PDA

View Full Version : 100 million polygons- insane model



hrgiger
06-26-2006, 01:13 PM
I thought I would share this with those of you who havent' seen this over at CGTalk. This is a work in progress for a model which is now finished that has over 100 million polygons in it. It wasn't done with Lightwave, but it's certainly mind boggling in complexity.

http://www.xcomicx.com/cgi-bin/zb41/view.php?id=dq_shine_gallery2&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=32

T-Light
06-26-2006, 03:31 PM
Edit - didn't read your post properly.
Stunning model :)

oDDity
06-26-2006, 03:42 PM
Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling. (Unless he was deliberately going for 'teh higist poly count evar', but that makes it even more pointless.

T-Light
06-26-2006, 05:01 PM
On the contrary, it has many fine points :D
Oh, OK then, right... I'll get my coat.

jameswillmott
06-26-2006, 05:03 PM
I tend to agree, and I found the model too confusing to be impressed at how many polys were used.

CMT
06-26-2006, 06:44 PM
The lighting and rendering are too blown out to get the entire form, Everything seems to run together. However, the model is incredible. Pointless? No. That's part of the manga style - Creatures with over the top design and redundant detail. Especially in uber powerful creatures. I like it!

Captain Obvious
06-26-2006, 06:45 PM
Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling. (Unless he was deliberately going for 'teh higist poly count evar', but that makes it even more pointless.
It's 100 million polygons after subdivision, so I'd hardly call it "sloppy modeling," as such. One scene I was working on in modo was about 5000 polygons. Then I turned on subdivision surfaces and rendered. The final polygon count: 1.6 million... So a high polygon count does not necessarily mean it's sloppy modeling.

SP00
06-26-2006, 09:20 PM
Regardless of polygon count, the guy did a find job of expressing the monster.

starbase1
06-27-2006, 02:24 AM
Well, I'm impressed - I think it looks awesome!

DiedonD
06-27-2006, 07:59 AM
Its heavy stuff. Pretty complicated. Its one of those pictures to be left on a real gallery for people to watch at ,for hours and trying to figure out where the h-ell is the monsters ars?!
Of course we are talking about monsters, right? I saw more than one heads. Or its a two many headed monster.

Good shot. I mean having it for a comicbook is pretty good. Would leave the viewer/reader puzzled for weeks.

...Im pretty sure that nothing in this world would ever make me create such a heavily complicated model with that many high polys.
I dont mind the labour, but I think modeling all that and adding rigging, texturing and animating, would be a very risky venture, doing all that in vein, since it surely would take alot of time to do it anyway.
And I wont even think that all that is done only for a still picture....so there's no cause for me.
Whhhhhhhhyyyy? To keep matters short, I think its an overworked model.

oDDity
06-27-2006, 09:00 AM
It's 100 million polygons after subdivision, so I'd hardly call it "sloppy modeling," as such. One scene I was working on in modo was about 5000 polygons. Then I turned on subdivision surfaces and rendered. The final polygon count: 1.6 million... So a high polygon count does not necessarily mean it's sloppy modeling.

Exactly, it's just repetitive displacement maps that have been frozen. Big deal, anyine could get an insane poly count by doing that.
It's not like it's all unique detail that's been actually modeled in.

badllarma
06-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Now try and animate it :D

jameswillmott
06-27-2006, 09:45 AM
Texture it too.

Captain Obvious
06-27-2006, 10:15 AM
Exactly, it's just repetitive displacement maps that have been frozen. Big deal, anyine could get an insane poly count by doing that.
It's not like it's all unique detail that's been actually modeled in.
This was not modeled using displacement mapping. It's basically subdivision surface modeling.

aurora
06-27-2006, 11:08 AM
It's not like it's all unique detail that's been actually modeled in.

Did you bother to look at the WIP, theres a ton of detail in there along with all the feathery/tentacles. If he had used displacement mapping to acheive must of those details his poly count would at least a factor of 10 higher.

[EDIT] you need to look at some of his other work too. **** impressive in my book. I know my opinion of 3DS is rapidly changing looking at some of Hyun's other projects. And me thinks Lee is correct, Hyun is not a person but a machine!

hrgiger
06-27-2006, 11:18 AM
Just the fact that a program can handle 100 million polygons is impressive.

aurora
06-27-2006, 12:14 PM
Not having played with LW64bit yet (although I have the hardware to do it) and going slightly OT how well can the 64bit handle something this insanely rich in polys?

lede
06-27-2006, 12:24 PM
Yeah that guy or gal is not human but a machine for sure at all the work done. 100 million is a lot of polies and I would not want to have to deal with such a large model myself. That just gives me nightmare thinking about it :D

Still impressive work. I wouldn't mind watching over his/her sholder while working on a model to grasp how it gets done.

-Lee

Werner
06-27-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm with oddity here.
It took me a couple of seconds the first time I saw this over at cgtalk, to figure out what it was. The artist is definitely talented but I don't see the point of building something like this. It would impress me if he would texture the character so that one can actually find the head between all those polys.

GregMalick
06-27-2006, 01:01 PM
I sure don't see the head... but I finally see the arms and wings.
I guess the point is to have you stare for a while to see something.

Definitely an interesting work.

Makes you look :D


EDIT:
ohhh there's pictures below the first with a closeup of the head....
Looks like ZBrush work to me.

Get's more interesting as time goes on.....


EDIT #2
Man some of his other work is just as awesome!

JML
06-27-2006, 01:12 PM
it's beautiful, I love it.

I would like to see it at a higher rez to see all the details.

lots
06-27-2006, 01:24 PM
I can tell you to render 100 million polys, at least in Lightwave, you'll need more than 4GB of RAM and a 64bit machine :P

I hit around 4M polys playing with the APS Displacement fur and Lightwave 64bit. I have 2GB of RAM, and that was barely enough to get the render going without thrashing to the hard drive.

Phil
06-27-2006, 01:35 PM
Does 3ds max inherit the mental ray update from XSI 5.x that somehow attempts to fit the render to your machine's capabilities? There used to be a rather impressive SIGGRAPH video on the Softimage site showing how they could render obscene poly counts on a fairly standard setup. That model also looks quite awesome.

parm
06-27-2006, 02:25 PM
Utterly brilliant work.

I really like, that it does not resolve itself at first glance.

From a distance, as an image, it has wonderful rhythm and texture. Closer viewing, is rewarded by ever more intricate forms and inventive detail.

Stunning modelling, enviably imaginative conception.

oDDity
06-27-2006, 03:18 PM
Did you bother to look at the WIP, theres a ton of detail in there along with all the feathery/tentacles. If he had used displacement mapping to acheive must of those details his poly count would at least a factor of 10 higher.

[EDIT] you need to look at some of his other work too. **** impressive in my book. I know my opinion of 3DS is rapidly changing looking at some of Hyun's other projects. And me thinks Lee is correct, Hyun is not a person but a machine!

Theres tons of displacements on that. That's where the high poly count comes in, in order to get the fine details from the displacements maps.
There's a ton of cloning as well.
Don't get nme wrong, he's a great modeler, that's obvious, but I think the final effect is a bit of a mess, it doesn't read at all, there's just too much.
I think you could include a screenshot of that model on wikipedia to define the word 'overworked'.

edit: THough I agree that the idea of an app being able to habdle that size of model is itself impressive. Lightwave starts crawling for me if I get to 30,000 subpatch quads.

hrgiger
06-27-2006, 04:16 PM
The fact that a model could be handled within an app with more than 100 million polys was I guess the reason I posted in the first place, rather then my awe of the modeling skills themselves, though they are nice.

aurora
06-27-2006, 04:32 PM
Don't get me wrong, he's a great modeler, that's obvious, but I think the final effect is a bit of a mess, it doesn't read at all, there's just too much.

