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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
If you're doing what others and myself have already said, and not just dropping stuff out of a box and hitting "go", then yes, you can take 100% of the credit on that piece of art. It is your art. You are the artist. If you've purchased assets here or on Rendo, or pretty much anywhere unless otherwise stipulated, you don't have to give a list of what you've used. You certainly can, and I do if I'm posting here or to an audience who would care, but I don't on Tumblr or Flickr or anyplace where the viewership is only interested in viewing. I try to list things out here because I know people would ask otherwise. But many times, I've editing an asset up the wazoo, and while I can say "yes, it's this blah-bitty-blah-blah", chances are it's been retextured and covered in enough geoshells to sink the Titanic all over again. Not to mention any outfits I use are almost always kitbashed. But the assets are only part of putting a scene together that becomess a piece of art. Telling a story, or inciting an emotion...getting the light just the right way...your postwork process...all of that is what makes it yours. Don't let anybody tell you it's not...and don't feel guilty if people are willing to give you money for your time and your artistic eye.
The only time it becomes iffy...and it might not even apply and I'm probably going down a rabbit hole because it's totally a grey area...is with fanart. Fanart is technically, I believe, copyrighted property. Even the characters. So, say if I were to make some fanart of Darth Maul and sell it...I think that's a grey area where Disney, if they were having a bad day, could also make me have a bad day. Do people do it and make money and nothing ever happens? Yes, I'm sure. Is it possible that someone could get bent out of shape somewhere and threaten a lawsuit? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? I think that depends on the universe being...fanarted...and who owns it this day of the week. It's the same with fanfic. I have to shake my head every time I see someone trying to sell fanfic (and not like Fifty Shades of Grey *cough* Twilight fanfic...straightup fanfic) and I'm like "oy...nonononono." This is why I pretty much only offer commissions for original character fanart within game universes.
It doesnt matter what other people judge you as...if you feel you are an artist in your choice of medium, then you are an artist.
Beuys placed five kilograms of butter in a bathtub and called it art, and people followed it suit. I would disagree, but ...
Art ist, first of all, what someone does in the intention of creating art.
Second, art is, what people agree on calling art.
Third, art is any man-made item which makes other people admire and marvel at it. So even a brilliantly built bridge can be considered art.
Art isn't limited to trained artists. Naive art, for example, developed from folklore. Anf who says the painted stickman in a stone-age cave dwelling isn't art?
ALL art is automatically coprighted, whether it be fanart or original. The issue with fanart is that it is works that incorporates somebody else's copyrighted work.
It is not a grey area at all. The copyright for the fanart piece you create belongs to YOU - nobody may distribute it, make money off it etc. without your permission. BUT, it ALSO falls under (falls under, NOT belongs) the copyright of the original property. Which means you are not allowed to distribute, make money of it etc. without permission of the holder of the copyright for the work you are basing your work on.
Yes, that means you do not hold all the rights to your own works. Welcome to the world of derivative works.
In reality many copyright holder choose to ignore fanart as long as it stays under the radar, as long as you don't make money from it (or in some cases, as long as you don't make money from it where they are forced to take notice of it) they let you enjoy it.
If you want to create completely pure art, start by creating a universe.
I understand that all art is copyrighted by the artist...I was talking about the artist making art of and profiting from copyrighted material. Other than that, I think we were pretty much saying the same thing, lol. What I meant by "grey area" is that technically they could raise a stink, but there's a good chance they won't...it's a risk either way. But fandom and fanart in general is a big thing and many folks don't even realize that fanart involves making artwork of someone else's property (unless you're making fanart of, say, an original player character from a video game). Or at least they don't think of it like that. I'm involved in a fandom where commissions for fanart is huge...and any of of those fanartists (myself included) could be in for a seriously bad day if BioWare or Disney decides they want to have a bad day first. Typically BioWare is very open towards fanart, but who knows, that could change.
1) If YOU feel you are not doing enough to take "credit" for your work, then you are not. That threshold is a PERSONAL thing and can't be decided by anyone else. If you FEEL like you're not creating with enough artistic merit, by method or result, then YOU ARE NOT. Dig deeper into your work. Do more, push farther. That is an endless purist rabbit hole that SOMEONE can always do more and go deeper than the next. Even rolling your own raw assets and materials is not enough and nowhere near the end of that tunnel. Figure our where that line is for you and cross it. No one can discover it - besides you.
