Abstract Art - Falling Titans, Christian Goetzinger (3D)

[Sneakybunny]

nice man i like the virbrant colours and the red complements the green and blue background... nice one :thumbsup:

[MiguelAngeloCBT]

Weird... o_O... but good stuff, simple composition and great light.

Why don't you do an animation with this? Little planes groing and construction de sculpture, then... the creature start moving..and the camera move: ...something like an hand move camera... " the born, creation, ..." of something...

Congratz ... =)

[ZombieSpiderman]

I will be the first to admit that I really don't "get" abstract art, but I am glad to see someone doing something original and unexpected with CG. It's the only way it will be taken seriously as an artform. So keep up the good work!

[DougNicola]

Very cool and inspiring. :thumbsup: Maybe a couple of shots from some other angles?

~Doug

[Gord-MacDonald]

nice work:thumbsup:

Gord

[Dennik]

Some people in here have a hard time bending their minds around abstract art.
I do too, however i don't find that a reason to vote 1 star on whatever is not carbon copy of something else. Geez :rolleyes:...

[Sm3287]

I dont know what iam looking at....., but i like it :thumbsup:

[Djinra]

Lift with your Legs, not with your back?

[VM]

front.... page...???......... ammmm, why?..............

[leif3d]

I will be the first to admit that I really don't "get" abstract art, but I am glad to see someone doing something original and unexpected with CG. It's the only way it will be taken seriously as an artform. So keep up the good work!

It's the only way it will be taken seriously as an artform?:eek:
Abstract and Abstract Expressionist art, being the follower of surrealism and cubism, has been taken seriously since the 60's and 70's, and has paved the way for all of modern art.

About the work, this reminds me of a Burri or Fautrier painting made sculpture...except the background of course, which has absolutely nothing to do with abstract art...it's a pseudo Impressionist aproach to a landscape, and it distracts from the absract scuplture.

Overall, a nice idea though.:thumbsup:

[floze]

[...]...it's a pseudo Impressionist aproach to a landscape, and it distracts from the absract scuplture.[...]
I guess it's just simple bokeh, nothing 'pseudo'.. ;)

[leif3d]

I guess it's just simple bokeh, nothing 'pseudo'.. ;)

Well, bokeh refers to a lens effect no? I could be wrong...and for some reason I'm seing the piece as a flat piece, instead of a 3d piece...probably because I was associating abstract art with the fact that this movement likes to emphathise the flatness of the medium, hence the impressionist association of the bkg...but then again this is not a canvas...:shrug:

...so in other words, you're right, the bokeh effect could perfectly work in describing the background as well. :)

[Chris-TC]

Thank you for the comments guys, they are very appreciated!

I will be the first to admit that I really don't "get" abstract art, but I am glad to see someone doing something original and unexpected with CG.
Personally, I think it's not so much about "getting it" anyway. You can look at a piece and simply like it for its shapes, its colors etc. without necessarily having to be aware of what it depicts.

I wanted this image to radiate a strange fascination, to make people wonder what they're seeing, but at the same time to be very pleasing to the eye.

About the work, this reminds me of a Burri or Fautrier painting made sculpture...except the background of course, which has absolutely nothing to do with abstract art...it's a pseudo Impressionist aproach to a landscape, and it distracts from the absract scuplture.
Maybe I titled the image incorrectly. Let me explain:
The title is actually the title for the sculpture itself. The abstract part of this image is just the sculpture, not the environment.
The image itself is supposed to resemble a photograph taken of the sculpture (think outdoor exhibition).

This does not mean that the background is not important. I carefully chose the environment and the colors, and also made sure that the entire image composition does not merely resemble a "cheap snapshot".

[Kirt]

front.... page...???......... ammmm, why?..............
Good color, balance, structure, unique use of 3D technique and one of the Forum Leaders liked the image. Every front page doesn't have to be orcs, robots or busty elves. If you don't like it, fine. But you don't have to be a jerk about it. :hmm:

[mattswilson]

"...But you don't have to be a jerk about it."
I couldn't agree more!