I have to def agree with you on that. I did not even clearly understand what was what till I went through all the wip's. I also agree this was more a project of doing it because it can be done. But I have to disagree on the displacements, ect being sloppy usage, just to much of it to the point it becomes something that needs to be poster or larger size to appreciate.

I also have to say that, at least with my machine, I can finally nicely work with models with upwards of couple hundred k poly's before life becomes miserble with LW9. But alas I would kill (but not to the extent of installing lw64, yet) to have maya's, xsi's, 3DS's near infinite poly capability.

Grimstone
06-27-2006, 05:16 PM
I think its garbage, remember this is not lightwave..
I would say it was Z brush and photoshop.
further more why his body is way to big for his head ie look at his head and
compared to his hand. Disfunctional art I would have to say. In other words to busy and masterfuly constructed, using Zbrush and photoshop and some
3d package of his choice.

crap

hrgiger
06-27-2006, 05:31 PM
I think its garbage, remember this is not lightwave..


What does that have to do with anything? Is it automatically crap if it was not done in Lightwave?

Grimstone
06-27-2006, 05:36 PM
No the thing is disfuctional, look at its head compared to its hands..
can you explain that?

hrgiger
06-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Well, in that case, why don't we just discount Picasso or Matisse as well?

jameswillmott
06-27-2006, 06:50 PM
Don't forget Michaelangelo and DaVinci...

cobaltman
06-27-2006, 11:20 PM
I know that I will never do anything that complex in a million years. Kinda wish I could.:D

That model is so awsome. It took me a minute to find the head on the dang thing. It doesn't have much complexity on texturing, though. You should give it some complexity on texturing and make it look darker, too. Kinda give it a scary look.

By the way, I don't see what the problem is with the head and hand size. Some monsters are like that in some cases.

starbase1
06-28-2006, 12:30 AM
Why on earth does anyone think he is going for realism?!?!?
:D :D :D

There is a tradition of using more detail to emphasize the most important subject that stretches all the way from the earliest religious art, (major figures detailed, clones of identical worshippers sketrched in), though classic fine art painting, (unlit backgrounds, most detail on the face of the sitter), to modern portrait photography, and end of level boss enemies in platform games.

And you would really have to see the finished piece / setting it is used in to judge effectiveness.

Anyway, it gets some sort of canine testicular award from me!
Nick

JCG
06-28-2006, 12:44 AM
One of the most effective ways of neutralizing a strong warrior is to chop off his head. I would imagine that having a very tiny head that is very hard to locate would be a definitive advantage.

DiedonD
06-28-2006, 03:09 AM
Yeah that guy or gal is not human but a machine for sure at all the work done. 100 million is a lot of polies and I would not want to have to deal with such a large model myself. That just gives me nightmare thinking about it :D

Still impressive work. I wouldn't mind watching over his/her sholder while working on a model to grasp how it gets done.

-Lee

Are you sure. Cause by the looks of it, he is a very patiant man. And who nows how much time it took him to get all this done. But I know for sure it wasnt done for a week. I kinda think that he would outpatient you, and me for that matter. We would get deadly sleepy while he woulod go on and on and on, modeling one polygon at a time. And of coure there are milion of em :D .

TheDude
06-28-2006, 04:57 AM
The technical aspects of the piece are impressive.
I also like the look of it, however I agree with posts that say the same look could have been achieved with less polys.
But not everyone models the same way I guess, and this approach obviously works for this artist.

P.S. I don't see the relavance of the size of the Character's head and arms, that's purely subjective....unless this was modeled from life....and I hope that isn't the case :D

zapper1998
06-28-2006, 06:27 AM
Totally Impressive Model wow
dang

lede
06-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Are you sure. Cause by the looks of it, he is a very patiant man. And who nows how much time it took him to get all this done. But I know for sure it wasnt done for a week. I kinda think that he would outpatient you, and me for that matter. We would get deadly sleepy while he woulod go on and on and on, modeling one polygon at a time. And of coure there are milion of em :D .

Its not that I don't have the patience heck my last space ship had close to 2 million polies and I had to stop working on it because it ground LW to a halt. But then again his model is 50 times larger in poly count than what I've worked on :) Still would be fun to watch.

-Lee

BusyWolf
06-28-2006, 02:59 PM
Huuummm! Little Shop of Horrors -- Feed me C'Moer!
This plant has class and a since of fashion - it wears rings in it's noses.
Looks like too much work for a newbie like me that's for sure!

stevecullum
06-28-2006, 03:00 PM
Its a fine model, but would have to agree with Oddity - its too hard to read whats going on.

TSpyrison
06-28-2006, 03:10 PM
I’m not going to knock the guys modeling skills, I know I couldn’t have modeled that..
My criticism is with the design of the thing I suppose. It’s hard for me to tell what it’s supposed to be. Everything gets lost in the “busyness” of it all..

bobakabob
06-28-2006, 03:40 PM
Wild, really impressive work. Those demonic faces are fantastic. I like the fact you have to work a little harder 'reading' the image as there are all kinds of intriguing details worth discovering in there.

Yes, there might be room for improvement in lighting and composition, but this doesn't seem like finished work.


Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling

It's saddening to see some people diss Hyun's work out of hand in such a rude and cynical way. It's a sign of insecurity. Show the guy some respect - art may be subjective, but it's obvious he's very talented and created something unique. Oddity, the resident firestarter of the Newtek Discussion Forum, knows this really.

There's also a cultural issue to consider - South East Asian art is often exotic and crazily flamboyant - think of the beautiful demonic imagery of Miyazaki's "Spirited Away".

tyrot
06-29-2006, 02:24 AM
dear boba

i totally agree with oddity.

too many polygons,points and repetitive details. I dont know the concept may be it is good for that but it doesnt please my eyes. Because i see endless repetitions.

I LIKE detailed art, i LIKE beksinski's art, Bosch's paintings. There are many things discover in their art in terms of details.

This is just ultimate point of repetitive-insanely sick- cloning modelling.
Actually because this is (except below part) a huge mirrored image you dont have to look around. Every detail which resides at left side mirrored on the otherside.

But it doesnt change my POV for Hyun , he is a model-god. But i am sorry he gave his precious time and precious polygons to this one.

BEST

oDDity
06-29-2006, 02:41 AM
Wild, really impressive work. Those demonic faces are fantastic. I like the fact you have to work a little harder 'reading' the image as there are all kinds of intriguing details worth discovering in there.

Yes, there might be room for improvement in lighting and composition, but this doesn't seem like finished work.



It's saddening to see some people diss Hyun's work out of hand in such a rude and cynical way. It's a sign of insecurity. Show the guy some respect - art may be subjective, but it's obvious he's very talented and created something unique. Oddity, the resident firestarter of the Newtek Discussion Forum, knows this really.

There's also a cultural issue to consider - South East Asian art is often exotic and crazily flamboyant - think of the beautiful demonic imagery of Miyazaki's "Spirited Away".

Well given that 5 or 6 people have already mentioned they agree with me, I'd say you are in the minority here, and that post had nothing to do with the subject at hand but a blatant personal attack - and then you have the gall to accuse me of being a 'firestarter'.
The only people on your side, lauding it without reservation are the naive 'oooh look at all the polies, I wish I could be a good modeler like that' types.
That image doesn't fool any experienced modeler.

