Will 3D ever be considered true "art"

[yenvalmar]

these are issues i've been thinking a lot about with my own work lately, that i am aiming actually at an audience outside these forums, though i hope people here like it too :)

ultimately it will just take people actually making more of the sort of fine art with 3d to create the perception of it as a serious fine arts media.. but that will happen more and more over time as tools continue to get more accessible. there is a ton of digital stuff in general happening in the fine art world, video, and so on, i think its just a matte of time before more people start using 3d as well. also there is a big underground art movement connected with graffitti and so on that is very open to commercial influences and styles, i think they just lack the knowledge to make 3d for the most part.

but most of the art on say this forum, is representational science fiction art, that wouldnt be in a gallery if it was an oil painting either. you see what i mean? if somebody made the sort of abstract or intentionally "unrealistic" work that you see in galleries, but authored it digitally, in 3d, and knew the art world well enough to get anything in a gallery at all, it would be in galleries too, i'm completely certain of that.

for example, i myself recently got a 3d piece in a local (but juried) art show, that was a really abstract toon style render, i guess i would say it doesnt matter, or certainly is not a bad thing, that 3d was involved with making this, to a fine art audience, because it looks unlike the realistic look of commercial 3d. but what do i know :) i will have to ask the jurors when the show happens..

also as far as the peception that 3d is easy, i think it is up to the artist to make something which does not depend on the perception of technical skill to suceed as art. nobody likes toy story because they thought it was hard to make. and the reality is 3d does make many things easy, or at least possibel, that were impossible. so its up to the artist to bring their thinkinng to the next level and still figure out what would be impressive, if thats the area you want to impress people with. just doing a realistic still life, yeah thats probably boring for all sorts of reasons, even if its hard. or if you make it really good, people will see it as a good image, regardless of if it was a photo. you see what i mean here?

for example in my work here, i tried to make a design nobody would ever say was easy, if it was made in any media...

so basically i say, just do it, its always up to the artists to create the art. if you build it, they will write it up in history books 40 years later to explain to you what you did :)

http://www.yenvalmar.com/nonprofit/theory/karma/images/sincity1.jpg

[sphere]

Oh damn it! I just had a nice reply all written out and then I accidently dragged a file into this window that cleared the page and wiped it. Oh well...

Basically what I was going to say is, does it really matter if you are considered an artist or not? Does 'artist' or 'art' have some sort of higher level of respect? Maybe the fact, more so, is whether people understand what goes into the work. Not necessarily whether it's just art or not. Art can be a piece of cake...

The industry is still relatively young and I think the general awareness of it is improving due to many things such as this society, worldwide events, the media and so forth.

Do a search on the forums because similar points have been discussed a few times.

[ndat]

People never considered graffiti art untill a while ago.

[barbapapa]

Fine art is something that is evolving all the time, i have to agree completely with yenvalmar´s opinion. Digital media is just a tool, a medium where you express what ever you want to say. Last november i had a video on an exibithion on the CCCB (center of contemporary culpture of Barcelona) And it was made mainly of cg.There were great opinions about it and there was not a single complaint about cg. and there is a realy tough jury to get something there
I paint for a living, but i did that piece on cg because it was the optimal way for saying what i wanted to say. Cg is like any other media on art. There are good painitings and bad paintings, and the quality of the piece is not related to the hard work and effort that someone putted on creating it. You can paint a portrait, make a great effort and still not create something that you can call art. Sometimes on these forums i see pieces called art just based on the "effort" made by the author. In fine art, you just cannot do that, because there are more points to consider when observing a piece, like the concept and the meaning.
Something that is really apreciated is if you are "investigating" on the field of aesthetics and the language of perception (think of any of the great names, Picasso, Dali, Pollock,Bacon.All of them have been recognized because of their contribution and the changes that they made to the way we see things, and not only because they where tallented painters, Picasso is not Picasso because he started painting at the age of 12 -There are many artists on history that have done it even earlier and with great results,He became "Picasso" and only became important when he did the first cubist painting, and when he did the first collage.It was a breaktrhoug on the aesthetics of its time, it was pure investigation, and it generated a lot of more movements on painting and sculpture. The same with Piet Mondrian and all the great names, any of them.
Thats why you see some perffect anatomical drawings that still cannot be called art. They might be good pieces, but not "art". They still lack that meaning, and they are not offering something new. They just offer effort, and some misconception of the word beauty (beauty is not necesarely art, and the other way around).For the same reason, a piece of cake cannot be art just like that. It might be, but it has to be, very , very very well justified. Because believeme, on that world everything has to be well, and elegantly justified, even the media (painting, sculpture, cg or what ever).

