CG, is it art?
Brandon
This has raised an issue I find incredibly interesting and worthy of
discussion concerning the problem facing "artist" today in such an
intensely competitive market place. I am primarily educated as an
architect, a profession that day by day grows more inseparable from the
CG community. For instance, here at Columbia, Softimage and Alias/Maya
are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program. The
point is, this is a dilemma facing almost any creative profession where
one is forced to constantly juggle between their own creative vision and
the bottom line. Most of us are insatiably passionate about what we do,
be it CG, graphic design, architecture, etc. How does one, in striving
to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
increasing financial liability?
If this gets half the intellectual consideration that WAREZ does, it
should be a very intresting discussion.
Please post your opinion.
Smeggy
personal expression, once that is taken away, your artistic talents are
still used but it's not strictly "art". You are using your artistry to
achieve what the client wants, whether it's to a design brief, lighting
setup, sound mixing etc. but unless you're doing it as a purely personal
thing, it isn't pure art. As 3d artists, we're generally given a fair amount
of artistic freedom in our projects within certain guidelines, but it still
restricts our freedom of expression which, to me, is what real art is all
about.
The definition of art seems to be subjective amongst many depending on
viewpoint, but in general, pure art is done for it's own sake and not for
any other reason. If someone else likes your idea of art then it is
sellable, if not, you then have to work for someone else doing what they
want, relinquishing your artistic control and no-longer doing pure art. You
are still an artist, still using your artistry, talent and skill to produce
someone elses' vision... but it *is* someone elses' vision... is it art?
Yes, but the art is then interpreting what they want and producing a great
result within brief that keeps the client happy, and that's an art in itself
;)
Artist, Artistic, Artistry or Artisan... which applies when, that's the
question.
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
www.mindspring.com/~orsino/
GWB3d - Freelance 3d artist for hire.
For Tutorials, Plugins, Scripts, Maps and Meshes....follow the links below.
http://gfxcentral.com/bobo/
http://www.maxww.com/
http://www.3dcafe.com/asp/default.asp
http://hem1.passagen.se/oos3d/frametutorialssvart1.html
Brandon <bh...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:36B4110B...@columbia.edu...
Orion
about this potentially fantasticaly complicated topic and the best I can
figure is this. Nobody really knows what "art" is anymore. For my part I
just express my ideas as honestly as I know how and if it's art hey it's
a bonus. I don't do 3D to do "art" I do it to explore my ideas. Best I
can hope for I think.
cheers,
O.
Gruhn
>are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program.
Why? What are they suited to for architectural practice?
>How does one, in striving
>to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
>that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
>increasing financial liability?
How does one go from six years of design studio to being underpaid for the
privilege of making somebody else's construction documents?
Wiro
To me CG really is a new art form. The problem might be that few people have
access to 3D tools and therefore cannot comprehend what it's all about.
After all everyone has used a camera, pencil and paint before, be it at
school or at home. Therefore everyone knows that it takes some extra effort
to take a great picture or draw well. It's a little different with CGI as
it's still too new. Most people have no idea what work lays behind it. To
them it's simply a "bah, the 'puter does the work anyway..."
I can imagine that it was similar with photography. After all you only have
to press the button, not? But today photography IS concidered art and it's
also a part of most art-schools curriculum. CGI isn't far away from
photography. After all it's all about lighting and scene setup. We even have
to simulate the lighting as well as textures and even the objects we wish to
show.
Of course Smeggy's right though. As soon as you don't work for yourself but
have to execute someone else's idea, not having total freedom to do what you
wish, then it's no longer art...it's WORK. And it is like this with any
other media, be it painting, drawing, photography or sculpting.
I cannot see any difference between CGI and other "traditional" artforms. To
me it's simply another tool, like a brush, pencil, crayon or spraygun. It
opens up new horizons and I really do believe that CGI will soon become
accepted as a new artform.
Wiro
Jan-Bart van Beek
Me, personally, although I graduated from the Royal Academy of Art in
Holland don't consider myself an artist, simply because I work in
advertisement and anyone who seriously thinks advertisement is art, doesn't
take art that seriously.
This is not the 17 century when people confused craftsmanship with artistry,
we now have a totally different view of art, where craftsmanship is just a
tool to be used in the creation of art, and where vision, expression and
originality are the key components. But all those elements are very
arbitrary.
We consider Rembrandt a great artist, the only thing Rebrandt and his
clients thought of him was that he was a great painter capable of doing
challenging and original commisioned work.
A lot of people is this day and age still have problems accepting Andy
Warhol for the artist that he was, because his work was composed of copied
icons of american pop culture, and he hardly did any real work himself,
commisioning his work to his house of craftsman called the Factory. Where
indeed is the originality and expression in copying and having other people
make you work.
Well, originality isn't that important really. It can give your work novelty
and actuality, but who cares about that in a 100 years. Leonardo DaVinci
seemed to understand that when he said: 'everything has been done before and
better.". Still that pessimistic view didn't stop him from persuiing a life
of artistry and science.
But the medium, tools and techniques have rarely been the point of
discussion whether something should be considered art. But they often have
been the starting point on the discussion whether somehting is artistry or
craftsmanship, photography as someone pointed out being a great example. A
computer is just a tool, software just a technique, video just a medium.
Over the last decade I've seen 'high-profile' exhibitions of serious art
where video was used as a medium, computers where repeatedly used as tools,
and even one exhibition where the software written itself was the artform.
So there is no argument possible why CG could not be used for art.
As for the discussion what an artist is and what a craftsman...I think I've
had that discussion once to often during my years on the academy...
It's one of those thing no one can ever agree on, it's strictly personnal
and though interesting to discus, impossible to answer.
But have fun, tell me when you know the answer.
Jan-Bart van Beek
Brandon wrote in message <36B4110B...@columbia.edu>...
>Several threads have been posted lately regarding the "business" of CG.
>This has raised an issue I find incredibly interesting and worthy of
>discussion concerning the problem facing "artist" today in such an
>intensely competitive market place. I am primarily educated as an
>architect, a profession that day by day grows more inseparable from the
>CG community. For instance, here at Columbia, Softimage and Alias/Maya
>are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program. The
>point is, this is a dilemma facing almost any creative profession where
>one is forced to constantly juggle between their own creative vision and
>the bottom line. Most of us are insatiably passionate about what we do,
>be it CG, graphic design, architecture, etc. How does one, in striving
>to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
>that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
>increasing financial liability?
>
Brandon
> >are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program.
>
>
unchanged for thousands of years. Are 3d applications only good as a
visualization tool or do they have the potential to actually change the
design process? The Modern Movement in the early 20th century was
primarily a response to technological advances that resulted from the
industrial revolution and the conceptualization of how these advances
would change society and the way we "dwell" within space. We are now
faced with similar questions concerning digital technology. Alias and
the like offer tools that can potentially alter the methods and
strategies we employ to design, not just visualize. Buildings don't
have to square. Have you seen Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in
Bilbao, Spain? Although the most popular, this is but one example of
how these types of programs are changing architecture.
> >How does one, in striving
> >to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
> >that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
> >increasing financial liability?
> How does one go from six years of design studio to being underpaid for the privilege of making somebody else's construction documents?
You sound like an ex-architecture student. Unfortunately, their are
dues to pay in any profession. However, doing someone else's
construction drawings is, in my opinion, an absolutely necessary step in
understanding the process in its entirety. As a designer, knowing how
your ideas will actually be executed will only strengthen the design.
As far as being underpaid, yea it sucks. However, something I think can
be said for waking up everyday and loving what you do. Can you put a
price on that?
Brandon
contrary, I was trying to provoke discussion on dealing with certain
issues that arise because it is.
![stiké [Tae]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXqoVHaMbqRakp-mAvDg6tO7S_A0N4iTm0uthmb7tulXrpVHw=s40-c)
stiké [Tae]
on the question whether it is work (to be paid) or not. Others have
brought up interesting view points regarding the legitimacy of such
artists as Andy Warhol (that he has others execute his ideas).
Under this broad definition of the word ART (in our discussion), it
maybe close to impossible to come to any agreement among us. However,
the biggest mistake a person can make is to claim their personal opinion
as something that is MORE right than others. Having said my disclaimer,
I would like to share my definition of ART.
ART is not necessarily created from complete freedom. Something created
by commissioned work (meaning getting paid to create it) still is ART.
Great number of Artists created great ART to be paid -- and their work
can be found in museums around the world (in this case Fine ART).
One of the pre-requisites of a ART is whether or not the Artist puts
his/her soul and passion into their work. It does not matter what
medium they use -- e.g. CG, photography, pencil and paper ... etc.
We often recognize great piece of ART when the artist has successfully
transformed their ideas into their choice of medium. I would like to
think of ART as something beautiful. However, there are ugly ART. But,
only ugly in the sense that it failed to convey the Artist's passion and
soul.
If you are a 3D graphics artists, no matter if you are getting paid or
creating a demo reel to find a job -- if you put a little bit of you
soul into your work, and do it passionately, it is ART.
Tae
Anmatr
I think that this is a great statement and should be explored more.
What I've found in my little ole artistic history is that the process of
realizing thought to product is constantly challenging. You never fully realize
that original vision, but you can come very close. I think that is what makes
for successful art.
People who aren't used to challenging their creative abilities often don't
understand how much compromise and personal adjustment takes place during the
creation process.
Specifically, as far as complete freedom goes, I always find it harder to
balance life in general while working on a project. That's because I'm always
thinking of how to execute my vision more effectively.
Brandon
Catholic Church. He was not given absolute freedom of expression and
knowing the conditions under which he executed this commision, I would
certainly consider it "work". I would also certainly consider it "art".
> >Several threads have been posted lately regarding the "business" of CG.
> >This has raised an issue I find incredibly interesting and worthy of
> >discussion concerning the problem facing "artist" today in such an
> >intensely competitive market place. I am primarily educated as an
> >architect, a profession that day by day grows more inseparable from the
> >CG community. For instance, here at Columbia, Softimage and Alias/Maya
> >are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program. The
> >point is, this is a dilemma facing almost any creative profession where
> >one is forced to constantly juggle between their own creative vision and
> >the bottom line. Most of us are insatiably passionate about what we do,
> >be it CG, graphic design, architecture, etc. How does one, in striving
> >to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
> >that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
> >increasing financial liability?
> >
Krusher
a) everyone's definition of mediocrity is unique
b) everyone's personal level of mediocrity is unique
c) mediocrity is not a goal unto itself, therefore we do
In real life, there are no glow filters or "undo" buttons.
Naked Hoof®
Smeggy
great comissioned works are considered art, and in that sense, the art is,
as I said, the art of expressing and executing a brief using your talents as
an artist Whether it's something we do or something Michaelangelo did, the
artistry involved is the talent, skill whatever you call it. Of course it's
art in the same way that opera, ballet, baking or painting is. In most any
field where expression is called for, there is a degree of artistry
involved.
A choreographer interprets the music, the musician interprets the score, the
screenwriter interprets the book, the lighting person interprets the mood, a
painter interprets the subject.. it's all artistic skill, but is it art in
itself? This seems something for people other than the artist to argue
about. This is the problem with the word "Art", it's a subjective thing, the
dictionaries do have definitions for the word itself, but it's so broad a
subject with so many grey areas that a few words fail to properly define
what it is. I could (and have) render some really crappy pictures and still
call them art as it's my expression of whatever it may be. Would others
consider it art or just crap? You see where this greyness comes in.. what
truly defines art? No-one really knows and so these debates rage on over the
centuries.
Art is in the eye of the behilder, subjectivity ya see :)
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
www.mindspring.com/~orsino/
GWB3d - Freelance 3d artist for hire.
Brandon <bh...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:36B4E4C8...@columbia.edu...
stiké [Tae]
Gruhn
Nothing. What made you think you read his post?
Gruhn
>any other reason.