DogBoy
06-29-2006, 03:31 AM
Well given that 5 or 6 people have already mentioned they agree with me, I'd say you are in the minority here, and that post had nothing to do with the subject at hand but a blatant personal attack - and then you have the gall to accuse me of being a 'firestarter'.
The only people on your side, lauding it without reservation are the naive 'oooh look at all the polies, I wish I could be a good modeler like that' types.
That image doesn't fool any experienced modeler.

OK, oDDity, that is enough. You have now insulted everyone who didn't agree with you. Though Bob did make a personal attack, you are just proving his point.

Other people can have an opinion, and to brand them as niave because they don't agree with you is being petty.

Personally I like the guys work. I don't particularly like this one, it is way too busy for my tastes, but it does have a grounding in the whacked out bad-guys of some anime. I think what he has posted so far are test renders, as the quality of the images lack his usual polish. Would I make this? No, I'd not. Would I belittle it because of that? No, I'd not.

Try to temper your remarks, and people may not take them as attacks. There are more then a few people on this board who think you are just trying to get a rise. Prove 'em wrong.

DragonFist
06-29-2006, 03:59 AM
There are more then a few people on this board who think you are just trying to get a rise. Prove 'em wrong.

Count me as one. I personnal ignore any post by Oddity due to the nature his posts in the past on forums subjects that I have looked at. They tend to be critical and belittling of others works and if he is called on it, acts as though others are just being soft or some such thing. It is like watch the Luthors on Smallville.

I haven't found discussion to bring about any change in behavior so I suggest just ignoring his comments as just that, a comment.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 04:10 AM
Hmmm, Oddity, dismissing Hyun's work as 'pointless' and 'sloppy' isn't exactly constructive or respectful. Neither is calling admirers of this exotic style of eastern art 'naive'. We're all entitled to our views on what makes good or bad art. Why the sweeping negativity?


The only people on your side, lauding it without reservation are the naive 'oooh look at all the polies, I wish I could be a good modeler like that' types.
That image doesn't fool any experienced modeler.

I'm glad for you. It goes without saying economical poly modelling is a craft, indeed essential for certain types of work such as games and animation but as any 'experienced modeler' knows there's scope for a variety of approaches.

CGI art is ultimately all about smoke and mirrors. Technology is changing. Look at the amazing zillion poly models of Z Brush master, Meats Meier.
The end result is king. Of course it's important for artists to apply good practice in modelling but I've known clients who don't care a tinker's cuss about poly flow as long as the finished result looks good.

DiedonD
06-29-2006, 04:11 AM
Count me as one. I personnal ignore any post by Oddity due to the nature his posts in the past on forums subjects that I have looked at.
I haven't found discussion to bring about any change in behavior so I suggest just ignoring his comments as just that, a comment.

I think his comments should be especially ignored if it s about subjective, toony, non-photorealistic nature of models.
He doesnt understands em, and he himself has declared that he is not an expert for that.
Hes just a harsh, bully type photorealistic critique person.

TheDude
06-29-2006, 05:08 AM
Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling. (Unless he was deliberately going for 'teh higist poly count evar', but that makes it even more pointless.

Oddity, I don't recall anyone actually agreeing with your "sloppy modelling" comment.

Yes some people were making negative subjective comments about how the (clearly unfinished) work looked, composition etc and questioning the need for such a high poly count. But those issues are all part of an artist trying something different and pushing the envelope.
Such artists are often ridiculed by some, usually other artists who fear being outmoded and left behind.
To me anyway, the piece is not about an "exercise in effective use of polygons and modelling techniques", it's an artistic expression and therefore comments like "sloppy modelling" are redundant.
Although maybe you are just "pot stirring" and loving every post.... :screwy:

StereoMike
06-29-2006, 05:15 AM
I like the monster. I don't see a problem in cloning the branches. Would anyone model every leaf of an oak? Every blade of a field? Every branch of a palmtree? Pointless criticism.
I don't like it cause it has many polys (I couldn't count 'em by hand anyway).
I just like the mix of powerfull dragonlike elements and waving plantlike blades.
If you scroll down the site, you see a frontview, after seeing that, the whole thing makes much more sense (seeing that it is rather normal regarding bodyparts: has two hands, a head, a body...)

Maybe he has just chosen an awkward angle.
And obviously it is to be textured. There's some metal in there which has still the same surface as the rest.

Mike

[edit]
and although it's just prolly a WIP, I like the render in full light. You would usually see that beast in a dark dungeon, only half or less lit with some torches, before it bites off your head.
So seeing it in full light has something special and rare to it. Like a beast in captivity and shown to public.

SP00
06-29-2006, 05:45 AM
I thought the final image was a little too complex for my liking, but I think that was the effect he was going with. A garbled monster with a chaotic form. but I really dig the individual monsters that was created. Definitely a WIP, I can't wait to see it in its final form in a suitable environment.

oDDity
06-29-2006, 05:58 AM
Oddity, I don't recall anyone actually agreeing with your "sloppy modelling" comment.

To me anyway, the piece is not about an "exercise in effective use of polygons and modelling techniques", it's an artistic expression and therefore comments like "sloppy modelling" are redundant.
Although maybe you are just "pot stirring" and loving every post.... :screwy:
Regardless of the technical considerations, since they are not the important thing, this model doesn't work on an artistic level either, as I have pointed out, and others have agreed.
You can't read the model. There's nothing to fix you eye on, anywhere you look is just a mess of detail leading off in random directions. It's so highly detalled that is ends up just merging into one big blob.
All you really see are some tails and a bunch of feathery strands.
I think some of you guys are being awed simply be the amount of detail, and that is no basis with which to judge a model.

StereoMike
06-29-2006, 06:17 AM
this model doesn't work on an artistic level either, as I have pointed out, and others have agreed.

Man, are you starting a debate on what is art and what's not? You will certainly loose that one. And it won't add to your reputation either.

I once doubted the art behind someones mysongynic renderings, and what I learned from that lesson was, that you won't convince people to: "_not_ everything is art".

Your ice is even thinner on this topic, cause you only crtitisize the look, i.e the outcome. And everything concerning the look certainly complies with the term "art".

Mike

oDDity
06-29-2006, 06:24 AM
Well there only are two possiblities:
1. Everything is art (in which case nothing can be art since it has no definition)
2. Certian things are art (in which case certain other things are not art, and therefore it can be sucessfully argued that A is art and B is not)

StereoMike
06-29-2006, 07:21 AM
I definetly agree with you on this.
But point 2 defines art not in a universal way. If only one person considers it art, it rather is, no matter how you feel about it, it's kinda one way street, doesn't work vice versa (only one man complaining it is not art won't mark the object as being "not art").

So 1. is a global approach and 2. can only work per person.

And just the discussion over something being art just makes it art (cause there are ppl seeing it as art).


Mike

umstitch
06-29-2006, 07:27 AM
dude you re jealous, and cynical...

you think youve been around long enough to know whats what
but youre just jealous.:screwy:

oDDity
06-29-2006, 07:36 AM
I don't agrree with that, StereoMike.
IF something has been defined as not being art, then one person cannot unilaterally reverse that decision.
If a list of criteria were to be drawn up of what constitues art and what doesn't (and this is technically possible, if very difficlut) then it would be useless if just anyone could decide to change the list at any time, it would have to be a panel of knowledgable people who decide, for art is not just subjective, there are many rules to follow and technicalities to understand. Art is not random. All great artists had to study art to become great, none of them became great artists from living in an artless vacuum. It requires knowledge of what art is.
Since art is not entirely subjective, then you cannot decide what is or isn't art based entirely on your own subjective opinion. You also require artistic knowledge.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 07:50 AM
:foreheads

umstitch
06-29-2006, 07:52 AM
you imply that you have knowledge of what art is

that is a nice idea to suit those who beleive that there are those who "know" and those who dont, and those who dont know what art is, are very lucky to have 3d software technicians like yourself to tell them what is and what is not...art.

it is quite clear that most 3d users like yourself, have not an ounce of originality to offer, they simply have a technical ability which allows them to pursue the idea that they are an artist.

so, at least judging by your website, you clearly have very little idea of what youre talking about.

and if we are to begin pointless malicious criticism, because we are jealous of other peoples work,then we will eventually spend so much time defending our self aggrandizing, that we wont have any time to produce something worth looking at, and we all know it takes a long time to produce a detailed and complex model in our 3d computer heaven.

