Look at me...., Piotr Lindner (3D) (nudity!)

[bst-art]

Although I like nude women, I must confess that I think your previous work is better, cause it has an own style.

You could improve very much on this image, the pose could be more interesting, nipples could be added, the background is a bit boring, her inner knees, elbows and shoulders could be smoothed in postwork, the color could be corrected too, to make the image look more realistic.

After all I´ve seen in your Portfolio, I´m sure that you can do better.

[Leshiy3d]

I like the title :)
I think the pose is very constrained

[Ed Bittner]

You'd do better to do the hair,(bottom), in post. It doesn't quite fit properly.

E.

[tbrad]

its victoria beckham with no clothes on !

[erilaz]

I'm confused a little. Are you saying you took a base DAZ model and posed it with some lighting? Is this your model?
The arms, shoulders look very deformed at the joints and she looks as rigid as a doll. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to do.

[Ed Bittner]

I'm confused a little. Are you saying you took a base DAZ model and posed it with some lighting? Is this your model?
The arms, shoulders look very deformed at the joints and she looks as rigid as a doll. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to do.

Confused by what? He stated it was a Daz Victoria 4 model. Lotta stuff like that showing up around here recently.
E.

[Kirt]

Confused by what? He stated it was a Daz Victoria 4 model. Lotta stuff like that showing up around here recently.
E.
I think the question here is "why?" Why would you take a stock DAZ model pose it, light it and then post it here under the pretense that you did anything of artistic merit? Anyone can stack a few popsicle sticks up on their desk and claim it to be sculpture, but gather any number of professional artists around to crtique it and they're all going to call it for what it is.

This is a poorly posed stock model with uninteresting lighting ... at best. Why bother posting it as a finished image when it's obvious no more than 20 minutes was spent creating the whole scene. To the artist ... no disrespect intended, but please put more effort into your images if you want to be taken seriously.

[Ascania]

I think the question here is "why?" Why would you take a stock DAZ model pose it, light it and then post it here under the pretense that you did anything of artistic merit? Anyone can stack a few popsicle sticks up on their desk and claim it to be sculpture, but gather any number of professional artists around to crtique it and they're all going to call it for what it is.

And Andy Warhol has shown that this CAN BE art too!

This is a poorly posed stock model with uninteresting lighting ... at best. Why bother posting it as a finished image when it's obvious no more than 20 minutes was spent creating the whole scene. To the artist ... no disrespect intended, but please put more effort into your images if you want to be taken seriously.

I agree with you here. The posing is stiff and unnatural, joint problems in the original figure show up all too pronounced and face and body are just the figure's default shape.
There are loads of problems with this picture but faulting it for the use of a figure modeled by someone else - that's silly. Fail it for not using the potential given. Fail it for its straight out-of-the-boxness.

In the same vein we could complain about a nature photographer using a pre-made landscape, plants and animals and not using a light source of their own creation but working with sunlight.

[Kirt]

And Andy Warhol has shown that this CAN BE art too!If you dislike Andy Warhol's work that is your right and your free to express that opinion. However, popular opinion has placed him as an influential figure in the pop art movement of the 1960s. You can't generalize popsicle stick sculpture as having equivalent merit because you don't favor the work of a particular artist.I agree with you here. The posing is stiff and unnatural, joint problems in the original figure show up all too pronounced and face and body are just the figure's default shape.
There are loads of problems with this picture but faulting it for the use of a figure modeled by someone else - that's silly. Fail it for not using the potential given. Fail it for its straight out-of-the-boxness.Yes, I can fault it for the use of someone else's model. The very idea of using someone else's work and presenting it as your own is unprofessional and unethical. But mostly it fails on "out of the box" as you stated. No effort. No reward.

In the same vein we could complain about a nature photographer using a pre-made landscape, plants and animals and not using a light source of their own creation but working with sunlight.Are you serious?

[Ascania]

If you dislike Andy Warhol's work that is your right and your free to express that opinion. However, popular opinion has placed him as an influential figure in the pop art movement of the 1960s. You can't generalize popsicle stick sculpture as having equivalent merit because you don't favor the work of a particular artist.
May I remind you that it was YOU who dismissed the idea of using something as common and mundane as popsicle sticks as a medium for art wholesale.


Yes, I can fault it for the use of someone else's model. The very idea of using someone else's work and presenting it as your own is unprofessional and unethical. But mostly it fails on "out of the box" as you stated. No effort. No reward.

Where the heck did he claim the model as his own work?

Are you serious?


Certainly. Neither he nor the photographer create the medium for their art themself. And that's all the figure is - a medium!

[lorez]

what i can not figure out is why there are 4000+ views

[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.