[Sagii]

I think it will.. I read somewhere that when Photography first appeared it was not considered true art.. but over the years that has changed.

[tcbcoolscene]

Untill people actually try creating 3d artworks themselves they will never consider them artforms. Photography and grafitti art can gain respect much more easily because they are a much more accessable form of art. Since cameras are much more available to people and pens and paper for grafitti, its easier for them to see the amount of skill it takes.

I go to school with art teachers who literally think that anything that comes from a computer is automated (as im sure you all know - nothing new), it continues to disgust me that an upturned urinal in an art gallery can be studied in class for 2 months but when it comes to absolutely amazing works of 3d art people dont care in the slightest, no matter how great it is - which is COMPLETELY hypocritical as they are teaching you to break conventions YOU DONT EVEN KNOW ABOUT YET!

What makes painting so respectable, how is it any more of a creative artform than 3d?, it isnt, but people understand the amount of precision and skill it takes because they would have atleast once in their lives tried it themselves. I dont think 3d will ever be considered true art, not like photography, but it will definately gain a little more respect when generations die off and art students who respect 3d now as well as traditional art grow and teach and use examples of it. As far as im concerned we are artistic colonys tucked down in our creative bunkers creating for the colony and not the world, which obviously is true with the amount of respect from most of the world we are given....rant rant rant...

[NOOB!]

the question gets asked too many times...

*fine art* is usually associated with traditional media,why? because its been around for centuries,thats right guys,thousands upon thousands ,even millions of years,people fail to realise that CG,even technology as a whole is pretty *new* it will be quite some time before it sneaks it wat into the fine art category.

Its is art however and excellent at that.You can't expect a fine artist whos been doing tradtional for years before the digital era to just like cg work,allot of people here say *allot of my teachers things cg is just a click of a button blah blah,i hate her blah* but how does your teacher know any better? your job is to show him her what can be done any maybe they can develop an interest,if they don't want to,fine move on,an artists will be an artist.

[Leionaaad]

Actually, I think we are looking from the wrong side of the whole mess.
CG is just another technique. I don't think that the chosen technique should be ever questioned, as long as it serves the purpose right.
But I am totally aware, that everybody should realise that computers are tools, are not making the thing. Thing that most of the snobs reject.

[Cyborgguineapig]

Ug not another one of these threads... :scream:

Let me leave you with a question. If you know the basic principles of art and know how to apply them effectively in the 3D medium, what stops you from applying the same principles on a canvas and real paint? I'm aure some of the greatest digital painters came from a traditional backround and could just as easily go back to oils and canvas if they wished. If you have that type of skill and talent and background, I doubt the question of (whether 3D will ever be viewed as true art) will ever cross your mind because I doubt you would care so much. If an artist wishes to create something physical and everlasting and with value, then they will simply do it non CG.

One day when software is capable of producing solid, physical results, think Z-Brush-like software which would spit out a textured mold from a laser or something similiar. Not that out there of an idea, we already have software that fabricates machine parts/mechanics.

Anyone seen those touchscreen videos going around on the web? Imagine one day being able to paint on a surface much like a canvas with real paints and materials but then having software,via replaceable screen or something producing a digital replica in 3D. Then you could have a work worth value as well as a digital version.