...just let it go:dance:

StereoMike
06-29-2006, 08:02 AM
I second that:
http://www.newtek.com/forums/images/smilies/brians/foreheadslap.gif

With that argumentation you're starting to make a fool of yourself, oddity.

Tell me something about how you define art.
(just in case you didn't noted it, that's a trick question)

Cause my next question would be how another individual defines art. How wikipedia defines art. How anyone defines art.
By seeing the differences, one could easily see art is in the eye of the viewer.

So saying "something has been defined as art" is very strange, as if public would say "we now decide this or that is art"...

[edit] Just in case I hurt anyones feelings, that was not intended, sorry for that then. But I think you got in a corner there oddity, and it's tricky to get out there without getting the head down.

mattclary
06-29-2006, 08:12 AM
I think I fall somewhere in the middle of this discussion.

I'm not that great of a modeler, I muddle by, but I can see Oddity's point. I think the real challenge in this model would be the tedium, not the actual modeling.

On the other hand, I think this is one of the most unique things I can claim to have seen. If one can express a vision using mirror and copy and make it look unique and interseting using such "mundane" procedures, more power to you. Just because this object would not be incredibly difficult to model, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of praise.

mattclary
06-29-2006, 08:16 AM
Regardless of the technical considerations, since they are not the important thing, this model doesn't work on an artistic level either,

Come on Oddity, reign it in a little. I think youy are just wanting to argue now.

It may not be the Mona Lisa, but I definitely see artistic value in it. This image is actually much more interesting and thought provoking (IMO) than the Mona Lisa. Is the Mona Lisa art?

T-Light
06-29-2006, 08:19 AM
Art like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, can't we just leave it at that?

On the point of poor modeling because of the high polycount, I don't see it that way. If I want to travel to Land's end, I'll get on a plane, a train or a bus. I won't put on a backpack and hike it. I have an enourmous amount of respect for those that do, it's just not for me.

I look at this model and see handfull's of abstract dedication. I love it.

Andyjaggy
06-29-2006, 08:37 AM
I think it is brilliant. I think the main problem is that we are looking at a low res file on a low res computer screen. I think this would look absolutely brilliant as a 16x20 print. It is one of those pieces you could just sit there and look at for 10 minutes trying to figure out. I think it is art, but then again what is art, it's all subjective.

mattclary
06-29-2006, 08:39 AM
it's all subjective.

Not according to Oddity. :thumbsup:

Meaty
06-29-2006, 08:40 AM
I always love these discussions. Thousands of years of Aesthetic philosophy reduced to five sentances and self-proclaimed truisms.:hey:

It has been quite sometime since my Aesthetics class. I do remember reading many philosophers who's views of good art centered around the viewer and the reaction (as opposed to the creative processes, or the artwork itself). Many would contend that the reaction and discussion in this forum alone justifies the label, 'good art.'

Way to go oddity, you made this thing art!!:dance:

TheDude
06-29-2006, 08:42 AM
You can't read the model. There's nothing to fix you eye on, anywhere you look is just a mess of detail leading off in random directions. It's so highly detalled that is ends up just merging into one big blob.
All you really see are some tails and a bunch of feathery strands.


Oddity, perhaps that is exactly the reaction in the viewer that the artist is trying to achieve? Think about that.
You may be one of the few people who actually "gets it".
Oh the Irony.

Personally I believe that if an "Artist" makes it, then it is art.The artist owns the piece, not the viewer. You either like it or you don't. There is no such thing as bad art, it's just that some (maybe all) people may not like or understand it.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a difference between slagging off and constructive criticism. One is useful, the other isn't.

umstitch
06-29-2006, 08:43 AM
-"is the mona lisa art?.."

yes, but the question should be ,as with all artworks, what is it the art of?

and part of that answer is:it is the art of oil painting.

likewise a good 3d model is the art of efficient manipulation of a software package, is it not?

then of course you have the vision of the work you want to produce, without which youre going to spend your time copying and making pastiche, no?

using 3d software to produce digital images, is still a developing field, using 3d software to produce great art is still an undiscovered country, but the evolution towards a new artistic paradigm is phenomenal, personally i love seeing peoples efforts to flesh out an artistic vision:thumbsup:

TheDude
06-29-2006, 08:45 AM
It has been quite sometime since my Aesthetics class. I do remember reading many philosophers who's views of good art centered around the viewer and the reaction (as opposed to the creative processes, or the artwork itself).



Wow...and I never even went to an Aesthetics class....I think I used less than 5 sentences too :D

gjjackson
06-29-2006, 08:53 AM
I've seen some creatures in the very deepest, darkest parts of the ocean that would certainly seem other wordly. They would seem to be some completely unreal. Yet it is actually a living organism. This model gives the same reaction.

lede
06-29-2006, 08:54 AM
I always love these discussions. Thousands of years of Aesthetic philosophy reduced to five sentances and self-proclaimed truisms.:hey:

Okay you just made my day with that statement. Good thing I wasn't taking a sip or it would be all over my monitor :D

Thanks Meaty!

-Lee

Earl
06-29-2006, 09:03 AM
I find it amazing that this model is being called non-artistic when it hasn't even been textured yet. "Oh the head doesn't stand out - there's nothing to fix the eye on" - well tough! Maybe after it's been textured the focus will be a little more clear.

I find the model interesting and feel it has a lot of potential (and regardless it's still an impressive modeling job). I could definitely see this in some sort of anime/manga-style rendering. I would love to see it animated, though I doubt many computers could handle it.

Modeling is often a repetitive and tedious process regardless of what you're creating. The fact that he may have used copy/paste and symmetry would be smart, not lazy!

oDDity
06-29-2006, 09:46 AM
A model has to work without being textured, or you're simply hiding your inadequate model behind your textures.

you imply that you have knowledge of what art is


it is quite clear that most 3d users like yourself, have not an ounce of originality to offer, they simply have a technical ability which allows them to pursue the idea that they are an artist.
That's assuming that originality is the main goal of art. Perhaps you'd care to define orignality as it relates to art. For example, Michelangleo's David is considered a masterly work of art, but it isn't exactly original. It's a sculpture of a man holding a sling. It's a copy of reality more than anythig else. Originality seems to have become more important in modern art, to the point where it is literlly the only point. It's a case of being original for the sake of being original. It doesn't actually matter what you do, so long as it's original.
Anyone can think up an outlandish fantasy creatures such as the one displayed in that image, and there are enough people doing that already, it is not a difficult skill, and does not define a good artist.
It's the technical difficulty of making such a detailed model that is on display there, and that is what is wowing the audience, and what prompted the thread starter to make this thread in the first place. It wasn't
'wow, look at this fantastic piece of art, it should be on display in the Louvre', it was
'wow, would you look at the poly count on this model'



and if we are to begin pointless malicious criticism, because we are jealous of other peoples work...
Oh please, you do yourself a disservice to stoop to that level. 'you dun like it cus your jealous...'

