Man, you must be trolling. You must. But then again, when I see where I am, I ask myself why would anyone be trolling on blenderartists.org. But I will still answer your last question on why would anyone print this out for exhibition on a gallery.
Short answer is: they wouldn’t. No one would. Why? Because you are not a good enough artist and your art is not good enough to be exhibited in a gallery. See my point? Why would anyone go see Mona Lisa live if they can see it on the internet? I think you are missing out a great deal on art if you only measure it by its process and rather praise its creators for the process than the actual work they have done and what it can offer you emotionally.
You never replied on my line of thought on why the photorealistic artists aren’t considered the best and most impressive, but rather the dullest form of art there is since even before Kandinsky’s treatises on art?
Oh, and by the way, ever heard of digital photography? Or do you also have this very peculiar notion that digital photos aren’t exhibited in galleries. What is the difference then between digital photos and digital paintings? They are all ‘numbers on a harddrive’ as you put it. And still you are determined that digital art isn’t exhibited in a museum. Let me put it plainly: you are wrong and quite pompous about it, stating crazy notions like they are facts (but in reality couldn’t be farther from the truth), which makes it look quite silly at the end! Funny shit indeed, as someone put it before me.
That’s the opposite of chill. As a matter of fact, you seem to simply be getting angrier, even though I believe I’ve remained very civil and open in my responses. It’s clear that this isn’t getting anywhere, and we’ve drifted enough from the original topic as it is, so I’m ending the discussion here. However I’d advise you to read between the lines a little bit more, project yourself into different perspectives to see others’ point of view, look at discussions like this more broadly and always keep an open mind.
Have a nice day
I am as chill as it gets and far from angry! -> here’s a smiley face. But I see my writing can come off as passionate,
but that’s because it is! Angry and passionate, two very different things. And I’m really sorry if you took it too personal, it wasn’t my intention! I did try to read between the lines, that is why
I have adressed you with numerous questions to understand your perspective better, and because it contains some absurdly flawed logic and plain wrong facts (which can be easily checked on google) which I tried to understand better (hence all the questions), but all you did is avoid it, so it is really best we end it here. Peace and a nice day to you too!
Sorry, but you appear to be trying to be the ‘nicer gentleman’ by saying lets agree to disagree, however you won’t respond to any points he made.
While his points may not necessarily be correct, ignoring them, and going on about how swene needs to be chill, and how open you are, really is just dodging his questions, and make it appear you don’t have a response to him.
If you don’t, then it is respectful to acknowledge his point while agreeing to disagree with him, rather than just ignore and move on.
I would tend to agree with this. You could find digital artworks hanging on the wall in most larger museums and galleries within about 10 minutes of walking through the door, if you walked very slowly.
Threads on “art” on this forum (and honestly, most internet forums) are the worst because the most common attitude is that Obvious Technical skill = ART. No obvious technical skill = NOT ART. There are other prevalent attitudes, but no agreement on them, so the discussion always goes nowhere.
Or something like that. Best to just avoid these discussions and remember BA is closer to an engineers’ forum than artists’.
Doesn’t this entire 99-year-old episode disprove your idea about digital art not being “worth” hanging in a gallery? Or, more generally, doesn’t this show that, in principle, all ideas linking the value of art to medium or process are questionable at best?
In terms of digital art’s worthiness of being displayed in a gallery, you need to note the possibility that the art in question may be from someone who doesn’t want to just copy what everyone else does and thus has that uniqueness aspect that a lot of museums might be looking for.
In short, gallery worthy in my opinion (in a physical museum), would imply that the art is a cut above or has ideas that makes it more than interior 1,120,235 or human head 3,203,958. In this forum, you can look at Reynante’s or RobertT’s work as examples.
Dont forget, a lot of gallery work isnt really displayed for any particular significance other than that the artist either pays for the space, they have connection to the gallery owners themselves, or are the gallery owner. A lot of art which can sell in these places is often artificially in “demand”. People think if its in a gallery that its some how great, names can get dropped, social events held with the art in question and thus the worth goes up based on careful presentation. A lot of art “snobs” are in it for the game of being an art gatherer, if person X thinks that some art has value, and they convey the desire of wanting it, person Y will want it as well based on X. I feel that with digital art, we are bit more free from that “game”, that its accessible to anyone who shares it online and thus the appreciation for the art and craft, not the value, takes center stage.
Seconding tyrant, for print it is very important to have high res imagery. Often it can be easier to render out an image at the needed res than find the exact image you are looking for or taking a photo.
Although I don’t get paid extra for it, part of my job is to do product renders for our company, these are used all over the place, on Amazon, walmart.com, printed packaging, etc.