Doesn't that mean I have to rip out most of the pages of my art history
book?
Gruhn
Then you are just setting up an arbitrary definition to play semantic games
with. You want to talk about art but you want to do so only after
eliminating all of it.
>artistry involved is the talent, skill whatever you call it.
And here we get into the art/craft theme.
>This seems something for people other than the artist to argue about
You seem to think that art just can't be for product. That the only thing
worth attaching "art" to is the pure unhindered scratchings of the starving
artist. Where does that put the Great Artists of the Times whose work was
not for craft or commision, BUT was discourse on the nature of art and
criticism (the last hundred years worth of big names)? They weren't creating
merely for the creation vision feeling, they were working to some specific
thesis. It was art on commision, but just in a different way. Oops, more
pages from my art history book.
Now that my art history book is just the covers and no pages, because Smeggy
has thrown out the accepted history of art, shall I fill my book with the
crayon scribbles of five year olds? No wait, they are done on commision too.
>call them art as it's my expression of whatever it may be
Really, all I think is that you are focusing too narrowly on the purity of
the process.
>Art is in the eye of the behilder, subjectivity ya see :)
Especially now that we have Post-Modernism to work with.
- gruhn
Gruhn
>strategies we employ to design, not just visualize
"can potentially". Sounds pretty lame to me that an unproven tool that is
not meant for a particular purpose should be a requirement. If some grad
student wants to run a thesis, or a prof needs a publish or perish project,
that's really neat. They can try to reinvent architecture. But meanwhile,
there are students that need to know how to use AutoCAD and get real jobs.
I'll ask my question again - Why? What are they suited to for architectural
practice?
>Although the most popular, this is but one example of
>how these types of programs are changing architecture.
"These types of programs" you mean SI and Alias? Or are you confusing all
"some sort of 3d computer thingy"s with SI and Alias?
I've seen a guy do a thesis on the ability of the computer to expand the
ability of a person to envisualize space becuase the computer can make
objects partially transparent. You as the designer know that the rest of the
building is out there. If you are good, you feel it. But the computer, he
posited, can help you know for sure where it is. See from the inside that
the sun is that way, the bathroom up and over there. Give a much better
sence of the full mass and form of the space.
I saw another work with the ability of the computer to create physically
impossible space.
I've seen people try to apply data space to virtual space.
I've seen the reconstruction of unbuilt buildings.
But in the end, it was all research.
>You sound like an ex-architecture student.
I was trying to connect you back to the real world.
>Unfortunately, their are dues to pay in any profession
Unfortunately, there are compromises to pay in any profession.
I'm trying to get you to think back on your own question and not trying to
get you to analyze me.
Gruhn
How can it be? It stimulates my retina. What's new there? It just a medium.
>access to 3D tools and therefore cannot comprehend what it's all about.
That's making, not showing
In the end, you get pictures that sit there or pictures that move. Some very
very few people are using the computer to make things. Sadly, they can only
show them by pictures that sit there or pictures that move. But still, all
they are doing is sculpture. Not a new art form.
It's a medium.
>But today photography IS concidered art
In some circles.
>CGI isn't far away from photography
At their barest bones, CGI is making and photography is taking. Which is
closer to Art?
>Of course Smeggy's right though. As soon as you don't work for yourself but
>have to execute someone else's idea, not having total freedom to do what
you
>wish, then it's no longer art...it's WORK
Then NO art has ever existed.
>And it is like this with any other media
I thought it was an art form.
Gruhn
>his/her soul and passion into their work.
Feh. That's all process. If it's the putting that's the art, why not film
the act of creating the piece, sell the film and destroy the accidental
residue. After all, it isn't art and it's in the way.
stiké [Tae]
So, why don't you please tell us what ART is in your personal opinion.
What? You don't have a clue? Come on... you gotta be kidding me.
You have so many things to say about what others think.
I promise I won't be harsh in my criticism <evil grin>
Jonathan Ragan-Kelley
The only reason I have any trouble accepting Andy Warhol is because he's
OVERRATED. There are plenty of artists from around and before him,
beginning with Picasso (or perhaps with the original impressionists) who
proved themselves as impressive artists, but all Andy Warhol did was
incessantly try to make the SAME statement: that anything can be art. I
have no problem with that statement, and he is indeed an artist.
However, he is only one of the several high-profile artists of his era
(allong with Pollok and Rothco and all) who made this statement, and I
think we all got it in the era before he started, let alone after he was
done PUMMELING our brains with his unending drivel. My biggest problem
with Warhol is that he thought he was Picasso, showed it, and even said
it, when in my view he was very little special and certainly little
along side some of his contemporary 'partners in crime.' However, he
certainly WAS an artists...whether or not a very worthwhile,
interesting, original, intelligent, or useful one.
Yes, I do have rather strong opinions about the man... ;)
Jonathan Ragan-Kelley
Digital X
Smeggy
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
Gruhn <gruhn@hwb dot com> wrote in message
news:36b50...@news2.uswest.net...
>>That's why I put in that little thing about "Pure Art", most of history's
>
>Then you are just setting up an arbitrary definition to play semantic games
>with. You want to talk about art but you want to do so only after
>eliminating all of it.
In case you haven't noticed, art talk is all semantics, it's the nature of
the beast. .
>
>>artistry involved is the talent, skill whatever you call it.
>
>And here we get into the art/craft theme.
Which was why I posed those which/when questions... you have the books, do
YOU know what the absolute definition is? Didn't think so. Also, many of the
greats *were* considered craftsmen, painters, carvers etc in their time.
.
>
>>This seems something for people other than the artist to argue about
>
>You seem to think that art just can't be for product. That the only thing
>worth attaching "art" to is the pure unhindered scratchings of the starving
>artist. Where does that put the Great Artists of the Times whose work was
>not for craft or commision, BUT was discourse on the nature of art and
>criticism (the last hundred years worth of big names)? They weren't
creating
>merely for the creation vision feeling, they were working to some specific
>thesis. It was art on commision, but just in a different way. Oops, more
>pages from my art history book.
You seem to have missed the parts in both messages where I differentiate
pure and general. Product covers a vast arena and although I think product
may have artistry, I don't necessarily think it's art.
>
>Now that my art history book is just the covers and no pages, because
Smeggy
>has thrown out the accepted history of art, shall I fill my book with the
>crayon scribbles of five year olds? No wait, they are done on commision
too.
Sarcastic bastard ;)
I too have read many art history books, it doesn't mean my opinions and
views should rigidly follow what others think. You really should try forming
some independent thought instead of spouting what your book says as this is
all your books are full of... opinions and thoughts. Art as a whole is a
very broad and grey area. I have chosen to seperate pure and comission as
different art imperitives, not excluding one or the other. As I said before,
there is art in exection and interpretation. What the establishment thinks
is neither here nor there to me, these are *my* opinions and how *I* see
things. After all, many in the establishment still don't recognise many
current art forms as art at all. Opinions are like arseholes, we all have
them. Whether we're right or wrong is another matter.
I have a number of books that talk of what defines Victorian architecture
and feel, all of them written by different people, all with different views
on what "Victorian" is. Again, it's subjective... as is my view.
>
>>call them art as it's my expression of whatever it may be
>
>Really, all I think is that you are focusing too narrowly on the purity of
>the process.
Not really, I just seperated them for clarity.
>
>>Art is in the eye of the behilder, subjectivity ya see :)
>
>
>Especially now that we have Post-Modernism to work with.
More non-art ;)
>
> - gruhn
>
>
stiké [Tae]
Art _is_ subjective (as you have already said). And gruhn sounds like
reincarnated Art critique who never appreciated VanGogh/Picasso/Monet in
their days. LOL.
Gruhn,
If you are reading this, I would like to recommend a good book for you.
"The Common Reader" by Virginia Woolf -- she guides you in how one
should read others writing.
Tae,
---my new signature---
Opinions are like arseholes, we all have them ... Smeggy 1999
Smeggy
famous comission works (as most are), but thousands of artists throughout
history have produced art for no reason other than they enjoy doing it and
produce it in prolific quantities, probably much more than the comission
works. Look at Dali, he did masses of work just because he felt the need and
desire. You really should look deeper into your art books, you'd be
surprised what you can find if you look hard enough. It's the same in the
music world, not all great pieces were specifically comissioned, many wrote
for the love of it.
No art has ever existed indeed!
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
>
Smeggy
plenty of crap over the years and will probably continue to do so for many
years to come ;)
I'm not going to get heated or fall out with anyone, I have my opinions,
Gruhn has his and that's cool with me, it's what makes the world
interesting. If some of what he says gets me thinking and some of what I say
does the same, then we both learn something and life becomes richer.
Hey Gruhn, still pals? :)
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
stiké [Tae] <sti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36B5343A...@hotmail.com...
Daniele Colajacomo
> Several threads have been posted lately regarding the "business" of CG.
> This has raised an issue I find incredibly interesting and worthy of
> discussion concerning the problem facing "artist" today in such an
> intensely competitive market place. I am primarily educated as an
> architect, a profession that day by day grows more inseparable from the
> CG community. For instance, here at Columbia, Softimage and Alias/Maya
> are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program. The
> point is, this is a dilemma facing almost any creative profession where
> one is forced to constantly juggle between their own creative vision and
> the bottom line. Most of us are insatiably passionate about what we do,
> be it CG, graphic design, architecture, etc. How does one, in striving
> to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
> that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
> increasing financial liability?
>
this depends on the budget and the project you're working on. But it is
true that the laws of economy are strangling the artist, the artisan, the
small business, and so on. We are fast reaching the point where the
pyramid scheme invented by the economists is not working anymore
- the economy is based on cheap labour - just like pyramid schemes
are based on an ever renewed mass of people who contribute and don't
receive anything or less than what they contribute. It IS a pyramid scheme,
so we're all starting to feel the pressure that we don't have enough
buyers,
that we spend all the money we make (just like it would happen if
*everyone*
played a pyramid scheme following its rules).
As far as "art" - art the particular process through which an individual
expresses
him/herself. If you observe yourself you will find that you can probably
"make art"
when you cook, draw, take a walk, create a picture. It is an opening of
oneself to
certain currents of energies within oneself. People call art the
"objective" result
of this expression, IF they can related to the work of art through the same
process.
Otherwise, they call it junk and say "it doesn't do it for me". But they
are referring
to their ability, given a certain stimulous, to enter in a certain zone of
being.
So the medium that one uses, or the circumstances in which it is used, are
totally irrelevant to the production of "art". Of course circumstances will
influence our ability to "click on", to "tune in", whatever you want to
call it,
and we will loudly complain that we can't possibly produce any art when
the producers are breathing down our neck. That means we can't be creative
because we don't have enough understanding and familiarity with ourselves
and so we don't know how to manipulate our energy sufficiently well to
be able to produce art even in the midst of an unsuitable situation. But
that
is true of babies as well and their "attention span" for example, they
can't
concentrate, or they start falling if you ask them to run on steps,
although we
believe all of that is a matter of "learning" and of "practice" at some
point
we stop believing it, because no one around us believes adults are ignorant
about themselves and not in control of their own bodies and minds - you
would be a baby if you admitted you have no clue how to stop being thrown
about life by the "circumstances".
Man's greatest mistake is to not to question his own knowledge of self once
he
reaches adulthood. We stop looking inward, and waste our lives asking silly
questions like "can art be produced in a workplace"?
can you run up and down the stairs without falling?
Brandon
"they" are part of a required computer sequence including 2D drafting
software (Microstation to be specific), Form-Z, SI and Alias/ Maya.
Most students at the graduate level have worked and already know one or
more 2D drafting programs, therefore by offering SI and Maya, it allows
student who already have a level of competency with drafting to focus on
3D modeling and animation. That's exactly what I meant when I said they
were PART of the required curriculum. I did not mean a student has to
become an Alias expert to graduate. Why those specifically and not Max
or AutoCAD for instance? It is because the school is equipped with Macs
and SGI's.