[glenn23]

If an artist wishes to create something physical and everlasting and with value, then they will simply do it non CG



What about Mozart, whose works of everlasting value were only preserved by cryptic scribblings on staffed lines? Or Thelonius Monk's improvisational musings converted by analog circuitry into scratched lines on vinyl?
Is Shakespeare's art in the paper and ink from his hand? If it is then none of us have ever experienced a Shakespeare play.
Is William Burrough's typewriter a better art producer than William Styron's word processor?
I can go see Van Gogh's Starry Night any day I wish. Does that mean our friends in Australia can feel nothing about Van Gogh because they can't make it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

A dancer's body moving through space.
Christo's Gates fluttering for a few weeks in Central Park
Kong's eyes going lifeless as he loses his grip on the Empire State building.
The only way the masses experience these things are through recordings of some type.

Chuck Close used to tell me a painter is a performing artist, only no one ever sees his performance. All that we are left is a recording of that performance - the painting.

Some thoughts, anyway.

[scrimshaw1803]

Let me leave you with a question. If you know the basic principles of art and know how to apply them effectively in the 3D medium, what stops you from applying the same principles on a canvas and real paint? I'm aure some of the greatest digital painters came from a traditional backround and could just as easily go back to oils and canvas if they wished. If you have that type of skill and talent and background, I doubt the question of (whether 3D will ever be viewed as true art) will ever cross your mind because I doubt you would care so much. If an artist wishes to create something physical and everlasting and with value, then they will simply do it non CG.


That would be acquiesing that 3D is not and will never be a respected art form. That is what I am questioning. In all rights, it should be.

Saying you would transfer your work to another medium is not accurate. I am somewhat experienced as a 3D artist and am slowly gaining an understanding of artistic principles. Yet I am I totally inept with oils and canvas. Similarly, someone else may excel at watercolors but would also be unable to produce the same level of work with oils. Or someone may be talented at charcoals but do not have skill if have them reproduce their work in sculpture.

And on another note, the look of CG itself gives each piece a look unto itself. Just as watercolors have their unique look, so does 3D. You may be able to capture the composition in another medium but you could not capture the look. So as a simple example, if a still life displays paint clumps and brush strokes, it is highly regarded. If the exact same still life composition contains rendered pixels, it is not highly regarded. It does not matter that the subject is identical.

What makes this more interesting is the upturned urinals mentioned in an earlier post. Yes, I have seen a similar exhibit, and have seen other works such as an entire large format canvas simply painted a solid shade of blue. And yet people discuss and ponder such works. I am not an art student but in some cases, I simply have to say, "the emperor has no clothes".

So if someone could disregard the front page work in these forums but admire a "blue canvas". Well, I must only yield in utter confusion.

[OneSharpMarble]

Heh on the same note do you think Ballet is an art form? And in your answer do you think animation will one day be up there with ballet?

[ThePhotographer]

I haven't read through all the posts here, but I don't see why 3D shouldn't be recognized as art. It all depends on how it's done. Again it comes down to the eternal question of what art really is.

Having browsed through the 3D choice gallery, I must admit that there are very few things that I would like to hang on my walls. The ones I would definately concider are Meats and Peter Fendrick.

I think that if you want to make your 3D "art", then make it your own style. Few people would like to hang a perfectly rendered car or an interior design on their walls.

But those who really try to make something personal - I can't see why they shouldn't be concidered in the art world even up against traditional things.

[loci]

ray caesar (http://www.raycaesar.com) isnt doing too badly...

[JosephGoss]

Of course 3d should be (and one day will be)
Respected and treated as a art form

But, with each new software release, these 3d programs are developing tools that make some types of 3d art produced years ago redundant , in the fact that they can be done easier

in 5 years, or 10 years, 3d might be only worth while as a story telling medium, because the computer does a lot of the stuff for you

And because a lot of new comers to the field of 3d take too much advantage of this, people see that it is the computer doing the work for them

(ok, my examples will be crap, but nevertheless, here they are:

grass , water, generators, zbrush - use of alpha textures to instantly detail models, detail generators (greeble), dynamics simulators, explosions and special effects simulators)

they are just a few, and as the years go by and computer become ever more complex, everyone will be using Maya, with renderman and will be using many generators to create there art, and then it will become more difficult for true 3d masters to stand out from the crowd

I don't believe that modelling and animation will be superseded by the cpu, of course not, but many important factors in peoples images are not there own, they buy extra models, use scripts and basically go the lazy man’s way of creating images

And they will because it would be pointless not to

joe

[PentamiterBeast]

I think if anything is gonna rise up in the perception of 3d as art it will come from the film world.

