PDA

View Full Version : Religion in 3d Art.


SuperMax
03-18-2005, 01:37 PM
Id like to see how long this thread will last. Hopefully we can get a good discussion out of it.


Was just browsing the internet looking at the major artworks in History, the great Majority of them seem to be religous art. Either Jesus or Virgin Mary or Mary and Baby Jesus etc etc

Many of the great artists in history concentrated their work around god and his greater glory. MichaelAngelos Pieta, Last Super etc.

Why not know? Why hansnt the new form of art that is called 3d taken up God as a popular subject? I know the Catholic Church was a major reason for the many of these great artworks back during the 1500s. but how come no one hasnt taken it up now?

Is it because 3d art is less respected?
Is typical 3d art stereotype being mainly Weird Orcs and Goblins and Monsters and explosions and its not *looking for the right word here* ummm "holy" enough to be used to make 3d renders of religous icons for people to revere?
Or is just us young in society that where not into these types of things anymore? I mean i am and many 3d artists are religious people aswell. But still the amount of religious 3d content is almost non existant.

Would making great emotional 3d renders of religious icons make 3d art more respected? Maybe even upto traditional Art levels of respect?



keep this thread clean guys.

thanks

titaniumdave
03-18-2005, 01:40 PM
Because big boobed chicks and orcs are cooler. :shrug:

SuperMax
03-18-2005, 01:43 PM
Because big boobed chicks and orcs are cooler. :shrug:

I know what you mean. Most of our 3d artwork is targeted at each other since this is a young industry and most of are quite young.

StephanD
03-18-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't think it's really an industry related thing but more of the cgtalk way to deal with the flames these subjects bring...It seems hard for some not to try to impose their thought on others,regardless of the subject so with beliefs as strong as those of religious/no-religious people it's bound to blow up.

Artists have made religious pieces since the dawn of time and probably still do so in the digital world,if you look around the net I'm sure there's some of them in appropriate places.


BTW:It wouldn't be much of a fun for a Budhist to get laughes at his art just because someone want to ridicule his beliefs and vice versa.

http://cache.corbis.com/agent/11/41/12/11411256.jpg

AIPh Pretzel
03-18-2005, 01:58 PM
The Church approved a doctrine at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 which is summed up in the often quoted formula: "The composition of the image is not the invention of the painters, but the result of the legislation and approved tradition of the Church".

Until the Renaissance, the Church exercised a veritable monopoly over the sphere of art. "Profane painting" such as naked chicks and 4th level orc clerics has taken lead only in the last century, but the fact is that art has been moving away from religion over the last five centuries.

END OF THREAD

arona
03-18-2005, 02:09 PM
first absolutely industry is affecting it, simply industry rules, JOB ...
then i think this form of art is not that well done still. i dont like to see some ridicules Jesus for instance, theres some sort of Respect in these stuffes.

Lordiego01
03-18-2005, 02:29 PM
As far as I can remeber from Art History class, the pictures you are refering to, with depictions of Jaysus, the Virgin Mary, God ect, were not necesarily considered art like you and me consider art.

We make 3d art that looks cool, exciting, they made those paintings to teach people and spread the word of the Lord Jebus Christ. They weren't out to create a pretty piece that somebody would hang in their living room.

MattClary
03-18-2005, 02:33 PM
Something to keep in mind about old religious artwork: Back in the day, the only book most (regular) people might have access to was the bible. Nowadays, we are in information overload and have lots of inspiration available.

I wonder how long it's going to take Zarathustra to make an appearance? ;)

Adrianna
03-18-2005, 02:54 PM
Most 3d art is directed at a "market". For example, the orcs and naked chicks are directed (mainly) at the gamers, 14-25 age band. What market is there for religious artwork nowadays? Other than within church circles, which can be pretty insular. Maybe there is a niche there as many churches and religions are now recognising the internet and other such technologies as useful tools. If your interested in doing something like producing religious art for a wider audience than just yourself, why not get in touch with religious communities (there are quite a few websites around) and see if they would be interested?

The other thing of course is... money. If there is no market, then noone wants the stuff, if noone wants it there is no money to be made from it. Hence why it is not popular.

Lordiego01
03-18-2005, 02:58 PM
Something just came to mind..

What about Veggie Tales? Wasn't that 3d and a huge sucess?

tjabba
03-18-2005, 05:56 PM
Until the Renaissance, the Church exercised a veritable monopoly over the sphere of art. "Profane painting" such as naked chicks and 4th level orc clerics has taken lead only in the last century, but the fact is that art has been moving away from religion over the last five centuries.


Yeah and no wonder, that same Church was behind the Inquisition, the Crusades, threatening Copernicus into recanting, witch burning and many other similar activities. I'll take Poser porn and Freedom of Expression instead please.

Craiger
03-18-2005, 06:05 PM
The main reason these artists painted for the church was because the church was really one of the only organizations that paid well. If you wanted to make a descent living back then... you had better do commissions for the church. Could you image the church forking out money for 3d?... haha... I don't think so.


werd.

JMcWilliams
03-18-2005, 06:06 PM
There are a few religious computer games, they all pretty much look awful graphically. Haven't played them though.

johnnyh66
03-18-2005, 06:06 PM
Something just came to mind..

What about Veggie Tales? Wasn't that 3d and a huge sucess?
yup, a few other's have tried to go that route without the financial success of Big Idea.

Troy
03-18-2005, 06:10 PM
Maybe it's because there are more interesting myths to derive art from...like dragons and steven segal

floze
03-18-2005, 06:33 PM
Yeah and no wonder, that same Church was behind the Inquisition, the Crusades, threatening Copernicus into recanting, witch burning and many other similar activities. I'll take Poser porn and Freedom of Expression instead please.
This statement lacks of pretty much contrast, since, for instance, Mother Theresa is (or was) also part of this 'Church'. Demonizing the 'Church' wont help us out in this thread I guess.

If you're willing to learn the craft from the beginning of 'culture' as we know it, you're probably bound to have a look at the sacral arts. And besides artists that did churchly paintings etc. often expressed themselves and their opinions very subtly or even subversively in their works - so in some way it's 'their' own work, not the 'Churchs'.

thecuriousone
03-18-2005, 08:36 PM
The Sad part is that we are all influenced by the "old religous art" and we are only now starting to get away from it. Whatever religion you adhere to. Muslim, chatolic, christian. the new religion is mammon. Yes "the" mamon. Money rules, now you can buy your happniness!.

