can CG break into the Art World?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by paperclip: I think you meant to say prima donna, Jon.


Thanks. I guess my term would mean before Madonna's time

I do think CG has the possibilities, but it should not emulate traditional art. I think it should break that mold and offer something completely different and unique to CG. I think frames on the wall should be huge flat screen monitors with perhaps a rotation of art or something. Holographic art could be cool too.
 
  06 June 2005
Simple, they will hire officials to watch them work and not copy the file making it an original.
+ a contract saying that item is the only one being sold, ever. If another copy exists, the maker simply returns the money that was paid + a fine.

Giving temp jobs to the flood of IT'ers that are now being trained and cash in the pocket of the people creating the art.

This will also bring more money to companies like adobe and corel and the people behind max and maya and so on because the versions will be checked for legality.
 
  06 June 2005
Selling a single original for a million bucks is an impossible dream for a cg artist. It will never happen, not even with DNA coding or whatever. Let's just let go of that silly notion right now.

But what if a cg artist sells copies (prints or DVD's or whatever) of his work, and one of the pieces makes more than 1 million? What about several hundred million, like certain cg movies of late? Which of the two scenarios would you prefer? Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.

We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.
 
  06 June 2005
Hey! I'm into CG to tell my stories, or make people laugh and smile! I couldn't care less about having my own work sell in galleries or auctions.

I was thinking of CG as a tool for any artist - can the medium be embraced by all and accepted in all cirlces?

Is High Art really just for old and stuffy people and Cg will never be a major part of that?
__________________
http://www.headlinercreative.com
 
  06 June 2005
Quote: Hey! I'm into CG to tell my stories, or make people laugh and smile! I couldn't care less about having my own work sell in galleries or auctions.


Me too, and I think it's the same with most of us.

Quote: Is High Art really just for old and stuffy people and Cg will never be a major part of that?


I'm fairly sure the definitions will be different in the future. At least I sincerely hope so... today you could define high art by the prices, by the places it's sold, by its customers. This is obviously ridiculous - you should define art only by the work itself and the context it was created in. Nothing else. The digital paradigm can help with that... perhaps it even makes the change inevitable, by removing the cult of the 'original'.
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.

We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.


Stahlberg,

I think the artists motives are key:

Not all artists are going for a big market. I know and know of many artists who paint for the love of painting, pure and simple, (and sculpting whatever). For them its not about the money, in fact most of them know that they will live in a relatively low income bracket.

Yes we are definitely in a new paradigm, but I don't think pre CG artwork is going to go the way of the dodo bird (traditional commercial art will likely dissapear, because it for the most part ended up in a production enviroment anyways). So called fine art is another story.


Originally Posted by Stahlberg: today you could define high art by the prices, by the places it's sold, by its customers. This is obviously ridiculous - you should define art only by the work itself and the context it was created in. Nothing else. The digital paradigm can help with that... perhaps it even makes the change inevitable, by removing the cult of the 'original'.



There is alot of hype and crap in the 'high art' realm. There is also work which is not crap, and could only exist as a singular entity - a lesson I learnt standing in front of 'the red studio' by matisse (reproductions will never do it justice, and it could never have been done in CG) There are many contempory artists who could be used as examples - Philip Pealstein, Chuck Close, Jasper Johns (who I am sure would be hated by most people on this forum).

As far as the definition of high art you have given - you are defining the art market - not the art - two totally different things (and I know you knew that ).

Gord
__________________
My Studies

My Anatomy Thread

My Website


Good Facial Expressions Resource:

http://www.artnatomia.net/uk/artnatomy.html

Last edited by Gord-MacDonald : 06 June 2005 at 04:10 PM.
 
  06 June 2005
Yes, but I think many people define it that way too, and that's the problem. That causes many cg artists to feel 'inferior' or left out, because they know (rightfully so) that no one will ever pay a million for a single print of a cg image.

But this I think will change, it could take 50 years or more but it will happen.
Quote: (reproductions will never do it justice, and it could never have been done in CG)

One day printers will be able to synthesize or reproduce on a molecular level. Then everyone in the whole world will be able to enjoy perfect copies of high art, no one will be able to sell originals for millions anymore, no one will be able to tell if a work was originated in "traditional media" or digital media, and we can finally say goodbye to the opportunists and speculators and just enjoy art for arts sake.
 
  06 June 2005
I've sold a few prints of my CG work, but I've always compared it more to photography than works on canvas -- it's a better analogy, I think.

Photographers can also make more-or-less unlimited duplicates of their work, so in order to maintain the value of the work, they commit to ten prints at size X (large print), twenty at size Y (medium), one hundred at size Z (small), then all of those are signed and numbered and the negative is retired -- although not usually destroyed. Either that, or the photographers sell the rights to their image for a certain amount of time (stock company or agency), but that's getting more on the commercial end of things.

