3D is not ART and we are not ARTISTS.

[BVI]

Let me preface this post, by saying that I do not agree with the title. However, this is what an architect told me yesterday. He said that what we do in terms of 3D illustration is by no means ART, and we are merely creating pretty images that showcase his design. I was a little taken aback by the comment - he said that this is pretty much how most Architects how knows see 3D renderings.

 

I looked up the definition of art, which is:

 

"a product of human creativity"

 

Thoughts, ideas?

[DanGrover]

Let me preface this post, by saying that I do not agree with the title. However, this is what an architect told me yesterday. He said that what we do in terms of 3D illustration is by no means ART, and we are merely creating pretty images that showcase his design. I was a little taken aback by the comment - he said that this is pretty much how most Architects how knows see 3D renderings.

 

I looked up the definition of art, which is:

 

"a product of human creativity"

 

Thoughts, ideas?

 

Well he's not always wrong, is he? I think if all you do is recreate to the tee what an architect has designed (or product designer has designed, etc etc) then it's not a work of creativity - or perhaps it is, but it's the architect's creativity, not the 3D artist's.

 

Of course, you can still be creative - even simple things like playing with the cinematography. You can totally change a mood with the lighting, and given the freedom, you can describe an area in far more non-literal terms, and evoke a far more powerful emotional response from the viewer compared to simply describing the form of the building in a rational way. This is creativity - but if a client has you on a short leash, and prescribes every element of what they want an image to be, then at the end of the day all you're really doing is pushing buttons. I suppose an argument could be made that there's a level of creativity in trying little tricks and cheats to get it to render quicker, but I think that's a big of a tangent.

[STRAT]

only his opinion.

 

i know colleagues and friends doing the same thing who also dont class this as art.

 

there is no right or wrong. there is no 'i think....'. it's a subjective/objective matter. you decide. both parties are right and wrong.

[lambros]

I have always though of my job as an amagalm of technicality and artistry. Actually most architects (or clients to make it more general) require us to have the touch of an artist, otherwise all renders would look the same and feel the same.

Even small but important aspects of our job, like camera placement, image synthesis, color management etc belong to the artistic realm as much as they do to the technical one. It is always a balance between the two, and that is why it is not boring or tiring compared to other professions.

I have had contact with architects who would think that what I was doing was inferior to their "human creativity", but not all of them think that way. Consider how many of them just copy and copy the same ideas and stick to specific styles. Really creative people just don't care to spend their energy on making others feeling bad.

[Nic H]

arch vis is not art, its fancy 3d drafting with a few visual flourishes.

 

dont really want to get involved in this conversation tbh so no more posts.

[CJI]

Rediculous, if there was no art involved i think our ranks would be a lot thinner. Without our creativity the job would be dull and soulless. We don't just showcase the design, we try to convey the story of the spaces, we create and translate designs in to life, in to emotions, in a way that people can engage with and understand on some level. The images don't just represent they interpret, and as far as my education tells me, thats art. Its unfortunate that we can't always express this due to clients, briefs etc but that is the way of the world.

 

But then there are always those, especially in this industry, who see us as overpaid student architects who couldn't go the distance so just stuck with doing the 3d they learned at Uni. Thats not to say all are like that though.

 

You just need to look at the some of the work here, on other forums, in competitions etc to know they are wrong. Just look at Alex Roman, Viktor Fretyan, or Peter Guthrie, or....the list goes on!

 

Enough said! Im off my soap box haha.

Edited January 22, 2010 by CJI

[BVI]

arch vis is not art, its fancy 3d drafting with a few visual flourishes.

 

My Arguement was that art is so subjective its become ridiculous; for instance, performance art - stand on your head in a glass box, naked...eating an apple, some cosnider that to be "art".

[BVI]

You just need to look at the some of the work here, on other forums, in competitions etc to know they are wrong. Just look at Alex Roman, Viktor Fretyan, or Peter Guthrie, or....the list goes on!

 

Enough said! Im off my soap box haha.

