Is it art? Or 1.21 Gigawatts.
Teofa
Posts: 823
I just want to make this comment, one that has been kind of festering inside me for a year.
I look at contest results, critiques, comments. One thing I notice, to my mind, is a tendency for some to merit the technology over the imagery. Judging effects and not the whole.
I know this is a technological medium by its very nature. Still.. that doesn't exclude simple artistry, or shouldn't.
I've seen some pretty awful stuff raved about, simply because it rendered for 2876 hours for a singular whiz bang effect, same with some volumetrics. I've also seen some pretty fantastic stuff.. some done in a particle accelerator, some done in a basic, simple program.
So what is it? Personally, I look at images. I don't care if it was done with crayon directly on the screen, or with several k worth of imaging programs. I don't look for technical brilliance, just image. If technical competence helps with the imagery, thats great. If the image was created simply to showcase the technical.. eh.. not so much.
How do others feel?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
While new to this forum, and probably unqualified to comment, my view is DAZ competitions should use DAZ; no wiz bangs, no cleverness other than the cleverness of getting a good render in DAZ Studio. I am even of a view photoshoping subsequent to rendering should be excluded.
Art is wholly subjective. Everyone that looks at a piece takes something differently from it. One viewer's excitement over an image, may be another's disdain. There are many "artists" (and I use the term loosely) that I just don't "get." That's not to say their art is bad, per se, I just doesn't resonate with me, and therefor, does not lead me to take interest in their digital galleries. I'm not sure if this statement is off-topic from your original post, but I see a lot of rumblings in the online comic communities of "traditionally illustrated comics" versus "DAZ/Poser (often referred to as 'cookie cutter') comics." Those whom side with the traditional illustration process claim that creating art in DS/Poser is a "non-skill" and a "cheater" way of making comics, yet I have read many comics that are far better than some traditionally illustrated tales. They also fail to realize the amount of skill and effort it takes to create a comic using DS or Poser. You don't simply plug it in and render, not if you want an effective and clear image. Don't get me wrong, there are also many DS/Poser artists that still have to learn the fundamentals, such as lighting, framing, storytelling, and FX to really maximize their abilities and use of the program, and some bad examples really are BAD examples (not to point fingers, but R. Shamm Mortier really turned me off to Poser for a long time, because I was under the misconception that he was one of the "talented" Poser artists, I mean, he was writing whole books about the subject!)
I think it is best to look at the images as what they are. If you can, try to forget the technology behind it, after all, that tech is just a tool, and there isn't a "make art" button that helps to artist create their vision.
That would of course cause murder and mayhem, as people would scream if Bryce, Carrara and Poser were excluded. Also the use or non use of Photoshop (other paint programs are available) has been debated ad infinitum.
BTW if you do want to enter a contest that excludes postwork, then take a look at the Freebie challenge, as it has a non-postworked rule, whereas, in the past, the New Users Contest has actually run one contest where Postworking the original image was the point of the contest.
So as always it is a case of "horses for courses"
That would of course cause murder and mayhem, as people would scream if Bryce, Carrara and Poser were excluded. Also the use or non use of Photoshop (other paint programs are available) has been debated ad infinitum.
BTW if you do want to enter a contest that excludes postwork, then take a look at the Freebie challenge, as it has a non-postworked rule, whereas, in the past, the New Users Contest has actually run one contest where Postworking the original image was the point of the contest.
So as always it is a case of "horses for courses"
So no issues with deploying Mudbox, 3DS Max and Vray, throw in some cloth and fur modifiers plenty of sub surface shading, some particle generation is always worth having, and then render out multiple passes for subsequent compositing.
Each of these programs has their strengths and weaknesses and you can happily say "It is the final image which is important" but, to my mind, there should be some element of "In the spirit of the competition".
While I have access to such facilitates I would feel wrong in deploying them in a DAZ competition as, while it has its limitations, part of the joy of using DAZ is achieving something pleasing within those limitations. But that's just my view.
so long as Daz content was used many comps would indeed allow such programs unless specified otherwise
It's not always about the technology.