>I'll ask my question again - Why? What are they suited to for >architectural practice?
If by practice you mean CD's, they aren't. Fortunately some architects
actually design the buildings before they start CD's (construction
documents). See below.
>"These types of programs" you mean SI and Alias? Or are you confusing >all "some sort of 3d computer thingy"s with SI and Alias?
I believe you mentioned something about semantic games in another post?
I was referring to 3D applications that lend themselves to
conceptualization and offer the ability to do formal analysis, cut
sections, volumetric calculations, dynamic simulations such as wind
loads, etc. "These types of programs", in contrast to Autocad for
instance, tend to be more productive early in the design process because
they don't require the level of specificity CAD programs do and
facilitate quicker "study" models that are easily edited. By "these
types of programs", I was specifically referring to NURBS modeling and
the potential it has to impact architectural design in comparison with
primitives modeling. Yes potential. Just because NURBS exist doesn't
mean it will radically change the way every architect designs.
>But in the end, it was all research.
Absolutely. An important part of higher education. Graduate school
isn't trade school.
>I was trying to connect you back to the real world.
Although I'm not certain this is your responsibility, I offer you my
most sincere gratitude. However, after working for several years
between undergrad and graduate school, I'm enjoying my break from the
"real world".
>I'm trying to get you to think back on your own question and not trying to get you to analyze me.
A noble goal and I have. However, I am not certain your methods are the
most conducive to your stated objective.
Hope this has answered some of your questions :)
By the way, Kansas is indeed beautiful. I just find a billiard ball to
be an appropriate analogy.
Brandon
discussion AND opposing views. It would be unfortunate if the harsh
words of a few discouraged many.
Brandon
> the act of creating the piece, sell the film and destroy the accidental
> residue.
We have that too. It's called Performance Art.
Stéphane Beaudin
The mass of CG we have seen to date has either been created by computer
types with little artistic sensitivity, or traditional media artists with no
sensitivity to the CG medium. Very little if any money is available for CG
artists to simply create for creation's sake, and most recognised art of
this type is created by people supported by grants or government money, the
CG medium has only recently come to a level of expense allowing individauls
to create stuff that hasen't been pre-sold.
Now let's try pro,
CG allows for a means of expression that far outdoes anything seen in
recent "serious" painting or sculpture, indeed, if all postwar serious
paintings where burned and all that was left was art magazine articles and
writings by artists and critics, noting would be lost of the art. Most of
all, CG allows for a totally new yet undevelopped artistic discipline,
requirering all the formal training of artists in such fields as color,
composition and anatomy, but also narrative abilities, and is probably the
only visual art that requires a writer's behavior. When this strange
combination of disciplines comes of age into it's own form, CG will be
unavoidably art.
Brandon
Ian Skinner
down 5Th. Ave. is considered art , why do you say CG is not ? , If
Swatch making a pink barbie watch is considered art why not CG ? if
making commercials and other advertising is considered an 'art form "
why is CG not ?? is this because it's in an electronic form ? from your
point of view everything from behind a false eye is not art , so
photography is not an art , it's just a medium ? film making is not an
art it's a medium ? Hmm the Academy or ARTS and science would have
something to say about that ...
Maybe you should take a few classes in media and art , a media is a
DELIVERY platform , what comes out is the message or art , because after
all art is a form of communication ... the media is how that gets to you
. So the monitor , 35 mm film or TV is the media , the message / art is
the 4000 commercials a day the soaps the news , the cartoons ..you get
the point , this is all very 1st year Marshall McCluen(sp) stuff .
Please point out to me where CG is a meidum and not a form of
message/art ..
Gruhn wrote:
>
> >To me CG really is a new art form.
>
> How can it be? It stimulates my retina. What's new there? It just a medium.
>
> >access to 3D tools and therefore cannot comprehend what it's all about.
>
> That's making, not showing
>
> In the end, you get pictures that sit there or pictures that move. Some very
> very few people are using the computer to make things. Sadly, they can only
> show them by pictures that sit there or pictures that move. But still, all
> they are doing is sculpture. Not a new art form.
>
> It's a medium.
>
> >But today photography IS concidered art
>
> In some circles.
>
> >CGI isn't far away from photography
>
> At their barest bones, CGI is making and photography is taking. Which is
> closer to Art?
>
> >Of course Smeggy's right though. As soon as you don't work for yourself but
> >have to execute someone else's idea, not having total freedom to do what
> you
> >wish, then it's no longer art...it's WORK
>
> Then NO art has ever existed.
>
> >And it is like this with any other media
>
> I thought it was an art form.
--
...IAN SKINNER
...EGO A.D.
...ON. CAN.
...Animation & Post Production
...Output services available
...http://www.egoad.on.ca
...egoad.on.ca
**************************************************
...NOTICE TO BULK EMAILER(S) and Chiba Monkeys:
...Pursuant to US Code,
...Title 47, Chapter 5,
...Subchapter II, 227, any and all unsolicited
...commercial e-mail & useless drivel sent to
...this address is subject to a download and
...archival fee in the amount
...of $500 US(yeah like that will ever happen)
...a boot to the head
...caber in the skull
...and other sundrie nastiness.....
Kevin McDowell
Fantastic! You've just stumbled on the great art of the 20th century:
cinematography, where the film is sold, and the accidental residue is
destroyed (sets etc)
If you really want to understand this particular argument, you should
read Sunsan Sontag's "on Photography". What you aren't comprehending, it
seems to me, is that the "putting" is done by the artist, the "getting"
by the viewer. When an artist creates something with passion, it is
reflected in the piece, and communicates something emotional to the
viewer.
I certainly would question anyone who doubts photography as an artform.
Art is always about communication and choice. Does Ansel Adams
communicate any emotion in his photography? Joel Peter Witkin? Can't
anyone consistently take moving pictures? No. Is it art? Of course.
Kevin McDowell
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gruhn [SMTP:gruhn@hwb dot com]
> Posted At: Monday, February 01, 1999 2:26 AM
> Posted To: softimage
> Conversation: CG, is it art?
> Subject: Re: Yes --> Re: CG, is it art?
>
>
> >One of the pre-requisites of a ART is whether or not the Artist puts
> >his/her soul and passion into their work.
>
> Feh. That's all process. If it's the putting that's the art, why not
> film
> the act of creating the piece, sell the film and destroy the
> accidental
Brad DeMoranville
> The Sistine Chappel was painted by Michelangelo under commision by the
> Catholic Church. He was not given absolute freedom of expression and
> knowing the conditions under which he executed this commision, I would
> certainly consider it "work". I would also certainly consider it "art".
One of the funniest answers I ever got: I was in my young, ornerier days and I
asked a street artist in Greenwich Village why the various bits of trash he had
glued to a piece of wood were to be considered "art". He informed me that he was
an "artist," and since he created it, it was art. Period.
I didn't accept that definition.
Stephen P.Davidson
Art, I believe, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's art is
another person's trash. I will know art when I see it.
These are all true to all people. The great thing about art is that it
is all diferent things to all diferent people. Just because it's
commissioned, doesn't mean it's not art. Hey, riding a bicyle in an art.
Making sand castles is an art. These are all art forms with or without
mediums.
Deep huh?
Steve Davidson
Magic FX, Inc.
brtm...@gate.net
Jim Pollock
To me its fairly simple, if it has value, to me its art. If it has
great and lasting value, to me its great art. I believe that this is
the reason that certain people are generally considered artists. Great
artists, I believe, are those who have, over many years (perhaps
centuries), provided something of value to a large percentage of people
who experience their work.
Of what kind of value am I speaking? For me personally, I most value
beauty. Works that that cause me joy, elation, ecstacy, transcendance,
and especially works that can do this repeatedly, I value greatly. I
also greatly value works which teach me something important about life.
Such works may be painful to experience but raise my consciousness in
the process.
To a lesser degree works that are humorous, tricky, well crafted,
ironic, thought provoking, I also consider art, but not typically as
important. This kind of art is more mental and once the joke is known,
a puzzle understood, or the trick revealed, it quickly looses its magic.
Art is so subjective because we all come to a work of art from a
different place emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and experiencially.
So what is art to one person may seem painfully obvious to another, or
too obscure by someone else. For a particular work to be considered art
by me it must be within my means to appreciate it but not so far beyond
my understanding that I miss its meaning altogether.
The highest art (in my understanding) can speak to people at many
diferent levels. By "broadcasting" its meaning or meanings on many
"frequencies" it can benefit the largest audience over the longest
period of time. These rare works I find incredible to behold as I
discover layers of meaning within meaning as I return to the work again
and again. These deaper discoveries can come one after the other or
reveal themselves over many years.
So is CG art? I guess to me it doesn't matter because such a discussion
is a mental one, and hence ultimately unresolvable. To me the best of
everything is art. CG is no different.
I just hope that someday I manage to uplift those who experience
something that I have done. I would like to contribute something in
return for the great art that I have had the chance to experience in my
life.
-Jim Pollock
Brandon wrote:
>
> Several threads have been posted lately regarding the "business" of CG.
> This has raised an issue I find incredibly interesting and worthy of
> discussion concerning the problem facing "artist" today in such an
> intensely competitive market place. I am primarily educated as an
> architect, a profession that day by day grows more inseparable from the
> CG community. For instance, here at Columbia, Softimage and Alias/Maya
> are now part of the required curriculum in the M. Arch program. The
> point is, this is a dilemma facing almost any creative profession where
> one is forced to constantly juggle between their own creative vision and
> the bottom line. Most of us are insatiably passionate about what we do,
> be it CG, graphic design, architecture, etc. How does one, in striving
> to achieve perfection within their given discipline deal the reality
> that after reaching mediocrity, every additional minute one spends is an
> increasing financial liability?
>
Smeggy
Jeez, riding a bike in NYC, must be difficult pedaling with balls that big
;))
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
Krusher <brain@*damage*nakedhoof.com> wrote in message
news:36ba9147...@news.earthlink.net...
>Riding a bicycle is *not* an art, it's a science, unless you (like me)
>ride your bicycle in NYC traffic ;)
>
>Naked Hoof®
>
>On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:36:29 -0500, "Stephen P.Davidson"
><brtm...@gate.net> wrote:
>>Hey, riding a bicyle in an art.
>>
Smeggy
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
www.mindspring.com/~orsino/
GWB3d - Freelance 3d artist for hire.
Krusher <brain@*damage*nakedhoof.com> wrote in message
news:36b88bc7...@news.earthlink.net...
>Hmm.....a musician interprets? Suppose the musician is also the
>composer? What then am I "interpreting"?
>
>Naked Hoof®
>
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:17:17 -0800, "Smeggy" <sme...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>>A choreographer interprets the music, the musician interprets the score,
the
>>screenwriter interprets the book, the lighting person interprets the mood,
a
>>painter interprets the subject.. it's all artistic skill, but is it art in
>>itself?
>
Krusher
Krusher
wrote:
>I've never heard such hogwash in all my days! Your art books may be full of
>famous comission works (as most are), but thousands of artists throughout
>history have produced art for no reason other than they enjoy doing it and
>produce it in prolific quantities, probably much more than the comission
>works. Look at Dali, he did masses of work just because he felt the need and
>desire. You really should look deeper into your art books, you'd be
>surprised what you can find if you look hard enough. It's the same in the
>music world, not all great pieces were specifically comissioned, many wrote
>for the love of it.
I have written hundreds of pieces of music that weren't commisioned ;)
I wrote out of the need for expression, a passion and because I found
I had a talent for it. I've invested considerably more in my music
than it ever returned financially. The best appreciation one can
receive for their art is compensation. That is not to say that what is
uncompensated financially is any less artful, for often it is
precisely the opposite.
The creation of art is not a democratic process, but the compensation
for it is......
>
>No art has ever existed indeed!
