
Uh, I do make money off my 3d models.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*facepalm* You do know MikuMikuDance is an animation program, right? Each model is a TOOL if you say it that way. It's originally for animation.
I doubt that very much. I'm sorry but Garry's Mod is not something to be proud of when you make a model for it. I doubt you even know anything about 3D modeling too. Do not make it up to help you with this conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Restating it over and over again does not make it true. You're using someone else's property, whether or not they gave you permission, to make something you did not make from scratch. That makes it an inferior product to fine artists.
On the other hand, I've tons of stamps on this account made from 3d models I made from scratch. [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] (when I finished got turned into [link] )
Some video turntables of my models can be seen [link]
Don't try to lie about my experience just to attack my argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your standards.
But not others standards as a whole. No one should try to conform to meet your expectations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dA's standards too actually. Every now and then they go on a crusade and move any Gmod and alike to scraps, because it's scrap quality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If dA's standards are that 3d art is scrap quality, then why is a majority of art that is 3d popular and still in the main galleries? getting DDs even:
[link]
just because it's 3D, and the characters used are poseable, it doesn't make it art?
Anything can be or can not be art. it all depends on the viewer.
and i put my pictures like that in the scraps anyways, since i hardly put effort into it at all compared to others who use it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
3d art is not the same as take-other-people's-and-game's-models-and-throw-it-into-a-scene. No matter how much work they put into the scene, they're still using other people's art to make up for their own lack of talent. I've no problem with people who build their models from scratch, and I do mean scratch, not build from 'a base.'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can understand that, which is why i'm going into modelling a model face myself. But still, isn't using a model from someone the same as using photo from a stock? I'm curious. I like hearing what you have to say on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're cutting and pasting the stock photo into your piece then yes, and I personally discourage that too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see. Thank you for that~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I kinda agree/disagree with this.
As far as I understand how the vocaloid programs work, the user has to create the song they want Miku or whoever to sing. There would be a fair amount of work involved to compose the music and lyrics before putting it into the program. On the other hand: they could just copy an existing song and make one of the Vocaloid characters sing it, therefore no creativity.
I don't like traced bases either. I prefer the ones people lovingly make themselves and offer them to people as stock. I've practiced making pixel art on those ones in the past with mixed results...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