Art is not subjective. If it was, then no one would have to bother studying it, there would be no galleries - ater all, who is to decide which works of art are more worthy than others, if anything can be art. Anyone could make any mark on any surface and proclaim it to be art.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 09:57 AM
Anyone can think up an outlandish fantasy creatures such as the one displayed in that image, and there are enough people doing that already, it is not a difficult skill, and does not define a good artist.



Art is not subjective. If it was, then no one would have to bother studying it, there would be no galleries - ater all, who is to decide which works of art are more worthy than others, if anything can be art. Anyone could make any mark on any surface and proclaim it to be art.

Keep on digging that hole, Oddity :D

oDDity
06-29-2006, 10:30 AM
The people with the shovels are those who blindly think that inventing some hackneyed many-tentacled monster of doom constitutes a laudable artform.
THere is a thread here about this model for one reaosn, and one reason only - the massive poly count.

And before anyone furthur points out the mainly unoriginal status of the models on my site 'so who am I to be talking', none of them were made as works of art, they were made for a utilatarian purpose, either for a specific game or modeling contest.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 10:52 AM
Ah, well this link on your site explains a lot about your attitudes to art

http://www.pixelwerks.be/contact.htm

Good to see such humility from such a formidable talent :)

jasonwestmas
06-29-2006, 11:25 AM
It is obvious that his pieces tend to be visually confusing. If there is a reason for that other than making us go "holy crap that is a lot of polys" I'd like to know what it is. Definately brings excessive "geometric" detail to a new level from what I can see. Never the less, I couldn't begin to hope to accomplish something like this with my 32 bit machine and 2.5 GB of Ram.

hrgiger
06-29-2006, 11:48 AM
It seems like the ones who actually have nothing to say always end up being the ones who do all the talking.

Did oDDity really say that when something is defined as art, a person cannot just reverse that decision? Just checking, I wanted to make sure I was laughing in the correct context.

oDDity, you seem to think that it's merely the technical aspect of Michaelangelo's David that makes it a work of art. Not quite. Yes, Michaelangelo's technical skills are celebrated but that's not what makes the David a work of Art. There is a story behind the David and Michaelangelo's work is a tribute to that so it seems to be more about the subject matter. If Michaelangelo had made a technically perfect sculpture of David squatting to take a crap in the bushes, I guarantee you that it wouldn't be celebrated as art no matter how artfully crafted it was. Of course oDDity, I forgive you because you don't have the benefit of wasting your time at some backwater University learning things like the appreciation and critical thinking of Art Fundamentals.

Sometimes the point of an artistic venture is to challenge a plebian way of thinking and perhaps even spur discussion. This work seems to have achieved that.

It is so completely arrogant that there are those kind of people that can say that one thing is art and another thing is not.

umstitch
06-29-2006, 12:18 PM
we re not really discussing art here, we re looking at 3d art, and that means we have a focus on things like poly count, lighting/shading and texturing and so on.

without an interesting idea those things are somewhat mundane.

...and so this weird plant demon monster thing gets made by a guy whos looking to make the best model/concept he can with his software.

..and some of us go "wow cool/awesome", and move on.

..and some of us go "its just polies for the sake of it, big deal"

usually they are the people who need:help:

JML
06-29-2006, 12:20 PM
image by Kyungup Hyun
from : http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=373783

just in case some people did not see details shot of that master piece.

DragonFist
06-29-2006, 12:38 PM
It is not a good idea to feed the trolls.

Meaty
06-29-2006, 12:59 PM
Well there only are two possiblities:
1. Everything is art (in which case nothing can be art since it has no definition)
2. Certian things are art (in which case certain other things are not art, and therefore it can be sucessfully argued that A is art and B is not)

Not to pile on, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. The error is in the "sucessfully [sic] argued" part as your premises do not set forth the requirements for successful arguing. Though, it is fair to presume that a successful argument is one that convinces. Suppose I convince someone or some people that something is art. Does that make that something art? The success may speak to my abilities as an arguer, or a Sophist, but not necessarily to that something.

As a practical point, claiming that art is objective and not subjective, but then failing to provide the objective standard is a distinction without a difference, i.e. it is about as usefull as tits on a bull. It is only interesting on a theoretical/philosophical level, but it bears no impact on what people should think or how they should judge.

parm
06-29-2006, 01:32 PM
Well there only are two possiblities:
1. Everything is art (in which case nothing can be art since it has no definition)
2. Certian things are art (in which case certain other things are not art, and therefore it can be sucessfully argued that A is art and B is not)

Very, Very Flawed logic.

oDDity
06-29-2006, 04:08 PM
Not to pile on, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. The error is in the "sucessfully [sic] argued" part as your premises do not set forth the requirements for successful arguing. Though, it is fair to presume that a successful argument is one that convinces. Suppose I convince someone or some people that something is art. Does that make that something art?
Once the rules had been drawn up of what constitutes art - i.e the subject has to have at least one of those properties to be considered art, then your argument would no longer be subjective, if you couldn't point to one of the requirements being present, you couldn't successfully argue that the subject was art.


As a practical point, claiming that art is objective and not subjective, but then failing to provide the objective standard is a distinction without a difference
You can't seriously expect me to come up with a definitive list of criteria of what constitutes art, I was merely pointing out that it is technically possible to do so.

oDDity
06-29-2006, 04:30 PM
It seems like the ones who actually have nothing to say always end up being the ones who do all the talking.
I wish you'd taken your own advice before replying.



oDDity, you seem to think that it's merely the technical aspect of Michaelangelo's David that makes it a work of art. Not quite. Yes, Michaelangelo's technical skills are celebrated but that's not what makes the David a work of Art. There is a story behind the David and Michaelangelo's work is a tribute to that so it seems to be more about the subject matter.
WHat are you babbling about?
I mentoned David to point out that good art doesn't have to be outlandishly original, it can be subtle, a very simple idea, like that David. Compared to say, Bernini's David, a much more action oriented pose that leaves nothign to the imagination, whereas Michelangleo's is all in the sublte muscle tension and expression. That sculpt is all about Michelangleo's technical knowledge, both of the human body and his medium. It has nothing to do with the biblical story, if you weren't told what is was you'd have no idea it was supposed to be David. In fact, there's debate as to whether is it actually David at all, if you'll note the foreskin still very much attatched to the penis.


If Michaelangelo had made a technically perfect sculpture of David squatting to take a crap in the bushes, I guarantee you that it wouldn't be celebrated as art no matter how artfully crafted it was.
Why not, afer all, many sculptures depict people pissing into fountains...

Of course oDDity, I forgive you because you don't have the benefit of wasting your time at some backwater University learning things like the appreciation and critical thinking of Art Fundamentals.
Heh, one of these guys who thinks going to univerisity is the only way to gain knowledge, and anyone who didn't go is a low-born plebeian atrocity.

Sometimes the point of an artistic venture is to challenge a plebian way of thinking and perhaps even spur discussion. This work seems to have achieved that.
Having a discussion about something does not make that something art, and therefore 'somehting that creates discussion' is not one of the criteria of art.


It is so completely arrogant that there are those kind of people that can say that one thing is art and another thing is not.
I didn't say it wasn't art, I said it wans't successful art. You'd think they'd at least teach you to read at university.

oDDity
06-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Ah, well this link on your site explains a lot about your attitudes to art

http://www.pixelwerks.be/contact.htm

Good to see such humility from such a formidable talent :)
At least some of us have the balls to show our stuff, and can take criticism.
Where's all your stuff I wonder?
Not shy are you?
If the rest is at the same level as you avatar, then don't bother.

umstitch
06-29-2006, 04:57 PM
get some :help:

before its too late

:thumbsup:

DragonFist
06-29-2006, 04:57 PM
At least some of us have the balls to show our stuff, and can take criticism.
Where's all your stuff I wonder?
Not shy are you?
If the rest is at the same level as you avatar, then don't bother.

