realistic against artisitc looking
Marc Heesterbeek
Fermi,
You've made a very clear point. I think we think alike on this subject.
--
Marc Heesterbeek
UBIKmh
Zandstraat 5-1
1011 HJ Amsterdam
+31 20 4230329
www.ubikmh.nl
"Fermi Bertran" <fber...@menta.net> schreef in bericht
news:5EDE63E5118B3BEC...@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Ok, I'll try to jump into this one too :o).
>
> First item, we do need a definition of the word Art, if we don't reach an
> agreement of what art is, we can't discuss any further, because we may be
> talking about completly different things although using the same words.
>
> I am with Marc, words Art ans artistic should not be used with easyness
> because that might empty them of content.
>
> Art is very scarce and difficult nowadays, it has always been, and I won't
> dare make a definition here and now, but perhaps we could agree on a few
> things; Artistic fact must be both; a unique creative action and deeple
move
> the observer ( some say it lay in the observer and not in the creator both
> the fact and the capacity to recognize it ). To give a sample of what I
am
> saying, Duchamp was an artist (probably nobody will question this one
today,
> though he was strongly questioned once upon a time and not that long ago)
we
> can agree that what he did was pick up a toilet from a Rubish dump an put
it
> into a Museum, it was not the fact that he brought it to the museum that
> made it an artisctic fact, but the provocation it meant, and of course, if
> today I take a toilet into the museum that won't make an artist because I
am
> just reproducing what Duchamp did, not creating anything at all. Stronger
> and earlier in conceptual art could be Malevich ( belonged to the russian
> avantgardes ) who painted white square over white background... perhaps
> even more provocative than Duchamp ;o)
>
> New item; the support or the tools that are used, etc. As I understand it
> the tools used have nothing to do with the product being artistic or not,
I
> may use canvas and oil paints to produce trash and someone may really
> produce art using Computer Graphics or actual Rubish from the actual
Rubish
> dump as Duchamp did or with a stick scratching on the sand of the
beach....
> is not the support what mkes something art.
>
> Architecture: architecture is called Art probably because it was teached a
> "L'Ecole the Beaux Arts" when the french had the intelectual lead of the
> world, as a matter of fact very few buildings or architectural complexes
all
> over the world ARE art, it is also true that usually lot of time must pass
> for the society to be able to distinguish what is art from what is fashion
> or any other form of merchandising.
>
> When coming down to architectural renderings or visualizations I won't be
> the one to say that is impossible that eventually a piece of work may also
> be an artistic fact or just art, but as with everything else treasures are
> really scarce or they would not be treasures in the first place.
>
> For the work I produce I could use other words like Workmanship, Artistry,
> Handicraft, Craftmanship, Skill... I feel I am missing some words in
> english to sya what I want, but in my visualizations, and in most if not
all
> I've seen there is evident the Skill, the Craft or Trade of the author.
>
> In a way is very funny because though we are suposedly using high end 21st
> century technology (a technology so hermetic very few people understand
(how
> does a microprocessor actually work)) we are very close to middle age
> crafters giving a personal and unique touch to very singular job but using
> skill but not great technology, being a skilled wood shoe maker in the
> netherlands does not make that person an artist, but an artisan.
>
> Perhaps this thread was not about artistic versus realistic in the first
> place BUT a completly different topic, raised by a picky client full of
> prejudice against the word COMPUTER, and probably without any cultural
> background at all, I can imagine the man entering Stefan's office, looking
> at his nice visualization of his project and saying: "Oh yeah, I see, but
> this image looks so much Computer Generated, and world knows CG images are
> so COLD, no no, We deserve something SPECIAL, we need ART" Stefan, if
that
> were the case, you've done very well giving him the foggy filter, as Marc
> said don't forget BILLING the client what he deserves. One thing we'll all
> probably agree, being able to recognize it or not, ART should be extremly
> EXPENSIVE, acordingly clients should learn that mentioning that word DO
MEAN
> opening the wallet ;o)
>
> Well, I stop it here, I don't know if I've made a point at all, but likely
> most poeple will be really bored by now of what I am writing.
>
> Happy weekend everybody
>
> Fermí
>
> PD That really has been like good old MAX forum Take5 ;o)
>
>
Greg McDowell, Jr.
anything new... it's all been done before.
To (loosely) quote the Guide (Hitchhiker's of course)... Art - None. The
definition of Art is to hold a mirror up to nature and there simply isn't a
mirror large enough.
To me Art exists in soo many forms and varieties that I don't think it can
be defined, nor should we attempt it. Who's to say what is Art and what
isn't?
Sort of like playing God... don't you think...
Fermi Bertran
Marc Heesterbeek
architects drawings with paint, pencils, anything I could get my hands on,
so they looked kinda special and the client would like the design. But
please don't use the word artistic. It has the word Art in it and whatever
your doing with your stadium drawing, it has nothing to do with Art. It's
just an increadible good way of selling. How else can we make a profit. But
if you want to be more then a salesman, you have to keep some integrety in
your work.
I think.
I also dislike the term computer artist. Maybe because some of my friend are
artist.
--
Marc Heesterbeek
UBIKmh
Zandstraat 5-1
1011 HJ Amsterdam
+31 20 4230329
www.ubikmh.nl
"Greg McDowell, Jr." <gmc...@swbell.net> schreef in bericht
news:EA6CF100060F21A8...@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Interesting topic.