The trick with CG art, like photography, is giving the appearance of safeguarding the investment people are making in the art.

It can be argued, however, that many of those who buy and sell 'fine art' don't really care about the art at all -- it's the perceived value they're interested in.

We're talking about completely different markets, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.

If you're talking in terms of CG artists getting respect on par with 'fine' artists, however, that day is coming soon.
 
  06 June 2005
i completely forgot Walter Benjamin. in 1936 he wrote the essay:

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

about the impact of cinema and photography on the art world. a must read on the subject of copies.

and this is a really interesting perspective

Originally Posted by Stahlberg: We're in the new paradigm, and it's kind of silly for us to cry for the recognition of those who stick to the old one. It's like the first automobile manufacturers feeling bad because they were kicked out of the yearly horse-and-buggy trade shows.


i think that what makes CG goes banana, or anything digital, is really this ability to have an image, a sound or a movie anywhere in the world in just a couple of seconds. itīs a much deeper step than the one Benjamin talks about.

and thatīs something many people have not grasped yet (read: the movie and phonographic industry for example). the most recent big event being the revenge of the sith in the internet (read: anywhere in the world) a couple of minutes after opening in cinemas. without a single penny from a corporation to back this kind of huge distribution.




eks
 
  06 June 2005
If you're going to look at art from a business perspective.. then its arguable.

If youre going to look at art from an Artistic perspective.. then the person trying to argue should shut his closed minded trap.


Art is a business when it comes to making money, like any other thing. The beauty of working on digital art for films and games is that youre not only creating this for your client; you are creating it for the audience as well.. and for your name out there. Digital art is very much a community thing.. its not just enclosed for rich buyers and the sorts... I believe its better to get a fixed job doing cg than hoping someone buys your paintings. You have to remember.. traditional artists only sell paintings at such insane prices when theyre considered ''mature'' artists in their 50's.

Anyways, if youre doing art only for the money.. then stop now.
 
  06 June 2005
Art is Art. No matter how its made! You put effort in it all and you always get some results(aint saying they have to be good), Maybe you do use a bit more time if you do it manualy but that shouldnt matter, should it? You use maybe even more time on digital art, caus when you have finished the render you probably wil go back to it and maybe change something. Anyways to come to the point.

These days we can make copyes of anything with the technology we have in our hands. And lets face it, if oyu only make 10 prints of sumin you have made, and you dont want to make more prints (ever) then the value can go up in the future.


haa im tierd soo im probbably talkin about sumin i know very little about. But anyways i just want to tell you all that you can never set a price on art even if it is digital or not.

Night all @@
---------o
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: What about several hundred million, like certain cg movies of late? Which of the two scenarios would you prefer? Which one do you think that idiot with the white gesso canvases would prefer, if he had a choice? The thing is, he doesn't have a choice. He's stuck with his smelly paint and cleaning brushes and physically carrying his work to a brick-and-mortar shop to sell it to a tiny group of people. That's it for him, for the rest of his life, it's not about to change.


I think your point is correct, but it only applies to the very top level of film production. If you look at it realistically, what are the chances of someone working in the CG industry actually benefitting from that several hundred million profit? Most people working in CG are production artists--they have no say in the screenplay, direction, casting, and do not get a cut of the pie when the box-office numbers, toy sales, foreign distribution..etc come in. At the most they might get a nice Christmas bonus, and they get to have their names in the credits--which most movie-goers don't read. Your average movie-goer couldn't care less who modelled that creature or textured that building. Film is all about the actors, director, and writer--everyone else gets ignored by the media. The general media always interview the voice actors, but never the actual animators. You could spend a lifetime that way, and no one outside of your life's small circle will remember who you are after you die--unless you make a point to make a name for yourself as an individual creative mind--not just a production guy.

However, a gallery painter is the entire creative force onto himself. He doesn't get told what to do by the director, producer, art director, lead artist..etc. Everything he does is his idea, his inspiration. What he paints is his, and what gets sold, is split between him and his agent (or the gallery). If you can make a name for yourself, your pieces will sell from $10,000~$50,000 each easily in galleries. If you are good, you will be in demand, and you would basically sell everything you paint before you even paint it--people will have to fight for your paintings, to the point of using lottery systems to see who gets to purchase your next painting. There will be monographs of your work published, and you will leave your mark in this world in a more tangible way than any modeller, texture artist, art director, or animator at a CG studio. Even if you're not a fine artist but an illustrator, you will still go down in history, and you will still have monographs published of your works.

