Loading...
> >

Art

2

Comments

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,263

    Fauvist said:

    There are 3 different things that make any piece of art "good" - #1) if you can sell it, it's good art; #2) if other people like it, it's good art - the more people who like it, the better the art is; #3) if it gives you, personally, joy and/or satisfaction, it's good art. The BEST art, is art that you sell for a fortune, that is so popular that it is famous, and that gives you profound joy and satisfaction. 

    In reality the only one that matters is #3. No amount of money or likes is going to make you like or enjoy what you created even more. You can make something and sell it for a ton and not be satisfied because there were aspects you weren't happy with and you didn't get the full fulfillment out of it so in your mind it was a flop that I just got lucky on or the buyer has no taste. There is no amount of money that can give you personal satisfaction that you feel in your heart. Of course that is just my opinion and not saying anyone else is wrong. I personally just don't gauge personal satisfaction off of others or gain.

  • BandoriFanBandoriFan Posts: 364

    Good art comes from organization and good fundamentals 

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,589
    edited March 2022

    Whether a work of art is good depends on the criteria of judgment. I think this article is coherent and nicely expands on some of the views expressed here.

    https://medium.com/art-meanderings-for-living/on-warhol-business-is-the-best-art-f4b2ddfa53d9

    Post edited by Torquinox on
  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    While I agree with much of what Richard says (above) I always hesitate to call DAZ Studio renders art. Perhaps I'm too narrow in my concept of art but so much of the content of a rendered image has been created by someone else: the characters, the clothing, the environmental sets, the lights, etc. All we do is pose/arrange them and tweak the parameters. Within that limited creative playground there is clearly a gulf between excellent composition skills and what sometimes looks like it has been created by someone who has lived in a box since birth. Do those excellent composition skills constitute art? Obviously many here think so and I don't mean to tell them they are wrong, just that, no matter how pleased I am with something I produce using these tools, I would never refer to it as art.

    Having said that, it does fill a need for creativity. I can make up and illustrate stories for my own amusement and I take a lot of care to improve the quality of those images but I never, ever, do so with the intent of putting them out there for viewing in any kind of gallery. Indeed, once I am done with a project or story, I keep it for a few days to look at but in doing so I see all the glaring mistakes or shortcomings so I delete it and start on the next one. Therein lies the fun of the hobby: actually working on the project. It reminds me of a hobby I had as a boy: making WW2 model airplanes from kits. I loved the time I spent putting the pieces together and painting the constructed model but once it was done it usually ended up on a box in a cupboard and my interest had shifted to the next one.

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,589

    "Is this art?" is a settled question. A work is art if it was made as art. Also, representatives and institutions of the art world can accept a work as art whether it was intended that way or not. A work of art need not be any particular thing nor look any particular way.

    "Is this good art?" is a far more interesting and potentially contentious question.

     

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    As an addendum to my previous post I'd like to relate an experience from my youth. I liked to draw - mostly pen and ink drawings and caricatures. I amassed quite a portfolio of these drawings and eventually applied to the local art college and was accepted. Unfortunately my father died and my step-mother became ill and I had to abandon my dreams of becoming an art student.

    A few years later I shared an apartment with a "real" artist. A paid commercial artist who did everything from make models for sci-fi movies (he showed me some of the work he had done for 2001: A Space Oddyssey) and also drawings for commercial packaging. I watched him work and the effortless way he could draw what was in his mind just amazed me and made me wonder whatever gave me the idea that I could do that no matter how much art school training I might have completed. His was a natural talent that I could never come close to.

    I see similar examples these days on YouTube ... artists giving tutorials on how to draw with the same effortless mind/eye/hand co-ordination. Same thing when I watch artists sculpting in ZBrush or Blender. They are the artists.

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,263
    edited March 2022

    The OP asked specifically "What constitutes good digital art of the Daz Kind?" They did not ask "what is classified as art" or "is this art or not", so lets not go down that road beating that dead horse and answer the actual question that was asked please.

