Hmm... Am I the only one?

As a "non-artist" for the means of this discussion, I find this thread fascinating. I find a lot of connections in the world around us that apply to the discussion. Where different groups place those lines of credit / no credit is intriguing and affects every aspect of production in most practices.

We're talking to each over through digital means, so that is an excellent universal example. In each of our cases, we have a computer, generally assembled through an amalgam of parts made in different places by a wide variety of companies. On each case, we have a label or brand name - the person who finally assembles the item. So, there we have the final artist. Before that though, the major components are also referenced and sited - most people know who made their motherboards, processors, video cards and so on. Also artists, but of a different variety. Further back, we have folks who build components on each bit of these cards, who are generally unknown, processors of the raw materials and so on. At each level credit is given to the next, but to the end user the mine that produced the particular elements for the components is merely assumed to have been of adequate quality.

Even within assembly practices, there are levels of artistry. No one can debate that certain assemblers are superior. In some cases, it is because of parts used, raw materials used, or method of assembly...but each is still a unique work and trusted to be of the expected quality. Everyone has better and lesser works, but in general, the reputation is earned based on median performance and current trend.

The current discussion is interesting to me because it is accepting all of the above as given. The real debate is, essentially, a classification issue here. Who should be considered artist, and who should not?

Using the computer example above, there are dozens of people I know that, given all of the components for a top of the line machine would be unable to produce a final product equal to one off of an assembly line but still consider themselves hardware proficient. There are a few that given the same items would know the precise and most efficient methods of arrangement. There are fewer yet that can come up with innovative new layouts to increase performance even further beyond what other skilled folks could achieve. At each level, each person can say someone is better at x or worse than/at x. The farther they are separated in skill from x, the less likely they are to notice a difference. But the difference is still there for the people it matters to.

In that way, I feel that the elements should be available for folks to practice with for those who wish to progress up the chain. The people who hold up their plug and play 3d assembly kits are the artistic equivalent of kids - they've done the best they can with what they had to work with, and are proud. You encourage them with what they've done because you want to give them room to grow into something greater than they are. At the same time, more skilled individuals will know that it is practice and nothing more, and that true artistry is a very, very different thing.

My point is that all levels require artistry. Some specialized, some not. The true greats can do it all - agreed. But saying that one person is an artist because they paint and another is not because they sculpt is incorrect. There are great painters with no concept of anatomy. There are great sculptors that are color blind. The label artist, like the label engineer or doctor, merely points out a level of high proficiency in the discipline. Someone who does anatomically perfect poses with a purchased kit is still an artist - just a different brand than the other types. The reason things are uncomfortable is because they don't have a separate name for what they're specialized in at this point.

They shouldn't be included in your definition, because what you do is different. Once that definition exists, the tension will vanish.

As for the stocks, they allow newbies to grow in confidence in a safe and structured environment. That should be encouraged and helped to progress past that infant stage.

If only that was how 3D stock was used... it doesn't seem to be. It doesn't help a person become a 3D artist at all. It doesn't open up worlds of possibility in Poser, or Daz or Bryce. It shows they can do a manip. Its not a "progression to being capable with 3D." You never have to bother with ever learning how to fix a pose or adjust lighting if you use 3D stock. Its all done for you. Cut and paste... blur and burn... sporked.

And from what I have seen, they art made with stock isn't encouraging folks to "grow in confidence " with respect to 3D. It has though, demonstrated to me that we live in a world that is obsessed with shortcuts and letting someone else do the hard work for you. IMO(TM)

At the same time, you're looking at the total product rather than the aspect they are playing with. Sure, they have a prebuilt of appreciable quality after limited work, like a base builder would have if they were given top of the line components. The difference is that their figures are stiff, unrealistic and static. There is no artistry in the creations that they are making within the skillset they are working on. They're 3d sculptors, and learning anatomy and realism - that's all they're working on. In your case, you are a multi-skilled practitioner - sculpting, painting, layout, design...you can probably do it all.

The only reason it is an issue is because they're claiming the same skills as you are through erroneous labels. I am saying once there is a title for 3d physiologist or sculptor, they won't claim the same title that you have as a full creator. Until then there will be overlap, confusion and friction.

At the same time, just because one person possesses skill in only one area of the work doesn't mean that they are necessarily less of an artist.

I would also agree with the final statement that you made. Everyone takes short cuts, always. The majority of tech folks that I know do not assemble their own video cards, though they may possess the ability. Most people do not write their own operating systems despite the fact that they are savvy programmers. The majority of painters that I have met do not go out and forage for the raw materials to create their own pigments to make their own paint colors. Likewise, the sculptors do not harvest their own wax or mix their own bronze. They trust others to create adequate raw materials so that they can practice their various studies.