I think this is really a personal choice. Some people want that personal achievement, and no amount of working on other people's ideas will satisfy that need. You can have your artworks you've done for a studio published in one of those "The Art of XXXX" books, but you are sharing the limelight with dozens and hundreds of others. But as an individual creative mind that has an individual career that doesn't require a whole group of people, you are remembered as an individual. (And that's why people like you and me write screenplays and aim to have our own stories told, because we will never be satisfied only working as a cog in the machine on other people's creations)

For many people, they stopped being a production guy and became creators because of malcontent with the creative vision of the person that's calling the shots. There are times when people just want to be part of a team and work on something they could really believe in, without having to be responsible for making any vital calls on anything, but if what they're working on no longer satisfy that need to feel proud of the work being done, then that malcontent rears its head and they're off to wanting to be a creator instead of a production guy. But for some, they are lucky enough to have always worked for a great visionary, and they are content with just helping to bring those visions to fruition. I can imagine the guys who work at Valve on Half-Life series, or people working with Steven Spielberg, or people working at Bioware..etc being totally satisfied working on creative ideas they can be proud of. But if one day the creative ideas start to suck, then there's a chance one of the production guys will jump ship and try to become a creator himself, so that he could once again be working on a creative idea he could be proud of. I mean, why would Doug Chiang try to do Robota? He had a cushy job at ILM working on one of the most famous IP's in the universe, but something drove him to want to be a creator of his own universe.

To get back to the CG job vs. being a gallery painter comparison--look at it this way. The chances of you becoming a good fine art painter (or commercial illustrator) and be known as an individual creative talent, is higher than becoming a well-known creator in CG film. You could work a lifetime in CG and never get to write and direct a CG feature film.

Last edited by Lunatique : 06 June 2005 at 07:13 AM.
 
  06 June 2005
Quote: I think your point is correct, but it only applies to the very top level of film production. If you look at it realistically, what are the chances of someone working in the CG industry actually benefitting from that several hundred million profit?


Yeah that wasn't maybe the best comparison... I was kind of thinking more towards the future, when a single CG artist can do - well whatever I think of is probably going to be too small. For us CG artists the sky is literally the limit... not so for the traditional artist, who will be working exactly the same way a hundred years from now (or he won't be a 'traditional' artist). This is not necessarily a bad thing (though it does seem like it would get boring in the long run).

I just can't believe people who get paid 5 or 6 digits for painting something that could be done by anybody off the street, in about less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich, are being 100% honest about their art and motivations.

Hey, I think I just invented a new art form - Delegative Art. I hire a bum off the street, sit there and have my lunch, while I direct him how to fill a canvas with paint. When my lunch is done, the art work is done, the bum gets paid his ten bucks and leaves, and I call my agent. He tells me the New York art scene is so hot for my new art that it's already sold - and I just made another cool 45,000 dollars.
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Lunatique: However, a gallery painter is the entire creative force onto himself. He doesn't get told what to do by the director, producer, art director, lead artist..etc. Everything he does is his idea, his inspiration. What he paints is his, and what gets sold, is split between him and his agent (or the gallery). If you can make a name for yourself, your pieces will sell from $10,000~$50,000 each easily in galleries. If you are good, you will be in demand, and you would basically sell everything you paint before you even paint it--people will have to fight for your paintings, to the point of using lottery systems to see who gets to purchase your next painting. There will be monographs of your work published, and you will leave your mark in this world in a more tangible way than any modeller, texture artist, art director, or animator at a CG studio. Even if you're not a fine artist but an illustrator, you will still go down in history, and you will still have monographs published of your works.


I totally agree! I have been fighting with myself over that exact same conflict. Whether to work for a company and just do their bidding, or to take the risk and fulfill my own creative purpose in life. I have decided on the latter!
 
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: Yeah that wasn't maybe the best comparison... I was kind of thinking more towards the future, when a single CG artist can do - well whatever I think of is probably going to be too small. For us CG artists the sky is literally the limit... not so for the traditional artist, who will be working exactly the same way a hundred years from now (or he won't be a 'traditional' artist). This is not necessarily a bad thing (though it does seem like it would get boring in the long run).


Yeah, I personally think that there always will be something special and unique with something that is "paint on canvas" or "sculpted wood/marble" etc. And some people will always be drawn to the hands-on "authentic" feel to it. Digital art definitely has its own unique qualities but I don't think it will ever replace traditional art practice.

When photography was first invented in the 19th century it was thought that it would/could destroy painting and the other traditional arts. 200 years later photography has developed into its own unique art form, and painting is still thriving and developing just as before.

And I would personally prefer to be using real paint and creating art in the real natural world than sitting in front of a screen for my whole life But that is just me!
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright Đ2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.