View Full Version : a question , the future of 2D?

04 April 2005, 06:30 PM

Just wondering about stuff, and thought I would a question, all I need from you is your honest opinions, it would really help me out

Will 2D last? I donít think that it could happen, but could 2d ever get completely replaced by 3D? Please let me know what you think,

Thank you

04 April 2005, 06:42 PM
This is kind of a silly question when you think about it.

As long as people draw, and paint, there will always be 2-D. Cavemen started this artform, and it has a lot more use. Even 3-D artists use cell shading to produce 2-D-like images.

Plus... not every artist wants to use a computer...

04 April 2005, 06:52 PM
I don't think 2d will ever die.

04 April 2005, 09:05 PM
Just from an economy viewpoint, a great many still images are easier to produce in 2d than in 3d.

04 April 2005, 09:06 PM
Everyone said Cg would kill stop motion...

Stop motion is stronger than ever.

04 April 2005, 09:11 PM
Everyone said Cg would kill stop motion...

Stop motion is stronger than ever.

This is very true, there's at least two stop motion movies coming out that i'm aware of (Wallace and Grommit and the Corpse Bride)

Films like Spirited Away prove that there's plenty of life left in 2d. Not to mention great shows on TV like Family Guy and Venture Bros that I can't really imagine working in 3D.

04 April 2005, 01:15 AM
Will 2D last? I donít think that it could happen...

As long as there are people on the earth 2D will be popular.

Has the automobile eliminated the horse, has the television stopped radio? People like horses, people like/need radio and people love 2D.

Just because creating 3D objects/scenery has become easier doesn't mean all the other styles, techniques and mediums are history.

04 April 2005, 01:42 AM
Sorry if it sounds harsh but, I've always thought that there is no stupid answer, there is only stupid (flawed) questions. This post has proved me right.

Art is a language of expression, and it will presist as long as humans do not suffer a genetic mutation on a mass scale that will inhibit there communicative abilities.

There are many examples in history, one would think of the theological prohibition of characterization of people and animals in the Islamic arts many centuries ago, and what happened, artists came up with remarkable new ways of artistic works of "Islamic Patterns" that relied heavily on math, sophisticated geometry and proportions.

To understand how the future will go, you will have to examine your present and understand where it came from.


04 April 2005, 03:12 AM
It all ends up 2d in the end.

04 April 2005, 04:59 AM
You guys have to remember, a lot of these types of questions are asked by very young people who are probably still in puberty. They haven't had any life experience or gained tnough knowledge yet--that's why these questions are asked. So, no, the question isn't silly--it's just about right for that age group.

04 April 2005, 05:06 AM
2D art will never die :)
3D may the the direction of the future, but I doubt that 2D art will fall to the wayside as an antiquated, outdated pastime.

I think that, even when entire 3D virtual environments are developed like Star Trek holodecks that people could enter, walk around, explore, interact with artist-designed 3D characters - that paintings and drawings by 2D, more "traditional" one could then say, artists, would still never be viewed as "hopelessly out of fashion".

True art, and appreciation for true art, will not die, no matter how many dimensions it has - 2, 3, 4.... :)

04 April 2005, 07:07 AM
Will 2D last? Not only will it last, it will also get better!

04 April 2005, 08:10 AM
I don't think it will 'die' out, just as much photography didn't kill painting in the 19th century, or computer technology replacing paper/books. The nature of how it's being used might change, but not the skill an-sich.

04 April 2005, 08:22 AM
It will never die, just as painting and sculpting will never die.

The tools we use may change, but it will stay.

There are some people who claim as soon as your work is touched by a computer in a digital way that it's no longer "art"

and, Stop motion may be getting stronger, but it's still not used as widely as it used to be.

Problem is, most artists don't want to think about the technical bull#$% that goes along with 3d, 2d has only one barrier, your hand, or the pencil...hmm... 3d has many technical hurdles that one must overcome to achieve a finished image. Zbrush is getting very close...but, it's still not quite there.

IMO, all 3d packages are seriously lacking because it can't see whats inside my head and make it so! :) but I love to do it anyway...