They are just starting in a very different place from y'all. Maybe they'll stay there, maybe they won't. That doesn't mean that one can't become a virtuoso of artistic arrangement. The film industry is an excellent example. Professional artists who work only on backdrop, only on lights, only on sound. I don't think that makes them less of an artist, just more specialized. The difficulty is when people call them something they are not, and that is the only issue I see here.

Tor, I like your analogy - I think it's helpful and clear. I sort of liken this controversy to photography *thinks* maybe if I 'splain better we can figure out where the breakdown in credit issues and devaluing art is occurring.

Let's say you are a photographer. You hire the lovely Roz to be your model, you set up lights, you position her on a fainting couch, and you snap roll after roll of film to get that perfect shot. Afterward, you do some touching up either digitally or in the darkroom, and you end up with a gorgeous photo. At this point, some photographers choose to hang their photos in a gallery and attempt to sell them to a museum or collector. Others feel their work should be sold to a stock company, and they give up rights entirely. Still others sell their work, but maintain the rights to it. Others offer it up as free stock. And still others post it on their homepage to share but ask that it not be used. There is a fairly clear protocol for each of these things, but it was a long time in coming - photography went through a stage where it was not considered art at all, and in this digital age the artform suffers as more and more people have access to the technology they need to create better and better photographs. Standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. Even now, crediting can get complicated. What I most often see in print photographs, in magazines and such, is that there will be an appendix or something where full credits for the model, make up, clothes, etc are listed, and perhaps a copyright soandso on or below the picture itself. In some of these cases, the work is leaving the photographer's hands, for people to continue the process and do with it what they will.

In light of that, I can sort of relate to how the 3d-ers are feeling. Their work is essentially being placed in the same category as a jackass with a webcam, to continue the analogy. And sure, there can be talk about motes and beams and eyes 'till we're all blue in the face but does that really help anything? There needs to be an understood and respected standard for credits and labeling, otherwise (as I've often argued) it is entirely pointless to have categories at all. Likewise, it would help -so- much if people (like me) were more educated on what 3D entails.

I really would like to know if my analogy works...I have a feeling it does but it still seems like there's a disconnect, like I missed an entire step in the process.

I agree with both of what you, Verileah, and Tor said, and it makes perfect sense to me.

hmmm... I kinda needed to step back & think about this post for a bit. Bear in mind, I usually suck at getting my thoughts out in print.

I'm going to come from another angle, inspired by something Lessa said:


As someone who is working on a character pack to sell, I'm finding the thought of 3d stock a little distressing. I've been working for HOURS on making that character, adjusting the morphs till they're *just so* working on creating pleasing and diverse make up options. lets not forget all the coding that goes into place, to create all the mat/mor files either. I had no idea what I was doing to begin, and learned everything along the way.

After working so hard on it, I find it very distressing that I may sell only 1 or 2, then find a bunch of "stock" using the very character I created. Why would someone want to go spend $8-$10 on my character pack, when they can go to DA, or wherever and get a stock image that's already created, and alot of the work has already been done for them, as well as the money spent?

Take the photographer analogy in Verileah's post for example. S/He spent all that time, setting everything up, adjusting Roz's poses, the lighting, taking those tons of pictures till he got just the right one, all that work goes into it. Then say, He offeres it up for sale, for a particular use. So someone buys a license to use that photo in whatever way, and they make a couple modifications, then offer it up to the world for free/ or a low price (cheaper than the photographers price). Where does that then leave the photographer? most likely out in the cold, because lets face it.. Most people by nature have the "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free" attitude

So there's another side to this. forgive me if it didn't make much sense :razz

Tor, It seems to me that you are somehow missing the point. I don't think Roz or myself or nearly any or the rest of the folks here that use Poser or Daz claim to be better artists, nor has any of us said that artists of a different genre are lesser artists.

I submit though, that using stock images that are fully rendered and sticking them on a fully rendered background with fully rendered props, isn't on any kind of path to learning 3D... perhaps in the vaguest sense that the person using the stock would at least recognise a 3D item. As Sabby described it... its being able to place stickers and blur abit and hit save.

I don't think your comparisions about artists not foraging the raw materials for their art doesn't really express the issue here.