>
> At my last job I was working on a new football stadium for the Pittsburgh
> Steelers. We hadn't really started producing renderings of the type we're
> talking about here. I don't think it was in our budget. But we did have
a
> model that we worked on for simple hidden-line renderings (we weren't
using
> Viz or Max for this but rather a proprietary company program). Anyway,
out
> client wasn't very pleased with the design we had been working on for,
> literally, more than a year. Nobody knew what to do; we were pretty sure
we
> had a good design and that we just needed to convey what we were trying to
> do better. On a hunch, I suggested using Squiggle (a program to turn .plt
> files into "hand drawings"). I took a couple of our hidden line views and
> generated .plt files. Then I brought them into Squiggle and experimented
> with the different settings. The result was pretty good and after we
> printed it on sepia paper and threw some color on it the client (all of a
> sudden) loved our design! Nothing had changed except that we gave him a
> visual he could understand and that he was used to.
>
> Personally, I love seeing the images that are produced here, but you
people
> have a talent that is rare. You produced outstanding images in a very
short
> period of time and make it profitable. Perhaps if we had had your talents
> we wouldn't have had to resort to the more artistic approach.
>
>
ted boardman
people
have a talent that is rare. You produced outstanding images in a very
short
period of time and make it profitable. Perhaps if we had had your
talents
we wouldn't have had to resort to the more artistic approach.<<
OOoooofff (up on my soapbox).
This is a good topic. Remember, however, however that this is all art,
no matter how realistic it strives to be. (strong opinion)
Your point about producing images in a short amount of time is really
the crux of what visualization is all about. Most of the time way too
much resource is spent with unnessary modeling and trying to make things
work using analogies to real world lighting, etc.(opinion)
The point of what we are doing here is to get an emotional response from
the client in as short a time possible, period. It's going to be quite a
while before visualization has anything directly to do with or ties in
to the engineering department in a cost effective manner. While it's
good to experiment with techniques to cross-reference data and avoid
replication, you have to let it go and work on the artistic aspect,
either realistic or impressionistic, to make money.(very strong opinion)
Plapppp (jumping off the soapbox)
Ted
randy sanders
Peter, Ted and all
how about using the word "ARCHITEXTURAL" to describe some of this
actually i dont think is really a word, but "profit" doesnt seem to be in my
vocabulary either
it has the word ARCH, HIT, TEXT, [textur], URAL (mountain range somewhere
in Russia)
yes, no
o well i guess its a matter of perspective, whatever your medium
i am working on becoming an architect, but so far i would describe my 3d
visualizations
as "architextural" efforts
is that a fair impression?
(ps i am definately in the "sub-genius" cat-a-gory when it comes to art)
see ya
"Peter Shupe" <sh...@vharch.com> wrote in message
news:2E836B9D0A709B6D...@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Marc - I'm not big on art, or artistic matters, and I wouldn't call what I
> do art. But I don't see a huge difference between someone that paints a
> picture and hangs it in their house and someone does a computer generated
> picture and hangs it in their house. Art is very diverse and comes in
many
> forms. I agree that if you are doing a rendering to show what a Stadium
is
> going to look like that I would not call it art. I'm not so sure if
someone
> uses filters and "artistic flair" to get an impressionist view of the same
> stadium that it should not be called art.
>
> I think it was in the late 19th century when the impressionists got
together
> for a big art fair and almost all of the reviews of that fair said that it
> wasn't art and the sketches, and pictures were merely "impressions" which
> meant unfinished and rough. Today though Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh, and
> Picasso are extolled as genius' in the art world. (Being not big on art
I'm
> not sure whether all these guys were contemporaries. I'm pretty sure they
> were at least all impressionists.) In any respect I think you know where
> I'm going here!
>
> Frankly I wouldn't have any problem hanging some of the stuff Mike Herman
> was playing around with on a wall in my house. I'm not sure whether I
would
> call it art or not but I would not have a problem with someone else
calling
> it art!! Regards Peter.
>
>
> "Marc Heesterbeek" <UBI...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3931F018CAE8193F...@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Ryan McGowan
know computers better than I do my own girlfriend. (But then women will
always be as understood as quantum physics.)
I've found a technique in Photo-blank that makes a great hand-drawn look. I
learned it from Thom Taylor's book, "How to Draw Cars Like a Pro." It's not
some filter and takes a little extra time, but hey, we charge by the hour,
right?
1. Open the rendered image and make a new layer.
2. Fill the layer in white.
3. Click the eraser tool and add some brushes that are long and elliptical,
preferably vertical. This is your marker tool.
4. Change the transparency of the new layer to about 95%. Now you can see a
ghost image of the rendering.
5. Change the opacity of the earser tool to about 20%. More opaque means a
darker color.
6. Draw away. You can define your own brushes for more versatility. Use the
typical soft round brush like an airbrush. Keep "wet edges" on, for a
marker-like look.
7. When your done, make the layer 100% opaque, again.
8. Make another layer to add anything you want like trees, people,
flowers...
If you find drawing with a mouse too much like drawing with a potato on
cord, then invest in a pen tablet. I don't have one yet, but it's on my wish
list.
BTW, when people ask me what I do, I don't say I am an artist, even when I
am using a real brush, with real camel hairs. I say, "I'm a graphic
designer."
-Ryan