Chris, nice image! I think it reads as a successful, 3D photographic, approach. The camera model (Bokeh/DOF) and the lighting are both very convincing! Outside the technical realm, the image is creative and pretty! Anyone with any experience in our world would agree i think!
Im even more impressed that this came from XSI. I know its a great package, but I almost mistook this for one of the Maxwell renders!(Not saying that Maxwell is the be-all end-all, but your render has a level of realism above what I have had the pleasure of seeing from most of the other packages)

great job again!

[Elinewton]

Beautifull idea!! Very poetic! Great image too!!:thumbsup:

[BigSky]

Personally, I'm delighted that this gets a front page....the cringeworthy prominence of orcs, elves and metallic-bra'd chicks is mostly embarrassing, as is the mantra of "detail...detail...detail" in comments. This image has got something to hold the eye, and congrats to the moderators for stepping outside of the box, and congrats, of course, to Christian for a wonderful image.
...how about if it turned into the tentacles of a....and...

[JurajMolcak]

Personally, I'm delighted that this gets a front page....

Agreed. Maybe bit disturbing - shocking - confusing, but for me absolutely refreshing :thumbsup: And XSI is just extra point. Yeah.

[Glenfx]

Yet again i fail to understand the way some moderators or forum leaders think when choosing the best work of the bunch though it doesnt come as a shock anymore.:shrug:

I can really dig the "abstract" side of things if done well and i can show examples of abstract that would make you goo (not done by me though).

The problems i see here start by a really bad composition (cut and paste feel) followed by lack of detail. Appart that the geometry was done in less than 20 minutes and holds a basic lambert as texture it didnt go into a bit of work to at least make the water go around the cilindrical bases, the ripples go like there is nothing in there, thus making a bad composition.

I dont like Picasso over Rubens but i dont see anything near it in here.:deal:

[mynewcat]

It looks great - I like it.

[animalunae]

Abstract art is hard to rate, but I don't like this, apart from the model, which really doesn't do anything for me, the image has poor composition and even worse lighting, but if it's art then that might be the point, I dunno... nice for a finished piece but not frontpage material in my opinion.

[dickma]

From looking the image I just have a confusion about CGTalk is a ART forum, or DESIGN forum? I have no discrimination about ART, as art and design cannot be separated. However, as Computer Graphics are more likely as design based more than art. Because when we do CG it is a bit more demanded by clients or ourselves, not much soul is involved in that.

OK, I would like to say, if it is a REAL sculpture, it is worth more that I will stay my eyes for a longer time. But if it is just a CG, well, i will see how much effort is put into it. Because for me may be it is just a computer error generated mesh, that may be put little effort into and without a soul.

So I don't think it worths a frontpage.

[Chris-TC]

First of all, I was aware from the beginning that this image would not please everybody. And I was quite surprised to find it on the frontpage.

But I am a little disappointed that so many people come here and question the "frontpage-worthyness". I don't know how often images got featured on the frontpage that I personally did not like very much. But I cannot remember ever posting in one of these threads that the image doesn't deserve it.

Opinions and taste are something that differs from person to person, I just tend to accept this.

Of course, I don't mind honest critique, suggestions etc., in fact, I encourage them. It's just that saying "you know, you really don't deserve this" seems incredibly hostile to me.

The problems i see here start by a really bad composition (cut and paste feel) followed by lack of detail.
Can you please elaborate on the "cut and paste feel"? Why do you think the composition is really bad and how could I improve it?

Appart that the geometry was done in less than 20 minutes and holds a basic lambert as texture it didnt go into a bit of work to at least make the water go around the cilindrical bases, the ripples go like there is nothing in there, thus making a bad composition.
Reading this, I think you are not really aware what the word "composition" means. The composition deals with how the content of the scene is distributed within the picture frame, not with technical details like water ripples.

