3D and Art

[Couerl]

3D is still so new that there are really no household names like Picasso, Michelangelo and Davinci associated with it. The general public wouldn't be able to name a single 3D artist if they tried, even though we know scores of terrific 3D artists, hundreds perhaps.

Maybe 20 years from now there will be some household names from guys on this very list, but its hard to say and I wonder if and when it will ever be accepted and gain praise or interest from the public at-large.

Will 3D ever get prestige and recognition as a true art form, or will it always be just a cheap, computer generated fake?

[bwtr]

20 years ago I was a "Well known" national and international photographer to some. And, mind you, for my paintings, an "Associate" of The Royal S.A. Society of Arts!

Ask anyone now-- Brian WHO?????

And just try to get anyone to even look at my stacked up, framed, works! Not even my children or grandchildren!

And, the crazy person that I am, I still produce imagery that no-ones really interested in.

Did Picasso or Vincent have any more fun than I am having though!

ps. It's 112 years since the Impresionists group broke up! Some people STILL consider it (Impresionism) "Modern" art! I guess it's a way to go before 3D is accepted as a proper art form based on that?

[crazy wabbit]

I think because 3d is such a vast area of specialty, texturing , modeling, lighting and such, that one person alone would not get credit for it.

So I do not think that we will have individual names like that of the past great artists. Also remember there are real traditional artists right now that paint better than old century stuff and yet they do not get remembered in a few decades.

That said, 3d art is going to get recognized for what it does and not who did it.

Think of it, and artist painting has to deal with more challenges, lighting, texture, colors, composition and such, where as 3d does most of all that hard work for you.

[Sketchy]

Years ago I struggled to produce "art" from 2d apps mainly portraits and still life. I bought myself a Wacom tablet to complement Paint Shop Pro, which I thought has this unique blending brush that could emulate finger smudging better than what I've seen in other apps. I knew my limitations. I didn't have the eye to produce accurate shades and shadows, not to mention perpectives. Later I discovered 3d apps. I thought maybe it would at least solve my problem in getting accurate perspectives as well as give me some clue on shading, then do the final painting using my 2d app. That's pretty much how I got interested in 3d. Nowadays that's just a miniscule part of 3d apps's features. You can even get accurate reflection by applying a HDRI map!

LOL. I don't know what my point in here and its relevance to this thread. I probably would just have to agree. I can't come up with a big name associated with 3d. I'd guess the reason is because of the lack of spontaneity. The 3d art you see is usually made in months not days. And it could be edited for the hundredth time.

[Couerl]

Originally Posted by bwtr

ps. It's 112 years since the Impresionists group broke up! Some people STILL consider it (Impresionism) "Modern" art! I guess it's a way to go before 3D is accepted as a proper art form based on that?

It's amazing that you're still doing work after 112 years and I'm proud of you. ;)

[Pete Exxtreme]

Van Gogh, like many other were not recognized during their life : it takes time to recognize something as "classical".
Nowdays millions of people are producing "art" on their own, and it's obvioulsy not the most talented who gets promoted by the system, but the most profitable in a short term... Art, at least its popular form, is becoming a mass product, cheap and expendable...
3D while new is following that trend to me. But i hope that people that have "something to say" by their artwork (not like me ) will have recognition one day, 3D just being considered then as another media, no more no less.

sorry for my shitty english...

[bwtr]

Couerl. And I love JAZZ--REAL Jazz.

And going to dances with a 3 piece "orchestra", in a huge hall, with no sound equipment. In the days when you could both hear every note of the music AND talk to your partner and your whispers in her ear were heard!

[rickei]

Democracy is one of the downfalls of art.

Many of the "old masters" spent their lives, doing work commissioned by the King or some other sort of royalty. This allowed the artist to create without being hindered by a lack of food or anything else for that matter, so that they could create art for the sake of art, and not for a quick buck.

in more modern times, the artist is forced to create "sellable" art, which usually means it needs to be dumbed down, so to speak, so that it will appeal to a mass audience. As Pete said it has become a mass product that is cheap and expendable.

[Nate Owens]

Brian...
You refer to an era when there were values and something that was referred to as "common" sense, a respect for something, whereas now there is no focus, no respect for people or property or real ability. "Entertainers" who mouth to recorded sound tracks and plagarize others are held in highest esteme and lying, cheating and other traits once deemed dispicable are rewarded on popular tv shows like the survivor fiascos.

Were those days just flights of fantasy? I think not.
If our generation had to venture across the praries in covered wagons, deal with no 7-11's on the corner or air conditioning everywhere - could they? Maybe, but I wonder.

I just returned from a biz trip to China (some details at my web site) - their work ethic and stamina in adverse conditions is quite admirable.

As far as artists becoming a household word (like a guy called Norman Rockwell did in his day) those days are gone. I just keep my head down and plow ahead, doing the best I can... I think the issue is keeping your values and commitment to the skills you have - whatever they are - and the media (3d, oils, watercolor, pencil) is academic... I doubt too many in the public sector could have told you what tools Rockwell used... they just saw the heart of the man in his work. Like the movie said, "build it and they will come" holds true of art as it does of baseball diamonds. I, for one, am certainly not a purist... I mix whatever tools work - the final product is what is seen and remembered or forgotten.

old fart doodler

[rickei]

Hey Nate. I see your art is about to be mass produced.