2) Art and 'being an artist' is/are NOT defined by the person(s) creating the work(s).
a) Anything you say about yourself is an untamed claim. (I'm a this, I'm a that)
b) When you repeat anything that is said about you, it is a wild boast. (They call me a ...people think that I...)
c) The truth lies in the acceptance of a title that OTHERS give you. (That's the appreciation part in the definition of ART)
3) Validation of your art comes from 3 places.
a) Those that appreciate it. Readers, watchers, the end audience, if you will- even paying sponsors or customers (for commercial art)
b) Those that also create. Fellow artists and those with insider knowledge of your tools and methods.
c) Critics, who are aware of context and history.
It takes all three.
---------------
If that sounds crazy, I'll share a true story from about a year ago.
I belong to many art groups on social media. There was a guy on there taking DAZ product PROMO ART and running it through one of those "make it look like line art filters' and posting it on facebook as HIS ORIGINAL ART.
And yes, he was getting tons of praise for his composition and line work. "Oh my! So creative!" Brilliant work!" So I looked at his gallery and it was ALL DAZ PROMO images. So I linked to the original Daz Store Promo and said what he was doing wasn't cool. He PM'ed me back and forth saying : He didn't know what Daz was and he thought you got the pictures free to use- when you bought a product, but he didn't know since he never bought anything from the store.
That's why it takes all 3.
He certainly FELT like an artist.
People THOUGHT he was an artist.
Others with knowledge of HOW and WHAT he did to create that art would know different.
Did you point out the glaring contradiction in his defense?
The last thing he dropped was about NOT BUYING any Daz content as though THAT made him innocent. Before that, I was more concerned about using other people's artwork and passing it off as his own.
I explained that the promo art was indeed done by ANOTHER ARTIST and not "automatically generated" by Daz Studio.
But at some point I felt like we were going in circles and I had said enough to make my point.
Thank you for the laugh.
What is it?
Answering 'art' would depend on a person's perspective.
... I'm actually content not knowing.
Don't laugh, I thought was furniture until I studied it more.
OUCH!
Tbh, that sounds like someone trying to feign ignorance in hopes of getting away with something they knew was wrong. Back when I used to do game screenarchery (think video game photography...it's using a "camera" to take high quality artistic screenshots of video games...not just screenshots with a locked camera or during cutscenes, so it is indeed an artform in itself just like phtography though it's really hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the concept of screenarchery iknowimrambling)...I had some people take my images and "edit" them, essentially just applying filters in Photoshop, and then claim them as their own. One person actually claimed it was their screenshot and then stopped responding to me when I did an overlaid pixel-next-to-pixel comparison proving that there was no possible way it wasn't my image. Anyways...what I'm meandering around trying to say is that people will always steal artwork, in any form, and try to pass it off as their own...some get caught, some don't, and some try to play stupid when they do.
Here are a couple examples of what I mean when I say "screenarchery" (they are mine...and I do consider them art...nobody's game looks like my game...it's Skyrim, btw...a 250GB install of Skyrim, lol)
Good, God, are y'all still arguing about this?
Art is art, it doesn't matter what the medium is.
If you create something with the goal of telling a story or conveying a sense of emotion, you're creating art, whether you're raking sand and pebbles into rows in a Japanese garden, performing interpretive dance, taking photgphs of the tiny reflections in the drops of dew on a leaf, writing a dirty limerick, drawing a comic strip or painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chappel.
If, on the other hand, you're creating something and the goal is purely functional and you really don't care how it looks, what the aestheitcs are or what impression other people get from looking at it, okay, you're probably not creating art and merely working as a craftsperson. But when you go to a craft show and there's someone there selling dozens of almost identical carved wooden sculptures, at what point does the line between art and craft blur? Clearly, at some point, there was an original sculpture
And then there's another nut to chew on - the fact that two people can be working on the exact same thing at the same time and one of them is creating art while the other isn't... as in, say, the case of building a building where an archechtect may have a definitive goal and aesthtic they're trying to acheive with design and choice of materials while a contractor on that project may only be concerned with with how many two by fours are getting nailed together and how fast plaster is being applied to the ceilings... even if that plaster is being applied in a specific pattern. Likewise, when a relative knits a scarf specifically for you and makes aesthetic choices about color and pattern because they want someone to be pleased by them, they're creating art, whereas someone who' works in a clothing store knitting an identical scarf from a pattern provided by their employers may simply be a craftsperson.
