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
  02 February 2006
Will 3D ever be considered true "art"

This topic applies mainly to still (non animated) works created in 3D packages. I've seen some truly amazing things on these and other forums and I'm been wondering whether this medium will be elevated to true art in the mind of the general public.

Certainly those here would agree that it is true art but I have yet to see mainstream exibitions featuring this type of work. Or people hanging this work in homes, offices, etc. Or universities offering studies on interpretation of CG work. In essense, will it become a true artform at the level of traditional oil paintings, or even stage, or music. These mediums are all studied or admired based on their content but 3D work is usually only studied based on the technical techniques used to create it, not on the composition itself.

Given how new this field is, it normally would only be a matter of time before this recognition took place. For example, film was regarded as a non intellectual medium when it first appeared at the turn of the 20th century and was never compared in the same sentence with an established artform such as the stage. The same holds true for rock music, which at first was frowned upon by "respected" critics but is now considered a classic and important art form.

I think 3D cgi is still in this new state. The general public finds the imagery and stories of Pixar, etc entertaining and enjoys the benefits of visual effects in gaming, live action film, etc. But yet, few people outside of this field spend any time admiring the types of individual works we see on these forums and even fewer could consider putting a framed print of one in their home or taking a class which discusses the themes in 3D works.

One issue that comes to mind, and I know others may disagree, is that 3D art is easier that traditional media. I think this is especially true in the minds of those not involved in the field. For instance, when you look at a work by Rembradt or John Waterhouse, part of the appreciation of the work comes from the admiration of the skill of the artist. The work before you is obviously the result of years of learning, observation, artistic skill, and developing technique. Many people think that cgi is only a few steps above clicking the "make pretty picture" button and that the computer does a lot of the work for you.

And I think that is true for the most part. Not to say, that developing quality work does not require the same level of skill, observation, and technique, becuase it does. Compared to a traditional medium, such as oils, it requires many of the same skills; lighting, form, observation of references, texture, technique. However, I think the computer makes learning and reaching these skills much, much easier than doing so by a brush and canvas. I have attempted oils in the past and did not reach any level of sophistication. However, I have been using XSI for a year now and have produced far superior work in 6 months than I would have in years using a traditional medium.

This is not to discount the artists here because I am in awe of some of these works and they inspire me to continue building my skills. I realize their results display every bit of talent and technical knowledge that any "traditional" master would posses. I;m just wondering if this perception is exaggerated by others and will be fueled by the growing sophistication of 3D apps so that CGI work will never be as widely recognized and regarded as it should.
 
  02 February 2006
nah, iwouldnt worry about it in the long run

these are issues i've been thinking a lot about with my own work lately, that i am aiming actually at an audience outside these forums, though i hope people here like it too

ultimately it will just take people actually making more of the sort of fine art with 3d to create the perception of it as a serious fine arts media.. but that will happen more and more over time as tools continue to get more accessible. there is a ton of digital stuff in general happening in the fine art world, video, and so on, i think its just a matte of time before more people start using 3d as well. also there is a big underground art movement connected with graffitti and so on that is very open to commercial influences and styles, i think they just lack the knowledge to make 3d for the most part.

but most of the art on say this forum, is representational science fiction art, that wouldnt be in a gallery if it was an oil painting either. you see what i mean? if somebody made the sort of abstract or intentionally "unrealistic" work that you see in galleries, but authored it digitally, in 3d, and knew the art world well enough to get anything in a gallery at all, it would be in galleries too, i'm completely certain of that.

for example, i myself recently got a 3d piece in a local (but juried) art show, that was a really abstract toon style render, i guess i would say it doesnt matter, or certainly is not a bad thing, that 3d was involved with making this, to a fine art audience, because it looks unlike the realistic look of commercial 3d. but what do i know i will have to ask the jurors when the show happens..

also as far as the peception that 3d is easy, i think it is up to the artist to make something which does not depend on the perception of technical skill to suceed as art. nobody likes toy story because they thought it was hard to make. and the reality is 3d does make many things easy, or at least possibel, that were impossible. so its up to the artist to bring their thinkinng to the next level and still figure out what would be impressive, if thats the area you want to impress people with. just doing a realistic still life, yeah thats probably boring for all sorts of reasons, even if its hard. or if you make it really good, people will see it as a good image, regardless of if it was a photo. you see what i mean here?

for example in my work here, i tried to make a design nobody would ever say was easy, if it was made in any media...

so basically i say, just do it, its always up to the artists to create the art. if you build it, they will write it up in history books 40 years later to explain to you what you did

__________________
http://ianwilmoth.tv

Last edited by yenvalmar : 02 February 2006 at 12:50 AM.
 
  02 February 2006
Oh damn it! I just had a nice reply all written out and then I accidently dragged a file into this window that cleared the page and wiped it. Oh well...

Basically what I was going to say is, does it really matter if you are considered an artist or not? Does 'artist' or 'art' have some sort of higher level of respect? Maybe the fact, more so, is whether people understand what goes into the work. Not necessarily whether it's just art or not. Art can be a piece of cake...

The industry is still relatively young and I think the general awareness of it is improving due to many things such as this society, worldwide events, the media and so forth.

Do a search on the forums because similar points have been discussed a few times.
__________________


Last edited by sphere : 02 February 2006 at 02:59 AM.
 