For many years LycanthropeX has been cleaning up on contests here, and for most of the time he was on a machine that could not run alot of the software. He just made the most out of what he had and became a master of post working his art. Which was pretty darn impressive.
We all just gotta work with the tools we got.
I tend not to have the same 'taste' as others. So I take other people's judgement on what is great art with a grain of salt, unless I am taking an art class, where my purpose is to learn a specific technique. Lots of people tend to judge art based on their own world lens and tastes. I often do not agree with these opinion.
My feeling is one should do the type of art that satisfies you at your current skill level. With 3d, people are usually improving, so while my first render may have sucked on a technical and artistic level, I was pleased with it and happy with it at the time. I agree the type of tech used to create the image is irrelevant to my enjoyment of a piece.
So ultimately, my feeling is one should be satisfied with ones own art.
I like to think I judge based on a the whole image and not who did it or what software was used. If you can accomplish a lot with little then great but at the same time i understand the need ro desire to use multiple sources (programs) to accomplish said goals too. For my own artwork I tend to aim for doing everything in DS though I have taken to using Silo to adjusting the mesh of certain things on more then one occation now. I find the creative challenge is far more satisfying and rewarding then the end result.
I agree that it is the final image that counts.
I understand that contests will require you to use certain software and the final image require no postwork, but to some degree that sort of excludes a lot of people without state of the art computers, loads of neat plugins, tons of experience and ages of time to render (and re-render if the effect is not perfect) on their computer.
Thats not to say there are not those who don't need all that to produce great stuff.
Personally unless I hit the lottery and can afford state of the art hardware, I'm never going to be able to waste my time trying to get great results using only a straight out render... I don't have time to futz around waiting for a 8 hour render to finish, just to look at it and go "megh... whats that shadow doing there... grr, that black and grey look the same.... AAAAAH!!!!!"...
I choose to reserve my psychotic outbursts for more important things like running out of beer or bacon mints... or that squirrel that keeps watching me... but anyway... I'll just use postwork to fix what I don't like, or to make it look like what I envisioned in the first place.
No, no contests for me, don't care for them, don't need the aggravation or controversy, they won't buy me fame or fortune, they never include beer, bacon mints or squirrel repellent as a prize, they rarely make anyone laugh, and they probably cause leprosy if you enter them too often (though that may be a rumor I just invented).
I agree with what SereneNight just said about "Lots of people tend to judge art based on their own world lens and tastes."
It's impossible to please most people, its sometimes possible to please a few people, occasionally possible to please one's own self, fairly easy to please a dog (especially a labrador retriever), really hard to please a Siamese cat, extremely hard to fly a car... and in the end, nobody but you and the dog really will ever truly appreciate your own art on the level it was conceived.
To be honest I have no idea what I just said, it was supposed to be something deep, but I got distracted by my neighbor's dog barking at their cat, which for some reason made me think of that dog I scared when I drove off an embankment a couple of years ago... and my dog who was actually a Belgium Shepard, but was really easy to make happy, especially with bacon mints and beer... seriously if you want a great drinking buddy a Belgium Shepard is the way to go... cats just can't hold their liquor for spit. That and they are really biased art critics.
I think what I was trying to say was that one should ultimately be most concerned with satisfying themselves and possibly their alcoholic dog first... but I don't know where the dog came into the story.
Well, you asked what I think... and unfortunately I replied and this is where we are now at...
I've drawn no conclusions, I've made no points that I am currently aware of... well... unless on some subconscious level, I've drawn a parallel by using vague confusing humor to illustrate the similarity between art and humor, to which some people (especially those who go out on pub crawls with their dogs) will laugh at some of this, and those that have Siamese cats will scoff at this... ultimately you will "get it" or you will want to burn an effigy of me in protest of what I've said (I sell effigies of me online now, but there are couple of good tutorials out there on how to make your own... just google it).