Naked Hoof®
Krusher
jwatling
> These rare works I find incredible to behold as I
> discover layers of meaning within meaning as I return to the work again
> and again. These deaper discoveries can come one after the other or
> reveal themselves over many years.
...but can you give one or two examples...just out of curiosity...no
challenge intended:)
sometimes i continue to appreciate certain painters, say, not because of
any inherent "meaning" but simply because of technique...too many to
list...and others because there appears to be a significance that i
cannot grasp
Gruhn
same,
>then we both learn something and life becomes richer.
Since you are one of the few people who understands...
>Hey Gruhn, still pals? :)
... enh.... ok. ;-) ;-)
Gruhn
I wouldn't even say there was one.
>greats *were* considered craftsmen, painters, carvers etc in their time.
Yup.
>>>This seems something for people other than the artist to argue about
It would have been, I'd say, until the 20th Century. If what I'm seeing is
right, Art has become very much about Art and Art Criticism in this century.
>You seem to have missed the parts in both messages where I differentiate
>pure and general.
Sorry. I do seem to have skimmed over the "general" somewhere.
>You really should try forming
>some independent thought instead of spouting what your book says as this is
Oh, I have some. But as you point out in another message, that's not what
I'm here to do right now.
>I have chosen to seperate pure and comission as
>different art imperitives
OK. You said (and I cut) "gray", so I presume you recognize overlap?
>What the establishment thinks is neither here nor there to me
I find it of interest and value, myself.
>Opinions are like arseholes, we all have
>them. Whether we're right or wrong is another matter.
Did your analogy just break down? ;-)
>I have a number of books that talk of what defines Victorian architecture
How about "The reign of Queen Victoria"?
>Not really, I just seperated them for clarity.
Now I've got to go back.... I'm not sure what you made more clear by so
doing.
>>Especially now that we have Post-Modernism to work with.
>More non-art ;)
I had an art teacher once who said "Art is anything you can get away with".
It was handy to keep in mind during the semester.
- gruhn
Gruhn
>were PART of the required curriculum. I did not mean a student has to
Much better answer. Thanks. I understand now.
>If by practice you mean CD's, they aren't.
I mean having an architectural practice, designing buildings and getting
them built. What else could I mean?
>instance, tend to be more productive early in the design process because
>they don't require the level of specificity CAD programs do and
Very good point.
Is taking me much work to get over the need to be exacting and precise with
just general ideas. And I'm sorry I didn't get over it earlier, back when it
could have done more good.
>Absolutely. An important part of higher education. Graduate school
>isn't trade school.
I don't really want to go down this thread. I'd argue to some point yes and
no on it. Your first paragraphs were helpful in allaying my fears of what
was going on at that school.
>I offer you my most sincere gratitude
And here I thought sincerity wasn't really in your tone. Oops.
>Hope this has answered some of your questions :)
Yes. Thanks.
- p
Gruhn
>history have produced art for no reason other than they enjoy doing it and
Not that art isn't produced out of love and need. But that art isn't
necessarily divorced from profit.
Gruhn
That's a good start. You are catching on.
Gruhn
Did I say that? Where? Certainly didn't mean to. Don't belive it, myself.
> [ lots of pointless conjecture snipped]
>. So the monitor , 35 mm film or TV is the media , the message / art is
>the 4000 commercials a day the soaps the news , the cartoons ..you get
The digital numbers representing surfaces, the rendering software etc is all
medium, you get the point.
>the point , this is all very 1st year Marshall McCluen(sp) stuff .
McLuhan, I think.
>Please point out to me where CG is a meidum and not a form of
>message/art ..
It's just another way of making pictures or movies. I don't see that it is
all that different from any other way of making pictures or movies. Or, as I
mentioned earlier, there are some people using computers for purely
sculptural work. Making beautiful things that would fall down in the real
world, but really it's just another form of 3d sculpture. I wouldn't say
that stone sculpture is a different art from from welded steel sculpture,
just a different medium. I make the same argument for CG work.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you before.
I'm not sure what differentiation you are making for an art "form" as
opposed to a medium. Or, see below, maybe you aren't making one.
>from your point of view everything from behind a false eye is not art , so
>photography is not an art , it's just a medium ?
No, not at all. I'd even say that photography deserves more consideration as
a new art form than CG.
No, I probably can't come up with a good English definition of Art Form for
you.
>> Then NO art has ever existed.
At least you didn't waste our time by attacking my hyperbole.
>> >And it is like this with any other media
>> I thought it was an art form.
Please remember, you are the one who is using art form and medium
interchangably.
Anyway, in what you quoted of what I wrote, I couldn't find any claim on my
part that CG isn't art. Even at least one hints that I think CG can be use
to create art [read those words carefully]. So, the jury will have to be out
on whether or not my thinking is spartan because you seem to be addressing
your own thinking. Were you offended that I didn't agree with you re: "art
form" and then get all confused about what I meant?
- gruhn
Gruhn
It's "an art" but is it "art" or even "Art"?
>These are all art forms with or without mediums.
Ah, you seem to be saying that "an art" and "art" are interchangable? Can we
think of examples where this is not so? Am I misreading you?
Gruhn
>types with little artistic sensitivity,
What the hell is "artistic sensitivity"? This is an argument? Where's Smeggy
and his legions of people creating with passion for no other reason than the
desire and drive. You yourself use the key word "creating".
>or traditional media artists with no
>sensitivity to the CG medium
Everything needs to be learned.
>Very little if any money is available for CG
>artists to simply create for creation's sake
Just the other day, Mike got himself a free copy of POV and loaded it on his
free OS and made a poodle/dachshund thing. He said it was a cow, but those
of us who viewed it know better.
> CG allows for a means of expression that far outdoes anything seen in
>recent "serious" painting or sculpture, indeed, if all postwar serious
>paintings where burned and all that was left was art magazine articles and
>writings by artists and critics, noting would be lost of the art
I'm not going to take your word for this. Support it. Well.
>combination of disciplines comes of age into it's own form, CG will be
You totally forgot math geeks and algorithmic art. I think.
- gruhn
Gruhn
All of it?
Gruhn
How about if not to you but to Dave?
>provided something of value to a large percentage of people
>who experience their work.
Ah, Dave counts too. Good.
>but raise my consciousness in the process.
Hippie ;-)
>So what is art to one person may seem painfully obvious to another, or
>too obscure by someone else.
Nicely made point.
>So is CG art? I guess to me it doesn't matter because such a discussion
>is a mental one, and hence ultimately unresolvable.
I'd be more inclined to phrase your answer : Is CG art - Where in my
description of my relationship with art did I talk about the physical
properties of the work? What I talked about was people, thinking, feeling,
communicating, manipulating. Can CG do that? Why not. Is CG art? Wrong
question. Can CG be used to MAKE ART? Can you use it to move me?
>To me the best of everything is art. CG is no different.
But then, you sum it up much shorter than I did.
I'd disagree with you on the "best of everything" point. But I'll allow as
to how it may be "right" and me "wrong" on that point. I'd still disagree.
>I would like to contribute something in
>return for the great art that I have had the chance to experience in my
>life.
I hear you.
- gruhn
Gruhn
Shit, you're an asshole.
>What? You don't have a clue? Come on... you gotta be kidding me.
>You have so many things to say about what others think.
I'll wait until you say something interesting about what I wrote.
Gruhn
I keep dismissing Performance Art out of hand, so I forgot it. But you are
quite correct.
Does this validate the idea I put forth? Is Performance Art the only real
art we have left?
Orion
Since this has become such a massive thread I would like to ask a
question I haven't seen in here yet. Imagine for a second there was a
test that unequivocally proved that something you had made was art. You
just point some gizmo at your work and either a tick or a cross appears
telling you if you made art or not.
Why would you care? Why would anybody care? Is it an ego thing? a money
thing? What do you get out of it if what you made is considered art?
cheers,
O.
Stephen P.Davidson
AutoCAD. I was working on a project two years ago that was a high dollar
private home. The architecture firm had designed the home already. The
owner contracted us to do the 3D visualization.
We first took the AutoCAD drawings and converted them to 3D using
AutoCAD 3D. Then the contracter supplied sample materials. We then took
the whole thing into Softimage and did some rough walk-troughs. From
this the owner made some changes to the actual construction plans based
on how things looked in the virtual world.
One of ways that the virtual world determined the real world was as
follows:
A large round Stone, that floats on a fountain of water, was planned
to be placed in the back garden. The Stone came in two sizes. The price
difference between the two sizes was substantial. We generated the back
garden scene with both sized stones and did a walk through. The client
made their purchase descision based on the virtual visuals.
Other construction changes did occur based on the 3D walk-troughs.
They mostly had to do with window placements and eve overhangs. A
bathroom tile design, which was a recreation of the painting
"tsunami"(spelling?) was custom fit to the floor using 3D as well.
Another real world project, that I worked on, was a Shopping mall in
Brazil. The 3D walkthrough was created to sell vendors on store
frontage. The walkthrough filled the mall to 60% capacity before the
mall was finished construction. In this case the walk-through had no
bearing on design, but was used solely as a marketing tool.
I hope these examples shed some light on real world applications.
Steve Davidson
Magic FX, Inc.
brtm...@gate.net
Gruhn wrote:
>
> >Alias and the like offer tools that can potentially alter the methods and
> >strategies we employ to design, not just visualize
>
> "can potentially". Sounds pretty lame to me that an unproven tool that is
> not meant for a particular purpose should be a requirement. If some grad
> student wants to run a thesis, or a prof needs a publish or perish project,
> that's really neat. They can try to reinvent architecture. But meanwhile,
> there are students that need to know how to use AutoCAD and get real jobs.
>
> I'll ask my question again - Why? What are they suited to for architectural
> practice?
>
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
but as with much of traditional art,
much of it isn't.
For same reasons too-
poor training, commercialism over asthetic results,
infuation with the medium instead of the content, etc.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
stiké [Tae]
Gruhn wrote:
>
> >Dear Mr. KnowItAll,
>
> Shit, you're an asshole.
Sorry, didn't think you were so sensitive -- after all you were dishing
it out and I thought you were able to handle it. LOL
> >What? You don't have a clue? Come on... you gotta be kidding me.
> >You have so many things to say about what others think.
>
> I'll wait until you say something interesting about what I wrote.
No, you can wait all day. Since I am still waiting for you to write
something worth something.
take care,
Tae
Piotr Dubiel
>>One of the pre-requisites of a ART is whether or not the Artist puts
>>his/her soul and passion into their work.
>
>Feh. That's all process. If it's the putting that's the art, why not film
>the act of creating the piece, sell the film and destroy the accidental
>residue. After all, it isn't art and it's in the way.
It doesn't say that the putting of the passion into the art is the
art, merely that it is one of the prerequisites. I think you've made a
logical leap a bit too far, IMHO. I don't think that the process is
the art, though the process certainly has a lot to do with it. One
thing I guess that really irks me is the outright dismissal of the
idea of craftsmanship by the contemporary art establishment. Feh!
I generally tend to shy away from defining art anyway, as it's sort of
like trying to measure a smell in centimeters. :) I generally tend to
have a pretty wide definition of what "art" can be, though I can't say
I'm very generous in what I consider "good" and "bad" art. Generally I
disagree w/ people who say "Well, this just isn't art!". I say "sure
it is, it's just bad art!"...
[ Piotr F. Dubiel - Nepean, Ontario, Canada ]
[ "There is no sin except stupidity." -Oscar Wilde ]
[ Remove the NOSPAM to reply. ]
Wiro
Wiro
Gruhn schrieb in Nachricht <36b6c...@news3.uswest.net>...
Brandon
Brandon
were made. Specifically:
> The mass of CG we have seen to date has either been created by computer
> types with little artistic sensitivity, or traditional media artists with no
> sensitivity to the CG medium...