Anders

jud
03-18-2005, 08:53 PM
The reason you don't see religious or political artwork here on cgtalk is because it is not allowed.

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=188938&highlight=political+artwork

cha0t1c1
03-18-2005, 09:18 PM
k I'm jumping in:

I think that the only reason classical and neo classical art revolved around religion it's because the churches and the kings were the richest, and what tey desired always revolved around religion...please close this thread...it will explode out of control....

jmBoekestein
03-18-2005, 09:22 PM
What about spiritual cg?

In some cultures it would be quite the same thing!

And are we talking high-end cg only or all cg in general.

Joril
03-18-2005, 09:25 PM
The reason you don't see religious or political artwork here on cgtalk is because it is not allowed.

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=188938&highlight=political+artwork

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=194164

Uhuh.
I thought only Religious or Political debate was not allowed.

Anyway, I say if you want to make a dramatic scene from the Bible, or any religion, in 3D, and it looks good and/or original, and it conveys a good emotion (like: universal brotherhood and unlike: hate to race, religion or politics) go right ahead.

Dennik
03-18-2005, 09:35 PM
I say do whatever you want. If you feel like doing religion themes with your art, then do it, do it well and don't care about public opinion, or how many people do the same. Its not supposed to be a trend, it is something you want to do, or you don't. Simple as that.

electropulse
03-18-2005, 10:03 PM
http://www.313merch.com/big_images/korn_head.jpg

jmBoekestein
04-05-2005, 07:51 PM
apparently 't was a dudd.

lemmesee.

What about all the wardroids and devils being made and painted on computers, isn't that religious content too. If not worship certainly propagandish for the next step in human evolution, being controlled by a mainframe operated by a fat american.

johnnyh66
04-05-2005, 08:28 PM
apparently 't was a dudd.

lemmesee.

What about all the wardroids and devils being made and painted on computers, isn't that religious content too. If not worship certainly propagandish for the next step in human evolution, being controlled by a mainframe operated by a fat american.

Would you be happier with a thin American? That can be arranged.

jmBoekestein
04-05-2005, 08:45 PM
Bite me!!!

:)

addicted2_3D
04-05-2005, 09:13 PM
There are tons of religious orientated 3d stuff around. Many catholic as well and all it takes is some looking. The odvious one is veggie tales, but there are many others, perhaps more subtle but they are out there. Even at galleries there are 3d exhibitions, of catholic religious reference, like http://www.maxon.net/pages/dyn_files/dyn_htx/htx/382/00382_00382.htmlI would be curious if political debate or art is allowed on CGtalk since there has been conflicting views.

paperclip
04-05-2005, 09:19 PM
I do think offensive content relating to religion should be censored on this site. If I posted a very religious picture and people objected, surely the same should be said for posts such as electropulse's post, which I find offensive. Censorship should work both ways. Otherwise, let everyone have their say.

jmBoekestein
04-05-2005, 09:19 PM
propaganda isn't allowed I think. But a political statement seems to have become the responsibility of entertainers nowadays so it should be allowed.

:sad:I'm going to far aren't I... blast...

Per-Anders
04-05-2005, 09:42 PM
one big reason why you wont see so much cg related to religion is that those original art peices were in general commisioned. who's going to do that these days?

the church no-longer commands so many commisions (though it still does a few), nor does it command such a control over the media (clerics were religious men, it was the church that held the monopoly on education for the longest time, and contrary to popular belief didn't spend it's time trying to stifle progress, but rather spent more of it pushing progress, many great inventions and scientific discoveries and advancements were made by church members and through it's patronage, anyhow enough of that).

anyhow, the core is simply. money and market. religious media still exists and does well, however it is not "mainstream entertainment" (according to the marketeers at any rate) and you have to remember that in many countries including northern america and the western european countries there is a great deal of religious intolerance, ostracisation and dogma towards religion and it's practitioners within the popular media and culture.

thus you will likely find more of a market and acceptance for religious and spiritual content outside of western media (though that is not to say that there is none here, for instance the passion, though such a work did have to be totally funded by one mans vision, and wasfairly typically derided greatly).

i just don't think we will see a great many religious artworks in 3d. personally i think that is a shame, as the religious texts from around the world are full of the most wonderful imagery, characters and situations. but sadly people aren't very open minded, and i suspect many people fear a backlash if they posted such work.

score another one for political correctness :/

chadtheartist
04-05-2005, 10:00 PM
Personally I don't really know if "religion" is even an issue with CG art. I'm sure if someone made an amazing representation of Noah's ark or something, it would be plugged on the first page without any questions.

I've always wondered why so many digital artists tend to lean towards the fantasy side of art. Maybe because it doesn't relate to everyday life, or everyday thought? Either way, I personally find fantasy art more rewarding to create than anything like making a bunch of crosses, etc... Even if I do believe in God. But that's me.

One thing I always thought funny was the depiction of demons and devils that you usually see. You know the pointy horns and forked tongue kind. I think that is so funny considering that the demons from the Bible are in fact fallen angels, which where by biblical description, beautiful.

One of the coolest "creatures" I like from the bible are the cherub's. Not the cute little baby's with arrows. I don't know where that came from, but in the bible, the cherub's where described as having four faces, four wings, and entirely covered in eyes. That's in Ezekiel 10. In Revelations 4 there are some more "cherub" like creatures that are surrounding God's throne. And these each one had a different face, one of a man, one of a lion, one of a calf, one of a lion and one of an eagle. And these were all covered in eyes. If you go by all of the illustrations you see of demons, and followed some of the descriptions of God's "chosen" creatures, I think a lot of people would be set back! Especially considering that the Ezekiel cherubs were supposed to be on fire i.e. like the balrogs from the Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, I've always wanted to do one of the cherubs. I think it would look awesome!

Zethriel
04-05-2005, 10:18 PM
Personally I don't like art that is strictly realted to religion since the moment it would be "dangerous" to put that work in whatever forum or gallery and for the fact that I like sci-fi or fantasy stuff more than other things.
Just my opinion

swardson
04-05-2005, 10:57 PM
One thing to know about art is its definition. Art has not always meant the same thing to the same people at the same time. teh Aztec and Inca had art, but it wasnt considered Art (by western cultural definition). Art has not always been created for arts sake. In fact creating art purly to be art is a relatively new concept (given the history of culture). Art Histrory isnt even really the direct study of Art it-self, but the study of the culture that produced that art and why.

Just examining western culture.