 

Quoted for agreement

[Nic H]

My Arguement was that art is so subjective its become ridiculous; for instance, performance art - stand on your head in a glass box, naked...eating an apple, some cosnider that to be "art".

 

standing on your head in a glass box presumably has an idea behind it, and being in that glass box is a interpretation/expression of that.

[DanGrover]

standing on your head in a glass box presumably has an idea behind it, and being in that glass box is a interpretation/expression of that.

 

You couldn't resist!

[Nic H]

arrgghhh

must log off

[deanomagino]

There's John Lennon and there is Ricky Martin.. Their both considered artists.

[CJI]

HAHAHA i like the comparison. Some people might say good old ricky is a legendary artist in his own right. I don't know anybody who hasn't secretly done a wee jig to living la vida loca after a few (many) jars lol.

[mahorela]

When working directly for most architects I have come across, I do feel as though what I am doing isn't art. They are so controlling and often not focused on the image or animation as a showpiece or marketing tool.

 

"I don't care if it won't look good in the image.......it is more important to show the form of that element"

 

Conversely when working for developers or people that are marketing focused, I strongly feel that I am producing a work of art.

[JamesL]

You should show him the Third & Seventh animation...

 

Admittedly thats a long way from what most of us do everyday, but that completely counters his '3D is not art' comment.

[ihabkal]

Almost everything we do is art. Everything around us has a relation to design.

Some people are jealous and full of it (u know what it is), don't pay attention to this guy, the way you dress and present yourself is art. my kid coloring in kindergarten is art, but my renderings aren't?

come on. as someone already said on the previous page, some people jsut like to put others down.

as I say, he's full of it.

[Nils Norgren]

As always an interesting thread. One thing to consider is, is an architectural photographer an artist?

 

I can remember having discussions in a ceramics class back in school about "Art" vs. "Craft" which is another thorny discussion. What about portraits painted as commissions, are they less art than a painting done from inspiration.

 

As it pertains to technical skills, what many "Artists" do takes a great deal of technical skill, a lifetime of practice, and sometimes understanding of very complex systems (think sound engineer on a movie).

 

I would say that anyone who dismisses someone as not an artist in this way is simply looking for a way to belittle and insult the person. They have an option, they could keep their mouth shut and think whatever they want, or they could tell the person, simply to inform them about how (in their opinion) the person is less than he/she thinks of themselves.

 

I would say to the architect in this situation that we are all entitled to our own opinion.

 

-Nils

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

At the very least anyone who is creating visualizations can be classified as a Production Artist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_artist

Production artists work closely with the designer and art director to execute the design. What distinguishes "production art" from design is the lack of opportunities to utilize creativity and design training in the work involved. Although the position may be treated as low-skilled labor, the degree of technical knowledge required for some production art work may be comparable to higher skilled engineering, especially with computers.

 

As you progress through the field, most of us will become an Art Director of sorts. An Art Director is responsible for...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_director

In particular, the art director is in charge of the overall visual appearance and how it communicated visually, stimulates moods, contrasts features, and psychologically appeals to a target audience. The art director makes decisions about visual elements used, what artistic style to use, and when to use motion

 

The ability to do the later is what makes you valuable in this field.

 

I am not going to argue about whether or not what we is considered art, it is far to subjective. It is an endless argument back and forth, and I am guessing at times I would find myself arguing both sides.

 

But, I will say, what we do takes a great deal of artistic talent and skill.

 

Now, the originally headline says that 3d is not art. That is just being blind. The ability to work in 3d is a medium/tool for art, the same as a paint brush is a tool for art, or oils are a medium for art.

 

 

.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Iain Denby]

I don't think it's important whether what we do is art or not, and I don't think it's important what that guys opinions are either.

[Noise]

I could photograph my foot and say it was art. I could also take my monitor and place it on the floor and argue (quite rightly) that its an art installation conveying the interdependence of technology, gravity and the inherent struggle to believe that interstellar shifts in the cosmos have direct ramifications on the monitor and its location. On the other hand its just sitting there until I clean my desk of dust.