>Most of
> all, CG allows for a totally new yet undevelopped artistic discipline,
> requirering all the formal training of artists in such fields as color,
> composition and anatomy, but also narrative abilities ...
Brandon
poignant question and that there was no real "answer". Especially one
that could be agreed upon by most. However, I think it was a nice
change from the typical, "What video card is better?" (if that were the
question, Ian would have had a lot more to say ;-). It has been
refreshing to log on and engage in stimulating dialogue with some of my
colleagues and walk away questioning things I had always just accepted
as simple truths. And Gruhn, I still don't agree with the WAY you do
it, but I do appreciate WHAT you do. Thanks. Well, I guess its back to
tech support now. Unless someone else wants to handle next weeks ...
"Deep Thoughts, by the CG artists, craftsmen, commissioned creators,
etc."
Jim Pollock
Thanks for your reply! It was nice to have a chance to wax
philosophical for a change. As far as some examples, I left them out
for the reason that, from my experience, art is quite a personal thing.
For a good part of my youth I couldn't understand why something which
touched me so deeply could be so disliked by another.
But I will throw out a few of my favorites (many are musical examples):
Category Title Artist
-------- ------------------- ------------------------
Music Close to the Edge YES
Rapsody on a Theme Rachmoninov (sp?)
of Paganini
First Circle Pat Metheny
Architecture La Segrada Familia Gaudi
Art (various paintings) Van Gough
Film The Color Purple ?
Alien / Aliens ?
Brainstorm ?
Literature (various titles) Carlos Casteneda
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
And many more. These are the one that came most quickly to mind.
-Jim Pollock
Smeggy
--
Smeggy
Better Smeg than dead :]
Gruhn <gr...@hwb.spam.com> wrote in message
news:36b6c...@news3.uswest.net...
Jim Pollock
Thanks for the reply! See additional comment within the quoted text:
-Jim Pollock
Gruhn wrote:
>
> >To me its fairly simple, if it has value, to me its art.
>
> How about if not to you but to Dave?
JP: Actually I rewrote that sentence a couple of times befor I settled
on the final version. Compare the following:
... if it has value to me, it is art.
vs.
... if it has value, to me it is art.
It is interesting how subtle these shades of meaning can be. My point
is that, as far as I am concerned, if a work speaks to everybody but me
it is great for them but does me little good. After another look or two
to ponder why I just don't see it's value I would just move on. I
certainly wouldn't denounce it just because it didn't speak to me but I
also don't consider such works great art unless they do speak to me.
I was told once that a primary key to sanity (and civility) is to
believe in your own best judgement. After proper consideration it is OK
to believe that you are right, just never tell anyone. This is not to
say that you aren't free to see your own flaws at some later point, but
until then proceed as if you are in full grasp of reality.
> >provided something of value to a large percentage of people
> >who experience their work.
>
> Ah, Dave counts too. Good.
>
> >but raise my consciousness in the process.
>
> Hippie ;-)
JP: Perhaps? I missed the actual movement by about 5 years, but I have
often thought that I was born 5 years later than I sould have been. I
did my best to make up for it though throughout the 70's.
> >So what is art to one person may seem painfully obvious to another, or
> >too obscure by someone else.
>
> Nicely made point.
JP: Thanks!
> >So is CG art? I guess to me it doesn't matter because such a discussion
> >is a mental one, and hence ultimately unresolvable.
>
> I'd be more inclined to phrase your answer : Is CG art - Where in my
> description of my relationship with art did I talk about the physical
> properties of the work? What I talked about was people, thinking, feeling,
> communicating, manipulating. Can CG do that? Why not. Is CG art? Wrong
> question. Can CG be used to MAKE ART? Can you use it to move me?
JP: Gruhn, yeah!! Nicely put! To quote a teacher of mine, "A miracle
is a changed consciousness."
Krusher
wrote:
>Mr. Watling,
>Music Close to the Edge YES
Not only is the album marvelous, but Roger Dean's cover artwork was
lovely also. Also IMO Relayer was just as well done, but with a
different style and less commercial appeal.
"faster moment spent spread tales of change within the sound"
> Rapsody on a Theme Rachmoninov (sp?)
> of Paganini
> First Circle Pat Metheny
Ew....Chick Corea is far more obscure, but also far more interesting
IMO.
>
>Architecture La Segrada Familia Gaudi
>
>Art (various paintings) Van Gough
>
>Film The Color Purple ?
> Alien / Aliens ?
> Brainstorm ?
>
>Literature (various titles) Carlos Casteneda
> Lord of the Rings Tolkien
If you like Tolkien, you might want to pick up one or both of the
Stephen R Donaldson trilogies about "The Land".
>
>And many more. These are the one that came most quickly to mind.
>
>-Jim Pollock
Naked Hoof®
Skirvo
Kevin McDowell <Kevin.M...@vissci.com> wrote:
> If you really want to understand this particular argument, you should
> read Sunsan Sontag's "on Photography". What you aren't comprehending, it
> seems to me, is that the "putting" is done by the artist, the "getting"
> by the viewer. When an artist creates something with passion, it is
> reflected in the piece, and communicates something emotional to the
> viewer.
>
I agree with you, the only meaningful purpose of "art" is to communicate
certain human values/ideas to the public. The problem I see is the anonymity
factor of this procedure. Like "here, I show my inner feelings to
anybody willing to praise or spit upon". And the public is an unknown mass
that probably will flip through your stuff once and say "cool, now what
more is new?". Very emotional, very engaging.
Brings a certain sadomasochistic flavour into "articism" as whole,
doesn't it?
So what's the bottom line? Well, I guess art should be produced more in an
educational purpose rather than emotional. Escher's art is a good example.
Skirvo
> As far as "art" - art the particular process through which an individual
> expresses
> him/herself. If you observe yourself you will find that you can probably
> "make art"
> when you cook, draw, take a walk, create a picture. It is an opening of
> oneself to
> certain currents of energies within oneself. People call art the
Indeed. Living is an art in itself. No less complicated than official "art".
> "objective" result
> of this expression, IF they can related to the work of art through the same
> process.
> Otherwise, they call it junk and say "it doesn't do it for me".
I would rather say "it doesn't teach me anything, it gives me nothing that
may raise my competition edge". Purely practical human reasoning.
> and we will loudly complain that we can't possibly produce any art when
> the producers are breathing down our neck. That means we can't be creative
> because we don't have enough understanding and familiarity with ourselves
> and so we don't know how to manipulate our energy sufficiently well to
> be able to produce art even in the midst of an unsuitable situation. But
> that
> is true of babies as well and their "attention span" for example, they
> can't
> concentrate, or they start falling if you ask them to run on steps,
> although we
> believe all of that is a matter of "learning" and of "practice" at some
> point
> we stop believing it, because no one around us believes adults are ignorant
>
> about themselves and not in control of their own bodies and minds - you
> would be a baby if you admitted you have no clue how to stop being thrown
> about life by the "circumstances".
>
Must agree here too. To produce this so called "great art" one must have
something called "great discipline". Then this discipline automatically
becomes part of the creation, not to mention the other qualities it
brings into the creation.
So I see all these people churning out half-fabricates, and although I'm
glad they found "their creative self", it really is a pain to dig out
the golden pellets of disciplined artistry.
Skirvo
Brandon <bh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> No, I personally don't think so but I thought some insightfull points
> were made. Specifically:
>
> > The mass of CG we have seen to date has either been created by computer
> > types with little artistic sensitivity, or traditional media artists with no
> > sensitivity to the CG medium...
>
sensitivity, except the technological level that needs to be acquired.
It't a totally transparent medium (except processing power).
> >Most of
> > all, CG allows for a totally new yet undevelopped artistic discipline,
> > requirering all the formal training of artists in such fields as color,
> > composition and anatomy, but also narrative abilities ...
>
That is, if we want to simulate the real world, we need that education.
Though my personal stance, CG will NEVER be as complex or interesting as
the real world.
jwatling
just kidding...
great thread...faith in humanity restored
Jim Pollock
Cool! I should have guessed that there would be others in this group
with shared tastes. I included a few notes below:
-Jim Pollock
Krusher wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:08:02 -0800, Jim Pollock <jpol...@aectech.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mr. Watling,
> >Music Close to the Edge YES
>
> Not only is the album marvelous, but Roger Dean's cover artwork was
> lovely also. Also IMO Relayer was just as well done, but with a
> different style and less commercial appeal.
>
> "faster moment spent spread tales of change within the sound"
JP: From the "Fragile" album through the "Union" album all are still
great listening. I too was greatly moved with Dean's work. I really
missed it on their later album covers. (by the way cover art is the one
way that CD's just don't stack up to LPs.) Early "Genesis" was always a
great inspiration. Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins continue to this day
with their creative genius, but their earlier collaboration as "Genesis"
is hard to beat.
> > Rapsody on a Theme Rachmoninov (sp?)
> > of Paganini
> > First Circle Pat Metheny
>
> Ew....Chick Corea is far more obscure, but also far more interesting
> IMO.
JP: I still love Chick Corea, I remember the night in the fall of '74
when I was first introduced to his music.
> >
> >Architecture La Segrada Familia Gaudi
> >
> >Art (various paintings) Van Gough
> >
> >Film The Color Purple ?
> > Alien / Aliens ?
> > Brainstorm ?
> >
> >Literature (various titles) Carlos Casteneda
> > Lord of the Rings Tolkien
>
> If you like Tolkien, you might want to pick up one or both of the
> Stephen R Donaldson trilogies about "The Land".
JP: I will check it out!
Krusher
The Yes Album (which was excellent) and Time and a word (not quite as
good, but still worth a listen). Good luck finding them.
My ex-wife took all the albums in the divorce, incuding ones she knew
she would never listen to. Also, unfortunately, some euro-trash
imigrant prick borrowed my Fragile CD, then decided to keep the
friggin thing when he moved, also taking with him an irreplacable
cassette of Camel with selections from all their albums, including
"The Snow Goose" which is only available from a collector at this
point (the album was pulled off the market due to legal issues). If I
ever see this guy again, I'm gonna rip him a new arsehole and shove a
15" monitor speaker up it.
I know I'm way off topic here, please excuse me.
Krush
On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 10:20:49 -0800, Jim Pollock <jpol...@aectech.com>
wrote:
>Krusher,
>
>Cool! I should have guessed that there would be others in this group
>with shared tastes. I included a few notes below:
>
>-Jim Pollock
Steph Greenberg
: So I see all these people churning out half-fabricates, and although I'm
: glad they found "their creative self", it really is a pain to dig out
: the golden pellets of disciplined artistry.
Is there any medium where this isn't true? I think it's pretty self evident
that more bad art has been created with pencil, paint brushes, clay, and stone
then has been created in all the history of CG. Duh! Larger piles of art turds
will yield more occasional golden pellets. Though the art establishment has a
hard time differentiating between golden pellets and turds spray painted with
gold colored Krylon and polished to a tawdry golden sheen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg
Sooner or later, every tool gets used as a hammer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edx
>architectural practice?
The native medium of the machine is code, not images, texts, or plans.
Buildings are symbolic machines.
Maya, MAX, GIF Animator, whatever, the point is not to walk through a
rigid building, but to give the student the facility for designing
cartoon architectures.
Apply the animation package at the design phase, the sketch phase.
Think of the concrete as a morph target. Use 'thin' holograms for
walls. Deconstruct the CP. Somebody must think we live INSIDE the PC.
What's 3d graphics worth to an architect? Nothing, if your walls are
Stone.
Skirvo
Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
> Skirvo <cl4l...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
>
> : So I see all these people churning out half-fabricates, and although I'm
> : glad they found "their creative self", it really is a pain to dig out
> : the golden pellets of disciplined artistry.
>
> Is there any medium where this isn't true? I think it's pretty self evident
> that more bad art has been created with pencil, paint brushes, clay, and stone
> then has been created in all the history of CG. Duh! Larger piles of art turds
> will yield more occasional golden pellets.