Before the Renasaince (roughly) and the advent of the Guilds and Academys, art was mearly a way of informing the illiterate about the stories of the Bible. You might wonder, well why didnt they just teach them to read? Well back then things were very twisted and corrupt and basicly in order for the nobility to keep its status, the masses couldnt be inteligent (knowledge is power). The church needed the nobilities patronage in order to stay glorius and rich. Keep in mind the church was in charge of education. They ordained the royalties stature and resorted to teaching by imagery rather than teaching how to read to keep the masses ignorant. The church and nobility fead of one another to maintain power.

Thus we have the reformation where people started to question the motives of the church and nobility. Bascily they saw the corruption in the church and that people were worshiping idols (the art) rather than the content itself ( a big no-no in christianity). Push comes to shove and more secular art starts to emerge in northern europe. This trend spreads and has now basicly become the norm today.

CG is not an emergence of new art. It is just a new medium. I think the reason that naked women, orcs and spaceships are the "chosen subject matter" is because it reflects what culture is in general. Just look at the media (TV ,movies, music, etc.) western culture is saturated with secular ideas, trends and ideals. Why then would the (majority) art reflect something that culture does not (ie: religious art)?

I for one will not force my beliefs on anyone here, because it wont do any good anyways. But what I forsee is the demoralization of western culture to the point where it wont be universal religious tollerance, but universal religious intollerance.

imo: sad but true

paperclip
04-06-2005, 12:14 AM
So, if I read this correctly, I can post a religious picture here and it would not be taken off.
Right?

jmBoekestein
04-06-2005, 12:24 AM
depends on the nature of it if you ask me.

paperclip
04-06-2005, 12:27 AM
Given that it was non-offensive to other religions, would it be Ok then?

chadtheartist
04-06-2005, 01:03 AM
I don't see how doing a "religious" piece of artwork could not be allowed to be posted here.(I Know, double negative and what-not) If that's the case then I would be astounded by the number of demonic images I've seen throughout my stay here at cgtalk. If those can stay, why can't something more positive, whether folks believe it or not, stay?

Kanga
04-06-2005, 01:38 AM
Well you were covered in mud,... if you were not you were a king, that's how they could tell.

So on Sunday you were scrubbed clean and in your best raggies and you walk into a church,.... must have been like walking into heaven!

You would have been hit by overpowering visual splendour. Imagine the effect, you cant read or write and spend every waking hour scrounging around for potatoes. It must have been amazing.

I'm not religeous at all but when I visited the Cappella Sistina I had an overpowering urge to lie on my back on the floor and just stare for hours.

Religeous art was not only for teaching it was also an assault on the senses, and it was made by the best of the best,... powerful stuff indeed.

Financial power has shifted a little. If the church was a major player in CG films and games these forums would be flooded with religeous content. I agree with other posters tho. If you made a brilliant religeous scene or composition I am sure it would end up in the choice gallery.

Edit: maybe it is just a path the churches don't choose.

telamon
04-06-2005, 02:32 AM
I have recently been asked to make a 3D Scene of Jesus in Jerusalem (the one with the blind men). After 3 days of roughing & drawing, 5 days to model His face (I have restarted 100 times from scratch), then another 5 days to model His robe... I gave up. Whatever I could do, whatever I could render, the emotion was not here.

It is very complicated to draw and conceptualise Jesus nowadays. A lot has been done in 2000 years and, our society crushes us and prevents us to be fully in-line with the christian mysticism. It is because we are asked to be very quick in everything that we do, we do not have the level of knowledge on the gospel that the old painters had in the past.

I hope that I am wrong.

jmBoekestein
04-06-2005, 03:11 AM
I 'd like to say that in the early days the romans had succeeded in destroying a lot of christian texts, I believe. The currentday christian mysticism isn't what it was intended to be. It's not bad but just incomplete presentday. Many other religions for instance have clearly outlined methods for reaching a particular goal within that religion. Christianity has none whatsoever I believe. Allthough lving the right way could be seen as the same.

I don't think it was even clearly depicted in the old days too. Chadtheartist menitoned some creatures above that are never seen anyway I haven't seen them in paintings.

I do agree that people nowadays do not take enough time to get to grips with themselves. But maybe that'll change when the parttimers revolution kicks in. But I'm sure that when and if it kicks in it won't for cg'ers. lol.

StephanD
04-06-2005, 01:17 PM
I think Chad is pretty right,if you make a kickass piece and it's not offensive there's no reasons for censorship.
Although offensive seems a word you could stretch.


All those sculptures,paintings,mosaics and buildings.The catholic church has given us artist an heritage to wonder about,wether you're practicing or not.

It would be unfair though not to state other outstanding religious arts like Buddhist sand painting or the mystic Amerindian cultures which are also splendid and inspiring.

Great conversation btw

http://www.sensored.com/archives/mixed_media/mandala.html

http://www.btigerlily.net/BTTotem.html

http://www.benandamysnyder.org/photos/maf/canada/in_st_anne_de_beaupre.html

eparts
04-06-2005, 03:04 PM
Perhaps this answer is already given, but I didnt read all the posts.. this is my opinion

Today we are not so very bound to religion as before.. and artists today can, luckily, make their own art.. We got different beliefs and understandings of the world, thanks to science and other religious directions. Actually, today as an artist, you can create whatever your vision is.. you can actually be your own god. Christian characters such as Jesus is still very popular, but we seem to stick to the traditional illustrations from around 1500. why? I dont know.. we are afraid of giving Jesus a new look? Whenever an artist is creating something, he makes his version. However, each newer illustrations of god and jesus has been a mimic of the old traditional styles made thousands of years ago. that is to me scary, because we arent really putting our own feelings to it by then.