  02 February 2006
People never considered graffiti art untill a while ago.
__________________
"If you would stop twitching so much and shut up maybe you would learn something" -- My third grade teacher
 
  02 February 2006
Fine art is something that is evolving all the time, i have to agree completely with yenvalmar´s opinion. Digital media is just a tool, a medium where you express what ever you want to say. Last november i had a video on an exibithion on the CCCB (center of contemporary culpture of Barcelona) And it was made mainly of cg.There were great opinions about it and there was not a single complaint about cg. and there is a realy tough jury to get something there
I paint for a living, but i did that piece on cg because it was the optimal way for saying what i wanted to say. Cg is like any other media on art. There are good painitings and bad paintings, and the quality of the piece is not related to the hard work and effort that someone putted on creating it. You can paint a portrait, make a great effort and still not create something that you can call art. Sometimes on these forums i see pieces called art just based on the "effort" made by the author. In fine art, you just cannot do that, because there are more points to consider when observing a piece, like the concept and the meaning.
Something that is really apreciated is if you are "investigating" on the field of aesthetics and the language of perception (think of any of the great names, Picasso, Dali, Pollock,Bacon.All of them have been recognized because of their contribution and the changes that they made to the way we see things, and not only because they where tallented painters, Picasso is not Picasso because he started painting at the age of 12 -There are many artists on history that have done it even earlier and with great results,He became "Picasso" and only became important when he did the first cubist painting, and when he did the first collage.It was a breaktrhoug on the aesthetics of its time, it was pure investigation, and it generated a lot of more movements on painting and sculpture. The same with Piet Mondrian and all the great names, any of them.
Thats why you see some perffect anatomical drawings that still cannot be called art. They might be good pieces, but not "art". They still lack that meaning, and they are not offering something new. They just offer effort, and some misconception of the word beauty (beauty is not necesarely art, and the other way around).For the same reason, a piece of cake cannot be art just like that. It might be, but it has to be, very , very very well justified. Because believeme, on that world everything has to be well, and elegantly justified, even the media (painting, sculpture, cg or what ever).
__________________
Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself
 
  02 February 2006
I think it will.. I read somewhere that when Photography first appeared it was not considered true art.. but over the years that has changed.
__________________
Whether you think you can or you can't, you probably right.

JOIN THE DSG
 
  02 February 2006
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
 
  02 February 2006
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.
 
  02 February 2006
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.
 
  02 February 2006
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.
 
  02 February 2006
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/inde...d=120&aid=55673
__________________
sketch blog
 
  02 February 2006
Originally Posted by JoeGoss: 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


I personally don't see this happening as you do. People who rely on purchased models and use prefabricated effects will allways stand out with crap art.

It is hardly pointless to make your own work. My work has my style and my own aesthetic that is attained by doing it with my hands. Those who rely on pre-fabs and canned solutions will simply be the "poser porn" and "bryce reflective cube over barran default landscape image" makers of tommorow.

Real artists will stand out with ease.

If someone just uses canned models, effects, textures... then they are not creating anything. Thats like me running out to toys R' us and buying a bunch of action figures, arrangings them on my kitchen table and then taking a photograph and posting it on a toy makers forum saying "woo! look at these great toys i made!"

The only artists are the people who make the original canned content (that also applies to procedural too).
__________________
Bath House

Last edited by JMcWilliams : 02 February 2006 at 02:42 PM.
 
  02 February 2006
Originally Posted by JMcWilliams:
If someone just uses canned models, effects, textures... then they are not creating anything. Thats like me running out to toys R' us and buying a bunch of action figures, arrangings them on my kitchen table and then taking a photograph and posting it on a toy makers forum saying "woo! look at these great toys i made!"



i do understand your point, but thats a bad example. in that case you are making art by arranging and taking the photo, not by having created the cars. i have just recently seen some amazing photos in an art gallery that the subject was toy cars, so its funny you used this example. are photographers and film makers not artists? well if they claimed that their "art" was sculpting the actors, they are fools, but thats a different problem.
__________________
http://ianwilmoth.tv

Last edited by yenvalmar : 02 February 2006 at 12:00 AM.
 
  02 February 2006
Well, you missed my point, which was that If I just take a random photo (like just taking a render with no thought of composition or lighting) and claim 'look at my great art' then I am fooling myself in thinking that I can somehow take credit for the toys.

The toys are posed on my kitchen table in very saucy positions (barbie would be naked) That would be the only artistic thing I contributed and that is dubious at best.

I am actually an advocate of great tools, procedural stuff (in the right hands) can be used well. But anything that is 'free for all', like prefab models, textures and animations will always look cheap and tacky in the hands of a crap artist.

Using lots of presets and generators (which still needs source artwork) would be more akin to people who create little short movies by using a game and it's assets (like the Red vs blue series that uses the halo game).
I certainly have respect for them as 'film makers', but they are by no means CG artists. That is not a diss at these people, I have no ill feelings towards the methods whatsoever, but lets not get delusions of grandeur

Its like with music; there are a bunch of programs out there that come with a selection of pre-composed drum loops and phrase samples. Someone who throws a generic track together in Dance Ejay cannot be considered a composer or musician. I could not even consider them a 'mixer' in a sense, because the loops are all designed by the original musicians and program makers to fit together regardless. John williams will never be quaking in fear of losing his job to these loop mixing guys.

Another thing I have noticed, is that too much credit is given to computers these days. Lets say someone comes up with a great procedural Flora and Fauna system; Who is the creator of the digital plantlife? It's the program makers, not the computer. If someone creates an algorythmic music system, who is producing those random notes? The program makers, not the computer. So just because someone sits down, boots up 'Plant generator 2008' and presses the randomise button does not make the user the creator of the plantlife, the program makers are the ones to credit.

To be honest i'm beginning to find this 'oh no the sky is falling!' doom and gloom that seems to crop up on CGtalk rather tiring. Yet I feel compelled to stamp all over it when I see it.
__________________
Bath House

Last edited by JMcWilliams : 02 February 2006 at 02:50 PM.
 
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 05:15 AM.


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