To use your example... if the lighting team for Star Wars went to the back dock and picked up the frames and cans from the last Star Trek movie that were stacked up neatly and all preassembled and then said they did all the work themselves... sure they assembled the parts, but they didn't exactly design the lighting rig themselves. Now, the company that manufactured the lights, or the scaffold/frames probably doesn't care who used them or how, but when the Academy starts handing out awards for excellence in lighting and the Star Wars movie wins the gong, did they deserve it?

Its like painting by numbers, yeah sure its still a painting of a Picasso, but its not a Picasso.

I would buy the poser creation, because I cannot use poser, yet I like the images.

Would you then post your picture in a forum for 3D art though?

I like pictures of sunsets and comets and auroras. If I get a bunch of stock photos from www.sxc.hu and cut and paste them together and post the results in the photography section... would that be right? I sincerely doubt the other photographers would see it that way.

Unless the place the picture is being posted in restricted the application, then while I probably wouldn't post there, I couldn't hold it against anyone else.

I think Verity really cut to the core of the issue, actually. My argument took crediting for granted, which seems to be the focus.

People who don't credit the original artists range from discourteous to violating copyright law. If people aren't doing that, then there's plenty of recourse in place for what can be done with them. If they are posting other people's work for free, that's violating intellectual property. People forgetting for minor posts or joke threads is one thing, but I agree. Someone posting other people's work as their own is quite shady.

But once it has been altered, it becomes a new thing (why copyright procedures can be so anal). If they sell the components, that sucks. If they sell their total creation, that's a bit different - they can claim to be selling the changes within it. If they give away their work, that's their business and akin to selling it. I can understand why it might piss people off if it is comprised of other people's raw materials.

That's the problem with digital media - it can be reproduced identically with zero effort. It just means that if this is a fight the digital art community wants to fight that they'll have to be more united than other groups would have to be and accomplish something that the software, music and movie industries have all failed at.

Many things that came to my mind were very well said by others but some left out as well, but I am not sure I have the words or phrasiology to explain it as well as you do. Please I beg patience as I try. And know that the words I want to say are up there, just not all that great in putting them down in a group of those that I respect and worry about how it will sound or come across so I get all tongue goofed or in this case finger tied. My concern was more about the looking down on one kind of art or artist because of the amount of work or skill. But after reading several of your posts, I see it is more than that in this discussion. Though still there is still that tone in some of it from what I read.

I keep thinking about the movie Mona Lisa Smiles (with umm Julia Roberts I think). The comparison between felt paint by numbers and great masters. What is art? Both. Art is about the creation or admiration of what makes us feel something. It can be beautiful or painful to our feelings. Bring forth angst like some photos with cuts and red paint and black ink over them I saw in one gallery or make you feel all sweet all over like someone putting stickers on a lunch box. Be it sculpture, painting, graphics, animation, or quilting the value of each as art comes from the one that created it and the one that views it.

Yet it doesn't start there. Music is arranged by different people from an original artist. Yes, if possible the original must be credited but some old songs in our church hymnal are by an unknown artist. Some songs are discovered as mere melody or maybe found as a poem with the perfect pattern for a bit of music to be added. Then there are some amazing people that bring together random music with an equally random poem. Is the arranger of the ready made compositions less of an artist or to be condemned for his/her work in putting things together that no one else had thought of? I don't think so.

The crediting thing is important as well. I do think it can go too far. I doubt Renbrant or Gogan (spelling???) put the maker of their paintbrushes, eisles, and canvases (granted they did most of that themselves) on the back of each painting. Though many of them learned various techniques from other great painters. The world knows they learned this way but is it on the back of the painting or with the signature? no. Some very new brilliant paint mixtures can be credited to various artists, do we put their name on the back just because we used their hue of paint? I hope not.

Credit to the main parts such as a body, hair, item of clothing made by another should without a doubt be credited. I don't argue that at all. Though it would take most of the fun out of it for me if the credits took up more time and space than the arrangement or creation itself did.

I may get some tomatos over this one, but my thoughts have been on this for a couple of days now as I tried to figure out what I felt was art and what wasn't. I think the human body and its insides are a work of art, but I am a science teacher. lol To me a blade of grass with a drop of dew on it is art. The falling of a leaf. Can I draw that? no, can I look for ways to use the work of others that offer the pieces to make that for my viewing enjoyment and arrange it so that it fits the place I want to put it and then want to show it off? I don't see a problem in that either. If I give credit to the person I got the pieces from.

v

i dunno... i would not post up one of my renders as stock... it takes me too long to come up with something i like enough to show it to the rest of the world to make it available as Stock.

Wow, you learn something new every day. Now I understand Roz's reaction when I used the word "stock" in a completely different context in another thread!