Then of course, you are wrong if you think that the sculpture necessarily has to create visually distinct ripples in the water. Compare this photo for example:
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4682/ripple1ku1.th.jpg (http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ripple1ku1.jpg)

Your statement that the geometry was done in less than 20 minutes is not correct. If you must know, the modeling itself took me about 6 hours.
But this makes me wonder: should we judge how long it took the artist to create the image, or should we rather judge how much we like the result?

the image has poor composition and even worse lighting
Could you please give a few pointers how the composition and the lighting could be improved?
The composition especially is very thought-out, but since this is the second time it gets critiqued I would really love to hear how it can be improved or what is so poor about it.


And once again, thanks to everyone for your comments!

[tonare]

Personally I think its great. I've done alot of abstract art, in my time and I really think you did a great job.

It looks realistic to me, and the c+p comment, I just dont get. Might be his/her monitor.


Good job.:)

[dickma]

I would like to talk about the flame, (warning, it may take risk)

Yes, there's a bit cut and paste feel for me, because the red sculpture stand in the natual background, the salmon colour isn't my taste. And texturing is lack of convincing, like the base of the sculpture has no specularity or reflection, to illustrate that it is damped by water. The red material is lack of details about what is it made from. Plastic, Wood or Metal? none of them. The sculpture itself isn't merge the enviroment at all by it's material setup, no spherical reflection map apply or may be caustics, it is just a lambert. I would like to make it black, shiny with specular and reflection(fake one).

Composition may be important for you, but I would like to know more the behind concepts, or why you made this. As you know, a sphere, a cube and a cone can also be arranged to look good in composition. And due to lack of behind concepts, the time used on modeling doesn't means anything at all. Painfully saying, I can reproduce it by modeling a basic form, then bring it into Zbrush to sculpt and make a "Wrong" setting in XSI for displacement.

I would like to see more "technical" side, if the "artistic" side is weak and sorry for something harsh.


First of all, I was aware from the beginning that this image would not please everybody. And I was quite surprised to find it on the frontpage.

But I am a little disappointed that so many people come here and question the "frontpage-worthyness". I don't know how often images got featured on the frontpage that I personally did not like very much. But I cannot remember ever posting in one of these threads that the image doesn't deserve it.

Opinions and taste are something that differs from person to person, I just tend to accept this.

Of course, I don't mind honest critique, suggestions etc., in fact, I encourage them. It's just that saying "you know, you really don't deserve this" seems incredibly hostile to me.


Can you please elaborate on the "cut and paste feel"? Why do you think the composition is really bad and how could I improve it?


Reading this, I think you are not really aware what the word "composition" means. The composition deals with how the content of the scene is distributed within the picture frame, not with technical details like water ripples.

Then of course, you are wrong if you think that the sculpture necessarily has to create visually distinct ripples in the water. Compare this photo for example:
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4682/ripple1ku1.th.jpg (http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ripple1ku1.jpg)

Your statement that the geometry was done in less than 20 minutes is not correct. If you must know, the modeling itself took me about 6 hours.
But this makes me wonder: should we judge how long it took the artist to create the image, or should we rather judge how much we like the result?


Could you please give a few pointers how the composition and the lighting could be improved?
The composition especially is very thought-out, but since this is the second time it gets critiqued I would really love to hear how it can be improved or what is so poor about it.


And once again, thanks to everyone for your comments!

[ZombieSpiderman]

Some people in here have a hard time bending their minds around abstract art.
I do too, however i don't find that a reason to vote 1 star on whatever is not carbon copy of something else. Geez :rolleyes:... Was this directed at me? Because I didn't MEAN to be a jerk or anything, and I didn't realize there even WAS voting. I just looked at the image and felt the urge to make a comment. I didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, I just meant to be encouraging, but I guess next time I'll just keep my two cents to myself.

[csDevil]

From looking the image I just have a confusion about CGTalk is a ART forum, or DESIGN forum? I have no discrimination about ART, as art and design cannot be separated. However, as Computer Graphics are more likely as design based more than art. Because when we do CG it is a bit more demanded by clients or ourselves, not much soul is involved in that.

