Renders: illustration or object within it's own rights?
-
Reading your post, Stinkie, the same came to my mind as an example as to Remus'. If rendering (PR or NPR - doesn't matter) cannot be art then photography cannot be art either.
Is every photo a piece of art? Of course, not. Nor every render is artistic either - at least not necessarily. If there was an only way to render; "push the button" and see the result - without any composition, any (intended) imperfectness, any additional and individual touch, rendering could certainly not be considered art (and to tell the truth, not even every render is artistic or at least not at the same level no matter how "realistic" they can be).
If your goal is not merely to automatically and mechanically "copy nature" but also to put your artistic talents; your "heart" in it, they are indeed pieces of art IMO.
-
@unknownuser said:
Yet ... sometimes there's this uncanny feeling I've got it all wrong. Why? Well, basically because renders have no 'skin'. There's no graphite 'n' tallow stains on them, no little ridges where brush strokes meet ... There's nothing there you'd like to touch. Which, in a way, makes them illustrations of ideas rather than manifestations thereof.
That, to me, is a grave shortcoming.
[/i].
If what you are saying is carried over to all media, then you are calling into question photography as artistic expression. Once again no textural brush stroke, no smudged graphite, etc.
I think as you have pointed out, it is more a matter of the time it takes to accept new mediums in which to produce art.
I think music is a really good analogy. There are a lot of people who dislike the synthesizer. They think that automatically being able to create sounds as fake. Then they go listen to a piano concerto.
I would suggest that the piano is also a synthesizer. it just happens to use stretched strings over a wooden soundboard struck with little felt mallets to synthesize the sound it creates.
Really without these tools, we would only have the human voice, and sounds in nature (wind in trees, waves on shore), essentially everything else is synthesized in one way or another.
Would adding a 3d printer into the digital equation to create texture be any less valid than using a wooden stick with sable hair stuck out of the end to smush on ground stone in an acrylic base to a machine woven cotton canvas. (gotta love the word smush) -
Stinkie, you just found another way to ask the much debated question "what is art?"
IMO, I believe art is intent. Lets take renders as an example, if I'm commissioned to undertake a rendering for an architect/investor that needs to convey a finished product to a client./bank in order to get approval or funding then IMO it's not art but rather conceptual. However if I'm doing it because I want to create a tabloid or site poster in order to sell the dream of ownership and hence I go beyond the facts of the project and add my 'artistic impression', then it's art, as it's gone beyond the technical concept and now has my opinion of desirability.
Did I make any sense?
-
Ah, this is a debate I've seen many times at other 3d art boards. Does the digital creation of a scene still feel like and qualify as art? What's the difference? The only difference is that the 3d render can be reproduced over and over with exactly the same results, and this is most often what I've heard traditional artists sneer at CGI for - the lack of "uniqueness" in the output. A hand painted (or suculpture, etc...) scene is unique each and every time. Both CGI and manual arts require years of training, and a good grasp of artistic concepts and skill to create good art, in that sense they are exactly the same.
IMO a good CGI is every bit as impressive as a good hand-made piece of art. Both can make me go "WOW", and both can be appreciated for skill and artistry that has gone into them. Frankly, I'd love to see what Bosch, Dali, or the Pre-Raphaelites could have done with CGI.
-
Dali
-
@escapeartist said:
The only difference is that the 3d render can be reproduced over and over with exactly the same results, and this is most often what I've heard traditional artists sneer at CGI for - the lack of "uniqueness" in the output.
Oh yeah. Let's dump Albrecht Dürer's wood cuts then because they can (or at least could at that time) be reproduced in prints.
OR can't I reproduce prints of a photo negative as many times as I wish?
-
Art is in the eye of the beholder....period. How many times have you looked at a flower or a frog or a fish or a beautiful woman or man or well crafted and designed useful object and thought to your self how "artful" or how beautiful that object or person or what ever it is was. The medium is just the messenger the "art" lies in the makers ability to use the "medium" to speak to those that observe, hear, touch, feel, experience their work.
You don't judge a book by it's cover.
-
It would feel like an photographers gallery to me. And its art if its done well or it speaks to me.
-
So I guess the consensus is you wouldn't feel - when walking into a gallery etc - that the art on display is 'missing something'? Hmm ... I like the sound of that, but I'm rather unsure I'd agree. Though, yes, the point made about photography is a good one.
-
It’s an age-old debate…the difference between art and craftsmanship. I think art does need to speak to you personally; one person communicating their ideas, experiences or emotions directly to another…and hand-made stuff certainly has a head start in that direction.