    Post edited by frank0314 on
  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,589

    So silly, Frank. It doesn't matter how the art was made. Judgment of goodness will flow from the same methodologies as judgment of any other art.

  • csaacsaa Posts: 824

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Yes, this is not a game with rigid rules. For most people it is a recreational activity, with satisfaction being derived from various things - the use of skills, the creation of content and then showing it off, the inventive use of third-party content to achieve an effect, the technical results, the aesthetic results, the narrative results - while for others it is an adjunct to something else - ilustrating their stories, for example - and for still others it is a job. There is no one true path, nor any one true measure of worth

    Richard Haseltine,

    More than anyone in this forum, you've probably had front seat view of all yin and the yang that amounts to "Daz Art". My own motto is that There's No One Ring to Rule 'Em All.

    Cheers!

     

     

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500
    edited March 2022

    frank0314 said:

    The OP asked specifically "What constitutes good digital art of the Daz Kind?" They did not ask "what is classified as art" or "is this art or not", so lets not go down that road beating that dead horse and answer the actual question that was asked please.

     

    Ok so the question makes an assumption that it is art and only asks what is considered "good". I merely challenged that assumption. I can answer however I like and the OP can consider or ignore my comments. What gives you the authority to determine how the question should be answered?

    I have a framed painting on my wall which speaks to me in any number of ways. I have spent many hours contemplating that work. Yet it was not created by an "artist", it is a sheet of A4 paper covered in coloured brush daubs by my son who was 3 years old at the time. It gives me pleasure though.

    Post edited by marble on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,212

    ...I wonder how Art feels about this discussion.

  • ioonrxoonioonrxoon Posts: 894
    edited March 2022

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

    Post edited by ioonrxoon on
  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,589

    I love Marble's passion about it.

  • GordigGordig Posts: 10,174

    marble said:

    While I agree with much of what Richard says (above) I always hesitate to call DAZ Studio renders art. Perhaps I'm too narrow in my concept of art but so much of the content of a rendered image has been created by someone else: the characters, the clothing, the environmental sets, the lights, etc. All we do is pose/arrange them and tweak the parameters. Within that limited creative playground there is clearly a gulf between excellent composition skills and what sometimes looks like it has been created by someone who has lived in a box since birth. Do those excellent composition skills constitute art? Obviously many here think so and I don't mean to tell them they are wrong, just that, no matter how pleased I am with something I produce using these tools, I would never refer to it as art.

    Michaelangelo didn't create the marble from which he sculpted David. To be less glib about it, as you've already conceded yourself, the art in DS renders lies in how assets are used. You say that DS offers a "limited creative playground", and I wholly reject that characterization. Posing, framing, lighting and such are used to tell a story or convey an idea in DS the same way they are in painting, drawing, sculpting or any other form of "legitimate" art. You're also overlooking the choice of which assets to use, which is an important step in the artistic process, especially mine. Most of my renders come about through playing Daz Roulette, where I pick two figures at random and work out what they inspire in me.

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    ioonrxoon said:

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

     

    I guess I come at it from a personal perspective - indicated by my experience with the commercial artist friend I described above. I see a difference between technical know-how and talent. I notice, even here, that there are people who are my trusted oracles when it comes to explanations of how things work, how to light scenes and how to adjust surfaces, etc. Yet I see some of their renders and my reaction is, frankly, meh. There are others who have nothing to say in these forums - I've seen their work elsewhere such as DevArt, etc., and I think Wow! Nevertheless, I still have this nagging argument playing in the back of my mind that all we do with this software is play Ken & Barbie. I know that's not fair to those who really put a lot of effort into producing artistic results but that feeling is never far from the surface.

    Yes, I agree that a movie, for example, is the product of teamwork but there are aspects of that production that are down to the individual talent of, say, a cinematographer or a screenwriter or a director. Very few artists can say that they are responsible for a work of art from beginning to end but there are aspects of that work that showcase their talent which comes from the soul of an artist, not the know-how of a technician.