Maybe in the end, humor is an art and art is really just a big joke... its very hard to tell because mostly I'm just stringing random words together now trying to draw some conclusion to end on.
Well, I think ultimately one should just try to enjoy the process and challenge of creating what they envision, continue to learn new methods, take satisfaction with their achievements and no matter how much they beg and whine, never left your dog drive the car uless you are willing to laugh about it in the end.
Yeah, I think thats as good as I've got.
Thanx!
Honestly I think I have always used one of the most advanced computers on the planet.... my brain. I have always attacked my art from the stand point of "this is what I want to achieve" I never cared how I got there. Rendered or Post Worked didn't matter to me, the final image was everything. I was seeing incredible images when my computer could barely handle more than 1 Vicky 2 in a scene. So becoming a master of Post Work and stitching several renders together to make a final image became my way reaching the goals i wanted. Now I have a computer 1000 times more powerful than i had back then, but you know what, it still can't do what is in my head. I still have to find ways to get around all the things the machine just can't handle.
I think my biggest advantage is I have a background in traditional art. Take away all the tech and i can still create great images with just a pencil and paper. Hell i've created images in salt on restaurant tables before because i had no paper and pencils. I'm an art addict. I have to create. I don't care how I do it.
Love your post! To illustrate your point (about humor and art), I broke into spontaneous laughter at your post. Concerned about my unusual outburst of laughter and uncontrollable giggles, particularly when I'm sitting in front of a computer staring at a render that hadn't turned out, my husband asked me what so funny...
After reading your post to him, he looked at me quizzically and said "that's funny?" Maybe he couldn't see the humor because the narrator (me) was "snorting" and "laughing" as it was read aloud, regardless, I had a good laugh so thank you :)
So no issues with deploying Mudbox, 3DS Max and Vray, throw in some cloth and fur modifiers plenty of sub surface shading, some particle generation is always worth having, and then render out multiple passes for subsequent compositing.
Each of these programs has their strengths and weaknesses and you can happily say "It is the final image which is important" but, to my mind, there should be some element of "In the spirit of the competition".
While I have access to such facilitates I would feel wrong in deploying them in a DAZ competition as, while it has its limitations, part of the joy of using DAZ is achieving something pleasing within those limitations. But that's just my view.
...I recently brought up the point regarding pro grade software such as 3DS, C4D, Maya, and the professional versions of Vue being allowed in contests/challenges that had "Daz" as the primary part of the title.
Yes, I know, it is the "hands behind the tools" that counts, but some tools just do certain things better than others and no matter what is said, in the end there is no way around it. Part of my argument was why, when one can afford to drop several 1,000$ on a CG software application would they want to win a paltry 15- 25$ GC at a hobbyist's 3D store? I look at it sort of like one of the big powerhouse university football teams playing some small "no name" college.
Were I to submit a very carefully and artistically composed pic created and rendered in Daz Studio to a challenge at, say 3DC, I'd be laughed off the forum there and told not to bother wasting their time with my "toy" software efforts.
On the other hand I have no issue with Bryce, Carrara or Poser/Poser Pro (or lately, even LuxRender) being allowed in a Daz titled challenge as these all pretty much share the same playing field.
3D Renders can be an amazing blend of technology and art. This is a very diverse community and both sides are infinitely deep so people will land on all sides of the spectrum. Since DAZ focuses on selling 3D software and products it makes sense (for better or worse) that this community would generally lean more towards the tech end.
I don't think it's ever a good idea to focus on who wins contests. Everything is subjective, no matter how they are judged some people will always disagree with the results. I see them as a way to promote community activity, sharing, learning, inspiring, etc. That being said, I think it would be great if some of the contests would focus more on the artistic end for judging and more importantly for feedback & critiquing to mix things up. Also I find quality, constructive criticism far more valuable then winning contests.