Why people arent using 3d as a tool to do it is probably because 3d is mainly used for the industry. and personally im not sure if i would use 3d to create 'art' but thats not something i want to discuss further

Ringlord111
04-06-2005, 03:59 PM
I agree that it was a big thing to do religious paintings back in the day. I have some great ideas for cg "spiritual" artwork, but since I am rather new in cg, I am not able to do it... yet. If you take a Christian artwork offensive, heres a thought.... dont look at it, you have a choice to look at each piece of art posted here. I choose not to look at some stuff here because, rather than being a piece of art, it is a depiction of some soft core porn. Speaking of which, there is some sort of censoring done to religious stuff, but not on the pornographic images shown here sometimes. I see artistic nudity as something inspiring also, but some stuff on here is not art at all, but something that does needed to be censored, such as some poser stuff. Their is difference between pornography and artistic nudity, my friends. I am not a parent, but I think most parents would not like their children to view some of this stuff. That might just be me. Wow, finally got that out... now back to the religious art. Im going to post it, and if people are immature enough to post something about how they are all against it, then too bad. I don't write stuff about other religious, spiritual, or mythical artwork, so I think you can too. Now, as always, comments and critics are always welcome, but intolerence is just immature. Well I might have gone a little far out, but I needed to say it. this post is not meant to offend anyone, just some ideas. God bless

-Matt M.

eparts
04-06-2005, 05:06 PM
I agree with Ringlord that the level of art here can be discussed. But that is because CGtalk is mainly a community for cg itself and illustration/design. Art is not the main tone as far as Ive seen in posts and the submission guidelines. It is a computer graphics forum, and respect to that. I dont find inspiration and deeper art subjects in this forum. Other than this thread, which is not a gallery. btw, check out my master&servant-challenge thread.. the concept is based on christianity :scream:

Mathew Everett
04-06-2005, 07:28 PM
I think most people now days are afraid of religious Art. Just look at the USA, we have so many laws & rules now "since 1942" that put religion as something you cannot freely speak about or demonstrate. I think it is funny, The United States was founded, & based on a religion, same as allot of other countries...But it seems the USA is the only place that has killed the idea of religion, they have taken it out of everything. I think by them doing this it had caused people to think a different way to do art. They are avoiding the idea of any religious art to avoid nasty criticism. I personally do not see how religious art or 3D art would really make it in today society around the world. I cannot think of anything in the 3D world that would be something everyone around the world would be in awww about. Someone in this thread mention Veggie Tails as a religious 3D Art. I think that is the only major way religion could be brought into the 3D world. Lessons for kids about different types of religion. However, even than I would personally buy or watch it. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church was the main reason behind all religious paintings in early history. But even after they lost there rule over art, not most but all popular Artists kept painting breath taking religious murals, “Why?” because that is what they knew….that is what they could do perfect…they did do bigger & better art pieces but they never really left the Religious themed paintings. Ok I am ranting now but good topic…

Empath
04-06-2005, 08:25 PM
I haven't quite read all of this but I'd like to toss in my two cents. Personally I think that the low level of religious artwork in this medium is largely a reflection of changes in culture. The other real driving force is that fantasy themes can be fairly safely explored without clashes between people with strongly held beliefs. Have we ever had raging debates here about how elves or orcs should be portrayed? I doubt it. But religious ideas are very deeply engrained and it's touchy ground to tread on; I for one would avoid them entirely just to be safe. I can go create my own fantasy world without worrying about being lynched or burned at the stake as a heretic.

Trojan123
04-06-2005, 10:32 PM
Here's what bugs me:
In another thread about sex and nudity in movies there was a strong opinion against censorship, and an opinion that nudity and sex were natural, everyone does it, and therefore should not be offensive. And for those "moralists" (used in a disrespectfull context) who are still offended, then it would be better to turn off the TV than force censorship upon others. Ironically, these people argue for diversity, free speech, open mindedness, multi-culturalism...

But then comes a painting depicting The Passion... and now we are talking about not offending some people, and why this topic is scrutinized at this forum.

Double Standard, anyone?

So how is it that a depiction of a person who lived 2000 years ago is offensive, but a naked Amazon woman with an troll isn't?

Kanga
04-06-2005, 11:01 PM
Here's what bugs me:
In another thread about sex and nudity in movies there was a strong opinion against censorship, and an opinion that nudity and sex were natural, everyone does it, and therefore should not be offensive. And for those "moralists" (used in a disrespectfull context) who are still offended, then it would be better to turn off the TV than force censorship upon others. Ironically, these people argue for diversity, free speech, open mindedness, multi-culturalism...

But then comes a painting depicting The Passion... and now we are talking about not offending some people, and why this topic is scrutinized at this forum.

Double Standard, anyone?

So how is it that a depiction of a person who lived 2000 years ago is offensive, but a naked Amazon woman with an troll isn't?

The original poster asked why he seldom saw 3D work with religious content. I myself have noticed the same thing after reading his post. Have you noticed this? If so why do you think that is the case?

dioxide
04-06-2005, 11:34 PM
The only people to complain are the religious fundamentalists, and as any other fundamentalist i tend not to listen to them, i would rather talk to wood. Draw whatever you want.

jbo
04-07-2005, 12:13 AM
Here's what bugs me:
In another thread about sex and nudity in movies there was a strong opinion against censorship, and an opinion that nudity and sex were natural, everyone does it, and therefore should not be offensive. And for those "moralists" (used in a disrespectfull context) who are still offended, then it would be better to turn off the TV than force censorship upon others. Ironically, these people argue for diversity, free speech, open mindedness, multi-culturalism...

But then comes a painting depicting The Passion... and now we are talking about not offending some people, and why this topic is scrutinized at this forum.

Double Standard, anyone?

So how is it that a depiction of a person who lived 2000 years ago is offensive, but a naked Amazon woman with an troll isn't?

i think you're blowing this out of proportion. show me where someone who claims to be in favor of free speech is in favor of banning paintings of the passion. cgtalk is a privately owned, moderated forum... free speech doesn't really apply here. just like if you came into my house and said something i didn't like, i could ask you to leave. I don't think anyone here is trying to ban religious art or discussion in general, it's just been proven time and time again that discussions on religion + annonymity = flame war. the internet is a bad place for these kind of discussions. just look at the imdb.com message boards on any movie with religion or politics in it for an example of how bad it can get. besides, it's not only theists that are being censored in this regard: if i wanted to start a discussion on why there is no god, that thread would get closed pretty quick. besides, there's plenty of other content that's not allowed here... including graphic sexual images.

Trojan123
04-07-2005, 03:43 AM
The original poster asked why he seldom saw 3D work with religious content. I myself have noticed the same thing after reading his post. Have you noticed this? If so why do you think that is the case?

I personally think that while there is a percentage of people who are not inspired to created CG religious content, I think many are just plain afraid to.

After The Passion debuted, I saw an upsurge of religious art- not just here, but other places on the 'Net. Obviously, the artist was inspired and wanted to share. These threads were quickly rubber stamped with WARNING signs all over them. You know, the usual "Danger: Religious Content Inside" type bs, with the MODS hovering.