  • FauvistFauvist Posts: 2,152

    frank0314 said:

    Fauvist said:

    There are 3 different things that make any piece of art "good" - #1) if you can sell it, it's good art; #2) if other people like it, it's good art - the more people who like it, the better the art is; #3) if it gives you, personally, joy and/or satisfaction, it's good art. The BEST art, is art that you sell for a fortune, that is so popular that it is famous, and that gives you profound joy and satisfaction. 

    In reality the only one that matters is #3. No amount of money or likes is going to make you like or enjoy what you created even more. You can make something and sell it for a ton and not be satisfied because there were aspects you weren't happy with and you didn't get the full fulfillment out of it so in your mind it was a flop that I just got lucky on or the buyer has no taste. There is no amount of money that can give you personal satisfaction that you feel in your heart. Of course that is just my opinion and not saying anyone else is wrong. I personally just don't gauge personal satisfaction off of others or gain.

    $200,000,000.00 would give me the personal satisfaction that I could feel in my ❤️. Did you notice the word ART makes up most of the word HEART. 

  • GordigGordig Posts: 10,174

    marble said:

    ioonrxoon said:

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

     

    I guess I come at it from a personal perspective - indicated by my experience with the commercial artist friend I described above. I see a difference between technical know-how and talent. I notice, even here, that there are people who are my trusted oracles when it comes to explanations of how things work, how to light scenes and how to adjust surfaces, etc. Yet I see some of their renders and my reaction is, frankly, meh. There are others who have nothing to say in these forums - I've seen their work elsewhere such as DevArt, etc., and I think Wow! 

    There's an additional factor at play here: the ability to explain things clearly and effectively, which is separate from art. If you asked the incredible artists you see on DA how they create their art, among the probably small subset who would be willing to explain it to you is an even smaller subset who could explain it WELL.

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    Gordig said:

    marble said:

    While I agree with much of what Richard says (above) I always hesitate to call DAZ Studio renders art. Perhaps I'm too narrow in my concept of art but so much of the content of a rendered image has been created by someone else: the characters, the clothing, the environmental sets, the lights, etc. All we do is pose/arrange them and tweak the parameters. Within that limited creative playground there is clearly a gulf between excellent composition skills and what sometimes looks like it has been created by someone who has lived in a box since birth. Do those excellent composition skills constitute art? Obviously many here think so and I don't mean to tell them they are wrong, just that, no matter how pleased I am with something I produce using these tools, I would never refer to it as art.

    Michaelangelo didn't create the marble from which he sculpted David. To be less glib about it, as you've already conceded yourself, the art in DS renders lies in how assets are used. You say that DS offers a "limited creative playground", and I wholly reject that characterization. Posing, framing, lighting and such are used to tell a story or convey an idea in DS the same way they are in painting, drawing, sculpting or any other form of "legitimate" art. You're also overlooking the choice of which assets to use, which is an important step in the artistic process, especially mine. Most of my renders come about through playing Daz Roulette, where I pick two figures at random and work out what they inspire in me.

    I'm not a fan of Michelangelo either, to follow your example. His nude women were all men with breasts and his babies were built like rugby players. Anyhow, I'm happy for you that you consider your renders to be artistic. As I said above, no matter how pleased I may be with a render, I would never presume to call it art.

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    Gordig said:

    marble said:

    ioonrxoon said:

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

     

    I guess I come at it from a personal perspective - indicated by my experience with the commercial artist friend I described above. I see a difference between technical know-how and talent. I notice, even here, that there are people who are my trusted oracles when it comes to explanations of how things work, how to light scenes and how to adjust surfaces, etc. Yet I see some of their renders and my reaction is, frankly, meh. There are others who have nothing to say in these forums - I've seen their work elsewhere such as DevArt, etc., and I think Wow! 