Photographs and renders suffer from the handicap of the viewer simply not knowing whether what has an impact on them happened fortuitously as part of the process, or as the result of careful manipulation to achieve that impact. This certainly doesn’t mean that such material can’t be art….it’s just more difficult to be certain.
Would a Time-Life type photo-reportage of the bombing of Guernica…however good…have the same impact as the Picasso painting? My gut instinct is no, it wouldn’t. -
You know, Stinkie, now those spiritually inspired renders come to my mind Nomeradona often (well, not often enough) "spoils" us. What are they if not art? Do you think the medium (a PR renderer in this case) is so important that it can lessen the message of such a piece just because it runs on a computer and not drips from the end of a paint brush?
Those who deny this merely on the basis that it's not art because is computerized, are all snobs.
-
@alan fraser said:
Would a Time-Life type photo-reportage of the bombing of Guernica…however good…have the same impact as the Picasso painting? My gut instinct is no, it wouldn’t.
I agree.
@gaieus said:
You know, Stinkie, now those spiritually inspired renders come to my mind Nomeradona often (well, not often enough) "spoils" us. What are they if not art? Do you think the medium (a PR renderer in this case) is so important that it can lessen the message of such a piece just because it runs on a computer and not drips from the end of a paint brush?
Those who deny this merely on the basis that it's not art because is computerized, are all snobs.
I don't doubt renders can be art. Anything can be. Call it art, and it IS art. However, that sensuous quality, say, a Robert Ryman has - it just isn't there. I just find myself wondering, lately, what could be done about that - without resorting to, er, 'non-renderly' means.
-
@gaieus said:
Oh yeah. Let's dump Albrecht Dürer's wood cuts then because they can (or at least could at that time) be reproduced in prints.
OR can't I reproduce prints of a photo negative as many times as I wish?
The application by hand of colors and inks to a woodcut and the wear of the woodcut itself can cause variation in in the output, plus the woodcut eventually wears out. Photography also has the difficulty of capturing the scene in the first place; but yes, once the scene is on film it can be reproduced at will.
But, I see where you are going with this argument. I'm on your side. CGI is not yet accepted widely as an art form, it'll get there eventually.
The are many things out there that the art community calls "art" that I think deserve to be in the bin, but the black-turtleneck crowd says it's art. I'm not sure if getting their approval would be so great!
-
How many people do you know who have lithographs, or simple posters or reproductions or "art" hanging on their walls? Is a reproduction of "art" still "Art" if that is the case than the medium is irrelevant relative to the determination of art or not. It does however affect the "value" of said art. and that is where this discussion ultimately will end up. one mans trash is another mans treasure. So in determining the "art's" value many factors will go int that. Is it an original work of art. It's possible to create signed limited editions or even only one "print" from a digital file. IE if the artist would choose to only print one copy say on archival quality canvas using the most advanced pigment dye prints etc. etc. and then hand sign that print it would then become an "original" copy. that would contribute to increasing the monetary value of the artwork.
I agree that working with a digital medium there is the perception that the art produced has no value because one can simply hit the print button and make another one. That is a flawed perception though since for all intents and purposes we could also apply that same logic to paintings and I'm sure there are numerous occurrences of reputable museums who thought they had a Monet, only to subsequently find out that it was a reproduction.
-
You've misunderstood me. The process is the artistic part. I also said that renders and photographs certainly can be art...just that it's harder to differentiate between the intentional and what can occur mechanically with little user input.
I'm also quite good at watercolour, being a trained illustrator...but I have no problem with email or black boxes and can appreciate a high quality render or cinematic effect as well as anyone. -
Can i revive this topic.. its very interesting. i found it suddently while looking all on the previous thread..
"my question perhaps is.. Is art all about media? Look at how Duchamp use the urinal.. yet we considered it as art and has influence our modern installation artist....
If we go back at the Dada period, Dada was intended as against art in itself.. but what happen it became an art movement in itself although the founders wanted to go against art... do we appreciate this movement base on the media? I guess partly, but most of the art critique said its about the context...
will be 3d rendering could be consider as an art? well back to my main point then.. is art all about media? no not at all.. most of the art work were glorified not by the media itself but the context behind the media..
in using 3d rendering.. is there any meaning you want to share? is there a context? yeah why not us then be the one who will push to this.. use 3d rendering in art.. many will say its not.. good let's make it more controversial. the more its talk of the town, the more you will exemplify its context..
personally, i considered 3d rendering and 3d media could be an art in itself.. are all 3d rendering art/ don think so. but this media could still be use in the world of art..
Advertisement