So, quite frankly, why create a piece of art that is going to draw negative attention? That's defeating the purpose. I could create a CG masterpiece with a heavy religious tone, and post it in random showcases around the Net. If the threads weren't closed, then the MODS would be monitoring, and warning the thread poster as well as the other people in the discussion.

For the life of me, I don't see the controversy. But many people are even afraid to show their faith in the ever-so-"tolerant" mainstream society of ours. Like I stated before, if a person doesn't want to see a 3D naked Lara Croft, then they can turn away- but don't you dare post a picture of Jesus because I don't like it and I don't want to turn away.

I don't think anyone here is trying to ban religious art or discussion in general, it's just been proven time and time again that discussions on religion + annonymity = flame war.

If some people didn't make such a big deal about it... were a bit more tolerant of the subject matter... then there would probably be more religious CG content, be it Christianity, Catholocism, Islamic, etc. The point I was making was one of social recognition: that those who want tolerance are intolerant to more conservative religions; and those are the ones who go into a religious thread and state how they don't like the religion, lob a few insults, and that's when the flames begin.

SB

BigSky
04-07-2005, 07:40 AM
Just to chime in with a necessary distinction:
"Religious art" needn't be a piccie of Mary weeping or Jesus nailed to a tree, that's just doctrine and the most severe type of administration of creativity. Religious art is probably that which brings the viewer (or maker) into a deeper connection with (the divine, the moment, the world, others, whatever..). If you've had the opportunity to see some Aboriginal art on site, cave paintings, etc...you'll see what I mean. That's religious,but not in a "waggle the rosary and mumble the hail mary" kind of way.
Secondly, religious art in the past was (as has been pointed out in this thread) mainly peddled as the powerbroking of the church, which had the means of representation all tied up. Now, the church is a cult of capitalism, and we're seething in a soup of disembodied signifiers, all bound to capital. Eg: One of the best employers for creatives - hollywood, continually trots out it's Awl-American vision of a world. It's religion. It's by design. It's was and still is about power, fellas and girls.

EvilGnome
04-07-2005, 08:08 AM
NOt being religious myself I guess the danger of making art depicting subjects from established religion is not offending atheists(sp?) but followers of those religions.

Because there are often many branches of established religions with their own doctrines and values what is perfectly "safe" for some is not for others.

To give an example, there is abundant art depicting Jesus but there are branches of Christianity which consider any depiction of God or Jesus to be offensive. Following the commandment....

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

It's just an example of how people can be offended, I'm not trying to argue a point but offer suggestions why it might be considered "dangerous".

Nathellion
04-07-2005, 08:19 AM
Another one of those threads http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/grin.gif. I say why not. I don't like religion but I appreciate good artwork, and I can keep an open mind, or if a religious artwork were to annoy me so much then I would just ignore it. That should be the case with any artwork that envokes controversy. If people could just bring themselves to change the channel or close the browser, then the babysitter that is censorship would not be necessary.

jbo
04-07-2005, 12:22 PM
If some people didn't make such a big deal about it... were a bit more tolerant of the subject matter... then there would probably be more religious CG content, be it Christianity, Catholocism, Islamic, etc. The point I was making was one of social recognition: that those who want tolerance are intolerant to more conservative religions; and those are the ones who go into a religious thread and state how they don't like the religion, lob a few insults, and that's when the flames begin.

SB

sorry, but the religious folks are every bit as responsible... these arguments are two sided. also, they usually aren't the result of artwork anyway, but general discussion. in another thread someone told me that i couldn't possibly create art, or know what love is if i didn't believe in god. (this thread had nothing to do with god or religion, and i never even said if believed in god or not, this comment just came out of nowhere). again, it's when discussions start (and they usually start off ok) on religion that these things turn into flame wars. this doesn't just have to do with intolerance of religion itself, but with many people's(including religious people) intolerance of beliefs that are different from their own, and inability to actually argue their points without insulting people. that being said, i have noticed that we had two religious pieces on the front page at the same time not too long ago. i don't think they caused any problems. I've also noticed a couple threads that had religious or politcal discussions that didn't turn into flame wars, so maybe we're ready to relax these rules some. unfortunately, it only takes one idiot to get a thread closed down, and religion and politics usually inspire many idiots. from both sides.

???
04-07-2005, 12:32 PM
Religion ? ummm... for centuries ago we use to beleave in dragons and souls but science as proved that those things are just old age myths to scare peoples and mosty become a leader. Just like zeus at the century of Rome. Anyways. Lets hope this thread doesn't turn into (my god is better then your's) war.

Religion art was very popular in the past and i think that since whe know that the earth in not flat and where does energy come from. How about a science art ?

I would like to see dinosaur art. :D
Something like the flinstones.

Lets change the world for something new and good for humanity.
Lets keep watching discovery channel

SuperMax
04-07-2005, 12:48 PM
Some nice discussions happening in here. Lets keep it a discussion :)


Just thinking about the original questoin a bit more, Ive realised religous type of artwork has slowed down to a snails pace over the past decades.
Everytime you see a new religious artwork its based on an artwork done by one of the "masters" eg michaelangelo, da vinci etc. Just an updated version.

Correct me if im wrong about this, but the last major artist who main line of work or big part of it was religious art was perhaps William Bouguereau?

But still every major form of art style over the centuries, including painting, Sculpting, Carving, Stained Glass Windows Architecture. etc. Theyve all had a go art religous art. And have come away with some of the best artwork ever made by man. Last Super, Pieta etc


As for me, I am a religious person myself but that not why i asked this question. I just thought that out of most art styles, 3d is missing the religious genre a bit and its probably the fastest growing art style at the moment.

Personally i cant model for ****, but im good at 3d architecture and my main love is modelling Churches. Not because of my faith but because church architecture is so beautiful and inspiring and complex.



I just realised i basically rewrote my original post lol

carry on... :)

StephanD
04-07-2005, 01:00 PM
In a near future,the church may use holographic sculptures for decorations and hire us 3D'ers to do it,who knows? :)

I don't think there's such a big debate to do since religious artwork will be accepted by a majority of people on this board,just by respect.

It's the conversations that get touchy....when you're not criticizing the art itself that is.

eparts
04-07-2005, 02:47 PM
religion has changed alot over time. Christianity has been shaped alot since the beginning. So has the art style.. and the art concerning religion .. just CGTalk isnt an art forum and the content of art here is more related to illustration to films and games. The religious content Ive seen here is mostly demons and vampires- in the commercial style. The latest religious 3d art I saw was the visual effects of film Constantine.. which depicted demons, angels and some other creatures taken from the occult.

