:drool: great render! i wish i could do that.
Realism: bolts
CGTrader
#209
:rolleyes: yeaah, so sad that many of us cannot be artists.
:whispering: I have heard that artists can see dead people…
jcbray
#210
Two people are looking at a green wall, one is colour-blind. One man claims to see a green wall, the other a red wall. Who is right? Both are telling the truth exactly as they see it. If your going to argue that a group of people will prove the colour blind man to be wrong, then you’re being childish. Consensus of the majority does not create truth.
The debate of whether this is or is not art (or craft :P) is irrelevant. All that is important is your own point of view. Whether you feel the need to express your opinion to everyone else here is your own issue (hurrah freedom of speech) if you’re going to condemn other people for their opinion, then…well you know what you can do.
DN1
#211
Why do people say “post wires, post wires…” Look on his site and you’ll find the wires of the given image. As for the wires confirming its not a fake… well people can model to the likeness of a photo image and them match them up… SO wires doesnt mean much from an image this simple, A screen grab from the 3d package with wires in the view port and the material/shader hierachy open is proof positive.
Tonal
#212
Well spoken sir. I agree wholeheartedly that actual truth is a personal experience. Especially when it comes to art. 
Velgor
#213
That was the point I was trying to make too.
Art and life are totally subjective. To deny someone’s expression just because it doesn’t fit your criterion for “art” is what I find offensive. The definition of art is not a stark black and white delineation. Art doesn’t have to be pleasing - it can be shocking or revolting too. Art doesn’t have to have a deep meaning or emotional impact. Art can engage the mind as well. Art can rise above itself too. Meaning is injected into it by the viewer.
I also believe that almost everyone has the capacity to be an artist in some way. Art is not just paint, or wood, metal or plastic, it’s words, sounds, ideas, emotion…We all can be creative, some more so than others. Don’t stifle that. You never know what wonders there may be.
Some artists are better than others in expressing themselves. Some art is “better” than other art because, to you, it communicates to or inspires you more.
adren
#214
instead of worrying about the semantics between “art” and “craft”, perhaps your energies would be better spent in trying to get a girlfriend (or boyfriend, you never know), as then you wouldnt be so uptight.
BESTrin
#215
A painter could paint a black dot on a red square with blue stripe and it would be art. A sculpter could make a strange shape out of clay and that would be art. Yet a piece of digital art is always doubted. I could make an image of a sphere and go into photoshop and make it look kindof kool and to the general population it would be considered art. I could do a little autogenerated teragen landscape or something in bryce and it would be accepted by most people but if i posted it on these forums i would be laughed at. So digital artists work hard to make a unique beauhtiful technically dificult piece. Something that will be respected by those in our field. Then its not art. Its a craft project. Its photorealistic so its not art he could of just taken a picture. Its not photorealistic so its crap no skill no art. Just by the fact that there is an image of something that never existed is something to think about in way that can make it art. Who are we to judge what is art. What is art anyway.
internot
#219
Atwooki, I’m with you all the way.
What is it with the ARTISTS that are posting here that cannot even give a coherent definition of art? or tell the difference between art and craft? come on people, take some pride in what you do and don’t give me (and everyone else) this whole “it’s all subjective and therefore all good art” bullshit. does art (as opposed to just images, etc) do anything besides give a little pleasure? are you trying to SAY anything (perhaps give an alternate view of reality/theworld so people will have to engage their minds)? does no one have standards?
another question: what makes “good” or “great” art better than normal art?
take the futurists, for example. they had a certain view of art:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html
Velgor
#221
Sure, we all have standards. My standards of good art tend toward realism. If it looks like something that I could reach out and touch, that’s pretty good. Maybe even great. This standard I apply toward paintings, drawings and digital works (motion & still). Photography is a different category, and so I tend to look for a more emotive response, something that catches a feeling or essence of something. I also apply this toward “traditional” and digital works.
Then there is the surreal, which I also enjoy, but again with a bias toward the more realistic.
To answer your questions of what makes art normal, good or great? Sorry, I’ll have to pull out that “bull$4!7” argument of subjectivity. The more people that enjoy a piece of art, the “better” or perhaps more accurately, more “popular” it is considered to be. However, popular works are generally considered to be generally less sophisticated and more of a fad than any long standing piece that reflects the human condition. Here today and gone tomorrow…A great piece of art is usually something that moves or inspires a good number of people as well as critics.
Ah, the critics…those “professionals” who know what is best for us and what we shouldn’t like because they said so. My opinion of such people tends toward the negative. I view them, as a whole, to be arrogant and out of touch. But then, I also hate lawyers…
The Mona Lisa is a great piece of art. It’s been around 500 years gaining accolades across the generations of public and critic alike. We like it. But, when I saw it hanging in the Louvre in Paris I thought it was pretty nice, but damn, I saw some “better” portraits on the gallery wall that impressed me more. And as we go back in time, works such as the bayeaux tapestry, another work considered to be great, I see more of a historical document rather than an artwork. The figures are flat and almost childish…I don’t find it to be quite as engaging…and other medieval works look almost comical.
So, I have to go back to the original point. Art is subjective. We all have our preferences and bias. A piece that is great for one may be lambasted by another. Art usually appeals to the emotions and therefore will (or should) always remain subjective. If you like it, good. If you don’t, good. Let it be.
If you want absolutes, try looking at math. 1+1=2. However, even there we find a slippery slope with fractals and their implementation into computer art…
“Mandelbrot, Julia?”
“Yes, please.”
PS If you really want to get a heated argument going, let’s discuss Bryce and Poser. 
Personally I don’t use them, but I’m not going to knock those who get enjoyment out of it. And hey, sometimes they DO make a pretty picture…
qur
#222
arseny its a awesome work good job:bounce: :bounce: :applause:
and you guys what is this forum about??
it’s art or not?
if you see this image in a photo gallery you will say this is a photo
in this thread you can not bu sure:)
thats the point man that’s art…
so go on and argue if it’s art or not
arseny if i were you i won’t even post a wire:scream:
for 1 week to see who kills who
and now who is the winner???
Kid-Mesh
#223
…read through this thread and to be honest all I can do at this point is just laugh.
-km
Velgor
#224
Hey, why not throw in your two cents too? We’re philosophising about the nature of art itself! Be careful, some are taking it a bit too seriously…
BESTrin
#227
yes reading this thread can give a few laughs and yes maybe this discussion is pointless but dont ruin it. Theres nothing like a good ol cgtalk debate.
internot, im not tying to say that your wrong, wait yes i am. Is the monalisa art, critics marvel at her realistic hands and such, well is it any less dificult to replicate that in cg. Oh and i forgot she has that smile well its not realy that thought provoking. I dont mean to dis it its a very nice peice and a great achievement and my congrats to you leonardo, but why is none of this art and why does everyone have low standards. Maybe everyone just has diferent perceptions, a piece might realy affect you (not that this screws piece did, me) and someone else might say thats not art why do you have low standards. who are they to say that to you. If its art to you then what does it matter. a pieces popularity does not decide its worth. I agree that there are many more thought provoking pieces and many better pieces but that doesnt mean that its not art. It might provoke thoughts of ho it was achieved or just amazement that those screws never existed and that just because are eyes see something doesnt make it real. Take my friend joe, no-one else can see him, but i can, does that make me skitzofrenic yes, does it make everyone else just blind and unable to see him, yes. Its just perspective.
you raised a questiona bout degrees of art. Thats a much better argument even though it is a personal thing.
ps. im not really skitzofrenic i was just making a point.