After all, many films are considered works of art (art films funnily enough rather than blockbusters). Since the film world is far more forgiving when it comes to technique (and even to a degree technical ability) I think you'll soon start to see many films made with 3d regarded as true "art films" due to their content, meaning, mesage, etc, and probably due to their being created (in some cases) by a single person.

Basically wat Im saying is that this will rovide 3d with its initial foot-hold in the "art" world. Whether or not it continues to climb is anyone's guess.

[geo5sf]

to answer your question, 3D Art is already considered a valid medium . Its only a matter of time until more 3D artists emerge into the scene....

Below is a link to an amazing 3D artist named Ray Ceasar - his work is shown in art exhibitions.
http://raycaesar.com/

a cool article about him
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66966,00.html

[yenvalmar]

i'm glad somebody brought up film. in fact, both of them are amazing animators who later went into live action, but i think you see my point. tools that make it easier to create what you can imagine can only be a good thing for people with true artistic vision. the genre will define itself much as film, photography, painting, and sculpture have. maybe terry gilliam's films aren't shown in art galleries but he has certainly found an audience that i think most of us would be glad to reach 1/10th of :)


in 5 years, or 10 years, 3d might be only worth while as a story telling medium, because the computer does a lot of the stuff for you

(edit)

they are just a few, and as the years go by and computer become ever more complex, everyone will be using Maya, with renderman and will be using many generators to create there art, and then it will become more difficult for true 3d masters to stand out from the crowd

I don't believe that modelling and animation will be superseded by the cpu, of course not, but many important factors in peoples images are not there own, they buy extra models, use scripts and basically go the lazy man’s way of creating images

And they will because it would be pointless not to

joe

[stepington]

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=120&aid=55673

[dalmanna]

i would imagine that as people grow up seeing it all around them it will be considered art. in the same way our parents don't consider drum and bass music our generation and our kids will.

[geo5sf]

i would imagine that as people grow up seeing it all around them it will be considered art. in the same way our parents don't consider drum and bass music our generation and our kids will.

What are you talkin about? I went with my mom to the Dieselboy show on Saturday night... hehe

[AlexKB]

I can just imagine in 200 years someone would be reading a history book... or seeing one, whatever the medium for history will be at that time (probably not books by then); and reading the line: Around the 21st century a new form of art arose around the world involving 3 dimensions and computers etc etc. This form took to a slow start but it skyrocketed in popularity by about 2020. Because this digital art is easy to obtain, one could not actually 'buy' pieces of art, so artists would generally make a living by drawing and designing things on the side for companies, or people who would pay them to draw a certain thing.

etc. etc. probably very inaccurate but that's the point.

It will take some time, it's a totally different medium. For this to be fully accepted it would require that the world first accept computers as, pretty much a natural part of life and not just something to go check email on once a week, ie once they start teaching people with computers more and all work would involve a lot of computer time, which is not so far off.

[DDS]

Whatever makes the computer...the artist will be who makes the piece of art, because computers don't like colors, don't feel emotions or like a subtle smile from an old woman.

I mean that 3D WILL be considered art. At the moment people don't usually "post 3D stuff on walls", like they don't use to put a photo from side to side of the wall (apart from personal ones) where they would add an oil painting.

[GARJones]

To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.

[almux]

With the "conceptual art" being there since few years already, the idea of "art" has become more than floating!
I guess 3D is art as you present it. Still or animated.
First of all, you feel yourself as an artist in your life (or "of" life)... then you'll make it happen around you (exhibitions, happenings, performances, aso).
There are no real rules of "specifications" nor "quality"... you may have or not a "Great Diploma of Famous Artschool" doesn't matter(you only sell more... but not necesseraly to the sort of people you wished), you still can be (or claim to be) an artist.
Therefore, there's absolutely no reason to pretend 3D is no art.

PS And SF or fantastic pictures won't change it (to my opinion)... even painting boats with water paint is still considered as art! No limits on this point, there is a public for everything.