Another shining example of ODDity's tact and humanity. The reason you keep getting these responses is apparently no something you can see in yourself. I am sure the reason others can't see how right you are is because of their lack of superiority.

Have fun with those rose colored glasses.

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 05:04 PM
Um.. Not to point out the obvious or anything... but Art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced" according to Webster.

Therefore, if we can all agree that Webster is a valid authority on word definitions, since the creature obviously used the skill and creative imagination for an aesthetic object, it is art. You may not like his imagination, nor respect his level of skill, but it is definitely art.

jasonwestmas
06-29-2006, 05:04 PM
LOL, it seems you guys haven't held a conversation with Oddity yet? I feel like saying something since I've read many of his posts yet I don't know what else to say other than he seems to be a good guy with some strong perspectives. I really don't think he's mean spirited soo. . . :-/

Amhras
06-29-2006, 05:04 PM
Interesting model. The modeler in me is impressed, but the illustrator in me finds the images way too bussy with no clear focus, and with that ammount of detail there probably will never be. Heavy detail can be great, but I think our friend needs to consider how the details will impact the form as a whole.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-29-2006, 05:15 PM
Interesting model. The modeler in me is impressed, but the illustrator in me finds the images way too bussy with no clear focus, and with that ammount of detail there probably will never be. Heavy detail can be great, but I think our friend needs to consider how the details will impact the form as a whole.

Agreed. While technically remarkable, the model also made me appreciate the satisfying simplicity of a nice pair of boobs.

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 05:18 PM
LOL, it seems you guys haven't held a conversation with Oddity yet? I feel like saying something since I've read many of his posts yet I don't know what else to say other than he seems to be a good guy with some strong perspectives. I really don't think he's mean spirited soo. . . :-/

While I have never had a direct interaction with Oddity, I get the distinct impression that he is a very strong willed individual. I have no plans to say or do anything to attack him (or anyone else on this board for that matter) I simply point out the definition of Art to settle the debate.:agree:

Andyjaggy
06-29-2006, 05:41 PM
I can agree with that definition. However that doesn't define what is good art vs bad art, just what is art. So we can say that the monster is definately art. Now whether it is good art or not is subject to personal interpretation. I would rather have people hate my work then feel or think nothing when they see it.

It seems Oditty doesn't openly attack people until he has been attacked. Which is understandable. It seems to happen a lot though, probably due to his strong opinions and bluntness.

hrgiger
06-29-2006, 05:48 PM
Heh, one of these guys who thinks going to univerisity is the only way to gain knowledge, and anyone who didn't go is a low-born plebeian atrocity.


I never said anything about artists who don't attend Universities. It was directed at your comments that going to a University is a waste of time which just illustrates your ignorance.

tyrot
06-29-2006, 05:59 PM
dear wavers

actually one thing i know about oddity. you cant hurt him because he is already hurting himself so much more than you can ever imagine in order to create art.

When i first post my humanoid character for a game mod i met with him literally. He simply burnt my character with 5 sentences. I couldnt even open the modeler for days. I asked him what s wrong with you? He said go and study anatomy before making anything you are totally nuts if you post something like that as a humanoid.

Well i digested his rage on my model but actually he gave me a new vision for modelling. He was so perfectionist with his own models and he was not accepting any applause for his work. He is like Rimksy-Korsakov who revised his works till his death (probably in heaven he is still making adjustment for his Spanish Capriccio).

What happened to my modelling skills, well i really studied anatomy not much but fair enough. I realized day by day things are getting actually better. Because i kept his post and put it on my desktop for months i was somehow forcing myself to do better and better.

If you ask me we NEED more oddities. Otherwise in everyforum we will be destined to read "woow, cool, nice work, yeah nice...great work..." comments which doesnt do anything except limiting ourselves,giving us a taste of boring masturbation.

When oddi slashing a character or a work i re-read his posts, because i know he is doing the same thing for his own work every**** day.

And i still think that dragon a perfect repetitive cloning art. May be the first example of "Art Clonia" movement.

BEST

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 06:11 PM
If you ask me we NEED more oddities. Otherwise in everyforum we will be destined to read "woow, cool, nice work, yeah nice...great work..." comments which doesnt do anything except limiting ourselves,giving us a taste of boring masturbation. :agree:


I agree that we need more honest C&C, I have not posted a W.I.P. yet because I do not believe that I am anywhere near the skill level that many of you possess. My only problem with his style is that while it is ok to be harsh, there is a fine line between harsh and insulting and sometimes that line has been crossed in these forums.

I have no problem with “your work sucks!” or even “get some training before you post another update” but if it breaks down to personal insults like “you are so F*****g stupid for doing that” I tend to get offended.

jameswillmott
06-29-2006, 06:12 PM
If you ask me we NEED more oddities. Otherwise in everyforum we will be destined to read "woow, cool, nice work, yeah nice...great work..." comments which doesnt do anything except limiting ourselves,giving us a taste of boring masturbation.

BEST

I'm inclined to agree. From oDDity's posts I get the impression he is very passionate about what he does, and because of this his crits have been some of the best I have ever read. Sure, if you've done something that he doesn't like he'll tell you straight up, but if you have done something he likes, he'll let you know. More importantly the guy says why he likes or doesn't like something, rather than just blindly saying "That's great and that sucks"

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 06:14 PM
:agree:
I'm inclined to agree. From oDDity's posts I get the impression he is very passionate about what he does, and because of this his crits have been some of the best I have ever read. Sure, if you've done something that he doesn't like he'll tell you straight up, but if you have done something he likes, he'll let you know. More importantly the guy says why he likes or doesn't like something, rather than just blindly saying "That's great and that sucks":agree:

Very well said!

umstitch
06-29-2006, 06:16 PM
"If you ask me we NEED more oddities. Otherwise in everyforum we will be destined to read "woow, cool, nice work, yeah nice...great work..." comments which doesnt do anything except limiting ourselves,giving us a taste of boring masturbation."

I disagree with you -

oddity is taking advantage of the original post to be devisive

he doesnt like the fact that someone has made a model, unlike his own, and received some exposure on cgtalk and thence on these boards.

the "100 million poly" tagline of this thread is misleading and has been usurped to promote a less than objective appreciation of Hyuns monster.

I find it objectionable that odditys assement of hyuns work is:

"Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling. (Unless he was deliberately going for 'teh higist poly count evar', but that makes it even more pointless"- (1st post)

'teh higist poly count evar'

oddity is trying to undermine this artist is he not?

you dont find that objectionable?

jameswillmott
06-29-2006, 06:30 PM
"If you ask me we NEED more oddities. Otherwise in everyforum we will be destined to read "woow, cool, nice work, yeah nice...great work..." comments which doesnt do anything except limiting ourselves,giving us a taste of boring masturbation."

I disagree with you -

oddity is taking advantage of the original post to be devisive


No he isn't, there seems to be a fairly even split over who likes and dislikes the model, and everone who dislikes it has given valid reasons.



the "100 million poly" tagline of this thread is misleading and has been usurped to promote a less than objective appreciation of Hyuns monster.

I find it objectionable that odditys assement of hyuns work is:

"Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling. (Unless he was deliberately going for 'teh higist poly count evar', but that makes it even more pointless"- (1st post)

'teh higist poly count evar'

oddity is trying to undermine this artist is he not?

you dont find that objectionable?

Not at all. oDDity isn't trying to undermine Hyun, he even states that Hyun is a great modeler in an earlier post. He just doesn't like this particular model.