    There's an additional factor at play here: the ability to explain things clearly and effectively, which is separate from art. If you asked the incredible artists you see on DA how they create their art, among the probably small subset who would be willing to explain it to you is an even smaller subset who could explain it WELL.

     

    So what? I'm not criticising the ability of people to explain techniques - I welcome and appreciate it (as I mentioned above). In fact I made a similar point to you: that is separate from art.

  • ChezjuanChezjuan Posts: 520
    edited March 2022

    marble said:

    ioonrxoon said:

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

     

    I guess I come at it from a personal perspective - indicated by my experience with the commercial artist friend I described above. I see a difference between technical know-how and talent. I notice, even here, that there are people who are my trusted oracles when it comes to explanations of how things work, how to light scenes and how to adjust surfaces, etc. Yet I see some of their renders and my reaction is, frankly, meh. There are others who have nothing to say in these forums - I've seen their work elsewhere such as DevArt, etc., and I think Wow! Nevertheless, I still have this nagging argument playing in the back of my mind that all we do with this software is play Ken & Barbie. I know that's not fair to those who really put a lot of effort into producing artistic results but that feeling is never far from the surface.

    Yes, I agree that a movie, for example, is the product of teamwork but there are aspects of that production that are down to the individual talent of, say, a cinematographer or a screenwriter or a director. Very few artists can say that they are responsible for a work of art from beginning to end but there are aspects of that work that showcase their talent which comes from the soul of an artist, not the know-how of a technician.

    Marble: I am curious if you consider photography art. It's always a question I have when I see threads start talking about what is considered art. I really am just curious and not trying to start anything. :)

    To the OP, it is really a personal thing to decide what is art and what is not. As Marble points out above, technical perfection doesn't make something art, though you can have art that is technically perfect. In addition to being a 3D hobbyist, I am also a photography hobbyist (maybe where my curiosity with Marble's stance comes in). The scene is very similar, at times. You see images and wonder how it can be so popular, considering all the obvious photoshopping, while others that are technically perfect get nary a glance.

    I decided a long time ago that I take photos or make renders for me*, and do what I like. If other people like it, all the better. Some of what I've done I would call art and others I would say are very good technically, but more along the lines of snapshots. 

    *though if a friend or family member ever asked me to do something for them, or someone on DA reached out for a commission, I wouldn't say no ;)

    Post edited by Chezjuan on
  • FirstBastionFirstBastion Posts: 7,836
    edited March 2022

    scouseaphrenia_c6c3d26832 said:

    What constitutes good digital art of the Daz Kind? I know there are composition rules but uploads on the gallery seem to be arbitrarily popular... Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

     

    I'm quoting the OP question because the discussion has gone into the "What is Art?" direction with dozens of post lamenting the nature of art.

    But that's not really the question here. The OP is asking, What makes stuff posted to the DAZ gallery,  arbitrarily popular?  

    Reality is, with a small sample size of voters, it is easy to influence the number of votes.  A small and active group votes regularly and their tastes influence the trending, which directs eyeball/views,  and can skew the numbers when it comes to preliminary voting. A larger pool of voters would help mitigate that.

    And yet,  the all-time top vote getters are certainly artistic works for various reasons and get some attention and deservedly so. . 

    Post edited by FirstBastion on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,212

    Chezjuan said:

    marble said:

    ioonrxoon said:

    @marble I disagree.

    You seem fixated on the idea of ONE artist - one artwork, but there's nothing more common than collective art. Movies are made by crews; bands make music together; sculptors use painters to finish their work. For comic books, writers work together with one or more visual artists.
    Go no further than the content creators here, some work together, one doing meshes, another textures and another rigging.

    There's no difference between buying assets (be it for rendering, video games or whatever) and a director hiring actors, costumes, fx and so on to materialze their vision.

    Also, rendering and drawing or sculpting have nothing in common. Rendering is related to photography. Composition, lighting, atmoshpere, storytelling, staging - those are some of the key elements of rendering.

    There are many talended people who can draw anything, yet they will never draw a compelling image. Just like many fantastic digital sculptors will never do anyithing with their creations other than product photography to present them.