[dalmanna]

What are you talkin about? I went with my mom to the Dieselboy show on Saturday night... hehe

lol. all i get is 'thats just noise'

[scrimshaw1803]

To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.

I have to agree with this statement somewhat. Most works here are either shapely women, realistic car renderings, architecural renderings, or tolkien-esque fantasy. None of these themes are presented in more mainstream artistic mediums either. You rarely see oil on canvas exhibits of who can paint the most realistic BMW or paint the hottest woman.

Although I do think if people were submitting "traditional" themes such as portraits, abstract designs, and scenes of everyday life, 3D would still not be recognized.

So there are two obstacles to overcome.

1. The medium itself is not a well respected medium. Either because people perceive the computer does the work or becuase the output does have a very clean "real" look to it. It does not have the texture and look that paints do. I do not like this opinion but most people have it. There is a trend to think something is "better" or more sophisticated simply because it is older and established. You see this in music. For example, most people assume that classical composers are superior and their music more intellectually stimulating than more recent music, even in the same genre. I would imagine that John Williams is every bit as talented and his music just as sophisticated as Brahms or even Mozart (I may get flamed for this but this is just an example:)) But nobody would perceive it as such, simply becuase these are old standby masters. On a similar note, people not consider the Beatles and the Rolloing Stones as "classic" and some of the talented musicians even. But were they perceived this way at first. No, not in the mainstream. They gained respect through persisting though time. Does that make them more talented and more respectable than current music. I don;t think so but others probably would.


2. Most subject matter people utilize 3D for are themes that coincide with the tastes of a younger male audience. Probably becuase a young male audience is the same group that experiments in 3D. The subject matter does not appeal to a broad enough range of people to gain widespread acceptance.

[Knut]

I find the definition of art in wikipedia quite good:

Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.

I think much of the heated debate comes from that "art" can conote more than one specific meaning. It can be skill, creative output and possible more meanings.

Art as defined by most institutions (Museums, Schools etc) has nothing to do with the medium it is represented by, it is the artist abillity to convey something "more" than the medium. I.e. art should give the viewer an experience beyond just looking at form, color and rythm etc.

A skilled 3d craftsman (or artist :)) can create a piece of art, as in the meaning it is extreemly well done in a technical sense (Lighting, Color, Form, Composition etc.) But this is not art in the institutional form.

So in my, and i belive in most peoples minds, "3d" in it self is not a valid artform, it is just a medium.

Much of what is created on cgtalk is art in the form of good skills. Some of what could be great art are based on clichés wich makes it boring. Then there are the few very creative, imaginary and original works that could go straight to the galleries in the best museums in the world.

Hope it makes any sense,
thank you for reading.

[JustChris]

To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.

I agree that most fantasy work is not very "exhibit-friendly" but it is still true, legitimate art. If people enjoy Shrek, or Mario, or Halo, then it is worth something. The setting of long, stark hallways is not a litmus test that is meant to separate "real" art from other stuff. It's just the optimal setting for works like photography and paintings. Think of how its intended audiences gather for different mediums. Movies take place in movie theaters. Comic books and video games are seen in more personal, portable areas (like your own personal space). It would make little sense to have public displays of commercial movies in wide, open hallways where all the sounds will clash and would be a less pleasant experience for the viewer (not to mention it might be illegal, too ;) )

The traditional art community just hammered the idea into many people's heads that it needs to be in appreciated in a specific manner and location to pass as "real" art.

[JMcWilliams]

they are just a few, and as the years go by and computer become ever more complex, everyone will be using Maya, with renderman and will be using many generators to create there art, and then it will become more difficult for true 3d masters to stand out from the crowd

I don't believe that modelling and animation will be superseded by the cpu, of course not, but many important factors in peoples images are not there own, they buy extra models, use scripts and basically go the lazy man’s way of creating images

And they will because it would be pointless not to

joe

I personally don't see this happening as you do. People who rely on purchased models and use prefabricated effects will allways stand out with crap art. :D

It is hardly pointless to make your own work. My work has my style and my own aesthetic that is attained by doing it with my hands. Those who rely on pre-fabs and canned solutions will simply be the "poser porn" and "bryce reflective cube over barran default landscape image" makers of tommorow. ;)

Real artists will stand out with ease.