Don't get me wrong, he's a great modeler, that's obvious, but I think the final effect is a bit of a mess, it doesn't read at all, there's just too much.
I think you could include a screenshot of that model on wikipedia to define the word 'overworked'.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 06:34 PM
At least some of us have the balls to show our stuff, and can take criticism.
Where's all your stuff I wonder?
Not shy are you?
If the rest is at the same level as you avatar, then don't bother.


There's a distinction between constructive criticism and a rant.

Now that you've successfully defined "art", try "humility". The forums are here to encourage creativity, where artists can engage in open minded respectful discussions about their work. This is the Newtek Discussion Forum, after all, not the X Factor (though I suspect Oddity fancies himself as 3D's answer to Simon Cowell).

That means offering intelligent critiques stressing the positives as well as the negatives. Of course the "woow, cool, nice work" comments whilst nice to receive aren't always helpful. But using words like 'sloppy' and 'pointless' to describe Hyun's work, for example, is boorish and deeply disrespectful. "Honest" is the last word I'd use.

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 06:40 PM
a wise man once told me "Humility is having a correct assesment of yourself" I think it is possable to be humble and combative at the same time...

umstitch
06-29-2006, 06:40 PM
i think if you re work was described as pointless...

you d find that objectionable, you would object and others might object

since hyun did not begin this post, oddity is not offering a critical workshop to hyun..he is offering it to the lowly responders of the newtek forum.

...wherein he has sought to undermine the validity of the original post, as being pointless, and then gone on to offer ridiculous pseudo philosophy of the inherently cynical and arrogant kind, to excuse his response to the work mentioned.

..you may find this enlightening, i do not.:screwy:

..and indeed i continue to respond to this thread because there is no hyun here to defend his work.

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 06:44 PM
i think if you re work was described as pointless...

you d find that objectionable, you would object and others might object

since hyun did not begin this post, oddity is not offering a critical workshop to hyun..he is offering it to the lowly responders of the newtek forum.

...wherein he has sought to undermine the validity of the original post, as being pointless, and then gone on to offer ridiculous pseudo philosophy of the inherently cynical and arrogant kind, to excuse his response to the work mentioned.

..you may find this enlightening, i do not.:screwy:
you make a valid point.

jasonwestmas
06-29-2006, 06:45 PM
I appreciate brutal honesty. Oddity does give thorough explainations even though you might looked cockeyed at his explainations. I think If one gets to know Oddity's style of discussion you might not get so disgusted. Honestly I get tired of people looking at my work and giving me the "oh, that's nice" or "that's strange", I want more. I also have to admit that there are a lot of pieces of art that get attention and I wonder why. Oddity just lets you know why he thinks it shouldn't get attention more than others, that's not a bad thing. I've met others like him and they are the ones who probably have a clearer picture of what they don't want to see and does his ****dest to avoid it whether we understand it or not. That's ok by me. Now I'm critiquing the critiquer, that's amusing :P

Bog
06-29-2006, 06:52 PM
Regarding the original post, the uber-detailed monster thingy.

Well.. yeah. It's not my bag, and I'm sure it's great for Really Big Manga Fans, but I've been playing with some LIDAR scan of sarcophagi from the British Museum. Micron scale datasets for a two metre artefact.

Polycount is easy to acheive. I don't want to knock the guy's work.

With regards to this thread's divergence: I don't believe it's ever necessary to be rude when criticising a colleague or fellow artist. It's just... not. If someone's completely delusional, then yeah, tell them to please not give up the day job, but hammering someone In The Name of TRUTH(tm) is just tawdry. No one on this board is Simon Cowell, and there's really no need to act that way.

There's enough unpleasantness in this broken world of ours without manufacturing any more. There's always a gentle way to say "you could do better", or "I don't think that's pro-grade".

To be honest... I don't really see anyone else's artistic development as part of my ambit. If I don't like someone's work, I just won't post. If I do, I will. If I think someone's work is in the ballpark as being roughly my skillgrade, I'll crit as politely as I can. That way, in my experience, people tend to listen to me and take my suggestions on board, rather than taking umbrage.

Your mileage, as ever, may vary.

bobakabob
06-29-2006, 06:56 PM
hammering someone In The Name of TRUTH(tm) is just tawdry. No one on this board is Simon Cowell, and there's really no need to act that way.

There's enough unpleasantness in this broken world of ours without manufacturing any more. There's always a gentle way to say "you could do better", or "I don't think that's pro-grade".


Nice one, Bog.

jameswillmott
06-29-2006, 07:00 PM
i think if you re work was described as pointless...

you d find that objectionable, you would object and others might object

since hyun did not begin this post, oddity is not offering a critical workshop to hyun..he is offering it to the lowly responders of the newtek forum.


What is wrong with offering a crit about an artists work to someone other than the artist, so that they might learn from it?

I welcome crits of my work, it's the only way I can improve. And others can also improve by seeing and understanding what I have done wrong.


...wherein he has sought to undermine the validity of the original post, as being pointless, and then gone on to offer ridiculous pseudo philosophy of the inherently cynical and arrogant kind, to excuse his response to the work mentioned.

No, he said 100 million polygons to do this model was pointless, not that the work was pointless, he just didn't like it. There aren't even 100 million pixels in the final render so I can see his point.

His 'pseudo philosophy' came about having to defend and justify his opinions ( which are admittedly quite strong) , since anyone who doesn't like the image seems to get jumped on by those that do, as though they are being disrespectful of Hyun. I don't like all of Picasso's works, I find Guernica to be a childish mess, but I love most of his other works. Does my not liking one particular piece mean I am being disrespectful?

jasonwestmas
06-29-2006, 07:00 PM
Capacity for criticism is just different for everyone, so is an interpretation of rudeness. If someone doesn't like something about my work I want to know why. It almost hurts more for someone to ignore than to crudely chisel away at my logic of why I created something the way I did. It could be true however that oddity does need to do some sanding after the chiseling.

ercaxus
06-29-2006, 07:06 PM
I don't think oddity questions the guys ability to model. He is just giving his opinion and, even though a little harsh, that shouldn't be a problem.

I also do believe that art and beauty are not relative/objective. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. The simplest example I can give about beauty is this: There are no ugly girls in beauty contests like Miss Universe. I wouldn't mind having around even the worst one in that competition, or a couple of them :) They are hand picked among millions. It is the same reason why you don't see my art from pre-elementary years in Metropolitan.

I also like something Lightwolf said in a conversation like this, it was something like:"I don't make art, I produce graphics for my clients". What does this have to do with this conversation, I don't know :)

mjcrawford
06-29-2006, 07:21 PM
As for the 100megapoly model, as a monster goes I cannot say it is terrible, not my cup of tea but well done. I think that the hundreds (?) of tentacle thingies detract from the main body and it took me a while to identify the head. All and all just a bit cluttered and I think that oDDity was right on when he said that it is overworked. It is also not a very practical. I think that ‘pointless’ is a good word for it (the model, not the artist) unless it is meant to be a statue. As badllarma said “Now try and animate it” imagine what it would take to rig that thing! Darn near impossible. And even Pixar would have a tough time rendering that bad boy in any kind of well done animated sequence.

As for the sub-discussion on crits, I hate with a passion if all someone says of my work “looks great” or “that sucks” with no real critique of the work. that is not a critique, that is just a empty emotional opinion and I have little use for that. I thrive on the negative crits. That being said, I do not take well to inflammatory and/or abusive language, which unfortunately, oDDity tends to use. When I post my first WIP I truly want lots and lots of negative crits that point out the little details that I may have overlooked, or tools that I should have used, but if someone insults me on a personal level or starts using abusive language, I have zero respect for them as a fellow artist. They may have the skills, but the ability to make a professional level mesh, animation, or print render does not make you a professional. If in fact we want to be (and many of us are) professionals, than act like it.