 

Maybe this guy is art in motion, in reality, an organic existence of living, breathing sculpture on this earth to enlighten all minds - or maybe he's angry because his designs are crap AND even worse, he knows it.

 

He sounds like an electrocuted sausage which is falling through its own existence until it finds its own equlibrium and rots to dust !

Edited February 5, 2010 by Noise

[TheAllusionisst]

The topic comes around for different graphic professions. Artist who did illustrations such as book covers were snubbed by the painting community and were not considered "Fine Artist" and that they were regurgitating the authors story and doing "Commercial Work" and thus were not true artist. Does the name Frank Frazetta ring a bell, he pretty much single handedly changed visual art as we know it (book covers, comics and movies were impacted by his vision and style) and he did cartoons and book covers forever.....

 

Probably nobody is going to win this debate as you could say some artistry can be used to layout and compose a drawing sheet for construction documents, so I would say even product illustration and commercial art is "Art", perhaps not good or "Fine Art", but art on a level.

 

The two elements that jump to my head, aesthetic pleasingness and invoking emmotion both can probably be shot down. There are plenty of funky pieces called "art" that evoke emmotion such as disgust, or machine created "modern art" that are visually pleasing, so those two items don't some it up.

 

Maybe the expression/creation of an idea or concept in an aesthetic pleasing (oral or visual) fashion of intent that evokes emotion to those experiencing it is closer, but wait there are loop holes there as well. Not to mention subjectivity vs. objectivity in judging the criteria.

 

I don't see a cut or dry answer, the architect is going to say he is doing art, I guess if you have your basic default settings and re-gurgitated backgrounds and pump them out and deliver to the client right out of the oven, maybe you aren't doing "Fine Art", but if you approach each project specific to the site and the composition and adjust in post production lighting and color balance, etc. to to your aesthetic preferences and give the scene mood, I think you are doing art.

 

Personally I didn't continue art as a profession because I felt my paintings and drawings didn't capture the essence of life or movement, I was good in math and enjoy building things so I went to architectural school. Basically I wanted to do what I think is "Great Art" and didn't feel I was accomplishing it. Still think I am artistic! LOL

[luckyluc]

about just creating pretty images, the guy who did this painting also didn't decide what to paint that moment.

 

But can we consider this painting as Art?

 

Why.. because it is made with paint.

 

Is painted wooden fence art?

[TheAllusionisst]

Well a masterpiece in lighting and composition to begin with probably short list it as art. Captures a moment and draws you in to see more and perhaps evokes an emotion.....

[ronll]

So by this argument, Ansel Adams was not an artist. After all, Yosemite was already there, all he did was record it. If you don't consider what you are doing as art, then there isn't much reason to strive to do it better is there?

[abmitalia]

3D is not ART and we are not ARTISTS.

Centuries goes – centuries comes. Once upon a time when who did make statues wasn’t seen as an artist but as a simple reproductive craftsman – nowadays we by that stuff like high expression of Art for millions of bugs….

I am a designer and studied Art in an Art school for many many years:, several month’s ago I started up to learn about using 3d visualization being at the first beginning… and let me tell you : I never had to be so much creative and precise like with using max . It’s like first making sketches with a fingernail on paper and now having all colours to illustrate with, what my idea really is about.

It’s not a secret that many designers or architects do lack in 3D imagination and its not a secret that many objects sketched by designers and than realizes as a prototype where thrown away, because in reality they don’t look great at all and they were only a nice but useless imagination. For me the CG illustrator is like the Artist who creates the object for the first time and doing so, he has to understand the form and function of the object nearly better than the Designer or Architect himself.

Even more and worse: … many architects ore designers do look bad at the CG illustrations because that what they see isn’t that straordinary, nice and great how they thought it would be ore they imagined it to be. … Their problem. The Art- Work of the CG Illustrator is to make appear a structure or an object not only like it is but to place it perfectly – colour it - illuminate it – photograph it and with this giving it a character and an own personality. Isn’t that ART?. And at the very End, that is what the client of the architect or designer buys in reality. RK