I have a background in fine art and a BFA. I often like to give and receive constructive, feedback regarding the formal elements of art but I don't wan't to push it on people that are not interested. I've thought about forming a deviantArt group that focuses on that but I've never gotten around to it and some may already exist. I also wonder if there are already active threads here focusing on that?
As a viewer of art, it's all about how the image makes me feel. As an artist it's all about the best way to express the idea I have in my head. The technology and artistry are just tools to reach that goal.
I read your meaning.
But something that also may be part of the judgement people have towards eachother here on this forum, has to do with encouragement.
DAZ people tend to be a friendly lot, and so far there hasn't been any forum I have been able to stand as long as this one.
When it comes to making art, everyone is at a different level and has different talents.
(I once saw a photo of some M&M's on a table made by a student at our academy: it were the most beautiful M&M's Iv'e ever seen in my life...)
Anyway,
In life there are two things I believe when it comes to achieving things: the effort and the talent.
It's like those students at school that almost never study and still getting straight A's.
On the other hand there are the students that study night after night for a B.
Which one would you encourage?
I think the answer is that they both need encouragement but at different levels.
We just had this discussion recently and I'll say the same thing here as I said in the other thread. This reasoning is crap. You're telling talented artists that their "talent" is nothing more than a sham and that their tools are doing all of the work for them. I've seen brilliant art done with FREE DS and FREE GIMP software, and I've seen crap done with the expensive stuff. Are you also going to exclude everyone who owns more content than you, or can afford to buy whatever they need for the contests? Are you going to exclude everyone who has been doing art longer than you, have more training than you, are much more naturally talented than you? Because all of those things have just as much to do with what you are observing as the software used does, and for some of the items I listed, far more.
Well .. For my part, I honestly do not like the rendered image only;
in all my renders are added artwork ... Maybe because when the classes comic books, years ago, the teacher emphasized the Arts Final (artwork) as final treatment of an image (then drawings the hand).
anyway ... I can not complete a job without artwork;
But I also think that an image that consumes 12 hours of rendering ... Perhaps, I have eye problem, I can not see much difference in nuances ...
While I respect the taste of each
You can't really fairly judge that unless you compare the same scene rendered with both biased and unbiased renderers, because there are some stunning renders done with both.
Here without artwork renderd in PP2012:
Here even render, but with artwork
I'm a 3D art fan. Too me art is art. Nothing more nothing less. A postworked multi layered image with layers from VUE Pro and Photoshop Filters applied is just as much a work of art as a Chrome Sphere on a infinite checker board. Its not the tools used, it's not the talent of the person, it's not the skills of postwork or the cost of any of it that matters. It's the image. Does the image please the person who took the time to create it? I'm going to assume it does as they took the time to post it to be viewed and wished to share their view of what they see as art with me. To me any posted image is ART. As far as a contest goes, to me all the above applies. If the person followed the Contest rules and comes up with a image they see as art then that is all that matters. A person took the time to create it, I respect that first above all other things.
I'm one of those that prefer to TRY to do everything in a single pass finale render. What you see in 90% of my renders was a 100% rendered image. But that is just my pref as my postwork skills are lacking, at this time. I also see things this way, my art is just for me. I do not even bother trying to please others. Not even in a contest. I do what I can, I've yet to get the idea in my head in a render 100%. If I'm happy with the image I made that is enough. Others that see any I post will and do decide for themselves what their view of my images are. I expect that, as I do the same for the images that they post. Some are Great to me and some are not, but they are Art, all of them, and to me that is all that matters.
I'm just a regular hobbyist, but I like seeing what a lot of people do with the stuff they have. For me, it's the end result that matters. If something catches my eye, then I would want to know (afterwards) how the artist attained the result of the end product. A lot of people use expensive plug-ins, etc....but many do not really know how to use it to their advantage and so I have at times felt like "huh? they used that product and this is what they came out with?". So, to me, in a contest, your artwork has got to be good enough for someone to do a double take when they first see it, so to speak. It's got to have something that makes it pop so that it captures an viewer's interest.