If someone just uses canned models, effects, textures... then they are not creating anything. Thats like me running out to toys R' us and buying a bunch of action figures, arrangings them on my kitchen table and then taking a photograph and posting it on a toy makers forum saying "woo! look at these great toys i made!" ;)

The only artists are the people who make the original canned content (that also applies to procedural too).

[yenvalmar]

If someone just uses canned models, effects, textures... then they are not creating anything. Thats like me running out to toys R' us and buying a bunch of action figures, arrangings them on my kitchen table and then taking a photograph and posting it on a toy makers forum saying "woo! look at these great toys i made!" ;)



i do understand your point, but thats a bad example. in that case you are making art by arranging and taking the photo, not by having created the cars. i have just recently seen some amazing photos in an art gallery that the subject was toy cars, so its funny you used this example. are photographers and film makers not artists? well if they claimed that their "art" was sculpting the actors, they are fools, but thats a different problem.

[JMcWilliams]

Well, you missed my point, which was that If I just take a random photo (like just taking a render with no thought of composition or lighting) and claim 'look at my great art' then I am fooling myself in thinking that I can somehow take credit for the toys.

The toys are posed on my kitchen table in very saucy positions (barbie would be naked) ;) That would be the only artistic thing I contributed and that is dubious at best.

I am actually an advocate of great tools, procedural stuff (in the right hands) can be used well. But anything that is 'free for all', like prefab models, textures and animations will always look cheap and tacky in the hands of a crap artist. :D

Using lots of presets and generators (which still needs source artwork) would be more akin to people who create little short movies by using a game and it's assets (like the Red vs blue series that uses the halo game).
I certainly have respect for them as 'film makers', but they are by no means CG artists. That is not a diss at these people, I have no ill feelings towards the methods whatsoever, but lets not get delusions of grandeur ;)

Its like with music; there are a bunch of programs out there that come with a selection of pre-composed drum loops and phrase samples. Someone who throws a generic track together in Dance Ejay cannot be considered a composer or musician. I could not even consider them a 'mixer' in a sense, because the loops are all designed by the original musicians and program makers to fit together regardless. John williams will never be quaking in fear of losing his job to these loop mixing guys.

Another thing I have noticed, is that too much credit is given to computers these days. Lets say someone comes up with a great procedural Flora and Fauna system; Who is the creator of the digital plantlife? It's the program makers, not the computer. If someone creates an algorythmic music system, who is producing those random notes? The program makers, not the computer. So just because someone sits down, boots up 'Plant generator 2008' and presses the randomise button does not make the user the creator of the plantlife, the program makers are the ones to credit.

To be honest i'm beginning to find this 'oh no the sky is falling!' doom and gloom that seems to crop up on CGtalk rather tiring. Yet I feel compelled to stamp all over it when I see it. ;)

[RafalH]

I hope I won't offend anyone with my first post, but... "3D" is a technique, a tool. What you create with it might or might not be called "Art". Same goes for photography and oil paint. Don't confuse the media with the creation.

[scrimshaw1803]

I hope I won't offend anyone with my first post, but... "3D" is a technique, a tool. What you create with it might or might not be called "Art". Same goes for photography and oil paint. Don't confuse the media with the creation.

I completely agree and that is my point. Show someone a work in oils that appeals to them and they will be moved and perhaps even purchase a print. Show them that same work in CGI and they would say "That is cool" and move on, never considering it anything but CG and certainly not thinking to hang a print.

Look at the mainstream success of Thomas Kinkade. Would he be anywhere near as popular if he had created the exact same works in Maya instead? Nope. That shows that the medium is just as influential as the content. I'm still wondering why that is and I think it is a shame.

[Johny]

well...personaly i dont care about what people consider what i do...i wont gain better skill or any stuff if they uddenly realise :"hey..its art!" !

[yenvalmar]

while this thread has been going on, i had some 3d pieces in a juried art show at a local gallery in seattle. admittedly its kind of a weird small gallery but still. there ya go. an encouraging sign.