    In my view, no art form is superior to another. Each require their own skillsets and vision. The only distinction I make is there's art that interests me and art that doesn't.

    But at the end of the day, few things are more subjective than art. The medium, the subject, the message, literally anything at all can draw in or repell the audience equally.

     

    I guess I come at it from a personal perspective - indicated by my experience with the commercial artist friend I described above. I see a difference between technical know-how and talent. I notice, even here, that there are people who are my trusted oracles when it comes to explanations of how things work, how to light scenes and how to adjust surfaces, etc. Yet I see some of their renders and my reaction is, frankly, meh. There are others who have nothing to say in these forums - I've seen their work elsewhere such as DevArt, etc., and I think Wow! Nevertheless, I still have this nagging argument playing in the back of my mind that all we do with this software is play Ken & Barbie. I know that's not fair to those who really put a lot of effort into producing artistic results but that feeling is never far from the surface.

    Yes, I agree that a movie, for example, is the product of teamwork but there are aspects of that production that are down to the individual talent of, say, a cinematographer or a screenwriter or a director. Very few artists can say that they are responsible for a work of art from beginning to end but there are aspects of that work that showcase their talent which comes from the soul of an artist, not the know-how of a technician.

    Marble: I am curious if you consider photography art. It's always a question I have when I see threads start talking about what is considered art. I really am just curious and not trying to start anything. :)

    To the OP, it is really a personal thing to decide what is art and what is not. As Marble points out above, technical perfection doesn't make something art, though you can have art that is technically perfect. In addition to being a 3D hobbyist, I am also a photography hobbyist (maybe where my curiosity with Marble's stance comes in). The scene is very similar, at times. You see images and wonder how it can be so popular, considering all the obvious photoshopping, while others that are technically perfect get nary a glance.

    I decided a long time ago that I take photos or make renders for me*, and do what I like. If other people like it, all the better. Some of what I've done I would call art and others I would say are very good technically, but more along the lines of snapshots. 

    *though if a friend or family member ever asked me to do something for them, or someone on DA reached out for a commission, I wouldn't say no ;)

     ...I used to take photos to do paintings and drawings from. 

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,212

    ...waiting for this thread to be closed.

  • MelissaGTMelissaGT Posts: 2,611
    edited March 2022

    Mods have already asked for this thread to not go down the "what is art" rabbit hole because it's a tired argument and always creates division. Having someone tell me that my pieces are not art, quite frankly, incites my rage. It's just as much artwork as photography is...because it uses many of the same skills (lighting, ccomposition, etc). 

    To answer OP's question...do you think your work is good? Then it's good. Do others think your work is good? Then it's good. Some of my most popular pieces have been ones that bother me from a technical standpoint...and some of the work I'm most proud of has done nothing in terms of popularity. It all depends on subject matter, where you post it, when you post it, and who your followers are. 

    Post edited by MelissaGT on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,212

    ...+1

  • McGyverMcGyver Posts: 7,066

    Q: "What constitutes good digital art of the Daz Kind? I know there are composition rules but uploads on the gallery seem to be arbitrarily popular... Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?"

    A: That depends... 

    That depends on what you mean by "good" or "popular"... "popular" might not necessarily be "good" by some people's standards and "good" might not be "popular" with some people with certain standards... and to some a beholder is just a leering one eyed floating blob that's always judging you*...

    I suspect that there could a subtextual question layered into the query, somewhat along the lines of "why does some stuff that doesn't necessarily adhere to the accepted rules of composition and perfect lighting seem to be as popular as randomly popular things that flaunt said rules but somehow speak to to the hearts of equally random people who don't seem to know they aren't supposed to appreciate images that ignore these rules?"... or to put a different way... "what the hell is going on here?"

    I think there are usually two separate factors that influence why people like certain art...

    One, you learn what good art is supposed to look like and work from there... or two you don't know about the rules and you like things because they appeal to you.