[Nate Owens]

Originally Posted by rickei

Hey Nate. I see your art is about to be mass produced.

Looks like it. Thanks
There was a showroom display in Shenzhen... just a couple of buyer groups from some major chains... they all hit on my things. It's a venture in a new direction - will be interesting to see where it goes.

In the '70s I did a lot of poster art that was in those flip racks (K-Marts and the like) and the greeting cards have had some good exposure since 1980... seems one thing leads to another -- whadda adventure

(what's nuts is folks still send emails wanting to get posters and cards I did 30 years ago... lotsa luck... but it is gratifying to know that they like it - that to me is the bottom line and what it is all about.)

[Couerl]

Well, I tend to agree Nate, (Rickie, I'll get to you later on the Democracy fallacy ;) maybe we've seen the last of the Norman Rockwell's and all we are going to see from here on out are mass produced casts and Kmart-art, but I have hope for people who take Art (with a capitol A) seriously. Anyway, all this discussion about "content" and the authenticity police is not by any means restricted to 3D. It is just as hotly contested in "real" Art forums (I use "real" because a lot of Artists don't consider 3D to be Art at all, but rather cheap computer generated graphics in league with plaster casts at Kmart and Target or old black light posters at Spencer's). I personally disagree with this notion...
If you think the use of "Vicki" or "content" is a dividing line in 3D, take a look at threads like this: (It is a long thread about the "demerit" of body casting and pouring bronze to create "Art", but mirrors greatly the content vs make it yourself argument in 3D). I think it was a great read.

http://www.sculpture.net/community/s...ead.php?t=2617

Rickie: I strongly disagree that Democracy is the downfall of Art (with a capitol A), because Democracies foster more millionaires than any other type of government ever known to man and millionaires like to spend money by and large. ;)

[rickei]

Who is Art? do you mean Garfunkel?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying and I am certainly not implying that anything is wrong with democracy.
But many of these millionaires are what we call down south "New Money" they buy expensive cars and boats, a few vacation homes, and country club memberships, but not a lot of Art...Maybe some Frederic Remington reproductions for their mountain cabin.

In the US, "famous" sculptors like Daniel Chester French are famous mostly because the government commissioned them for a public monument. So it's still the government thats involved.
but even then you'll have to go through a democratic committee to vote on what is Art, and that's never a good thing...at least for the sake of Art, or any type of creativity for that matter. It ends up getting dumbed down, to make everyone happy.

Actually, my only point is that obtaining aristocratic notoriety will put you in the history books, faster than selling a bunch of Art to millionaires. Or even better get a commission from the Pope and you're a legend in your own time... And i think that's what we are talking about here famous Artist and not wealthy Artist...right

On the flip side of all of this you could always loose your head, if your portrait pissed off the "Duke of Somethingshire"( i think that's a real place )

As far as 3D goes. If you can do like Nate and get your 3D art published on Mainstream Magazine Covers(Not CG type publications) Or have your Models, sculpted (by hand/C&C/Zprinter) you are well on your way to being famous. The key to this approach is appealing to the average Joe(or Art) just like Norman Rockwell, or Nate Owens

rickei

[jbshorty]

I've heard it said that making money IS an art. and I am certainly no artist

[wibble]

The problem with digital art is that a lot of people can't relate to how it was created. They can't appreciate the effort that went into creating the art.

The audience can't help but ask questions like:

"Is it computer generated?"

"Was it difficult to make?"

"Did the artist use a special program that allowed him to make the sculpture within just a few hours?".

I think a lego artist is more likely to be appreciated than a 3D artist. Most people can relate to the effort that goes into constructing a lego model.

So ultimately, it seems that it isn't so much the art that makes people respect an artist. But instead, it's the effort they put into creating their art.

Examples:

Artist #1: "I clicked on a few buttons in this modeler program and it created this really exciting and dramatic scene."


Artist #2: "I carved this statue of a cow from marble with just my finger nails. It took me 20 years to create it."


So which of the above artists is going to be rememberd 200 years from now?

[wibble]

and Van Gogh was crap!

If he hadn't have been such a drama queen, he would never have been remembered.

People love the fact that he cut his ear off.


I'm gonna chop off my penis after writing this post.

Here's my latest work of art:

wibble

[jbshorty]

Let the bidding begin... do i hear $1 ?

[wibble]

Originally Posted by jbshorty

Let the bidding begin... do i hear $1 ?

$1 for my penis!?

I suppose it's a start.

[Couerl]

Hehe.

It's a good point you bring up, the amount of effort being somehow universally tied in to the value of the art itself and yes, I think most people feel that we just push a button and whammo. Instant masterpiece, I have yet to find that button. ;)

[Pete Exxtreme]

Originally Posted by Couerl

Hehe.

It's a good point you bring up, the amount of effort being somehow universally tied in to the value of the art itself and yes, I think most people feel that we just push a button and whammo. Instant masterpiece, I have yet to find that button. ;)

If so, what about Conceptual, or PostModern Art ?
Mark Rothko well known paints are just "raw" colors somehow, but isn't it art ?
Well, it's probably crap for a lot of people who would prefered a picture of Britney S. with her autograph