Finally, introducing the idea of a craftsperson also brings up the issue of all the great works of art that have been created at the specific request of otheres, things that, at the end of the day, were primarilly done as jobs to pay the bills. MIcaelangelo and Da Vinci were, after all, told basically what they had to do and what the expected results were when they painted the Sistine Chappel ceiling and the Last Supper. And, in fact, neither of them actually did all of the work themselves.. They each had a number of apprentices and other support people without whom the creations of those works wouuld have been impossible. Does that mean that MIchaelangelo and Da Vinci weren't artists and that they weren't creating major works of art? Of course it doesn't.
The important thing to remember is that what makes something art is NOT how it's perceived by others, but the intent of the creator and the audience that they're trying to reach for whatever reason. Whether that attempt actually suceeds is, to a great extent, irrelevant to the act of creation. It is, as they say, the thought that counts, though if one person can nail a banana to a wall and call it art, and then someone esle happily pays thousands of dollars for it, then clearly there's an emotional subtext that resonating back and forth.
So, if you look and something and don't think it's art, that doesn't mean that it isn't art. It just means that it isn't art for you.
The important thing to remember is that what makes something art is NOT how it's perceived by others, but the intent of the creator
Not true and was already covered earlier in this thread.
Both for technical reasons and real world examples.
And that even goes against the dictionary definition.
You are suggesting that HOW a person FEELS about something that they are creating makes it art.
It doesn't.
Don't look at me, I'm still going on about potato photography (the only real art) and possibly one of the few who actually read the OP's original post and their other ones...
Their original concern was about using commercial assets made by others...
"Now when I advertise my commission work I'm always afraid someone will call me out and say that I'm not making any art, that I'm just "putting stuff together". I guess that's why I made this post in the first place."
Then after lots of people interpreted the question as being about the meaning of art, potatoes and who is really an artist and who is really a cross eyed gibbon with a paintbrush, they said...
"originally wondering if you could call yourself an artist not because of artistic value but again, credit-wise as you are using premade assets.".... "Good responses, but I was hoping we could steer it back in this direction. Thanks." ....
I can't believe that lout who keeps talking about potatoes... but I think they (the original poster) were really asking about potato photography how others feel about using pre-made content.
I keep coming back here to see how close to the brink of madness this thread gets and maybe posting something that makes people think about potato photography what the OP was pondering...
Er... no. First and foremost, that's so far NOT been the consensus of this thread. Go back and read it and you'll see that, if anything, you're espousing a small minority opinion.
Second, since you pulled out the dictionary definition card, I'll have to point out that you seem to have ignored Ivy's post of the definition of artist and the ensuing discussion, which goes against your argument By the way, THIS is the actual Webster's definition of ART -
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation the art of making friends
2a : a branch of learning:
(1) : one of the humanities
(2) arts plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill the art of organ building
4a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
the art of painting landscapes also : works so produced a gallery for modern art
b(1) : fine arts
(2) : one of the fine arts
(3) : one of the graphic arts
5a archaic : a skillful plan
b : the quality or state of being artful (see artful sense 2a)
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
Blah, blah, blah, etaoin shrdlu...
It seems to me that 4a is pretty much exactly what I said, though RawArt probably said it better when he posted
Now, what you may notice in Webster's definition is that there's NO mention of any kind of sanctioning process for art. Oso3D hit the nail on the head inreferece to the definition of art
Critics, viewers and praise aren't requirements for art, they're requirements for narcisism and an artistic establishment... an establishment that is notable for frequently rejecting work that doesn't fit the parameters of what that particular group considers ART. Unfortunately for them, history is rife with examples of people who weren't considered good or "real" artists in their day that have since come to be recognized as simply having had unique points of view that were ahead of their time... Monet, Van Gogh, and Seurat were all actively scorned by the artistic establishments of their day, El Greco and Vermeer were considered pedestrian and forgotten for hundreds of years, and let's not even get into Gauguin and Toulouse-Lautrec. Fortunately, they continued to produce art DESPITE the lack of individual acclaim and public adulation, and often at horrific personal cost (watch the Doctor Who episode the Doctor and Vincent if you want to bawl your eyes out), and the world is now far richer for it. Yet, under your apparent definition, their work didn't become ART until someone else sprinkled the magic fairy dust of approval on it.