    Often those two views don't align.

    It's one or the other.

    I think more people tend to like things that appeal to them for whatever reason, regardless of whether it conforms to the rules of composition or perfect lighting... they just like it... maybe it tells a story, maybe it makes them smile or maybe it has the perfect cleavage to armor ratio... often it's perplexing because the lighting might not be perfect or the composition could be better... yet people still like it.

    I think if one were to gather up a thousand random people and you asked them choose what they liked in a digital art gallery, ultimately things like composition and perfect lighting would factor in less than things that randomly spoke to people for whatever reason.

    Now none of this is the same as defining "good" art or that even exists... it's merely postulating on why some things that might not be perfectly art law abiding digital art are more popular than textbook example art. 

    So, yes... probably more often than not, beauty is in the eye of the floating ocular monstrosity*.

     

     

     

     

     

    * Sorry, that's a lame 80s Dungeons & Dragons monster manual reference.

     

  • DustRiderDustRider Posts: 2,788
    edited March 2022

    MelissaGT said:

    Mods have already asked for this thread to not go down the "what is art" rabbit hole because it's a tired argument and always creates division. Having someone tell me that my pieces are not art, quite frankly, incites my rage. It's just as much artwork as photography is...because it uses many of the same skills (lighting, ccomposition, etc). 

    To answer OP's question...do you think your work is good? Then it's good. Do others think your work is good? Then it's good. Some of my most popular pieces have been ones that bother me from a technical standpoint...and some of the work I'm most proud of has done nothing in terms of popularity.

    Yeah , I'm not going down the what is art and what isn't art rabbit hole. Especially since that wasn't the original question. But I've had similar experiences where images I thought weren't that great were very popular,  and others that I put a lot of time and effort into went virtually unnoticed. 

    It all depends on subject matter, where you post it, when you post it, and who your followers are. 

    So much this!!! This is a huge factor in most galleries,  and probably is here too (though I don't know what the keys are here).

    Post edited by DustRider on
  • GordigGordig Posts: 10,174

    @marble, do you get much fulfillment out of your renders? I've gotten the impression in the past that you don't, and if you start working in DS with the idea that whatever you create won't, maybe even CAN'T be art, then it's no wonder. What do you think you could do to make your own renders "art" in your mind? You don't seem to be dismissing the idea that DS renders can be art, so why aren't yours? Is it something that you're doing, or not doing? Or is it that you think that you, personally, are incapable of producing art?

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,529

    I think it is more a case of self deprecation 

    we tend to look for validation by others, being boastful often  reeks of narcissism rather than pride

    if others praise your work it is considered art

    if just you do, not so much

  • nemesis10nemesis10 Posts: 3,490

    I am enjoying this discussion.  I have a close relative who was an excutive at two major musuems.  They often have rather intense discussions about whether a work is figurative, narrative, abstract, or a craft.  I remember visiting her in her loft in Los Angeles when she was working at the contemporary museum.  The whole trip was surreal; we left one morning from this loft which was a part of a converted tea factory to go to her car.  There was a commercial being filmed and an elephant on the street; she didn't look up as things like this were common on her block.  We went over to the Temporary Contemporary (a converted warehouse that was the musuem as final location was being constructed and was now galley space for big projects) to see a show of Modern Art.  Inside the warehouse, there was a one bedroom house cut in half and filled with iconic art of the 50's and 60's.  I am normally not a huge fan of abstract art but to see a Jackson Pollack up close was a revelation; what might look a random splatter is really a fractal semi sculpture that is notoriously hard to replicate.  Two decades later, I had the opportunity to see the Salvator Mundi a day before it was auctioned off for 750 million in a gallery in natural light from two feet away.  It was spectacular in a very Da Vinci way.  Both experiences reminded me of how mutable the concept of art is.  I think in my mind, anything you create that triggers both the emotion and the examination of the emotion is what moves something from a craft to something approaching fine art.

This discussion has been closed.