If in a render contest, if there is no limit on software precised, I don't see why you'd limit yourself
Big softwares have some advanced functions that you don't have in DS. When speaking of technicals, I differenciate between people mastering some technics and people just using some advanced functions. Example : when you use an external renderer like octane which has a big material database and you just apply some preset, I don't see any merit. You'll have to convince me that you did more than that. If you render in Luxrender and made some particular settings that can only be achieved though testing and knowing the software, then I know you really have some merit
You can't make art if you don't master your tools at least a little bit. Whichever they are.
My thought is that in 3D art there are two sides : the technical one and the common art side. You can't separate both
In traditionnal art you can't also just rely on judging composition. There are some technics behind and beginners just don't master them. Same here. The difference being that in 3D the computer can do a lot more of the jobs. The difficulty being to be able to see what the artist brought up.
Tools in a toolbox... so long as you get the result you want, how you get there is of little importance.
But some tools do offer more than others... I can no longer afford to add any more programs to my toolbox, so I try my best to get inventive with the ones I've got (DAZ Studio, Hexagon, Silo2, GIMP/Photoshop). I think Vue would be a valuable tool in a toolbox, but I can't buy that and the runtime content I want at the same time...
...well, coming to think of it, I can't really buy anything else with the amount of content I currently buy :lol: :lol: :lol:
From a personal perspective, I rarely see rendered-only images that could not be improved by some degree of postwork - but postwork will only improve your renders if you have an inkling of what it is you're trying to do. Once you know what you want to do, check out YouTube and there'll probably be free tutorials on how to do it (some are obviously better than others).
This is not a render, no 3D program was used to create this image. This was painted in Paint Shop Pro X :)
We just had this discussion recently and I'll say the same thing here as I said in the other thread. This reasoning is crap. You're telling talented artists that their "talent" is nothing more than a sham and that their tools are doing all of the work for them. I've seen brilliant art done with FREE DS and FREE GIMP software, and I've seen crap done with the expensive stuff. Are you also going to exclude everyone who owns more content than you, or can afford to buy whatever they need for the contests? Are you going to exclude everyone who has been doing art longer than you, have more training than you, are much more naturally talented than you? Because all of those things have just as much to do with what you are observing as the software used does, and for some of the items I listed, far more.
I cannot begin to comment on the level you misread my post. I talked about "excluding" no one, the word isn't even in my post.
It is more, well, when I receive criticism, I would like to see it towards what "I" can do to improve. Buying X product and double clicking a preset teaches me.. nothing, no matter how much it improves the image, That is the tendency I am speaking of.
I cannot begin to comment on the level you misread my post. I talked about "excluding" no one, the word isn't even in my post.
It is more, well, when I receive criticism, I would like to see it towards what "I" can do to improve. Buying X product and double clicking a preset teaches me.. nothing, no matter how much it improves the image, That is the tendency I am speaking of.
you haven't had one of my critiques. I tend to ignore the "programs" used and focus just on the art. I only know how to use the programs I use, so i can't tell someone how to do anything in Studio or Gimp or Photoshop. I critique digital art the same as I would any form of art. My critiques always focus on composition, use of line, color, light and dark, all traditional art skills. It makes no difference if you are using Studio, Poser, Oil Paints, Acrylics, Watercolor, Pencil, Pen and Ink or what ever, those traditional art techniques still apply.
The fact is that not even an engineer or architect are limited to using only a single program, since starting a project until it has been completed.
Now I ... I think a render that takes 12 hours, maybe more, honestly seems like overkill, it is more than the eye can see, I think the eyes are not able to absolve all the essence contained in an image that took so long to render
renders my last on average 5 minutes, and postwork ... maybe about 3 minutes, 8 minutes I get the image you want from the render, through gimp / photoeditor / PhotoScape
Art has not rules. This was the case long before computes came along so do what you want to do and do it the way you want to do it. The only time rules come into play is contests and challenges.