No, what happened is that eventually the artistic community reevaluated their own opinion and decided that they had been wrong. It was ALWAYS art.
Finally, as to "for technical reasons and real world examples." Nope, sorry, it's not there. Even your own submission about the person submitting work made by pushing buttons really only serves to show that the opinions of others are often flawed. And... as much as I hate to open this can of worms... how different is what he was doing from how Andy Warhol worked? https://hamiltonselway.com/andy-warhols-silk-screening-process/ ; After all, Warhol used existing photos created by others as the basis of most of his works and had others do most of the technical work involved in setting up the silk screens, so his real input came in terms of selecting the original images and then chosing the colors and the surfaces to be printed on. To be fair, there's no doubt that the person you referred to was being extremely dishonest if they were taking any claim for elements and compostion that were pulled from the original source images or genreated by the filter, but there IS a tiny little sliver of Warhol level artistic choice buried in there unless he was literally grabbing images at random and running everything on the automatic settings. And, ultimately, the whole story is a bit of a strawman, as it doesn't reflect the parameters of the question asked by the original OP.
We might as well add this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage
at what point do you copyright protect your renders?
https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/index.html
there is also those people who take other people's images and apply Plotagraph or Enlight Pixaloop animations to them then call it their work
I see a lot of this shared on Facebook etc by people not in the art community
Just like a photograph, they are protected by copyright the moment they are created. To my knowledge, you shouldn't have to register them...I'm not sure what the purpose of that form is.
I fully agree with your points regarding Amy's original question (below for reference, so others who have missed it can read it).
Based on the statement in bold, I would say that you can definitely take credit for the work. If you still have doubts, I would just make it clear somewhere on you website/page (while thinking about it, could you share a link to you work, via PM is fine if your hesitant to have "the masses" go there) that you use premade assets for your work, but that you modify/combine them in ways that insure every image is unique and can't be duplicated by anyone else with the same resources. For anyone purchasing a commission, I would think the important things would be 1) do they find your work interesting, beautiful, high quality, etc. and 2) Are they purchasing something unique (something they won't see several other similar images from other people).
There are some outfits, characters, and scenes that you do see a lot of, and that are very recognizable. Potential customers might be worried they would get yet another cookie cutter image, or that the assets in the image they commissioned would show up in a hundred similar images on the net.. what you might want to do is give an example of an "out of the box" render of a common character/outfit/scene (something anyone could put together), and your image using those same base assets, only with your modifications (morphs, materials, arrangements, additions, etc.). Then, everyone knows exactly what they are getting. You aren't trying ot hide anything, and showing that your work is a cut above what others might do with the same assets. This way you are both showcasing and selling your skills to take the "ordinary" and make it unique or extraordinary???
4a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
By your own quoted definition, how do we figure if SKILL and Creative Imagination (subjective?) were used?
There is a judgment. (and I told you where it came from already) The person creating the works can only make claims and have feelings about any aspect of their work.
That definition supports my point. No where does it say, if you feel like you're skillful and creative and an artist and what you do is art, well then by golly it is and you are!
As I said, you need all three. It takes someone who uses Daz (primarily for our concerns) to understand WHAT and HOW much was done in the creative and imaginative process.
------------
The reason there is a balance of all three is so that no one angle/group becomes the ONLY judge. If only people who used Daz Studio (to a really deep level) were the only judges, then you would have the number of buttons you pushed and sliders you dialed in- the amount of "work" and "effort" you put in -would decide the value of the end art. That answers all of the people saying things like "...and just hit render". Where, in the wider world, it's "Show us the work and we'll judge that." And when it passes that test, we go back and care about the process that led to those favored results.
--------------------
Art takes work. No one is turning out stunning or valuable work(s) on their first day or first render.
You insult those who have put in countless hours and YEARS studying and honing their skills and craft, when you just imply that it is all the same bag of "art".
The gallery says different, the Daz forum and users say different and the rest of the world uses/used the term Poser Art for a reason.
Some art sites won't let you post rendered art. People get it beyond the personal feelings of the person about their work.
Render Art is becoming a thing that is pushing the needle. And look at the skill and creativity it takes to move that needle from where it is/was.
-------------
As far as societies go and bodies of thought go - of course there are politics (and mistakes and reversals) involved.
