Will 3D ever be considered true "art"

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 02 February 2006   #16
Of course 3d should be (and one day will be)
Respected and treated as a art form

But, with each new software release, these 3d programs are developing tools that make some types of 3d art produced years ago redundant , in the fact that they can be done easier

in 5 years, or 10 years, 3d might be only worth while as a story telling medium, because the computer does a lot of the stuff for you

And because a lot of new comers to the field of 3d take too much advantage of this, people see that it is the computer doing the work for them

(ok, my examples will be crap, but nevertheless, here they are:

grass , water, generators, zbrush - use of alpha textures to instantly detail models, detail generators (greeble), dynamics simulators, explosions and special effects simulators)

they are just a few, and as the years go by and computer become ever more complex, everyone will be using Maya, with renderman and will be using many generators to create there art, and then it will become more difficult for true 3d masters to stand out from the crowd

I don't believe that modelling and animation will be superseded by the cpu, of course not, but many important factors in peoples images are not there own, they buy extra models, use scripts and basically go the lazy man’s way of creating images

And they will because it would be pointless not to

joe
 
Old 02 February 2006   #17
I think if anything is gonna rise up in the perception of 3d as art it will come from the film world.

After all, many films are considered works of art (art films funnily enough rather than blockbusters). Since the film world is far more forgiving when it comes to technique (and even to a degree technical ability) I think you'll soon start to see many films made with 3d regarded as true "art films" due to their content, meaning, mesage, etc, and probably due to their being created (in some cases) by a single person.

Basically wat Im saying is that this will rovide 3d with its initial foot-hold in the "art" world. Whether or not it continues to climb is anyone's guess.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #18
to answer your question, 3D Art is already considered a valid medium . Its only a matter of time until more 3D artists emerge into the scene....

Below is a link to an amazing 3D artist named Ray Ceasar - his work is shown in art exhibitions.
http://raycaesar.com/

a cool article about him
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66966,00.html

Last edited by geo5sf : 02 February 2006 at 01:26 AM.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #19
are film makers like david lynch or terry gilliam artists?

i'm glad somebody brought up film. in fact, both of them are amazing animators who later went into live action, but i think you see my point. tools that make it easier to create what you can imagine can only be a good thing for people with true artistic vision. the genre will define itself much as film, photography, painting, and sculpture have. maybe terry gilliam's films aren't shown in art galleries but he has certainly found an audience that i think most of us would be glad to reach 1/10th of

Originally Posted by JoeGoss: in 5 years, or 10 years, 3d might be only worth while as a story telling medium, because the computer does a lot of the stuff for you

(edit)

they are just a few, and as the years go by and computer become ever more complex, everyone will be using Maya, with renderman and will be using many generators to create there art, and then it will become more difficult for true 3d masters to stand out from the crowd

I don't believe that modelling and animation will be superseded by the cpu, of course not, but many important factors in peoples images are not there own, they buy extra models, use scripts and basically go the lazy man’s way of creating images

And they will because it would be pointless not to

joe
__________________
http://ianwilmoth.tv

Last edited by yenvalmar : 02 February 2006 at 12:33 AM.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #20
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/inde...d=120&aid=55673
__________________
sketch blog
 
Old 02 February 2006   #21
i would imagine that as people grow up seeing it all around them it will be considered art. in the same way our parents don't consider drum and bass music our generation and our kids will.
__________________
If you will not turn to the dark side.. then perhaps she will!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
 
Old 02 February 2006   #22
Originally Posted by dalmanna: i would imagine that as people grow up seeing it all around them it will be considered art. in the same way our parents don't consider drum and bass music our generation and our kids will.


What are you talkin about? I went with my mom to the Dieselboy show on Saturday night... hehe
 
Old 02 February 2006   #23
I can just imagine in 200 years someone would be reading a history book... or seeing one, whatever the medium for history will be at that time (probably not books by then); and reading the line: Around the 21st century a new form of art arose around the world involving 3 dimensions and computers etc etc. This form took to a slow start but it skyrocketed in popularity by about 2020. Because this digital art is easy to obtain, one could not actually 'buy' pieces of art, so artists would generally make a living by drawing and designing things on the side for companies, or people who would pay them to draw a certain thing.

etc. etc. probably very inaccurate but that's the point.

It will take some time, it's a totally different medium. For this to be fully accepted it would require that the world first accept computers as, pretty much a natural part of life and not just something to go check email on once a week, ie once they start teaching people with computers more and all work would involve a lot of computer time, which is not so far off.
__________________
AlexB|Epod - 3D Person
 
Old 02 February 2006   #24
Arrow

Whatever makes the computer...the artist will be who makes the piece of art, because computers don't like colors, don't feel emotions or like a subtle smile from an old woman.