[yenvalmar]

I completely agree and that is my point. Show someone a work in oils that appeals to them and they will be moved and perhaps even purchase a print. Show them that same work in CGI and they would say "That is cool" and move on, never considering it anything but CG and certainly not thinking to hang a print.

Look at the mainstream success of Thomas Kinkade. Would he be anywhere near as popular if he had created the exact same works in Maya instead? Nope. That shows that the medium is just as influential as the content. I'm still wondering why that is and I think it is a shame.

in my opinion the reason for this is that painting and 3d are different media, they require different ideas. what might be compelling in one media might not be in another, due to all sorts of factors. part of the impact of a work is derived from the medium itself and the relationship between the media and the subject. as a virtual, infinitely plastic media, 3d cg has a somewhat detatched relationship from any subject, that really requires the artist to put themselves into it more directly and precisely than relying on a brush stroke to say it for you. if thomas kinkade made 3d renderings that were visually identical to his paintings in every way, including LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE PAINTINGS, i think they would be appreciated just as much, if not more!

where i do share your frustration is that the closer you get to reality in a 3d rendering, which in and of itself is a very difficult task, the less probably the average person is interested by it, untill you attain 100% photorealism and zero interest. BUT THATS ONLY IF YOUR SUBJECT IS SOMETHING BORING THAT YOU COULD HAVE JUST TAKEN A PICTURE OF ANYWAYS. so you have to look for respect for your ideas, not your craft, if you want to pursue that route. and since the craft is so hard, i think a lot of people get lost in it and are frustrated from the standpoint that their work doesnt elicit praise similar to the amount of effort they put into it. maybe thats a poor choice for a project then, or just do it to learn for yourself, which is why you should be doing boring realistic studies anyways probably. as i keep mentioning, there are plenty of photographers and film makers that are seen as artists, look to them for how to overcome the curse of photorealism.

maybe i have just been incredibly lucky, but as a 3d animator/artist/whatever you call it, who went to a very traditional fine arts oriented school (rhode island school of design) that did not even have any 3d animation courses when i attended, i did meet with some opposition to working in 3d, untill the department heads saw my work, and then it very quickly stopped being an issue. and subsequently although its only very recently that i have again tried to create art (as opposed to creating content for commercial jobs), so far most people i have showed it to seem appreciative and certainly nobody has made any dismissive comments about the computer making it easy. i feel like the ball is in the court of the artists to make art that is still read as art no matter what the media. ansel adams is seen as an artist whereas somebody else with the same camera at the same location might have taken a really boring photo...

[miloshz]

3D is just one more technique... a piece of work is either crap or a masterpiece... regardless on how you created it.

aesthetical foundation is the same for all visual arts.

look at guys like carlos baena or jim ludtke. their 3D works are art masterpieces for sure.

guys doing 3D must focus much more on artistic side of their job. when you devote more time to ideas, aesthetic, studying theory and art history, you works will become artworks. becoming an artist is way difficult task. mastering technical skills is just part of it. virtally everyone can master drawing, but there are not many artists like picasso or escher.

[Tad]

well... 99% of 3d cg art doesn't tell us a damn thing about the artist that created it.

whereas most "studied" artwork has alot of depth to it, the artist is often half of the what makes the art interesting in the first place.

we can yap on and on about why cg is what it is..
but the bottom line is that for the most part it's entertainment art.
We create it to make pretty pictures to draw in crowds and make $$$$ for some game or movie or advertising company...

when you have a hundred artists working together to produce one piece that you're trying to SEll to 1,000,000 viewers... chances are that art won't have that much depth to it.

BUT it WILL look " cool as hell " thats for sure.

let's not delude ourselves into thinking were after anything more than " cool pics " please...

or if you are after some other goal.. maybe you shouldnt be practicing making the next lowpoly goblin..

[miloshz]

factor of mass/hyper production is also important one.

anyways... there are guys creating their work mainly on comp, but still getting recognised. carlos baena and jim ludtke. to name two.