Yep. But the situation is, it took resources and time (somewhat) to make
something out of clay. The task of current CG "artistry" is largely automated!
In a year, two years the balance will tip, and we will tearfully remember the
glorious old days of handmade crafts, wading through virtual installation
#163234. Now I don't say it is good or bad, just worth considering.
porl
commercials) it takes forethought, emotional content, perspective and
experience to produce what is required and desired. Someone once said " Art
is anything that is framed": I.e., that which is presented as a realisation
of an idea/ideal. Put a frame around it- choose whichever idiom you wish-
and you present it as "art".
Having said that, art- like love, hope or any other abstract concept- is
open to interpretation. This is its limit and its infinity. To describe
"art" as a logical conclusion, or denoument if you will, is to reduce it to
a definitive. It's a philosophy not a pidgeon hole. Don't make it precious
and don't degrade it. It stands up all on its own and will always be
validated by its audience for better or worse.
IMO being overly pragmatic, or more romantic than is objectively relevant,
is to attempt to define something that is essentially unquantifiable. If I
animate something, do I do it for love or money? Only I know (maybe). You
only see what results.
If you *could* define what makes art "art" then you could probably answer a
few other questions that we may all like the answer to.
Skirvo wrote in message <79eaoc$akp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Kiernan Holland
Well Artists hardly ever agree.. Some words of advice someone gave
me was that you had to be aggressive, you have to stick in other people's
faces to get accepted as an artist.. People who try to define art
are only missing the point, art is expression of ideas.. Srt is
not pretty pictures, its also not without some thought.. What
we call good artists are those with thoughts unlike everyone else's
and the ability to tune with a number of people that can see what
they mean.. Some do it to be understood, some do it because they have
nothing else to do, some do it because they love it, etc..
The famous artists are only the ones we could understand
but some artsists we still can't they have their own fans.. Sometimes the
art is not what's in front of you, but in the technique, or
the idea surrounding the art, or maybe its a practical joke on the observer
who seeks to try to define it, but everyone has their own definition
of what is good or not good art, but I don't believe anyone
can say my work is good or bad I mean I wouldn't believe them..
That's an artists right.. Its all about satisfying someone..
With that idea, even programming is an art.. Anything that brings
personal satisfaction or gives a good feeling of satisfying
someone else, or expressing a thought, etc.. That's art (as well)..
The end result is good to look at by the artist and/or audience,
that's the product. Some hold all the value in it, some
hold all value in being able to create more.. I'm the kind of artist
who is never satisfied completely, there is always something more
to do and its not always on canvas, sometimes its on computer,
sometimes its writing, sometimes its just doing stuff differently,
creatively, imaginatively.. There can be an art in technique,
it could be called engineering.. In fact I think this is the tie
between art and engineering, the part everyone here is involved in..
I don't know what craftmanship is completely, I mean I'm not familiar with
the word, but I suspect it means recreating art that looks alike or
developing tools to generate art.. If it involves a thought process,
if it contains some spiritual ideas or something metaphysical,
if it seems like it was made by someone "aware" of the world about them,
if it embodies something in their mind, that to me is art..
To me, the systematic creation of art without know thought either
before, in the middle or after the process, nor understanding
nor incorporation of something human ... isn't really art..
To be an artist I think you have to realize where you are what you are doing,
what it is you want to do or that you don't know what to do but do
what you like, you also have to be willing to think over stuff..
Like I'm thinking of not releasing this letter.. Reworking or letting
it stand.. It encompasses so much it can't be defined easily..
I order to understand it you would need to be god-like, with the ability to
enter every persons body and see it from their point of view..
I mean who am I to say that a child with down-syndrom is not
an artist, all the spirit and thought of that child could be
into their art but they may not to describe what they feel with
words and we may not understand what they mean, but
I don't think anyone can say this child is not an artist..
Of course, if this child keeps repeating the picture it could
be classified as a style or like commercial art, a technique reused..
But sometimes the art is the idea surrounding it, that
the child says through painting "I've got down-syndrome
and I'm an artist too".. Maybe to see that painting is
to understand what it is like to have down-syndrome..
It could inspire other artists to imagine what its like and
make their own paintings.. But if someone copies this
childs artwork and calls their work art, I think by everyone's
boook this can't be called art.. There is no spirit in that,
what is the good of saying something again what someone
else expressed without integrating thought, formulating
a response.. Teaching is not art if the teacher does not
incorporate the ideas and express a point of view to
ones students.. Engineering is not art if one systematically
creates something someone else thought out..
You can create commercial art and call it art, maybe you
choose different paints to use, maybe the medium
is non-traditional, maybe you choose to go in the backdoor
than the front.. But there is always a way.. I think by being
an artist you are choosing to change the way you think
always.. And the art you create is art because you thought
about it or you found something in it that made you realize
your existance, you created something that wasn't there and nobody
could of done that unless you had existed to do that..
I know that's deep but that's what I feel when I do my art..
Steph Greenberg
: Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
: > Is there any medium where this isn't true? I think it's pretty self evident
: > that more bad art has been created with pencil, paint brushes, clay, and stone
: > then has been created in all the history of CG. Duh! Larger piles of art turds
: > will yield more occasional golden pellets.
: Yep. But the situation is, it took resources and time (somewhat) to make
: something out of clay. The task of current CG "artistry" is largely automated!
: In a year, two years the balance will tip, and we will tearfully remember the
: glorious old days of handmade crafts, wading through virtual installation
: #163234. Now I don't say it is good or bad, just worth considering.
Is this an opinion borne of experience with CGI or conjecture? My experience
is that CG is extremely hand crafted, and very little that is of any use at
all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
Before that I sculpted, painted (oils, acrylics using traditional horsehair
brushes as well as an only halfway decent Badger airbrush), and drew. I wasn't
particularly great at it, had no passion for it because each discipline was
so...unrelated.
Now, mind you, I don't believe in digitizing models except where it's required
for client signoffs. I like hand crafted models sculpted in the computer by a
skilled CG modeler. I prefer animation done by an animator who has learned how
things move, how to create a character in his/her head, to give them the
qualities of a unique personality; as opposed to sampled human motion imposed
on a character or some procedural/algorithmic motion.
The hype that the business pods sincerely want to believe, and often promote,
is that CG is a push button operation, where the software does all of the work
for you. Unscrupulous, naive or plain ignorant people believe that the future
of CGI characters is to feed a script into the computer and the characters
invent themselves. This is the fervent wish that artists can be eliminated
from the creative process. The truth is far, far different, and whatever the
machine can do on its own, skilled people can do better if the concentration
is on tools for the artist to use, as opposed to tools that are supposed to
eliminate the artist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg
'98 FXD "The Studmobile"
'95 Trans Am "The Batmobile"
Steph Greenberg
: >>I'll ask my question again - Why? What are they suited to for
: >architectural practice?
: The native medium of the machine is code, not images, texts, or plans.
The native medium of the real world is atoms, with a lot of vacuum between
them. The experience that we have every day doesn't exactly reveal the
underlying operating system of the universe.
: Buildings are symbolic machines.
: Apply the animation package at the design phase, the sketch phase.
: Think of the concrete as a morph target. Use 'thin' holograms for
: walls. Deconstruct the CP. Somebody must think we live INSIDE the PC.
: What's 3d graphics worth to an architect? Nothing, if your walls are
: Stone.
For the second time today, is this an opinion borne of experience or
conjecture?
Obviously, paper must also be worth nothing if your walls are made of stone.
Construction of a CG simulcrum of a blueprinted building (blueprints being a
loose term that may originate on a computer, of course) can yield insights
into the final external appearance of a building, how it may look in the
surrounding area it will eventually be built into. Renderings can be done from
the POV of an imaginary viewer on the inside of the building.
Obstructions to foot traffic flow, various ergonomic issues, sound
interference, lighting, aesthetic issues can all be visualized with advanced
CG tools, and numerous problem areas can be improved before concrete is
poured. In addition, construction logistics can also be solved in advance,
particularly for newer, previously untried designs.
Moreover, as a visualization tool, before design even begins, an architect
skilled in the use of CG tools can visualize and model parts of a building or
a whole, without having to resort to balsa wood models and little plastic
trees that never really let you get into the minutae of the proposed project.
And again, since this usually starts with sketches on paper, that too must be
invalid since it's not made of stone either.
Am I misconstruing your intent, or do I have your condescension toward CG
tools correct?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg
Kiernan Holland
Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
>edx <e...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>: >>I'll ask my question again - Why? What are they suited to for
>: >architectural practice?
>
>: The native medium of the machine is code, not images, texts, or plans.
>
>The native medium of the real world is atoms, with a lot of vacuum between
>them. The experience that we have every day doesn't exactly reveal the
>underlying operating system of the universe.
True.. But in the case of computers and man made objects the
underlying native medium is really ideas that changed the universe
in this small speck of it.. So is pratically any other tool
we use.. But a computer is a little more complex than say a hammer,
the computer is the first tool that can change its representation everytime
we give it a different program to run..
Buildings are designed upon ideas, the engineers of buildings,
architects, determine how materials are to go together and which objects
are used, what is layered on top of what, how things fit together,
but the end result must be something people can use and live in,
live about, are sheletered from the rain, something that serves a universal or
intended purpose.. But buildings are tough to rebuild say you want a
new brick material, double paned windows, etc.. Buildings don't transform
before our eyes, at least not unexpectedly..
Computers
have no problems with that.. Say all your bricks are just instantiations
of one brick, you want to change the bricks, change one they all
change..
That's why computers are used in design phases in most any process..
However, when designing new software, the work is often done on
paper because the architecture of a program, like the architecture
of a building, can be so complex it can take mounds of blueprints.
Replace the rooms of the buildings with conditionals, doors with
pointers and flow control. Replace the construction
materials with libraries of preprogrammed code objects.
But nobody ever really worries about the foundation unless
its fairly unstable; should there be plans for protecting
buildings against earth quakes, are the materials weather resistant?
Similarly with programs should someone worry about what processor or operating
system is used with the program, will the software compiled
for that machine work well in different operating conditions?
Or will it crumble to the ground?
Well.. I thought being a programmer slash artist, I could probably give
some insight.. I don't know much about architecture though..
Kiernan Holland
>philosophical for a change. As far as some examples, I left them out
>for the reason that, from my experience, art is quite a personal thing.
>For a good part of my youth I couldn't understand why something which
>touched me so deeply could be so disliked by another.
>
>But I will throw out a few of my favorites (many are musical examples):
>
>Category Title Artist
>-------- ------------------- ------------------------
> of Paganini
> First Circle Pat Metheny
Ever hear of Tomita? Get "Pictures at an Exhibition",
he did the entire album on Moogs 6 years before Samplers
were invented..
I'm a bit more of a Genesis fan, old Genesis,
like Winds and Wuthering.. I prefer Yes albums with the long instrumentals
as well.. The progressive stuff is more interesting than the crap
both bands put out in the 80's (yicky).. Music that doesn't break your
concentration.. The kind of stuff you can paint by..
People know of the ELO music, I would challenge someone to
get "Out of the Blue" or "New World Record".
>
>Architecture La Segrada Familia Gaudi
>
>Art (various paintings) Van Gough
Ya, I have "Cafe Terrace At Night" on my wall..
I'm more into how he could just paint a face, a human form,
with a minimal brush strokes, few colors, and still
get the feel of a place into it.. I really
grew respect for him after I began oil painting..
>
>Film The Color Purple ?
> Alien / Aliens ?
> Brainstorm ?
Brainstorm is the un-sung hero of Sci-Fi of the 80's
few refer to it, but I prefer it over Aliens, 2010 and
Blade Runner combined.. Because it had nothing to do
with the distant future, it was a period film..
Kind of like Red Dawn... The computer age was
on the horizon, nobody knew what would be possible,
instantly someone tapped into a genre with
real potential, it was a very scary and inspirational
movie for me.. Of course it was also Nately Wood's
last movie.. I would have liked to seen it finished..