Kanga
04-07-2005, 04:45 PM
Well had a bit of experience in the wip section here.

I can bet you if I was developing a Jesus on the cross and posted it there I know what reactions I would get.

Watch your deltoid muscles, would they look like that if your arms were in that position, watch the trapezoids etc etc. Almost all the folks over there are interested in composition and content as related to communication. They are actually real artists,... in this respect even the noobs. Crusing those forums reveals some pretty kinky stuff and crits are 99% professional.

You will always get a couple of odd balls but you do everywhere.
My point being unless I got an actual commission to make such a figure I wouldn't choose to. That decision is based on economics and has nothing to do with morality. Like I said I believe the church has changed its tactics, their PR strategy has evolved into something different.

My favorite Dali is a figure on a cross made of cubes, its a masterpiece.

Ckerr812
04-07-2005, 05:06 PM
This is a very simple question with a very simple answer.

All contemporary art is controlled by the patrons/clients that commission the work.

Michelangelo, Da vinci, most of the great renaissance masters where commissioned by the Church to make their art, because the church at that time was the most wealthy and powerful patron. Obviously they wanted grand paintings and sculptures to symbolize their rule.

At that time, churches where the biggest structures in every city.


Cut to the 21st century, and the main client today are the movie studios, and corporations. Instead of the single artist we now have studio's (which BTW, Michelangelo, bernini, and most of the greats had people do the work for them in their studio by copying a miniature sculpture, they just over seen the work)

So to get to the thesis here:

There is not as many religious pieces anymore because the church does not pay what it did anymore.

Contemporary art is driven by money, and the cutting edge of art is in movies/games ATM, which are financed by the movie studios and corporations. Which don't want religious art, they want stories that appeal to the demographic so they can make a profit.

Ckerr812
04-07-2005, 05:17 PM
My favorite Dali is a figure on a cross made of cubes, its a masterpiece.

Well considering Dali and what he is know for, I wouldn't really consider this piece to be a homage to religion. Makes for a very bold statement if you ask me.

http://religion-cults.com/art/cross-dali2.htm

Compared to:

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Christ_of_StJohn_of_the_Cross.html

cgtriguy
04-07-2005, 05:49 PM
As for the question of why is there a paucity of Religious CG art... I think one would have to consider who are the artists. I would surmise that most of them grew up playing video games and learning computers at an early age (man I miss my apple II+). I would also surmise that the majority of CG artists are merely reproducing what they have been exposed to in their upbringing (video games, fantasy, whatever). I think the moral of the story here is that religion has been so watered down and maligned over the last 50 years in our western society that it is no longer a "safe" topic. People would rather talk about anything before begining a discussion on a religious topic. This is reflected in our schools, our work places and in our media.

It would very disappointing to see censorship of "religious" art on this site. To label religion as offensive is just childish and shows a clear lack of tolerance. Why should one be offended by a image of a cross, or Christ or of Krishna or whatever? Silly really. Just silly. If you are not religious then it should mean nothing to you. If you do not belive in Christ then an image of him should not stir anything within you it simply another picture of another man. Why aren't the "religious" taken into consideration when being concerned about offense. If we are to begin to label things as offensive I guess we would have to determine who it is we are offending. Are we concerned about offending the religous or just the nonreligious folks around here?

Why is it that when I a religious person brings up a religious topic it is always perceived as trying to thrust his beliefs upon the rest of the community. I am a religious person. I always have been but I feel no compulsion to convert any of you to my way of thinking. I really, really, really do not want to start an argument but just thought another side of the coin should be seen.

Tirjasdyn
04-07-2005, 06:44 PM
So how is it that a depiction of a person who lived 2000 years ago is offensive, but a naked Amazon woman with an troll isn't?

Many christians (and those of other religions for that matter) take offense when people interpret things a different way than they do.

I have a pic on my site of a female christ burning on a cross. Now I see nothing wrong with it. It was a reflection of how I felt at the time as my life changed and my religion became more defined to me.

My soon to be ex found it offensive because he though it was trivializing the passion.

When I read the bible I see and point out multiple miraculous conceptions. Various christians find this blasphemous even though it is in their text.

I don't think it is right but it is the way it is.

It thing relgious art has wanned because the church is not as invovled in it. I think it is also why people find un conndoned art offensive. Now mormons they have a hugh art base and if you like sci fi you might like some of their illustrations. :)

Ckerr812
04-07-2005, 07:04 PM
I have a pic on my site of a female christ burning on a cross. Now I see nothing wrong with it.

Well sinse you even have a mention to tarot in your avatar which is realated to paganism, your "interpretation" of the holy word would offend people especially those who equate it with devil worship (and yes, there are still those out there). If the point you are trying to make is that christianity has made women suffer and supressed them centuries ago, there are far more intelligent ways of expressing this then a lude shock value depiction.

I am not offended by something like that, I think it just shows poor taste.

jbo
04-07-2005, 07:58 PM
i think ckerr812 just proved my point. it's such a touchy subject that we can get upset by a piece of art we haven't even seen. why do you think it's in poor taste?

Kanga
04-07-2005, 08:04 PM
Well considering Dali and what he is know for, I wouldn't really consider this piece to be a homage to religion. Makes for a very bold statement if you ask me.

http://religion-cults.com/art/cross-dali2.htm

Compared to:

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Christ_of_StJohn_of_the_Cross.html
Thanx for the links!
I actually like both of them very much!
I have never seen anything depreciating in either image except craftmanship and I didn't know Dali had a bad rep. Now I wonder.

Imagine I was good enough to create such a masterpiece (the cubes) not knowing me and never having seen any of my work, would that same piece offend you? Would it be banned from these forums?

Ckerr812
04-07-2005, 08:14 PM
why do you think it's in poor taste?

There are many paintings, books, and music that have expressed the point in a much more intelligent way.

To that effect, you have to cultured enough to see it. I guess these types of paintings are for the type of person that looks at The Mona Lisa, and says "oh a painting of a women" and moves on, to go to their home with paintings of dogs playing poker on the wall.

Thanx for the links!
I actually like both of them very much!
I have never seen anything depreciating in either image except craftmanship and I didn't know Dali had a bad rep. Now I wonder.


Well he had a reputation..I don't know if it was bad..depends who you ask :P

but I refer to his symbolism then anything else.

I like the two paintings myself.