Have there been bad judges and flawed judging systems in the Olympics? In sports? Bad calls by refs? Whole games blown by bad officiating.
Cult favorites, sleeper hits...etc.......
All of these point to- getting One or Two of the Three very right, wrong or going a certain way.
Art is not so special to avoid this kind of stuff.
In my example, that (reworked/stolen) art passed and had one of the three. PEOPLE LIKED IT
But since I also know every render-to-line filter too, I'm also the person to see what he did and didn't do.
and to be specific- and real, THE ONLY line conversion that highly impressed me was based on a complex AI program that is NOT widely available.
And if it were to become common, then the critic context would matter - and it would become the equivalent of a filter setting for instagram.
Impressive for the first week of launch, not so much after that.
it doesn't reflect the parameters of the question asked by the original OP.
This conversation has evolved and widened.
And those concerns were the FIRST thing I addressed before going further.
Look at this silly person and more yardwork masquerading as art...
https://moon-child.net/man-arranges-leaves-sticks-and-stones-to-create-magical-land-artworks/
i guess it comes in handy when selling your rights.there are a few rights can sell, like print reproduction rights.
and a way to prove you're the rights holder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/
https://www.artbusinessinfo.com/copyright-and-artists-rights.html
The purpose is to establish a simple and universally accepted third party verification that you actually created and owned that work on a certain date. Otherwise, it's all too possible for the other party to steal the image or duplicate it in a way that makes it very difficult to prove that you actually produced it first. Otherwise, even if you do track down the offending party, the situation becomes a legal "he said, she said" where the person with the advantage is usually the one with the best lawyer. It IS a bit harder for someone to do that with images than with text documents, but in just the last week a very prominent YouTube artist had his entire site and YouTube channel stolen and then deleted by hackers. Also, consider this: if someone like Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Waterston hasn't been able to stop the never-ending flood of Calvin peeing stickers after 25 years, what chance does the average working artist have? https://triviahappy.com/articles/the-tasteless-history-of-the-peeing-calvin-decal
You are trying to apply your own personal definition of art to something that exists in a much wider context. The problem is that what is defined as "Fine Art" in most of the Western World doesn't really match up with what is defined as "art" in other parts of the world, and one of the most abominable practices that many cultures have continued to perpetuate over the years is the attempt to completely elimnate or refocus entire categories of art from other cultures. Likewise, while it is laudible to strive to be the best that one can become in any endeavor, the truth is that for a four year old, the process of drawing on a sheet of white paper with a new box of crayons is no less magical than an older and much more experienced person might feel while working with oils, acrylics or on a computer. If you want to argue with that, I suggest you go find a friend's kid and tear up their artwork in front of them while telling them that they're not qualified to create art. Let's see how well that goes down. The thing is, while that crayon drawing may not be "art" to you, it most certainly is to the kid... and most likely the kid's family, so make sure you're paid up on your dental insurance.
In the end, much of what many people want to define as "art" is actually just the end result of years and years of marketing bordering on brainwashing by an industry that exists to make money, usually at the expense of wannabe artists. After all, who'd want to pay for multiple years of art lessons if they hadn't been mentally conditioned to believe that that was the only way to become a sucessful artist when, in fact, a degree in art is one of the most useless there is unless your goal is to teach art? And why would art gallery owners want to agressively groom and promote truly new and radical styles of art when they have a lot more artists producing stuff in the old styles to sell? Unfortunately, a lot of people do buy into that, even though the world is full of examples of people who just sat down one day and made something that suddenly redefined them as an "artist." Moreover, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that art isn't something that's governed by a specific set of societal restricitions, because those restrictions have changed constantly over the milenia while art, as a concept, predates all forms of permanent civilization, with the first evidence of purely ornamental objects dating back over 110,000 years. That's long before the establishment of anything that even vaguely resemblied permanent settlements or complex social structures and laguage. Rather, the need to create art simply seems to be one of those quirks of the human condition, as while there are other animals who create complex structures and even tools, humans are the only ones who seem compelled to rearrange the visual aspects of their world for purely aesthetic reasons. (the verdict on the uniquenss of human audio creativity is a bit murkier, as science is still debating what appear to be analogs to recreational music in cetaceans and certain avian species.)
The problem is that what is defined as "Fine Art"
Actually, I never said Fine Art or suggested Fine Art - as we are talking about 3D as the central catalyst. So no need to worry about the fine art world. That was never my point or reference. It was you who started naming famous, traditional fine artists to make one of your points.
