IC Posted November 20, 2006 Author Share Posted November 20, 2006 I've been involved in similar discussions (there's one at the Newtek Forum just now) and I know it's not as clear cut as the definition I posted. I just think that's the general perception of what an artist is and it's easy to be aloof and say others 'are not artists they are merely technicians' but the two do overlap. Anyway, I liked 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tidy Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 hi eveyone. thought i would contribute some of my personal favourite LW work i have done. i have used LW on and off since i entered the industry back in 2001, while personally i love using it, i have found that its popularity has never really increased in that time but still seems to have small commited community. While it does have some limitations compared to max etc, it has its merits..the main reason i enjoy it is because its a solid "all-in-one" package which is easy on system resouces...just kinda hums in the background. those images IC shared look nice...seemed to be using interpolated radiosity, i always find that in the time it takes me to get a good solution without those 'shading artefacts' i could have just set it to monte carlo and have been done with it. oh, and i think the definition of artist can never trully be defined in this day and age, maybe if we were still living in the 19th century...then maybe:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohinder Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 but then, it's all personal taste. I think that's a little naive. When I was still working in the arch-vis industry some of the visuals I was witness to were brilliant. Anyone who saw them always commented on how amazing the images looked. The work was without question art in every sense and no one doubted its universal appeal. I would even go as far as saying beautiful, but then these guys were truly artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilky9 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 damn, sorry about getting this started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tidy Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 The work was without question art in every sense and no one doubted its universal appeal. I would even go as far as saying beautiful, but then these guys were truly artists. NOW THATS NAIVE:p ART is about context and intent. if someone sets up a pedestal in an art gallery and takes a dump on it, like it or not, this has more artistic merit than the most 'beautiful' visualisation. you are confusing craftsmanship with artistic endeavour. but on the other hand, if someone starts out using a 3d package to create a piece of atrwork in a vacuum then yes, this is art....ahhh dont you just love our post-modern world:rolleyes: art·ist (ärtst) n. 1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts. this is also completely wrong! this definition may have washed in the 19th century or even the beginning of the 20th century, but this ended when people like Picasso or Georges F Broque started working on the cubist movement after the first world war...true ART in this day and age rarely has anything to do with aesthetics. and it has nothing to do with personal taste or opinion. sorry for the rant or if sound a bit pretentious. i have my masters degree in fine art from RMIT and after 5 years of reading countless texts this kind of argument gets my blood boiling. sorry to get off topic...as you were:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Dude, don't go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 30, 2006 Author Share Posted November 30, 2006 if someone sets up a pedestal in an art gallery and takes a dump on it, like it or not, this has more artistic merit than the most 'beautiful' visualisation. you are confusing craftsmanship with artistic endeavour This is a far more complex argument than you've condensed into one dubious anlogy and stating things like this as fact make you appear more naive than any of the previous posters. What you have alluded to is the lofty, elitist notion that craftsmanship and art must be kept apart and that the latter is far more important and worthy. Michaelangelo (and you could possibly say the same about Da Vinci) displayed far greater cratftsmanship than artistic ability (which he did of course also have in abundance) but he will always be regarded as one of the greatest artists who ever lived. Regardless of what all those countless texts you have read might say-and remember those texts are written by people like you for people like you (no offence intended)-the layman in an art gallery will not see any merit, artistic or otherwise, in a turd on a pedestal. But then maybe you don't feel what the layman thinks has any bearing on the matter as your education puts you in a position to know better. Now that's naivety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Gaushell Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 ....The main reason I posted this however was to highlight the fact that there are people out there doing great work with software other than Max, VRay and Maxwell. I think a lot of LightWave users on this site feel pressure to switch software because they don't see artists like this get any exposure. Ian - no pressure felt by us. Without a doubt there is some outstanding work done in all packages. It depends upon skill and technique. Obviously some packages give you a good headstart with good GI functions. Personally I like the soft quality that Lightwave renders have over many of the others. I also find it quite interesting that many of the people that use Vray or the like with the "easy awesome button" for lighting interiors, do a really bad job (in comparision) with their exteriors. That being said, it is once again up to the user. Don't forget that a many arch viz people spend a ton of time in post (and a ton of time in general) on renderings. Not that that is bad in itself, but it doesn't always give a clear view of how good the original software is vs. the artist tweaking it. Because we do so much animation work we rarely do any post tweaks - otherwise we end up with a mismatch. I think most of us that do arch-viz for a living (and intend to make money doing so) would admit that though it is "art" it is commercial art and thus the user and even the original design impact the final. No without a doubt, the cgarchitect has a heavy lean towards Max. It is a self perpetuating issue here - max is the biggest, but it is also the one given clear support and coverage. Plus it is the Max products that support the stores here and Jeff's other ventures. Lightwave and other packages are the red-headed step-child here. Thus I take slams towards it and other packages with a grain of salt. 3D software is just a tool in the hand of the artist/technicial, whatever you want to call them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
znotlin Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 Tidy...I had to re-read your post a couple of times as I felt similarly to Strat on first pass that it was a bit demeaning. However I think if you just left the word naive out, than I appreciate your point in disciplining what the word art means - which I totally applaud, otherwise it means nothing. Moreover I agree, art is about intent and context, and has little do to with aesthetics....which I think you'll agree also means that just because something solicits feelings in the viewer as being beautiful doesn't disqualify it as art (which Strat is saying)- it just means that the critic may have to look a little harder to see the intent (if there is one) than if he saw a turd (whose intent is fairly transparent - insular/one dimensional/boring albeit meritous). That said, I would rather look at beautiful empty formalism than a turd about 83% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now