Will 3D ever be considered true "art"

#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.

#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.

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

#19

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 :slight_smile:

#20

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=120&aid=55673

#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.

#22

What are you talkin about? I went with my mom to the Dieselboy show on Saturday night… hehe

#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.

#24

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.

#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.

#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.

#27

lol. all i get is ‘thats just noise’

#28

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.

#29

I find the definition of art in wikipedia quite good:

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.

#30

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 :wink: )

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.

#31

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. :smiley:

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. :wink:

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!” :wink:

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

#32

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.

#33

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) :wink: 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. :smiley:

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 :wink:

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. :wink:

#34

I hope I won’t offend anyone with my first post, but… “3D” is a technique, a tool. What you create with it might or might not be called “Art”. Same goes for photography and oil paint. Don’t confuse the media with the creation.

#35

I completely agree and that is my point. Show someone a work in oils that appeals to them and they will be moved and perhaps even purchase a print. Show them that same work in CGI and they would say “That is cool” and move on, never considering it anything but CG and certainly not thinking to hang a print.

Look at the mainstream success of Thomas Kinkade. Would he be anywhere near as popular if he had created the exact same works in Maya instead? Nope. That shows that the medium is just as influential as the content. I’m still wondering why that is and I think it is a shame.

#36

well…personaly i dont care about what people consider what i do…i wont gain better skill or any stuff if they uddenly realise :“hey…its art!” !