[woutb]

well... 99% of 3d cg art doesn't tell us a damn thing about the artist that created it.

whereas most "studied" artwork has alot of depth to it, the artist is often half of the what makes the art interesting in the first place.

we can yap on and on about why cg is what it is..
but the bottom line is that for the most part it's entertainment art.
We create it to make pretty pictures to draw in crowds and make $$$$ for some game or movie or advertising company...

when you have a hundred artists working together to produce one piece that you're trying to SEll to 1,000,000 viewers... chances are that art won't have that much depth to it.

BUT it WILL look " cool as hell " thats for sure.

let's not delude ourselves into thinking were after anything more than " cool pics " please...

or if you are after some other goal.. maybe you shouldnt be practicing making the next lowpoly goblin..

i think you' re spot on ! And is it really that important that your work is considered art, while u should be enjoying yourself ? :)

[victor]

One problem I see is that computer generated art can very rarely be attributed to a single creative mind.

A painter can go and live in the country, make his own paints and canvases, and stand outside painting landscapes.

I can pull a pencil out of my pocket, and sketch something that I see on the street, and have a one-of-a-kind work of art, but if I want to do my "computer stuff" I have to go home, fire up my wire entangled box made from parts manufactured all around the world, make my way through Microsoft's OS to get to Alias and Adobe's software, only to end up with an image that I can then print as many times or at any size I want until it comes out as close to what I had on the screen as I can get it. But even then, I don't really feel like it's completely my own creativity that led ot that result.

While I love what I do, and I feel creative when doing it, and others are happy with the results, I will gladly come out and say "it's not the same thing" when it comes to art.

Don't get me wrong though...

I'm not saying that just because electricity is involved, it can't be art. There are exceptions. When I see someone use a computer to create something truly unique (I don't mean the best looking dragon or elf girl or some new take on lighting), it is to me, art in every sense.

If someone writes a computer program or routine that generates some visual or auditory experience, that to me is art. If someone uses some 3D software in a way that was never intended by its developers, that to me is art. If someone comes up with an idea that is truly their own and simply relies on the computer for execution, that is art.

But as long as people only do what some software's features are designed to let them do, the art world will not be convinced.


Edit: But then again, every time I write down my thoughts about what art is or isn't I reread them, and realize I don't completely agree with what I wrote, so don't take this post as my definitive argument about the subject. :D

[Reaver2k]

How many bowls of fruit are drawn before the're not Art anymore?

As many people have said 3D is a tool, if you saw a capenter banging nails with a hammer, does that make it less of a good job?
Would you think "Hes cheating using that hammer, he should be banging in nails with his palm" before you answer that, i'll do it for you, no you wouldn't. You'd realise it was a tool of the trade and what he is making, could still be amazing, a house?

You say
"If someone uses some 3D software in a way that was never intended by its developers"
But im sure the "inventor" of the brush, always intended you to PAINT with it, or use it in some form to splash something around on a surface experessively atleast.

Thats my two cents anyway, I'll creep back into my hole in CGsociety.

[soccerrprp]

As many have said, the apps used to create 3d are tools. 3D, IMHO, is a technique. I currently teach a new course in 3D modeling and animation at a high school. The students are currently given the option of getting art or computer science credit for the class. But, this will no longer be the case next fall. ONLY computer science credit....

Why? Because the ART department does not regard the works generated/created by the 3D students as "art.". My response has been-PHOOEY on that! Of course it's art! My second response is, BIG DEAL if it's only for computer science credit! At least I get to teach what I love to the kids and they are loving it in turn!

It's this whole using of the technology thing that seems to get the "traditional" art folks! They think that it's a matter of pressing a few buttons...and VOILA- a masterfully detailed and textured/painted motorcycle, or statue, or flower, etc.

It's funny how these same traditionalist have no problems with students inserting a digital picture (taken by clicking a button) into Photoshop (computer software) and distorting the image in some fashion (done by the software by clicking buttons/functions) and displaying that as "art."

Anyway, art is a SUBJECTIVE discipline. We make it what we want to make of it. And as far as I'm concerned, there are some incredibly gifted ARTISTS creating 3D works! It's ART.... Heck, if we can display a piece of wood with a few nails driven into it in a museum and call it art....I still don't understand the whole MODERN ART thing.....that's another treatise for some other time...:shrug:

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.