OK, I would like to say, if it is a REAL sculpture, it is worth more that I will stay my eyes for a longer time. But if it is just a CG, well, i will see how much effort is put into it. Because for me may be it is just a computer error generated mesh, that may be put little effort into and without a soul.

So I don't think it worths a frontpage.
Design and Art CAN be appart, as design is based on conclusive and almost always bringing images that makes us feel good, and art is all about questions, not answers. But this is something i'm not really sure about.

What really made me quote this msg is: people frequently associate 3D with hiper-realism. So, what distinguishes its visual language from real, so you can say "if it was real it would be cool, as it isn't, it is not"? I think it is a very beautiful image, reminds me of one of Cristo's work on Central Park:
http://www.minimalwage.com/gallery/albums/Cristo-in-the-Park/PICT3438_JPG_copy.sized.jpg

Another matter is: why would errors or mistakes not be valid for art? Duchamp's "Great Glass" wouldn't be art, then! Pollock's work would be trash if you disconsider uncontrolled paint stains.

btw: really liked this work, its composition is really beautiful, mixes the hard lower structure with some really soft and "flow" feeling at the top. I think it is fantastic! congrats!

[pearson]

For starters, I applaud the use of CG for something other than "chicks-n-snakes". And leif3d, I think that ZombieSpiderman was referring to CG being taken seriously as an art form, not abstract art itself.

That said, I don't like this image. The sculpture seems interesting, but the angle it's shot from is terrible. You have overlapping elements that can't be distinguished from each other except by the amount of bokeh, and the surface is so random that it is of no help in defining the object in space. The texture doesn't give any depth or shape cues either, and the DOF in the photo and the model don't match, which makes it even more difficult to see the shape.

It would be interesting to see other angles and wireframes, and I hope to see more abstract CG in the future.

[dickma]

"people frequently associate 3D with hiper-realism." Why Not? I think if the creator's attempt is trying to convince us that the sculpture is merge into the environment, he has to do with the basics, that I have mention about he has to work hard on material setup.

And I've talked about how much "efforts" put in, the "behind concepts". Just not every mistakes can be art as I've explained about "how" I can reproduce it.


Design and Art CAN be appart, as design is based on conclusive and almost always bringing images that makes us feel good, and art is all about questions, not answers. But this is something i'm not really sure about.

What really made me quote this msg is: people frequently associate 3D with hiper-realism. So, what distinguishes its visual language from real, so you can say "if it was real it would be cool, as it isn't, it is not"? I think it is a very beautiful image, reminds me of one of Cristo's work on Central Park:
http://www.minimalwage.com/gallery/albums/Cristo-in-the-Park/PICT3438_JPG_copy.sized.jpg

Another matter is: why would errors or mistakes not be valid for art? Duchamp's "Great Glass" wouldn't be art, then! Pollock's work would be trash if you disconsider uncontrolled paint stains.

btw: really liked this work, its composition is really beautiful, mixes the hard lower structure with some really soft and "flow" feeling at the top. I think it is fantastic! congrats!

[csDevil]

"people frequently associate 3D with hiper-realism." Why Not? I think if the creator's attempt is trying to convince us that the sculpture is merge into the environment, he has to do with the basics, that I have mention about he has to work hard on material setup.

And I've talked about how much "efforts" put in, the "behind concepts". Just not every mistakes can be art as I've explained about "how" I can reproduce it.

yes, surely. I didn't say hiper-realism isn't a valid form of art, i was just trying to understand why would it be valid if real, but nor valid if hiper-realism.

Again, I agree, but not completely: is virtually impossible to reproduce these works of art i've mentioned (Duchamp's "Great Glass" and most of Pollock's paintings), for it was made having in mind that part of the process would be simply random, like breaking a glass or throwing paint on the canvas, although they had plenty of conscience of everything else on the creative process. This is something I thought about when wondering about digital art: the only new thing it could really add to visual language are the unexpected bugs, that may not exist in any other kind of art. This can make thing go really different from what we've seen, what is one of the great ideas of contemporary art.