Why do I want to place Brainstorm, Poltergeist and
Twilight Zone in the same classification?
Also Close Encounters..
Honrable mention.. Dune..
Last Starfighter (kinda Cheesey though)..
Labrynth..
Man I can't stop..
Virtually anything shown on "Night Flight" .. Damn I wish that
was still on the air..
Anything shown on Bravo or Indepedent Film Channel.. I can't stand
the modern manufactured film.. Anything with a real storyline
please stand up!!
Gruhn
>all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
Where IS the "Make Art" button?
Doug
I certainly hope no one thought A Bugs Life was art.
Doug.
Steph Greenberg
: >is that CG is extremely hand crafted, and very little that is of any use at
: >all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
: Where IS the "Make Art" button?
Would it surprise you to know that there are people in companies known for
their art, who have complete faith that such a thing is possible? Or that
there are businessmen who do not value the work of artists though their
living is based upon artists' creations, and that those people salivate in
anticipation of the arrival of the "Make Art" and "Make Animation"
button so that they won't have to pay artists to create art anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg
'98 FXD "The Studmobile"
'95 Trans Am "The Batmobile"
Sooner or later, every tool gets used as a hammer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krusher
wrote:
>Gruhn <gr...@hwb.spam.com> wrote:
>: >is that CG is extremely hand crafted, and very little that is of any use at
>: >all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
>
>: Where IS the "Make Art" button?
>
>Would it surprise you to know that there are people in companies known for
>their art, who have complete faith that such a thing is possible? Or that
>there are businessmen who do not value the work of artists though their
>living is based upon artists' creations, and that those people salivate in
>anticipation of the arrival of the "Make Art" and "Make Animation"
>button so that they won't have to pay artists to create art anymore?
The music industry already has this: it's called rap.
Naked Hoof®
Skirvo
Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
> Skirvo <cl4l...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
> Is this an opinion borne of experience with CGI or conjecture? My experience
> is that CG is extremely hand crafted, and very little that is of any use at
> all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
Yes, truly, there MAY have been some handcrafting back in '87 <G>
At least you will admit the automation in texturizing (procedural),
modelling (3D-scan, optimization, even texture setting)
animation (collision physics, cyclic motion, motion capture)?
> Now, mind you, I don't believe in digitizing models except where it's required
> for client signoffs. I like hand crafted models sculpted in the computer by a
> skilled CG modeler.
At least until the mesh optimization algorithms get so good you can't tell
the difference.
I prefer animation done by an animator who has learned how
> things move, how to create a character in his/her head, to give them the
> qualities of a unique personality; as opposed to sampled human motion imposed
> on a character or some procedural/algorithmic motion.
But what can be more "real" than motion capture? The point of CGI is to
simplify the task of creating mirages for consumers. This simplification
will be traced to it's possible maximum. Capture a human, optimize the
splines, drag some of them around for the sought expression, accelerate,
deccelerate.
But ofcourse, I'm an optimist in the sense, that computers never will be
able to simulate the real world in any larger extent. I mean, REAL world.
It is still the task of artists to make limited excursions into this
stupendous complexity.
Ed
brain@*damage*nakedhoof.com (Krusher) wrote:
> On 9 Feb 1999 22:56:39 GMT, Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gruhn <gr...@hwb.spam.com> wrote:
> >: >all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
> >
> >
> >Would it surprise you to know that there are people in companies known for
> >their art, who have complete faith that such a thing is possible? Or that
> >there are businessmen who do not value the work of artists though their
> >living is based upon artists' creations, and that those people salivate in
> >anticipation of the arrival of the "Make Art" and "Make Animation"
> >button so that they won't have to pay artists to create art anymore?
>
> The music industry already has this: it's called rap.
I hope you're just being facetious. A sweeping generalization like that
can only betray ignorance. You can dislike rap, but it's not fair to
dismiss all rap (there are many subgenres as well, which you may or
may not be aware of) as formulaic or profit-mongering, which seemed
to be the implication.
Breaker@nospamplease.com Ice breaker
something...
If Michalangelo,VanGogh,Paul Klee,Rembrandt had access to CG...would they
have refused to work in it?infact they would have jumped at it (may be
because of the "UNDO" button) hehe...
at the same time a lot of painters ,sculptors or what not who's work is not
considered "ART" by the elite
were doing stuff in the given medium of their choice and 'availibility'.
let time decide wether it is or not.
Illustrators were not considered artists for a long time..but today...look
at Norman Rockwell,J.C.Leyendecker or Maxfield Parrish command the same
respect...
personally i dont think anyone can define that...
thanks...my 2 cents...
IB
Steph Greenberg
: In article <79ohrk$8nt$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>,
: > Is this an opinion borne of experience with CGI or conjecture? My experience
: > is that CG is extremely hand crafted, and very little that is of any use at
: > all is automated. But what do I know? I've only been doing it for 12 years.
: Yes, truly, there MAY have been some handcrafting back in '87 <G>
: At least you will admit the automation in texturizing (procedural),
: modelling (3D-scan, optimization, even texture setting)
: animation (collision physics, cyclic motion, motion capture)?
You are assuming that these techniques are being used by everyone. I don't
use procedural texture maps, I paint them in Fractal Painter or Photoshop
(if I do them personally, though at work that's someone else's job).
I don't use 3D scans, nor do we employ them where I work. The results are
unsatisfactory.
I don't use procedural physics except for things like explosions, no do we
use them where I work, same exception. Things like that are particularly
useless for most character applications except maybe hair and cloth, and
even then you want the last word on how those things work.
Motion Capture? I'm on record in numerous forums, including participation
in a physical and online Siggraph panel on my feelings about motion
capture. It isn't and never will be animation. It's closer to live action
film making, but isn't good enough to measure up to the images captured
from live action actors on film. It has its uses, but most of the
companies that have high standards like Pixar, PDI, ILM, et al use it very
sparingly if at all.
Cyclic motion? I don't see any difference there between how we do it with
the computer and shooting the same frames that were hand drawn over and
over again using an animation camera. Any project that uses cyclic motion
excessively is boring. It's probably a necessary evil in video games
though.
: > Now, mind you, I don't believe in digitizing models except where it's required
: > for client signoffs. I like hand crafted models sculpted in the computer by a
: > skilled CG modeler.
: At least until the mesh optimization algorithms get so good you can't tell
: the difference.
Why should that make a difference? When you're sculpting a face, the
detail has to be where it's needed most. I haven't been doing realistic
humans, so either way what I've worked on requires sculpting. I'd rather
see it done directly in the computer than make a physical sculpture and
digitize it. That way the artist is more intimate with the details of
construction to alter them for animation compatability.
: I prefer animation done by an animator who has learned how
: > things move, how to create a character in his/her head, to give them the
: > qualities of a unique personality; as opposed to sampled human motion imposed
: > on a character or some procedural/algorithmic motion.
: But what can be more "real" than motion capture? The point of CGI is to
: simplify the task of creating mirages for consumers. This simplification
: will be traced to it's possible maximum. Capture a human, optimize the
: splines, drag some of them around for the sought expression, accelerate,
: deccelerate.
Reality is the goal of technical people, not artists. What you quote is
the hype, but it has largely been discredited. Motion and acting are far
more than the sum of generalized rotations and positions. Animation itself
is more than reality, being bent to the will of the artists' mind.
Techniques similar to motion capture have existed for traditional
animation for 7 decades. The use of Rotoscope is highly controversial, and
saying that something looks "Rotoed" is pejorative.
And don't even get me started about even the best automatic lip sync
programs. The results are so hideous, that it's ludicrous that people see
them as anything other than the cheap hack that they are. Developed as a
tool for artists, it can save someone from having to painstakingly listen
to a sound track and write the words down with frame counts, maybe even
break it up into useful phonemes as print out. Such a tool would be useful
both for planning facial acting and locating acting points. Bypassing this
tool making stage to automating these tasks would be humorous if people
didn't seriously consider the results usable, which they aren't. It would
take some wicked strong AI to make them usable in a high quality
production.
Think Ren and Stimpy as examples where any form of automation wouldn't be
able to approach the results and make them anywhere near as funny.
: But ofcourse, I'm an optimist in the sense, that computers never will be
: able to simulate the real world in any larger extent. I mean, REAL world.
: It is still the task of artists to make limited excursions into this
: stupendous complexity.
I think they'll be able to simulate the real world to a very large extent.
So what? The result isn't art or animation any more than photography and
live action motion pictures are. Even though you can point a camera and
film live people, for some reason artists and producers and their patrons
in television and the film studios still chose to do drawn animation, and
the movement and styles within drawn animation show great diversity,
particularly in television animation.
While some rendering techniques that make 3D rendered scenes look like
drawn animation exist, and it is possible that this may displace hand
drawn animation at some point in the future, there is still a huge number
of artistic issues and choices that are made along the way, because the
computer houses a huge cache of tools that can be integrated well.
When you start working in the business as a CG artist or animator, you
learn that the hype and the reality are separated by an enormous chasm.
Gruhn
I've always hated adds that say "If Leonardo were alive today, he would use
our software." Strikes me as pretty arrogant.
Skirvo
Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
> : Yes, truly, there MAY have been some handcrafting back in '87 <G>
> : At least you will admit the automation in texturizing (procedural),
> : modelling (3D-scan, optimization, even texture setting)
> : animation (collision physics, cyclic motion, motion capture)?
>
> You are assuming that these techniques are being used by everyone. I don't
> use procedural texture maps, I paint them in Fractal Painter or Photoshop
> (if I do them personally, though at work that's someone else's job).
>
Procedural texturing can make meshes (for example) look "older" in a snap. You
telling me somebody will pay an artist doing this when a machine can do it?
Sure, you may tell the difference, but the public don't.
> I don't use 3D scans, nor do we employ them where I work. The results are
> unsatisfactory.
>
> I don't use procedural physics except for things like explosions, no do we
> use them where I work, same exception. Things like that are particularly
> useless for most character applications except maybe hair and cloth, and
> even then you want the last word on how those things work.
>
Can you simulate a falling building by hand? Hair affected by gravity?
At least a falling human body, every limb affected?
> Motion Capture? I'm on record in numerous forums, including participation
> in a physical and online Siggraph panel on my feelings about motion
> capture. It isn't and never will be animation. It's closer to live action
> film making, but isn't good enough to measure up to the images captured
> from live action actors on film.
I've seen it used, and it looks real enough to me. As it gets cheaper,
nobody in their sane mind will employ artists for that labour.
> Cyclic motion? I don't see any difference there between how we do it with
> the computer and shooting the same frames that were hand drawn over and
> over again using an animation camera. Any project that uses cyclic motion
> excessively is boring. It's probably a necessary evil in video games
> though.
>
It is not important, just mentioned it.
> Why should that make a difference? When you're sculpting a face, the
> detail has to be where it's needed most. I haven't been doing realistic
> humans, so either way what I've worked on requires sculpting. I'd rather
> see it done directly in the computer than make a physical sculpture and
> digitize it. That way the artist is more intimate with the details of
> construction to alter them for animation compatability.
>
Or even easier. 3D-scan a human in high resolution. Adjust concentration
of polygons by simply using the latest "X" plugin allowing you to click with
your mouse on areas you want to polygon-reduce. Who will hire an artist
for that task?
> : But what can be more "real" than motion capture? The point of CGI is to
> : simplify the task of creating mirages for consumers. This simplification
> : will be traced to it's possible maximum. Capture a human, optimize the
> : splines, drag some of them around for the sought expression, accelerate,
> : deccelerate.
>
> Reality is the goal of technical people, not artists. What you quote is
> the hype, but it has largely been discredited. Motion and acting are far
> more than the sum of generalized rotations and positions. Animation itself
> is more than reality, being bent to the will of the artists' mind.