I see one reason to animate. It is more fun. Every still looks better with animated bullet holes. Animation is about 30 times better 30 times every second. I say we leave our still brothers behind and form a new society where even the rocks are moving, nothing gets to stand still.
If you can not tell that was all for fun.
Cover art for scientific journals (Nature, Science, etc.) is often made for somethings between 2000 and 5000 euros. This is what the research group pays the artist, without knowing whether the artwork will actually be used as cover art. The going rate for an artist doing this work is about 90 euros an hour + taxes here in the Netherlands.
Hi there.
I’ve been wondering about a similar thing as the threads topic, but in regards to making any sort of pre-rendered art. For me real time 3D graphics (for games also, yes) are way more exciting then stills and films. With realtime you get to design materials that have to catch light in interesting ways in a multitude of conditions, you get to create entire living and interactive environments. You have to strain yourself to invent ways of showing things so that they are both efficient to render and look as you want them - this immediately puts some constraints on you that in my book increase creativity. Furthermore you get to have an audience that’s exploring your art in ways never possible before.
I’m always wondering why with most of the 3D CG crowd the emphasis is mostly on films and stills and not on games or other forms of interactive art. Same goes for the Blender film projects, apart from that sheep game that wasn’t very good and the amazing BGE there don’t seem to be any major projects that would radically push the toolset for someone wanting to make realtime graphics.
EDIT:
To jump on the bandwagon of “what is art”, in the Greek and Roman traditions “techne” or “ars” where about the ability to perform a task, or make something. I think works that exhibit the skill of the maker are the most impressive works of art, and these aren’t necessarily paintings or films or books, but also things like swords, buildings. Things that display the perseverance of their maker, incredible patience, creativity, innovation, and emotion are the ones that work for me most.
I don’t get it.
Photographs are not that great after the invention of the cinema?
Henri Cartier-Bresson (1908-2004) isn’t that great?
Ideas about galleries and traditional art,
some should lower their attitude please, because they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about.
they should visit some collections, some houses first and see how it feels, to live among artworks.
Snobbism? I see a lot of it on this particular thread, alright.
I feel that with digital art, we are bit more free from that “game”, that its accessible to anyone who shares it online and thus the appreciation for the art and craft, not the value, takes center stage.
No and yes.
Basically, no. A new disturbing academy arises. Unfortunately.
I think I understand how you feel perfectly. I have been using Blender for a few years now and am capable of making just about anything in it, but I rarely do make anything in it, because I don’t see the purpose in it. No one I know personally cares at all about art. I could spend years working on something and unveil it and no one would give a crap. If I am lucky a few ppl who I don’t know and will never meet and for all I know aren’t even real might compliment me. So, yeah I feel very little motivation to dedicate massive amounts of time to renders.
Now knowing that I require reinforcement from others I think the best thing I could do is seek out other REAL ppl that share an interest in 3d art or art in general to share my work with. I have thought of putting an ad on craigslist for ppl who are interested in hanging out and working in Blender. I know I could find ppl if I offer to teach them Blender, but it would take them a long time to catch up to me, and it would be a lot of work teaching them.
Bottom line is, imo, you need to meet some ppl that share your interests. Real life ppl. Online buddies are cool, but they can’t be counted on in my experience. They’re there one second and gone the next. No rhyme or reason to it. I feel where you’re coming from though.
As for the meantime I use blender primarily for prototyping and tutorials. I build things in real life so Blender is invaluable for fleshing out an idea I have without having to buy all the materials for it first. I always build things in Blender before I do them for real. Saves a LOT of money that way. Too bad ur all the way in Az. You’re the first person other than myself who has ever expressed that feeling that I’ve seen. You get a lot of ppl telling you you have to have drive and that always depresses me. If I were the only person on earth, I would never use Blender again. I want to impress ppl and sorta compete with them, like its a game. You make a render then I make one to beat yours and back and forth. Most Blender artists aren’t into that, or maybe it’s just that I’ve not tried hard enough to connect with them.
What is the thing that hooked you with Blender? What do you dream of doing with it? I love beautiful geometric artsy animations and space renders, also complex machinery and the like. Scifi/steampunk/Tron But what do I do with the stuff when I’m done? Put it as my background and beat off to it? lol I’ll be following this thread closely. I wanna see what ppl say.
Or do you also have this very peculiar notion that digital photos aren’t exhibited in galleries. What is the difference then between digital photos and digital paintings? They are all ‘numbers on a harddrive’ as you put it. And still you are determined that digital art isn’t exhibited in a museum. Let me put it plainly: you are wrong and quite pompous about it, stating crazy notions like they are facts (but in reality couldn’t be farther from the truth), which makes it look quite silly at the end! Funny shit indeed, as someone put it before me.
-> here’s a smiley face. But I see my writing can come off as passionate,
Peace and a nice day to you too!