Will 3D photorealism become a redundant art form?

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
Old 08 August 2005   #16
A discussion equal to this one was heated while I was in artschool and people painted photorealistic paintings with aqrylics or oilcolour.

What artforms have become redundant over the years?
 
Old 08 August 2005   #17
Too true. The majority of the human race watch our technical demos and wonder what the hell is going on. The average joe is captivated by originality and believability (if there is such a word). Our struggle is to create realism artificially, yet the best anims I have seen are quite basic, technologically. It is the beauty behind the characters behaviour and its mannerisms. It is that that deserves attention. It is almost like watching a good stand up comedian. You laugh because the small intricacies of life they bring to life are known by all.
__________________
Jon Warner
The PixelForge

 
Old 08 August 2005   #18
Originally Posted by frinkky: Too true. The majority of the human race watch our technical demos and wonder what the hell is going on. The average joe is captivated by originality and believability (if there is such a word). Our struggle is to create realism artificially, yet the best anims I have seen are quite basic, technologically. It is the beauty behind the characters behaviour and its mannerisms. It is that that deserves attention. It is almost like watching a good stand up comedian. You laugh because the small intricacies of life they bring to life are known by all.


That's a good point. When I was saying photorealism will become redundant I was thinking of the shaders and renderers but animating without mocap is a different story. Will mocap make animating uneeded? Not at today's standard. Throwing animation into the equation is very interesting. It would open up a photorealistic art where you could do manurisms and acting that a normal actor isn't capable or talented enough to do.
__________________
Without fear and illness, I could never have accomplished all I have.
-Edvard Munch
 
Old 08 August 2005   #19
Thumbs up I agree...

I agree with you my friend. I believe that, on a few years, photorealism will be a common place, and what will really count in a artistic production will be the idea, the concept beyond that. Itīs not about form itself, itīs about the idea beyond the form. Itīs about "depuration" of that idea, created in a form. It has a lot to do with conceptual art, and i think 3d will turn that way too.

cheers,
 
Old 08 August 2005   #20
Originally Posted by DimensionalPunk: It would open up a photorealistic art where you could do manurisms and acting that a normal actor isn't capable or talented enough to do.


Old news man, films have been using digital replacement actors for stunts for years now
__________________
Bath House
 
Old 08 August 2005   #21
This is one of the biggest fears in art, that if you become too realistic, you lose style and creativity. Its really a shame because a lot of artists purposely hold back their technic and sort of stay content with a medium level of quality because it looks like man made art, and never unlock the potencial effects that photorealism opens.

This fear originated with the invention of photography. Suddenly many professional artists were no longer appreciated for making portraits and recording historical events. It is no coincidence that the abstract art movement occured at the exact same time as the popularisation of photography. What great secrets has abstract art unlocked in mankinds awareness? None, in my opinion. CG has given the power of art back to the people by sheer popular demand. Hot CG artists dont hangout in art gallerys and babble double talk about how art is some kind of mind science, theyre just out there doing it.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #22
I personaly hope it does become redundant... but not in a bad way. I just want to get it over with so its so common place that everyone can do it no problem with no focus. Then everyone can spend less time on the task of creating things photorealistic and more on being creative.

I am not saying photorealistic CG can't be creative what I mostly mean is it still requires lots of skill, tools and hardware to get it to look real. Once that stuff is outa the way the artist will have a lot more energy to devote on what to do with this new Redundant powerfull asset.

BTW: My opinion is mostly coming from the video game field. The industry is focused on powefull graphics 90% games are utter crap. I much rather have that realism part taken care of so the industry can focus on the more creative aspects.... but that is complete other topic..
__________________
..::Knowledge is true power that should be shared by all !::..
 
Old 08 August 2005   #23
Originally Posted by FatherGlory: BTW: My opinion is mostly coming from the video game field. The industry is focused on powefull graphics 90% games are utter crap. I much rather have that realism part taken care of so the industry can focus on the more creative aspects.... but that is complete other topic..


I don't think it will ever get to a stage where 'anybody' can make photorealism with ease, unless you talk about having lots of presets for them to use in which case they aren't the ones creating it so they are only fooling themselves.

But yes, it will get easier in the sense that we'll get better tools, such as realtime engines that have powerful lighting and FX. But trust me, bad artists will make it look unrealistic.

The rest I agree with.
__________________
Bath House
 
Old 08 August 2005   #24
I don't think it will get redundant because there are some artists out there who will want to get to this level of work in their careers. For me personally, I do not want to recreate a human being in CG because for one: Reality is already boring as it is and two, not everyone (ones that I know personally) can make something totally realistic.

I am going to be making a short kids film soon, and I want the characters to be realistic but no so real that I lose perspective...photorealism make be a plus for me, but not a requirement or an aim. Thm main character is a little kid, and my friend drew up a stylised version of the character and I was like "alright, it looks cool". My aim for this film is not a super-realistic effects show. I will not make the same mistake Square did on Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (I loved the movie BTW)

Bottom line, if I do a photorealistic piece, it's cool...but I'll keep it focused on the creative end. The best photorealism can be made in other parts of CG, most likely animation.

And if I am bantering too much, I apolgise...

Kashif R.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #25
Originally Posted by HaloAnimator: Reality is already boring as it is


I never understand how anyone can ever say that. The universe is full of the most interesting things. As you mentioned, photorealism has it's place, it's what you do with it that counts.
__________________
Bath House
 
Old 08 August 2005   #26
I am sorry about that, I should have clarified what I meant. Creating reality is boring...I would not want to make a place that mimics what I already have. I would rather have fun with it...

and you are right, the universe is full of interesting things. Sometimes I grow inspired by the realistic looking characters and environments, but sometimes they look too perfect (mainly the buxom babe character). After reading Leigh's book numerous times, to me, the best photorealism are things in CG that are not perfect....

Last edited by NeptuneImaging : 08 August 2005 at 04:20 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #27
Originally Posted by arquebus: It is no coincidence that the abstract art movement occured at the exact same time as the popularisation of photography. What great secrets has abstract art unlocked in mankinds awareness? None, in my opinion.


Has something of a "What did the Romans ever do for us?" ring to it.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #28
Originally Posted by HaloAnimator: I am sorry about that, I should have clarified what I meant. Creating reality is boring...I would not want to make a place that mimics what I already have. I would rather have fun with it...
.


Ahhh, I see. yes, then we are both in agreement.
__________________
Bath House
 
Old 08 August 2005   #29
Oh, of course....

I hope to show my attempt at it...
 
Old 08 August 2005   #30
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
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 09:25 AM.


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