The problem is that what is defined as "Fine Art" in most of the Western World doesn't really match up with what is defined as "art" in other parts of the world,
Which is why I said critics because of context. THOSE in that part of the world would be best to judge the art from THEIR part of the world.
If you want to argue with that, I suggest you go find a friend's kid and tear up their artwork in front of them while telling them that they're not qualified to create art.
Not really relevant. No one is suggesting that a person/kid/anyone - can't do arts and crafts. Also, no one would suggest that the kid with the paper and crayon is doing fine art. lol
But anyone who observes a fair amount fo children's art can see and recognize a standout. Happens.
Someone has developed or acquired skill and creativity beyond their experience or years.
OTHERS (there's that word) may judge/recognize a talent or ability in that person.
Kids win art prizes and some illustrations are chosen for display up front.
Usually it's the best of anything that is asked to represent us.
The kid that stands out- they use their drawing of the flower for the school brochure......
The early craftsman is asked to make the sets for the school play.
Teachers select from their students artwork and pick pieces to keep and display.
There is no world where the feelings of the creative trump all else- unless someone has constructed a whole world inside their own head.
That's all my point is and was.
My former dentist was an artist. I mean really, this guy could repair a bonding and make it look and behave like the real thing. Was it technical? Oh sure. But it's a tooth in front and I do NOT want to get an implant there. Every 20 years or so, the bonding needs to be redone. At this rate, I won't need an implant for another 30 or 40 years. The longer I can stretch that out, the better. And in the meantime, it's real. Yes, to me it's art.
I agree with you. Awww, drat; no pistols at dawn!
I could see that...however it would help that in the case of renders or photography, the original artist is in possession of the original piece. For example, my full-sized originals never see the light of the internet day, and especially not my working .psd files that have layer upon layer of postwork to produce the final product. In the case of that YouTuber, one would hope they were still in possession of the original video files before they were compressed and uploaded to YouTube. But yes, I can see what you're saying. The site just scares me in respect to a possible way to monetize copyright...or who's to say someone can't steal and then copyright first? And, after looking at that giant ball of red tape...if I had to go through that just to protect my artwork...I probably wouldn't even bother making the artwork in the first place. This is a hobby for me, not a day job. Not sure how many of ya'll have had the pleasure of spending a day at an American DMV...but dayum that form brings back some bad memories.
As long as people are willing to pay for the work (since the OP asked about taking commissions), then you're free to call yourself an artist. If you're worried about being called out as a phoney, then the artist should make every effort to differentiate the stock characters, props, and materials from their out-of-the-box appearance.
As to the broader discussion of what's art and what's not, I don't think you can create a definition. Just think, we have a whole classification of "corporate art," a product that mass produced to brighten up office spaces just a little. It's not like this is a new trend. Hundreds of years ago when paitings moved beyond religious iconery and began entering the home, artists "mass produced" paintings of landscapes and still-lifes to fill the growing need. Then as someone else already pointed out, you had portrait painters churning out pictures to make money. Not every one of those artists was a Rembrandt, but their art was appreciated nonetheless.
And those render in a box products? I wouldn't personally call their output as your own personal art, but then again, we take prints - copies of artwork - and put them on our walls. If you have a print of Edvard Munch's The Scream on your wall, does that make it any less interesting than the original just because it's a copy on your wall? And going back to Rembrandt, you could purchase one of the original plates he carved back in the day and use them to make your own Rembrandt print. If the print is created directly from the plate, you can technically call it an authentic Rembrandt even if you printed it yourself yesterday. I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that's what those render-in-a-box products are - a means to copy a picture people might find interesting. They might not be original, but does that make them "not art?"
Even if you create your own scenes, there is the debate to how much of "you" has to go into that scene before you can call it yours. I'm really surprised I haven't seen this piece of work come up as an example. Marcel Duchamp didn't create the object. He didn't color it or otherwise alter it other than to write "R. Mutt 1917" on it. I'm sure he didn't put much thought into it when he set it on its side, but the piece is considered important in the art world. Don't underestimate yourself, and don't undervalue the importance of your work because you might not have put in the same effort someone else did.
Are there any PAs out there looking at this and thinking about putting together an "art bundle" of objects to populate your museum and art gallery renders?