I don't want to dredge up an old conversation, but I just have to respond to one thing:



The first thing that occurs to me is that the first image is nice enough, but it really isn't very good. The second one is simpler, but much more compelling. I don't think anyone could look at the two side by side and be unable to tell which was pasted together, and which was actually rendered.

But to me, the real issue is: could you have made that second picture using stock? I don't think so. That's the beauty of producing a piece of art, is the ability to convey a specific image or feeling. Cut-and-paste stuff like this "stock" may be pretty enough on a certain level, but its expressive abilities are extremely limited.

So other than the issue of copyright and crediting (which is certainly a significant issue), I just think this "stock" business is kind of sad. In the final analysis, I could take a digital keyboard and a sequencer and make something that sounds "kind of" like a real band. But it will never sound like a symphony.

Again, sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I had never heard of this before.

Making an image primarily out of stock art just isnt 3d art though, its photo manip..

wow sartori kinda hit the nail on the head for me.

i had this huge paragraph typed up awhile back but i can't ever say what i mean without being misunderstood and pissing people off :x

stock is cheap ! its like artificial art !

As a non-3D artist (I once downloaded a free demo and made a nice human pretzel so hat's off to those who pursue this challenging artistic endeavor), this sounds to me that everything's pretty much pre-made like a drag-and-drop dollmaker, aye? If that's the case, it won't be long before people in the community are able to recognize stock models and geninune models. Nobody uses the dollz from the Doll Palace unless they are very new and love playing with all the premade clothes.

Eventually, at some point, someone who is new to all this will decide they want to take it one step further and learn to make their own clothes or their own poses so they'll graduate from stock 3D stuff just like people graduate from dollmakers as well. (I think that's how most of us at Norrath's Studio got our start when we were exposed to dollz in the first place. I don't remember how the 3D boom got started, but it definitely exploded as most of you are now here at TAC specializing in that.) Just be proud of your work and know that people will be able to distinguish between actual effort and premade layouts. From the nine-minute photo and the 7 hour render, I could see the difference. The character was out of place on the first one and the light sources weren't lining up right. She wasn't connecting to her environment and I didn't see why I should care about the layout. The second one was much better, more thoughtful, and gave more for the eye to roam over and take in.

You guys are in a 3D place where others wish they could be in! Be proud of your skills and don't let this stock stuff faze you. It'll pass in its own time. (If not, it'll be widespread enough for people to know what's geniune and what's not -- just like the premade dolls and premade bases.)

So what's the difference between 3D stock users and photo manip stock users? Is there a difference? Is one really more accepted than the other?

I don't know. I started off a photo maniper and became a pixel artist/doller. I see it as the equivalent of using someone's base or props (dolling). Or even using someone's stock photos in photo manipulations.

I understand that you all spend big money on your models and such, but you can't say one is whack but accept the others. I hope that made sense?

Finally, what's the difference between a 3D stock artist and a legit 3D artist that uses morphs? I mean with some of the morphs out there now, you have such a wide range of choices...that you don't even have recolor or paintover in postwork. There are a few 3D stock artists out there that put just as much time in their postwork. I do understand the argument on whether they should be considered "3D" or "3D Stock" and that they should be giving credit for all morphs and such.

To the 3D artists out there, please don't take offense to that last paragraph, I know the majority of you put a lot of hours and postwork into your final piece. I love all 3D art.

This is really a thought-provoking discussion!

My original thought to be blunt was of my dismay years ago when 3D rendering was first considered art. I spent years studying anatomy, doing live-model drawings, and learning how to work with various media just to see issues of anatomy, texture and proportion bypassed. 3D renderers achieve in a day a level of polish that it takes me in excess of 40 hours to achieve.

As I became more exposed to 3D pieces, I realized that the polish that amazed me at first came across as a sameness and the real artists stretched beyond that starting point and really put forward a unique point of view. That puts 3D in with other artforms, because I know there is a lot of freehand/traditional-media derivative crap out there!

The 3D artists here take a real pride in what they do. There are high standards of creativity, expression, and technical polish that I find inspiring. I even did a little border-y type thing to my sig after seeing all of the Fucking Fairy sigs that looked ready-for-publication!

I say stick to your guns and be loud about it! The more information you put out there, the more people will learn to see the difference and learn to seek the good stuff. It won't matter unless you make it matter. People need to know what you do and what it takes for you to do it. They need to know that the magic isn't automatic or accidental. Stock images are a one-note that will be picked up in time by the observer, but until then make sure you have them put stock image collages in a separate section.

QFT. Public education ftw!

(Wystro, you're in DC! I'm like an hour away from you :D)