Kanga
04-07-2005, 08:20 PM
i think ckerr812 just proved my point. it's such a touchy subject that we can get upset by a piece of art we haven't even seen. why do you think it's in poor taste?
Don't worry man!
Some people will inevitably be offended by anything you make. Everyone is free to interpret anything in anyway they want,....... therefore you are free to make anything you want unless its downright illega.l

Kanga
04-07-2005, 08:29 PM
......Well he had a reputation..I don't know if it was bad..depends who you ask :P.....

You infered that one piece was in bad taste and the other not but when pressed for specifics you cannot qualify your inferance.
You did not answer my question: 'If I were to make a masterpiece like the cube crucifix do you think it would be banned from these forums, if so why?'

Ckerr812
04-07-2005, 08:40 PM
You infered that one piece was in bad taste and the other not but when pressed for specifics you cannot qualify your inferance.
You did not answer my question: 'If I were to make a masterpiece like the cube crucifix do you think it would be banned from these forums, if so why?'

*sigh*

there is a lot more going on in those paintings then you think by Dali....that is my point. If you want to know about dali, get a book and read about him, I am not here to educate on the life of dali.

They both make bold statements, one a little more blunt then the other...

Never once did I say a dali painting was in bad taste....You need to read more careful.

As for the the burning cross painting...I guess you two people don't realize the history of pagans and christians, and therefore what I said would go over your head. Which is obviously the case for everything I have said judging by your replies.

slaughters
04-07-2005, 08:51 PM
...Was just browsing the internet looking at the major artworks in History, the great Majority of them seem to be religous art....Why not know?...Very easy and simple answere.

In the past Churches were major patrons of the arts. There was very few other options for most artists on a commission back in the Da Vinci, etc.. era's. Very few people or organizations could keep an artist on their perminent payroll. It was either the church, or the nobility, with a lot of bleed over between the two organizations.

Now days,

(a) There is enough money around for corporations to support artists
(b) Most churches sink their PR money in TV and Radio broadcasts, in addtion to the occasional movie.

P.S. Advanced Apoligies for yanking this discussion back On Topic.

jbo
04-07-2005, 09:18 PM
ckerr812... you never really explained why it was in bad taste, you just gave a cop out answer and insinuated that i'm not cultered enough to understand why it's in bad taste. just because something has been done more intelligently, doesn't mean it's in bad taste. not to mention... you still have not even SEEN the artwork that you are insulting. i find that to be in bad taste.

Kanga
04-07-2005, 09:27 PM
*sigh*

there is a lot more going on in those paintings then you think by Dali....that is my point. If you want to know about dali, get a book and read about him, I am not here to educate on the life of dali.

They both make bold statements, one a little more blunt then the other...

Never once did I say a dali painting was in bad taste....You need to read more careful.

As for the the burning cross painting...I guess you two people don't realize the history of pagans and christians, and therefore what I said would go over your head. Which is obviously the case for everything I have said judging by your replies.
Thanyou!
Since you decline to enlighten me on Dali and refuse to answer a question posed directly twice, I shall feel free to make and enjoy any art form I wish!

adam-crockett
04-07-2005, 09:34 PM
Main Entry: 1of·fen·sive http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?offens05.wav=offensive')) http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?offens04.wav=offensive'))
Pronunciation: &-'fen(t)-siv, esp for 1 'ä-"fen(t)-, 'o-
Function: adjective
1 a : making attack : AGGRESSIVE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=aggressive) b : of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons> c : of or relating to an attempt to score in a game or contest; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the ball or puck
2 : giving painful or unpleasant sensations : NAUSEOUS (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nauseous), OBNOXIOUS (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obnoxious) <offensive odor of garbage>
3 : causing displeasure or resentment
- of·fen·sive·ly adverb
- of·fen·sive·ness noun

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?religi06.wav=religious'))
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fervent), ZEALOUS (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=zealous)
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun

Main Entry: 2art http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?art00002.wav=art'))
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=arm)
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberal+arts) b archaic : LEARNING (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=learning), SCHOLARSHIP (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=scholarship)
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fine+arts) (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=art), SKILL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=skill), CUNNING (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cunning), ARTIFICE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=artifice), CRAFT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=craft+)mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. ART (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=art+)implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=skill+)stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cunning+)suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=artifice+)suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. CRAFT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=craft+)may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

sundialsvc4
04-07-2005, 10:14 PM
:argh: As you can plainly see, the very subject of religion brings out a lot of very intolerant as well as very strongly held beliefs. "There ain't no tolerant middle-ground here." Better strap on your flameproof asbestos bunny-suit first.

But we're here to talk about art, and I think that religious subjects have definitely received insufficient attention among CG artists. And I am not limiting myself to any particular religion. (The world is home to hundreds of organized religions... and sunsets and sunrises happen every day...)

So, why not just do some? Human beings spend an extraordinary amount of their time thinking about religious subjects. Computer graphics is an extraordinarily powerful and expressive medium. Why not take this observation as a bit of a challenge, and see what we can come up with?

Tryn
04-07-2005, 10:40 PM
"A thousand men, a thousand religions."

Personally, I think their either shouldn't be religious artwork on CGtalk, or it should be tagged in the same way as those pieces containing nudity( 'nudity'/'religion'?). Not because I'm intolerant; I take that above quote to heart, but because this is a professional forum - religion and politics need to be kept out of the mix as much as possible, because its going to offend someone, somewhere.

So if it was approached the same way as artistic nudes, with tags, professional comments, and maturity, we won't have a problem...but I won't keep my fingers crossed.

Tirjasdyn
04-08-2005, 07:28 PM
Well sinse you even have a mention to tarot in your avatar which is realated to paganism, your "interpretation" of the holy word would offend people especially those who equate it with devil worship (and yes, there are still those out there). If the point you are trying to make is that christianity has made women suffer and supressed them centuries ago, there are far more intelligent ways of expressing this then a lude shock value depiction.

I am not offended by something like that, I think it just shows poor taste.

Lol yes, tarot has been recently (in the last 100 yrs) to paganism. Many would find that offensive but even a slightly deeper dig reveals that tarot came out of reglious christian art and continues to do so. Only now it comes out of various religions including christianity, various pagan roots (both neo and ancient), judism, buddhism, hindu, shinto, and many many more.