I find drawing very relaxing, my mind, my pencil, and the paper. :)

disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about, I stopped taking my medication.

04 April 2005, 08:47 AM
I'm a 3D artist, but I think that 3D is nothing without 2D. If there wouldn't be, then 3D would be 1D ;) [3D-2D].

And yes, as someone said. In 2D you paint as you want, and if you know how to paint, then fast! In 3D you gotta know a lot more to "draw" and o know how the application renders.

04 April 2005, 02:27 PM
Yes - 2D is here to stay. So is cel-art, CG animation, Stop-Motion, Flash, etc.

For time being, though - 3D is the most popular. Something to do with the fact that it is still new to the world. Given time, it will lose interest.

Tell ya, what - have you ever heard of the "imaginary number" called 'i'? Well, its supposed to represent the squared-root of -1. Problem is, this calculation cannot be done - you cannot find the square-root of negative numbers! But still, mathematicans write 'i' in their expressions to represent it anyway, thus allowing them to carry on with their sums...sort of. :argh:

So, how about this - a new form of animation( lets call it 'i', for we don't know what it is! ) will arrive in 10+ years time, and then let us ask a new question - "What will happen to 3D/CGI now that 'i' is here?". :twisted:

04 April 2005, 03:39 PM
thanks for your views,

i am quite young (16), and i just wanted your opinoins, so sorry if the thread offened any of you

but thankyou for some useful replys


04 April 2005, 12:27 PM
Just from an economy viewpoint, a great many still images are easier to produce in 2d than in 3d.

I dunno about that^ I'm a professional 2D artist as well as a professional 3D artist and in the long run 3D is more economical than 2D. I'm not saying that because I'm biased towards 3D, I actually enjoy 2D work 10x more.

04 April 2005, 02:29 PM
Well you could have asked how 3d will affect 2d but would come out at the same place so,.....

Cars affected the use of horses.
Not everybody owns a horse and stables are not as numerous as pump stations.

Cameras affected commercial illustration.
Not everyone is going to wait a year for a painting.

3D has affected 2d, one example would be engineering CAD drawings of all sorts of industrial situations are better and more effectively calculated and represented by one 3D app than an army of draughtsman in a far shorter timespan. I know I actually studied mechanical drawing in the olden days.

However 3d does make enormous use of 2d in actual production and as a concept tool a simple sketch on a napkin can mean the differance between make or break. The depth and power of the crafted or drawn line will never diminish. At the moment I see the 2 with different titles but heavily interlocked. The role of 2d will change as 3d will, but die it never shall,... just change it's face like it always has.

04 April 2005, 03:39 PM
thanks for your views,

i am quite young (16), and i just wanted your opinoins, so sorry if the thread offened any of you

but thankyou for some useful replys


nothing wrong with asking, and you're the right age to be asking this, you probably have to make up your mind about what you want to do profesionally in the future. It's just people tend to react to these threads like there's some feud going on.

04 April 2005, 11:58 PM
LOL, artists are a touchey bunch arnt they? :)

but to answer the question, no, 3D will not replace 2D because they were never and will never be in competition of one another.

They are just mediums. It all ends up an image in the end. The way you get from "Idea" to "Image" is a journey every artist needs to decide on for himself. for example...

Idea: I want to make a space ship scene.

2D approach: I sketch out thumbnails, pick one i like, build a rough draft. Make i final inking of the image, then color it with paint or photoshop. It looks good, but the textures and lighting effects probably would look better (and be done faster) in 3D....

3D approach: No time for thumbnails, thats for those stinki'n 2D guys. I just go right into building my spaceship. The ship ends up looking kind of funky, but these textures and cool lighting effects will make it look better... There done.

The BEST way to do things is 2D and 3D. Take the 2D for the design process. Its quick and flexible. Then once you have a finalised image decide if you want a 3D or 2D look to it.

04 April 2005, 12:39 AM
They are just mediums.

Said vary well

CGTalk Moderation
04 April 2005, 12:39 AM
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.