[dickma]

Just I would like to say we shouldn't art for art's sake by tolerating mistakes. For your artist mentioned above, well I didn't see and explore much of their works. However, I think they have their concepts. Or I can realize why they breaking glass or throwing paint. For the aesthetic value they may not worth much. But they have their concepts to support their act (like throwing paint is a kind of expressing power and energy, for the not in-depth explaination)

[Wes_Brown]

The thing about 3d is this: 99 percent of it is "illustration."

People don't and hang up illustration AS fine art in their house. (For the most part anyway...don't harp on about collectors of illustration or anime.)

Is illustration art? SURE! Is it completely different than a fine art painting?

Usually.

They serve different purposes. 3d has amazing fine art potential. Look at www.itgoesboing.com (http://www.itgoesboing.com) to see some beautiful work sold as fine art prints.

[ZombieSpiderman]

The thing about 3d is this: 99 percent of it is "illustration." This is the point I was clumsily trying to make. When I say I don't "get" abstract art, I'm acknowleging that there may be something more going on that I'm not catching, so, while this piece of art isn't exactly my cup of tea (sorry Herr Goetzinger!), I like that it was made and put out there.

[Chris-TC]

Yes, there's a bit cut and paste feel for me, because the red sculpture stand in the natual background, the salmon colour isn't my taste. And texturing is lack of convincing, like the base of the sculpture has no specularity or reflection, to illustrate that it is damped by water. The red material is lack of details about what is it made from. Plastic, Wood or Metal? none of them. The sculpture itself isn't merge the enviroment at all by it's material setup, no spherical reflection map apply or may be caustics, it is just a lambert. I would like to make it black, shiny with specular and reflection(fake one).
See, that is the kind of critique I appreciate. You have made some very valid points, and I appreciate your taking the time to write them down for me.

The reason why I did not make the sculpture reflective at all is simple: the shapes would have gotten too complicated. The geometry is complicated looking already - if I had mixed reflectivity into this (and I know because I tried), the object would have become too busy.

Composition may be important for you, but I would like to know more the behind concepts, or why you made this. As you know, a sphere, a cube and a cone can also be arranged to look good in composition. And due to lack of behind concepts, the time used on modeling doesn't means anything at all. Painfully saying, I can reproduce it by modeling a basic form, then bring it into Zbrush to sculpt and make a "Wrong" setting in XSI for displacement.
I don't doubt that you could reproduce it. But I don't really see your point here. The goal is not to create something nobody can reproduce, the goal is to create something interesting.
As for why I made it. You could ask this question about every single image that gets posted on CGTalk. In this case, it was simply a private project that was supposed to be a little different from the things I usually do.

That said, I don't like this image. The sculpture seems interesting, but the angle it's shot from is terrible. You have overlapping elements that can't be distinguished from each other except by the amount of bokeh, and the surface is so random that it is of no help in defining the object in space. The texture doesn't give any depth or shape cues either, and the DOF in the photo and the model don't match, which makes it even more difficult to see the shape.
Thanks for the comment, it's very appreciated.

What's interesting when it comes to 3d is: we often see things as wrong or incorrect that really aren't. A little earlier, somebody thought the water had to look a very specific way while I posted a photograph that showed that this is not necessarily the case.

When you say that the "DOF in the photo and the model don't match", I hope you realize two things:
a) there is no photo, the image is entirely 3d
b) the image was rendered with raytraced depth-of-field in one single pass, therefore the DOF for the sculpture and the background match 100%

[dickma]

Chris-TC:

Thanks for your feedback on my critique, and it is a BRAVE thing to face the opposite opinions. Well what I would like to say is I hope that you can make use of my comments and enhance your current image. One thing about the exercise is about to prove if my comment is correct and is it improve your current work that it is better than the original and I am sure you'll learn something from that exercise.
What I said the composition thing, I didn't make any good or bad comments. Just I would like you to concentrate on how to put efforts, and the concepts behind the work. So that people will not think it is just an error with no meanings.

[dickma]

Double post.

[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.