However it wasn't my point. I was in the middle of a divorce and I FELT crucified. My family was telling me it was my fault and that I was a failure, my ex was telling me how he wished he never met me, my friends told me that they could be friends with me any more. I was denied work, school and welfare because of my apparent social status and qualifcations. It seemed at the time that the world was crying out for my death. Other works from that period in my life reflect that including tarot cards(there's only one from that time on my site, the six of wands), the wallpaper on my site called One Good Cry. and various pieces I worked on at the time, including writings.

At the time I identified with cruscifixtion very strongly.

Yep I'm a tarot lover, and people get offended at that but one of the central images in tarot is cruscifixtion...the hanged man...the final sacrifice.

Even still cruscifixtion goes deeper than anyone christian sect and depicting it is depends on the sect as well. I could follow the ikon of one sect and still piss off another.

As for the suffering of women...getting an English major curred me of worrying about that. Suffering is brought on by the individual in my opinion. It is the individuals job to get out of the situation which has made the individual suffer.

Some don't choose to.

Ckerr812
04-09-2005, 12:58 AM
Well said Tirjasdyn,


It is good to know there are some people on here that have the intellectual capacity to understand my words and respond as such, and also actually understand what they are looking at (or creating themselves) instead of being shallow and superficial.

As I obviously still think it's bad taste, and I do know some tarot icon may be from christian art, the roots of tarot are pure pagan from nature (dating before christianty) which I have been lead to believe from the books I have read on it.

Well I don't agree with it, I am glad you have an artists soul, and wish you luck on the path you take for the future .

SuperMax
06-19-2005, 02:23 AM
Sorry to bring up an old thread but i found this in the Zbrush website gallery.

I think its an awesome peice of artwork and basically giving it a plug for being a nice peice of work.

Picture

http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=11935


thread
http://206.145.80.239/zbc/showthread.php?t=25838&page=1&pp=15



now im arguing with myself whether a peice like this is different from a classically painting one. Does it give a different feeling?

ThE_JacO
06-19-2005, 03:42 AM
what I ask myself instead is...
why everybody keeps throwing at me the bloody words "3Dart"?

other forms of art have been encapsulated by genre, like impressionism, surrealism, realisms etc., but while one media has often been more prominent then others in most currents, I hardly ever read about "christianity in oils" or "paganism in watercolors".

3D is A MEDIA not A CURRENT.
as a media it's most prominently used in design, some form of neo realism, and a recent illustration current that is still not well categorized (like fantasy art) that used to be the stomping ground of mixed medias like airbrush, pencils, oils, china ink, and very often the combination of more then one.

curiously enough, design, neo realism, Frazetta & Co. are not exactly known for the dominance of religious subjects.

if you want to ask yourself the question about "3D in religious art", I believe you should first have a look into trying to categorize what currents 3D is more prominent in.

3D itself is just a media (a very versatile one, and funny enough one that doesn't have a defined identity yet), not a form of art; in the same way Oil and Watercolour are NOT art currents, but different techniques/medias.

also, the lack of religious art is not down to the media or current anyway, it's more down to the years of its use.
it's several decades now that the majority of "inspired" art (VS comission pieces) isn't religious in nature anymore.

Kanga
06-19-2005, 01:45 PM
.....
now im arguing with myself whether a peice like this is different from a classically painting one. Does it give a different feeling?

The coloured version looks like a painting,... I guess that's the intention. The untextured version looks like a photo of a sculpture.

Maybe you would only make this sort of work in 3d for the flexibility of the medium. Looks like 2.5 d if I am not mistaken.

What I like about the 3d medium is the ability to make a painting move. This painting speaking would be a blast,.. otherwise its a technically good piece we have seen before.

floze
06-20-2005, 12:37 AM
What I like about the 3d medium is the ability to make a painting move. This painting speaking would be a blast,.. otherwise its a technically good piece we have seen before.
That's exactly the point I guess. You could always replicate another painting, using whatever technique/medium you like. But you never could, for example, make Mona Lisa smiling at your face and talking to you - except with 3d.
Maybe 'The Passion Of The Christ' by Mel Gibson is kinda what I mean. Gibson is able to do a full feature movie because he has the money for it, but with 3d every single one of us should potentially be able to create this sort of transportation of feelings. That's why I like this thread - not because I'm religious, just because I want to see how people think about transporting their most private feelings (which religion always is) using the technique we're all talking about. 3d.

EricPoehlsen
06-20-2005, 08:42 AM
I want to answer that question from a more economic point of view:

You want to earn money with making art, at least the professionals among you. That means that most of your work is contracted work someone ays you money to paint/model what he wants.

up to the 17th and 18th century the catholic church was the biggest enterprise hanging around and paying artists well to get more customers into their buildings.

Another thing is that the art in churches was better protected in wars then artworks in private houses and there were a lot of war times so more secular art was lost then cleric art.

greekdish
06-20-2005, 02:57 PM
apparently 't was a dudd.

lemmesee.

What about all the wardroids and devils being made and painted on computers, isn't that religious content too. If not worship certainly propagandish for the next step in human evolution, being controlled by a mainframe operated by a fat american.

Gee, another stereotype insult being directed at Americans. You guys are hysterical. :rolleyes:

greekdish
06-20-2005, 03:15 PM
"A thousand men, a thousand religions."

Personally, I think their either shouldn't be religious artwork on CGtalk, or it should be tagged in the same way as those pieces containing nudity( 'nudity'/'religion'?). Not because I'm intolerant; I take that above quote to heart, but because this is a professional forum - religion and politics need to be kept out of the mix as much as possible, because its going to offend someone, somewhere.

So if it was approached the same way as artistic nudes, with tags, professional comments, and maturity, we won't have a problem...but I won't keep my fingers crossed.

I dont think ANYTHING should be censored, whether its about politics or religion. Are you going to tell me we cant discuss the visual effects in a movie like "The Passion of the Christ"?? there is no reason why professionalism and politics/religion cant be the same. There are professionals who work for Religious Stations that do excellent broadcast graphics. Or what about graphics made for elections and news stations?? Im not a religious person in any way shape or form, but I hate censorship. If a certain piece of artwork brings debate, and/or flames and heated arguments, then that is good. There is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate, over artwork. Art is meant to portray feeling and emotion...its not only about "cool" feelings. I recall seeing a game art piece of a US Vietnam soldier being crucified around here. Some people argued it was disrespectful, etc. I think I might've also agreed with that. BUT....its still nice to be able to debate it, as well as argue.

I dunno.....I hate religion and what it stands for.....but Im not going to hate someone for posting a religious art piece around here. :shrug:

CGTalk Moderation
06-20-2005, 03:15 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.