I mean that 3D WILL be considered art. At the moment people don't usually "post 3D stuff on walls", like they don't use to put a photo from side to side of the wall (apart from personal ones) where they would add an oil painting.
__________________
www.albertfeliu.com
 
Old 02 February 2006   #25
To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #26
With the "conceptual art" being there since few years already, the idea of "art" has become more than floating!
I guess 3D is art as you present it. Still or animated.
First of all, you feel yourself as an artist in your life (or "of" life)... then you'll make it happen around you (exhibitions, happenings, performances, aso).
There are no real rules of "specifications" nor "quality"... you may have or not a "Great Diploma of Famous Artschool" doesn't matter(you only sell more... but not necesseraly to the sort of people you wished), you still can be (or claim to be) an artist.
Therefore, there's absolutely no reason to pretend 3D is no art.

PS And SF or fantastic pictures won't change it (to my opinion)... even painting boats with water paint is still considered as art! No limits on this point, there is a public for everything.
__________________
An artist is a realistic person! An artist paints his own world, just like anybody else does!

www.visionnart.ch

Last edited by almux : 02 February 2006 at 10:01 AM.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #27
Originally Posted by geo5sf: What are you talkin about? I went with my mom to the Dieselboy show on Saturday night... hehe


lol. all i get is 'thats just noise'
__________________
If you will not turn to the dark side.. then perhaps she will!
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
 
Old 02 February 2006   #28
Originally Posted by GARJones: To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.


I have to agree with this statement somewhat. Most works here are either shapely women, realistic car renderings, architecural renderings, or tolkien-esque fantasy. None of these themes are presented in more mainstream artistic mediums either. You rarely see oil on canvas exhibits of who can paint the most realistic BMW or paint the hottest woman.

Although I do think if people were submitting "traditional" themes such as portraits, abstract designs, and scenes of everyday life, 3D would still not be recognized.

So there are two obstacles to overcome.

1. The medium itself is not a well respected medium. Either because people perceive the computer does the work or becuase the output does have a very clean "real" look to it. It does not have the texture and look that paints do. I do not like this opinion but most people have it. There is a trend to think something is "better" or more sophisticated simply because it is older and established. You see this in music. For example, most people assume that classical composers are superior and their music more intellectually stimulating than more recent music, even in the same genre. I would imagine that John Williams is every bit as talented and his music just as sophisticated as Brahms or even Mozart (I may get flamed for this but this is just an example) But nobody would perceive it as such, simply becuase these are old standby masters. On a similar note, people not consider the Beatles and the Rolloing Stones as "classic" and some of the talented musicians even. But were they perceived this way at first. No, not in the mainstream. They gained respect through persisting though time. Does that make them more talented and more respectable than current music. I don;t think so but others probably would.


2. Most subject matter people utilize 3D for are themes that coincide with the tastes of a younger male audience. Probably becuase a young male audience is the same group that experiments in 3D. The subject matter does not appeal to a broad enough range of people to gain widespread acceptance.
 
Old 02 February 2006   #29
Arrow Art

I find the definition of art in wikipedia quite good:

Quote: Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.


I think much of the heated debate comes from that "art" can conote more than one specific meaning. It can be skill, creative output and possible more meanings.

Art as defined by most institutions (Museums, Schools etc) has nothing to do with the medium it is represented by, it is the artist abillity to convey something "more" than the medium. I.e. art should give the viewer an experience beyond just looking at form, color and rythm etc.

A skilled 3d craftsman (or artist ) can create a piece of art, as in the meaning it is extreemly well done in a technical sense (Lighting, Color, Form, Composition etc.) But this is not art in the institutional form.

So in my, and i belive in most peoples minds, "3d" in it self is not a valid artform, it is just a medium.

Much of what is created on cgtalk is art in the form of good skills. Some of what could be great art are based on clichés wich makes it boring. Then there are the few very creative, imaginary and original works that could go straight to the galleries in the best museums in the world.

Hope it makes any sense,
thank you for reading.
__________________
---
 
Old 02 February 2006   #30
Originally Posted by GARJones: To my mind, the largest reason that we don't see more 3D work being considered art is not down to the public, or the traditional art world, but the creators of the work. Most of the output of these forums (that's not some sort of archvis or product render) sits squarely in the realm of fantasy art. The wider art community, and the public in general doesn't consider sci-fi scenes and pictures of elves art. Sorry if I'm making sweeping generalisations, but very little 3D ever escapes these boundaries, and until it does, it won't be looked on as true art.


I agree that most fantasy work is not very "exhibit-friendly" but it is still true, legitimate art. If people enjoy Shrek, or Mario, or Halo, then it is worth something. The setting of long, stark hallways is not a litmus test that is meant to separate "real" art from other stuff. It's just the optimal setting for works like photography and paintings. Think of how its intended audiences gather for different mediums. Movies take place in movie theaters. Comic books and video games are seen in more personal, portable areas (like your own personal space). It would make little sense to have public displays of commercial movies in wide, open hallways where all the sounds will clash and would be a less pleasant experience for the viewer (not to mention it might be illegal, too )

The traditional art community just hammered the idea into many people's heads that it needs to be in appreciated in a specific manner and location to pass as "real" art.
 
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 ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 AM.


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