>
There is no such thing as more than reality. There can only be less than
reality, and this produces surreal settings which ofcourse can be classified
as arts. Any motion and any acting can be reduced to a sum of rotations
and positions. The problem is going the other way.
> And don't even get me started about even the best automatic lip sync
> programs. The results are so hideous, that it's ludicrous that people see
> them as anything other than the cheap hack that they are.
Agreed. Technique in it's infancy.
> Think Ren and Stimpy as examples where any form of automation wouldn't be
> able to approach the results and make them anywhere near as funny.
>
Computer speech programs are frequently used to make funny talking, BTW
> : But ofcourse, I'm an optimist in the sense, that computers never will be
> : able to simulate the real world in any larger extent. I mean, REAL world.
> : It is still the task of artists to make limited excursions into this
> : stupendous complexity.
>
> I think they'll be able to simulate the real world to a very large extent.
They won't be able to simulate to any large extent. Imagine the
computational load of simulating just ONE (1) moderately complex molecule.
This is the real hype.
> So what? The result isn't art or animation any more than photography and
> live action motion pictures are.
So you're ready to say what is art, and what is not?
Even though you can point a camera and
> film live people, for some reason artists and producers and their patrons
> in television and the film studios still chose to do drawn animation, and
> the movement and styles within drawn animation show great diversity,
> particularly in television animation.
>
Exaggerations of reality are funny, I agree.
> While some rendering techniques that make 3D rendered scenes look like
> drawn animation exist, and it is possible that this may displace hand
> drawn animation at some point in the future, there is still a huge number
> of artistic issues and choices that are made along the way, because the
> computer houses a huge cache of tools that can be integrated well.
>
Huh?
> When you start working in the business as a CG artist or animator, you
> learn that the hype and the reality are separated by an enormous chasm.
>
I don't need to start working anywhere. I only need to think a bit.
Krusher
recordings is not an "art". And talk of gunz, booties and violence
hardly rise to the aesthetic of "art", for the most part. And yes, I
am aware that not all rap does this. The only rap I would say I ever
enjoyed was a group called Mi Phi Me (sp?), but they were not
commercially successful. From what I heard, there was some fine
musicianship involved (including some excellent classical guitar),
something sadly lacking (minus the lifted samples) in most of the
genre.
I did not intend to make a thread of this, nor to make a heated
discussion. These are my opinions, and you are not likely to change
them, as I am not likely to change yours. It was intended as an
analogous example, and so it does have some relevance in this
discussion IMHO. Let's leave it at that please :)
Naked Hoof®
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:14:31 GMT, Ed <edu...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <36c0fc9d...@news.earthlink.net>,
> brain@*damage*nakedhoof.com (Krusher) wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 1999 22:56:39 GMT, Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Gruhn <gr...@hwb.spam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >: Where IS the "Make Art" button?
>> >
Steph Greenberg
: In article <79vhvr$qq7$3...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
: Steph Greenberg <st...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
: Procedural texturing can make meshes (for example) look "older" in a snap. You
: telling me somebody will pay an artist doing this when a machine can do it?
Somebody who's interested in quality does, and will. And the results will
often look better. That's not to say that things like the kind of filters
available for Photoshop (and Pshop plugin compatable programs) aren't
handy for altering hand painted artwork, they are, but it's because they
are tools *for* the artist, not tools to *replace* the artist.
: > I don't use procedural physics except for things like explosions, no do we
: > use them where I work, same exception. Things like that are particularly
: > useless for most character applications except maybe hair and cloth, and
: > even then you want the last word on how those things work.
: >
: Can you simulate a falling building by hand? Hair affected by gravity?
: At least a falling human body, every limb affected?
Falling building: I definately wouldn't want to animate by hand, but I
certainly would want total control over how it looks. Such physical based
effects are a PITA to do by hand, but they aren't automatically right
looking using default settings. However, this falls into "things like
explosions." I didn't want to ennumerate every single use for them. Fire,
smoke, gasses, stuff like that are also included in that catagory, though
I think on some things I've worked on recently, I could have painted the
fire effect faster than achieving exactly what I wanted using a particle
system. Lots of trial and error involved in getting what you want out of
procedural physics based stuff.
Given the choice, I'd rather blow up in real life model with some
primer core and black powder.
As for a falling human body: I've seen some demos of a stiff limbed
character falling that was no more convincing than throwing a dummy with
clothes on down a flight of stairs.
: > Motion Capture? I'm on record in numerous forums, including participation
: > in a physical and online Siggraph panel on my feelings about motion
: > capture. It isn't and never will be animation. It's closer to live action
: > film making, but isn't good enough to measure up to the images captured
: > from live action actors on film.
: I've seen it used, and it looks real enough to me. As it gets cheaper,
: nobody in their sane mind will employ artists for that labour.
Maybe. I've worked with it, and it's a PITA to get it to look the way you
want it. Or the way a director might want it. It always looks soft
and...well, mushy.
Again, hacks who want it cheap and fast might continue to employee, and if
mocap gets cheaper, you'll just see more hacks getting into the game. The
high quality places will still use artists and animators. ILM has motion
capture capabilities, and they still hire artists to hand animate (in CG)
many of their creatures/characters. Pixar and PDI have money, and yet the
two films that they made this year were animated by hand.
Where does that put your theory?
: > Why should that make a difference? When you're sculpting a face, the
: > detail has to be where it's needed most. I haven't been doing realistic
: > humans, so either way what I've worked on requires sculpting. I'd rather
: > see it done directly in the computer than make a physical sculpture and
: > digitize it. That way the artist is more intimate with the details of
: > construction to alter them for animation compatability.
: >
: Or even easier. 3D-scan a human in high resolution. Adjust concentration
: of polygons by simply using the latest "X" plugin allowing you to click with
: your mouse on areas you want to polygon-reduce. Who will hire an artist
: for that task?
You seem to assume that humans are some sort of CG goal. I personally
don't want to animate CG humans, and the two all-CG films that came out
this year had no humans in them at all. Not because they couldn't do them,
they just didn't want to do them.
And Pixar had a CG-human short last year, Geri's Game. That human looks
absolutely nothing like a real human. It's a caricature.
I find the arguments for using CG humans to be very un-compelling, and as
I said, scans + motion-capture + physical-simulation +unknown future tools
= live motion pictures as it will be done in the future.
They still won't be doing animation. That's just recording and playback.
: > Reality is the goal of technical people, not artists. What you quote is
: > the hype, but it has largely been discredited. Motion and acting are far
: > more than the sum of generalized rotations and positions. Animation itself
: > is more than reality, being bent to the will of the artists' mind.
: >
: There is no such thing as more than reality. There can only be less than
: reality, and this produces surreal settings which ofcourse can be classified
: as arts.
That which is not reality can either be regarded as less than reality or
more than. I choose "more than reality" because you can make up the
physics any way you want to, and everything else about a world that
originates in the imagination.
: Any motion and any acting can be reduced to a sum of rotations
: and positions. The problem is going the other way.
Of course it can be reduced to that, because that's the tools of the CG
animator. But the where and when is the devil in the details.
To get acting that is part of a unique and sympathetic character to be
automatically generated by a computer, you need some really solid, smart
artificial intelligence. As of today, there isn't anything even
approaching 1/10,000 the kind of intelligence you need for that. It's like
trying to come up with AI that can write a really good script, or a really
funny comedy routine. Those will come a long time before convincing
automated acting.
: > And don't even get me started about even the best automatic lip sync
: > programs. The results are so hideous, that it's ludicrous that people see
: > them as anything other than the cheap hack that they are.
: Agreed. Technique in it's infancy.
It's not even an embryo yet. There's a lot of gestation before this
Frankenstein tech is going to challenge even facial animation that is
keyframed by a human, let alone more complex activities like body
language.
: > Think Ren and Stimpy as examples where any form of automation wouldn't be
: > able to approach the results and make them anywhere near as funny.
: >
: Computer speech programs are frequently used to make funny talking, BTW
Not even in the same game, let along the league or the ballpark.
: > I think they'll be able to simulate the real world to a very large extent.
: They won't be able to simulate to any large extent. Imagine the
: computational load of simulating just ONE (1) moderately complex molecule.
: This is the real hype.
The fact that it's happening means it can and probably will happen. Just
when is the question. You make a sufficiently complex world, and its
inhabitants won't even be able to tell they're in an artificial world. You
don't need to simulate every single molecule, you only have to simulate it
when someone's looking.
: > So what? The result isn't art or animation any more than photography and
: > live action motion pictures are.
: So you're ready to say what is art, and what is not?
Art is crafted deliberately. Simulation is crafted by circumstance.
Capture/scan etc. is recording/playback.
That a computer is used for making art is no different from the fact that
the paint sticks to the brush when you wipe it on pigments on a palette.
That similar and related tools can be used for something else entirely
shows how flexible a tool the computer really is.
: > When you start working in the business as a CG artist or animator, you
: > learn that the hype and the reality are separated by an enormous chasm.
: >
: I don't need to start working anywhere. I only need to think a bit.
Experience can teach you a lot about reality and hype. But suit yourself.
If you think schools teach you all there is to know, or that you can find
it out without meeting serious challenges and standards working with the
tools that are the subject of today's hype, than I have no more to say.
Discussing these tools with someone who has no experience with them, and
doesn't think experience with these tools is a necessary component in an
intelligent discussion, is like discussing color with a person who has
been blind from birth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg
98 FXD Sooner or later, every tool gets used as a hammer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gruhn
They are.
RenderMan
of Steph Greenbergs post. Spoken very very wisely. I especially enjoy
this quote..
"That which is not reality can either be regarded as less than reality or
more than. I choose "more than reality" because you can make up the
physics any way you want to, and everything else about a world that
originates in the imagination."
... and will keep that with me for a long time to come.
RM
Dave
what I mean!!
Piotr Dubiel wrote in message <36b75464...@news.magma.ca>...
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:25:47 -0700, "Gruhn" <gruhn@hwb dot com> wrote:
>
>>>One of the pre-requisites of a ART is whether or not the Artist puts
>>>his/her soul and passion into their work.
>>
>>Feh. That's all process. If it's the putting that's the art, why not film
>>the act of creating the piece, sell the film and destroy the accidental
>>residue. After all, it isn't art and it's in the way.
>
>It doesn't say that the putting of the passion into the art is the
>art, merely that it is one of the prerequisites. I think you've made a
>logical leap a bit too far, IMHO. I don't think that the process is
>the art, though the process certainly has a lot to do with it. One
>thing I guess that really irks me is the outright dismissal of the
>idea of craftsmanship by the contemporary art establishment. Feh!
>
>I generally tend to shy away from defining art anyway, as it's sort of
>like trying to measure a smell in centimeters. :) I generally tend to
>have a pretty wide definition of what "art" can be, though I can't say
>I'm very generous in what I consider "good" and "bad" art. Generally I
>disagree w/ people who say "Well, this just isn't art!". I say "sure
>it is, it's just bad art!"...
>
>
>
>
>
>[ Piotr F. Dubiel - Nepean, Ontario, Canada ]
>[ "There is no sin except stupidity." -Oscar Wilde ]
>[ Remove the NOSPAM to reply. ]
Jacque
The instant art no longer is art is as infinitely defined as there are
perspectives (philosophically, it can actually go full circle and become
art again).
Point is .... I can go in my yard and find objects and create art -----
likewise on a computer w/software. I can attempt to reach perfection in
my pursuit but also maintain a lifestyle I've become accustom to. (Back
when I was starving, I'd have called this a sellout but ...eating is
good.)
Real world solution = Balance.
Stephen P.Davidson
this debate. A friend of mine recently got a large 8 color RIP that can
print on canvas up to 42" wide and any length. He can print my renders
on canvas! If it's on canvas, it's GOT to be art, doesn't it?
;)
Steve Davidson
Magic FX, Inc.
brtm...@gate.net