Will 3D ever be considered 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!” !

#37

while this thread has been going on, i had some 3d pieces in a juried art show at a local gallery in seattle. admittedly its kind of a weird small gallery but still. there ya go. an encouraging sign.

#38

in my opinion the reason for this is that painting and 3d are different media, they require different ideas. what might be compelling in one media might not be in another, due to all sorts of factors. part of the impact of a work is derived from the medium itself and the relationship between the media and the subject. as a virtual, infinitely plastic media, 3d cg has a somewhat detatched relationship from any subject, that really requires the artist to put themselves into it more directly and precisely than relying on a brush stroke to say it for you. if thomas kinkade made 3d renderings that were visually identical to his paintings in every way, including LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE PAINTINGS, i think they would be appreciated just as much, if not more!

where i do share your frustration is that the closer you get to reality in a 3d rendering, which in and of itself is a very difficult task, the less probably the average person is interested by it, untill you attain 100% photorealism and zero interest. BUT THATS ONLY IF YOUR SUBJECT IS SOMETHING BORING THAT YOU COULD HAVE JUST TAKEN A PICTURE OF ANYWAYS. so you have to look for respect for your ideas, not your craft, if you want to pursue that route. and since the craft is so hard, i think a lot of people get lost in it and are frustrated from the standpoint that their work doesnt elicit praise similar to the amount of effort they put into it. maybe thats a poor choice for a project then, or just do it to learn for yourself, which is why you should be doing boring realistic studies anyways probably. as i keep mentioning, there are plenty of photographers and film makers that are seen as artists, look to them for how to overcome the curse of photorealism.

maybe i have just been incredibly lucky, but as a 3d animator/artist/whatever you call it, who went to a very traditional fine arts oriented school (rhode island school of design) that did not even have any 3d animation courses when i attended, i did meet with some opposition to working in 3d, untill the department heads saw my work, and then it very quickly stopped being an issue. and subsequently although its only very recently that i have again tried to create art (as opposed to creating content for commercial jobs), so far most people i have showed it to seem appreciative and certainly nobody has made any dismissive comments about the computer making it easy. i feel like the ball is in the court of the artists to make art that is still read as art no matter what the media. ansel adams is seen as an artist whereas somebody else with the same camera at the same location might have taken a really boring photo…

#39

3D is just one more technique… a piece of work is either crap or a masterpiece… regardless on how you created it.

aesthetical foundation is the same for all visual arts.

look at guys like carlos baena or jim ludtke. their 3D works are art masterpieces for sure.

guys doing 3D must focus much more on artistic side of their job. when you devote more time to ideas, aesthetic, studying theory and art history, you works will become artworks. becoming an artist is way difficult task. mastering technical skills is just part of it. virtally everyone can master drawing, but there are not many artists like picasso or escher.

#40

well… 99% of 3d cg art doesn’t tell us a damn thing about the artist that created it.

whereas most “studied” artwork has alot of depth to it, the artist is often half of the what makes the art interesting in the first place.

we can yap on and on about why cg is what it is…
but the bottom line is that for the most part it’s entertainment art.
We create it to make pretty pictures to draw in crowds and make $$$$ for some game or movie or advertising company…

when you have a hundred artists working together to produce one piece that you’re trying to SEll to 1,000,000 viewers… chances are that art won’t have that much depth to it.

BUT it WILL look " cool as hell " thats for sure.

let’s not delude ourselves into thinking were after anything more than " cool pics " please…

or if you are after some other goal… maybe you shouldnt be practicing making the next lowpoly goblin…

#41

factor of mass/hyper production is also important one.

anyways… there are guys creating their work mainly on comp, but still getting recognised. carlos baena and jim ludtke. to name two.

#42

i think you’ re spot on ! And is it really that important that your work is considered art, while u should be enjoying yourself ? :slight_smile:

#43

One problem I see is that computer generated art can very rarely be attributed to a single creative mind.

A painter can go and live in the country, make his own paints and canvases, and stand outside painting landscapes.

I can pull a pencil out of my pocket, and sketch something that I see on the street, and have a one-of-a-kind work of art, but if I want to do my “computer stuff” I have to go home, fire up my wire entangled box made from parts manufactured all around the world, make my way through Microsoft’s OS to get to Alias and Adobe’s software, only to end up with an image that I can then print as many times or at any size I want until it comes out as close to what I had on the screen as I can get it. But even then, I don’t really feel like it’s completely my own creativity that led ot that result.

While I love what I do, and I feel creative when doing it, and others are happy with the results, I will gladly come out and say “it’s not the same thing” when it comes to art.

Don’t get me wrong though…

I’m not saying that just because electricity is involved, it can’t be art. There are exceptions. When I see someone use a computer to create something truly unique (I don’t mean the best looking dragon or elf girl or some new take on lighting), it is to me, art in every sense.

If someone writes a computer program or routine that generates some visual or auditory experience, that to me is art. If someone uses some 3D software in a way that was never intended by its developers, that to me is art. If someone comes up with an idea that is truly their own and simply relies on the computer for execution, that is art.

But as long as people only do what some software’s features are designed to let them do, the art world will not be convinced.

Edit: But then again, every time I write down my thoughts about what art is or isn’t I reread them, and realize I don’t completely agree with what I wrote, so don’t take this post as my definitive argument about the subject. :smiley:

#44

How many bowls of fruit are drawn before the’re not Art anymore?

As many people have said 3D is a tool, if you saw a capenter banging nails with a hammer, does that make it less of a good job?
Would you think “Hes cheating using that hammer, he should be banging in nails with his palm” before you answer that, i’ll do it for you, no you wouldn’t. You’d realise it was a tool of the trade and what he is making, could still be amazing, a house?

You say
“If someone uses some 3D software in a way that was never intended by its developers”
But im sure the “inventor” of the brush, always intended you to PAINT with it, or use it in some form to splash something around on a surface experessively atleast.

Thats my two cents anyway, I’ll creep back into my hole in CGsociety.

#45

As many have said, the apps used to create 3d are tools. 3D, IMHO, is a technique. I currently teach a new course in 3D modeling and animation at a high school. The students are currently given the option of getting art or computer science credit for the class. But, this will no longer be the case next fall. ONLY computer science credit…

Why? Because the ART department does not regard the works generated/created by the 3D students as “art.”. My response has been-PHOOEY on that! Of course it’s art! My second response is, BIG DEAL if it’s only for computer science credit! At least I get to teach what I love to the kids and they are loving it in turn!

It’s this whole using of the technology thing that seems to get the “traditional” art folks! They think that it’s a matter of pressing a few buttons…and VOILA- a masterfully detailed and textured/painted motorcycle, or statue, or flower, etc.

It’s funny how these same traditionalist have no problems with students inserting a digital picture (taken by clicking a button) into Photoshop (computer software) and distorting the image in some fashion (done by the software by clicking buttons/functions) and displaying that as “art.”

Anyway, art is a SUBJECTIVE discipline. We make it what we want to make of it. And as far as I’m concerned, there are some incredibly gifted ARTISTS creating 3D works! It’s ART… Heck, if we can display a piece of wood with a few nails driven into it in a museum and call it art…I still don’t understand the whole MODERN ART thing…that’s another treatise for some other time…:shrug: