It came across my mind.......
SD'ers don't usually post images done in "renderers" do we?

I mean, like Terragen, Ultra Fractal,, e.t.c......

Are users of these tools considered to be mere tool users, rather than artists?

What do you guys think?

I think they would be considered artists that use tools ;) Creating environments and scenes or characters takes a very artistic sensibility.

Though really with that said it brings out the argument "what is art?"

I think it's a big different between the different 3D software packages out there. Like terragen, Bryce, fractal makers etc. and people doing hardcore 3D modeling in programs like 3D Studio Max, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, Maya etc. Personally I think that the last mentioned group are most definately artists, but in a different way than 2D artists. You have to have a really good eye for color, shape and composition to make a good 3D render.

When I went to art school 10-11 years ago using a computer in general wasn't really accepted as a medium for doing art at all. It's good to see that this has changed. 2D digital art for example is a completely common nowadays :-)

....luckily ;-)

I guess its a matter of how conservative we are when defining art and art mediums?

I never ever questioned that, but I have definately thought about it browsing websites.

I think it's easy for hack artists to make things that resemble art using computers, but other artists can tell. My industry is full of 'technical artists' and it bugs the hell out of me.

:)

When I'm interviewing prospective artists, I ask them to draw something. It doesn't matter how good they are in Maya or what 1337 photoshop layering skills they have, if they can't draw, they don't get the job. It sorts out the techies from the real artists. Just my 2 cents.

:)

its kinda like a new- age medium.

i guess one could argue that it isnt as original but really, even something redered comes from an artists mind hence IT IS in that way art,

its not classic art, and its not the same. but it is art.

besides most people who use the computer to enhanc there art also draw and do other forms of art too.

A RENDERER (RENDERIST??) :) THAT I THINK IS AN ARTIST (http://www.raycaesar.com/pages/GalleryIndex.html)

i love those (adds to favourites) tank u for sharing/

I think it's easy for hack artists to make things that resemble art using computers, but other artists can tell. My industry is full of 'technical artists' and it bugs the hell out of me.

:)

When I'm interviewing prospective artists, I ask them to draw something. It doesn't matter how good they are in Maya or what 1337 photoshop layering skills they have, if they can't draw, they don't get the job. It sorts out the techies from the real artists. Just my 2 cents.

:)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think opinions like that are what make it so difficult for digital art to be accepted as a legitimate art form.

I have no doubt in my mind that the link you supplied is a great example of a wonderful artist. His work is so original, and so creative, but that has nothing to do with the medium he used. Sure the paint and paper he chose give his work a certain feel to it, but that is not what makes his work great. The originality and idea behind his work is what makes it great.

Walk in to any cheap family restaurant or hotel and you will find artwork all over the walls. In most cases, that artwork is made using watercolor, acryllic, or maybe even oil. In many cases the artwork found in these places are relatively beautifully rendered using traditional methods. Eventhough art of this type is not thought provoking or original in any way, that is still accepted as art.

So why then would you not accept digital art as a legitimate artform? Some digital art that I have seen is the most original work that I have seen in a long time. Some digital art is bland, lacking originality, and deserves to be up there with the with the hotel room watercolors. But at the same time, some digital art deserves to be respected as great art.

What do you think people were saying of work like this (http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Image-Library/Mondrian/mondrian-composition_A-1923.jpg) , this (http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/790bg.jpg) , and this (http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/collection/catalog/vglpainting.asp?ARTID=35&LANGID=1&SEL=1&PERIOD=2&SORT=) when they were being created? I'm pretty sure they were saying some of the same things your saying now.

Buddy of mine had some of those Ray prints in his tattoo shop. AMAZING!
[/OFFTOPIC]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think opinions like that are what make it so difficult for digital art to be accepted as a legitimate art form.

I have no doubt in my mind that the link you supplied is a great example of a wonderful artist. His work is so original, and so creative, but that has nothing to do with the medium he used. Sure the paint and paper he chose give his work a certain feel to it, but that is not what makes his work great. The originality and idea behind his work is what makes it great.

Walk in to any cheap family restaurant or hotel and you will find artwork all over the walls. In most cases, that artwork is made using watercolor, acryllic, or maybe even oil. In many cases the artwork found in these places are relatively beautifully rendered using traditional methods. Eventhough art of this type is not thought provoking or original in any way, that is still accepted as art.

So why then would you not accept digital art as a legitimate artform? Some digital art that I have seen is the most original work that I have seen in a long time. Some digital art is bland, lacking originality, and deserves to be up there with the with the hotel room watercolors. But at the same time, some digital art deserves to be respected as great art.

What do you think people were saying of work like this (http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Image-Library/Mondrian/mondrian-composition_A-1923.jpg) , this (http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/790bg.jpg) , and this (http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/collection/catalog/vglpainting.asp?ARTID=35&LANGID=1&SEL=1&PERIOD=2&SORT=) when they were being created? I'm pretty sure they were saying some of the same things your saying now.


I guess I sounded a little harsh, but having resumes plopping onto my desk each day and looking at my 18 millionth rendered 'walker' robot or space marine and other drek they've managed to unimagine, you start to see a few links between the tech artist and their fear of traditional media, so you develop tools to weed out those people as soon as possible. I generally find the ones who have vision and passion have exercised it at an early age and probably spent their childhood drawing and making little models, so they have developed from a traditional background. I know there are a few late bloomers (My favorite illustrator T S Sullivant, for example didn't even pick up a pencil until he was in his early 40s, but he is absolutely incredible), but people like this come around very rarely.

I agree, it's definitely the vision and/or passion that's important. If you have vision and passion you can paint something in crap on a bathroom door and it will still come across as brilliant. Hopefully. ;) There's nothing to hide behind when it's boiled down to it's simplest form.

I believe that if you look at the early works of those artists you have linked, you would see a traditional background and grounding in the craft. I know Van Gogh's early work looked very academic. So did Picasso. They learnt the 'rules' before they broke them and then did their own thing.

Gah, I hope I didn't sound too harsh. I guess I just get upset with seeing the same cold, tired sparkless stuff again and again. The digital medium certainly isn't to blame, but it does seem that it's much easier to hide behind than other, more traditional methods.

Again, it's always a matter of opinion. Artists are always at the mercy of other peoples opinions. That's the best and worst part of it. :)