Expose 1 Book??

[ingo]

Has anyone noticed the strange things going on at cgtalk ? Everything that was said against expose1 is censored from cgtalk, they deleted a lot of messages. And this was not the usual cgtalk bashing, there were some serious concerns and critics, weird.

[nisus]

nope, haven't seen it... Do you got more details?

rgds

 

nisus

[stefkeB]

A copy paste of an answer I made on the 3D-Buzz forum about CG & Art & Exposé.

 

---

I think Exposé is a good example of the best quality renderings and stills that are made, nowadays, but when you like to call it "ART" it is problematic.

 

I showed "Exposé 1" to my colleagues (all architect-engineers at the university) and they had mixed feelings about it.

That's about what they said about it:

 

- most images where trying to be realistic looking and nothing more. If you would show a photograph with a narrow depth-of-field next to it, you would say "So what, why bother with 3D?"

 

- a lot of the topics where "Sci-Fi/gothic/naked/females" in some mixture. The hormones where clearly very active in these young and mostly male communities.

(As if Dali or Da Vinci didn't paint/sculpt naked woman)

 

- To CG-users it is obvious that most of these rendering show a tremendous mastering of the tools and the perseverance to make highly detailed environments, but from an "ART" point-of-view this is totally irrelevant: it doesn't matter what tool you use or what Rubens or Picasso used... it doesn't matter if this was hard labour or not (it might help to build a myth, but it isn't particulary so). You only look at the end result and often, the way to achieve it can be interesting and sometimes even more interesting then the finished work, but it is irrelevant.

Why is a 3ds-maya model better then a Light|XSI model? (Don't start a flame war on this)

 

- The "master of excellence" (craig mullins) is also a controversial figure... If you place him in the "Gare d'Orsay" in Paris, next to Monet and other impressionists, it wouldn't be exceptional. It wouldn't turn much heads around.

Just because he uses "Painter" and/or "Photoshop" doesn't mean a thing. He clearly masters his tools and has a deep sence and feeling about light and the application of colour, but it's not different from what a classic painter does.

 

- The imagery is based mostly on a visual style we know from Hollywood movies, which is often not likely to be confused with "ART". The umpteenth space-ship invading planet checkerboard to capture a naked Poser-female is not such a brilliant concept.

 

-------------

 

I have all the respect for the work that has been shown on sites like 3D-Total and CG-Talk (which, to me, are clearly the top of what is made today and it shows in Exposé), but I can perfectly understand the resistance against this imagery and the refusal to call it ART, by traditional people with an art-education or with an artistic background.

 

I think it is even more of a "genre" in itself and not exactly something that is so interesting for people that are not active in this "industry".

 

 

P.S. I hope I don't hurt peoples feelings with these statements, but I think that 3D/CG still has a long way to go to be taken seriously.

 

P.S. 2 - Most of the people we all admire that make these fantastic FX-filled movies are trained in traditional art and just adapted their knowledge to some software tools. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Jeff Mottle]

I think that you are correct about the art vs the tool comment stefkeB. I've heard that critiscism of our industry quite a bit and I think it stems from how relatively easy it is to create realism without ever having taken an art class in your life. I still think that they are some of the best works our indutry has seen to date. I would argue that there are probably alot of people in that book that do know art quite well. Maybe they are not of the calibre of the artists whose works adorns the Louvre, but then again, how many of those people are there in even 500 years?

[ingo]

Originally posted by nisus:

nope, haven't seen it... Do you got more details?

rgds

 

nisus

Here is a thread about it from cgc

[nisus]

I've heard that critiscism of our industry quite a bit and I think it stems from how relatively easy it is to create realism without ever having taken an art class in your life.

I agree and don't too.

 

Creating realism has become more simple indeed, but WHAT is created still needs an artists eye...

From what I've seen of 3d/cg-images, it hardly takes more than a second to see whether someone has an artistic background or not. Most 'hobbyist' don't have extensive knowledge of these important issues... They simply imitate... To their own level of satisfaction...

 

Anyway... sometimes someone without training manages to raise himself to a high level... those can be called artists...

 

What I see is that 'commercial art' is not 'felt' like art, because of some preoccupation of what art IS NOT (for those who practise art).

Many feel that it is but managing/applying 'techniques' and nothing more... and indeed, much of the commercial art is but a sum of some basic rules... (Think this way: explosion, boobs, fast, vehicle OR wherewolf, wood, moon, vamp/virgin... ok, fantasy... would you call it art???)

 

Maybe it is because commercial art has a NECESSITY to exist, whereas art has NOT that people are confused...

 

To me, art is not mythical like for many people... it's but creating what DOES NOT exist!

(Not reinventing what has become an infuse...)

On the other hand, it takes some understanding to create something NEW... it takes nothing to imitate...

 

Maybe the artists of today don't need the artists hands anymore, but they still need the artists eye!

 

rgds

 

nisus

[Ernest Burden III]

I think Exposé is a good example of the best quality renderings and stills that are made, nowadays, but when you like to call it "ART" it is problematic. - a lot of the topics where "Sci-Fi/gothic/naked/females" in some mixture. The hormones where clearly very active in these young and mostly male communities.

(As if Dali or Da Vinci didn't paint/sculpt naked woman)

I guess these "is rendering art?" arguements are inevitable. I've been hearing them for as long as I've been a renderer, which is 'too long'. There is no answer and in the end no point to the debate. Art is not a definable term. Art is whatever you want art to be. It does not take training, and in the hands of some artists, does not even take talent. Rendering is typically commercial illustration which some people like to dis-qualify from the term 'art'. I think that's pretty short-sighted. My own personal criteria for art center around communication--it should tell me something, even if it simply communicates a feeling. But that is opinion, yours may differ and is just as valid as mine.

 

I never set out to be an architectural renderer. I had planned to be a science-fiction illustrator. I had a strong interest in both art and science. So I end up doing 3D model-baesd computer artwork. My earliest days were spent reading/looking/studying/worshiping Sci-fi pictures, books and movies. I read Heavy Metal and paid special attention to artists like Frank Frazetta, Moebius and Roger Dean, then later Giger and Lebbeus Woods. My bedtime stories when I was four were the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings books. I grew up on that stuff.

 

Don't knock sci-fi and swords and semi-naked wenches. If you like that genere then don't let anyone make you feel inferiour for it. My first paid/published illustrations were drawings of fantasy-based custom vans (for a magazine about custom vans) when I was 14 or 15. I actually got paid to draw that stuff!

 

Nothing wrong with letting hormones rule the art, but remember that the art world honors artists of all persuasions. Da Vinci is thought to have been gay, and artists from Michaelangelo to Saergent were gay as they get. Everybody gets to express what they want in their artwork. Heck, some people think dogs playing poker is art. To them, it is. I will take the naked women being menaced by a dragon, thank you. Just do a good job, if you can...

 

Expose1 certainly showed work done well, no point arguing if its 'art'.