TheDude
06-29-2006, 08:10 PM
A model has to work without being textured, or you're simply hiding your inadequate model behind your textures.


:screwy:

umstitch
06-29-2006, 08:34 PM
The people with the shovels are those who blindly think that inventing some hackneyed many-tentacled monster of doom constitutes a laudable artform.


ok thats me...give us a shovel:dance: :dance: :dance:

DragonFist
06-29-2006, 08:59 PM
I'm inclined to agree. From oDDity's posts I get the impression he is very passionate about what he does, and because of this his crits have been some of the best I have ever read. Sure, if you've done something that he doesn't like he'll tell you straight up, but if you have done something he likes, he'll let you know. More importantly the guy says why he likes or doesn't like something, rather than just blindly saying "That's great and that sucks"

Take a very good look at his post history. Sure, he sometimes gives good crits... After he has said "your work isn't very good" and he has now has other people all upset at the comment. Then he'll start to explain himself and maybe give some good data. But I have watched him on at least three ocassions give very nasty "critizism" of anyother's with no helpful data other than the insinuation that the artist sucked. Then after other posters complained about that he started explaining and trying to make it look like help.

Let's take a look at some of his great advice:

1. "Pretty pointless really. There was no need for that many polys. I'd call it sloppy modeling."

2. "Well, if you really want honesty, the problem is that it's not very good, and a lot of people are too nice to say that, so they prefer just say nothing at all.
To be honest, I'm never sure what I'm supposed to say in these 'here is my first evar model or scene' threads, because there's usually so much wrong with it I don't know where to start, and if I do say anything, then I appear harsh or rude (like I'm sure some people are thinking I am now)
I equally don't see the point in saying 'aww, that really nice, keep up the good work'
You've basically got a long way to go in all areas, but we all start where you are so it's nothing to get upset about."

3. "The texturing is not that awesome guys, it looks very flat to me, like a game texture."

4. "It's terrible. It's something you'd expect to find in a 'my first ever model' thread.
You don't even have any interest in the advice that's being given to you and just made the same mistakes again, I've no idea why you bother with WIP threads."


And then one wonders why someone might get upset with him. Maybe he might have some good input to give at times, I have seen him do it but I personally would rather not have it if it has to be served with belittling comments. It bothers me watching it done to others. And usually, the good stuff comes after the "your terrible".

If he wants to help, he needs to stop stepping on people while he does it. It isn't honesty. It is just plain mean. :thumbsdow And I think he enjoys not only doing that but the wonderful attention he gets afterwards in the form of written jousts.

Amhras
06-29-2006, 09:18 PM
Well, I don't know oDDity personally, and I've never had any problems with him. I always appreciate someone who's got some blunt criticism, so long as it is tempered with some modicom of tact. Quite frankly, I'm too **** lazy to go back over this thread and re-read all the exchanges that led to this thread hijack, but suffice it to say that any criticsm that only tells you what you did wrong, without pointing out what was done right, is next to worthless.

That in mind, I don't remember reading what crits oDDity has posted in reguards to other people actually looking for criticism, but this isn't a thread where we are speaking with the artist and giving advice, this strictly comes down to an opinion thread.

Meaty
06-29-2006, 10:08 PM
Once the rules had been drawn up of what constitutes art - i.e the subject has to have at least one of those properties to be considered art, then your argument would no longer be subjective, if you couldn't point to one of the requirements being present, you couldn't successfully argue that the subject was art.


You can't seriously expect me to come up with a definitive list of criteria of what constitutes art, I was merely pointing out that it is technically possible to do so.
I would argue that you can think of a list, a shopping list, a to-do list, a program list, a phone list. You might also be able to think of a definitional list for, say, what defines a square: 1) an enclosed shape 2) equal sides 3) four interior right triangles. This is self-evident. It is impossible to think of a square without those attributes. But any list you create that defines art will find dissenters because it is not self-evident and thus you cannot prove your definition. Some say art must have a viewer and be appreciated; the folks at Burning Man would differ. Some say art has to be representative of something real; Jackson Pollock fans would dissent. Those who abide by Theodor Adorno would say that true art could never be created in the context of capitalism.

You see, it is not technically possible to come up with a list of what truely defines art because the very idea of art is a nebulous abstraction, unlike a square. Thinkers have tried to define it in terms of just about every angle imaginable: representation, evocativeness, process, commodification, etc. Yours would just be another subjective list in a line of many.

SP00
06-29-2006, 10:09 PM
In the end, it is called sensitivity and people skills... Everyone is unique and different; one style of behavior does not work for everyone. The key is to understand when to use what.

The Japanese are indirect communicators, while the German are notoriously blunt. One method is not better than the other, but it needs to be used in context. When in Rome, do what the Romans do.
I'm sure it is the same on this forum.

StereoMike
06-30-2006, 12:54 AM
I'm blunt? And what is James then?

taproot2
06-30-2006, 01:47 AM
While the image itself has some issues that have been clearly addressed, look at the model as an example of where our industry is headed. Most apps cant handle those counts now....but they will, eventually and that will include animating those same models. Look close at most modeling and we see the gimicks the tricks and the slop. Stand back and enjoy a crazy visual experience.
taproot2

Bog
06-30-2006, 01:51 AM
Part of me's still murmering "You could get most of the way there with Sasquatch".

If the thing actually moved, and one saw all those tendrils squirming and doing physics, I'd probably burst into spontaneous applause. I'm a heathen, though, I'm far more concerned as a rule with actually seeing things move than I am with academic-type modelling.

It's a heck of a lot of effort, and full kudos to the modeller for maintaining the visual style all the way though

DiedonD
06-30-2006, 02:13 AM
There still might be hope for Oddity. Lets say you have a very harsh boss, with a loop of an eye for detail. Who would you take your chances with. Harsh boss who might get you fired, or harsh LW user like Oddity to destroy all your work into bits, but you get to keep your job.

Of course that only works for photorealistic models, his only realm of work.

I say we stop giving all this center of attention to him, which I think he desperately seeks, and ignore everything, except when a critique is reuired for a photorealistic picture, that nobody seems to find its flaws for some reason.

There are knuts on a pie too. When you look from afar, it can still look and taste nice.

But, Oddity, try to keep your firy critique to the ones that want it in a photorealistic model. Your good at that, and awit that requirement.
Otherwise, its not welcomed man. All these responses shouldve given you this idea by now, but here I made it easier for you.

oDDity
06-30-2006, 02:59 AM
You see, it is not technically possible to come up with a list of what truely defines art because the very idea of art is a nebulous abstraction, unlike a square. Thinkers have tried to define it in terms of just about every angle imaginable: representation, evocativeness, process, commodification, etc. Yours would just be another subjective list in a line of many.
This is exactly the point in drawing up the list in the first place, to put an end to the current situation of people arguing over what is art, using their personal opinions (which are not innate, as some liek to beleive, but the sum total of their previosu experience of the world) and people deciding that something is art on a whim.
Now when people start to argue over whether something is art or not, you simply hand them the rules and say 'look for yourself'
No ambiguity.
Who's to decide what this list should contain? Well, humans of course, since art only exists in our presense, we are entitled to decide it's definition.
Of course people would still be free to think that something outside the rules is art, and argue for new criteria to be added to the list, the rules would not be set in stone, the same as the rules of language are not set in stone, it's constantly changing, but that doesn't mean you can't define what language is.
THere is still an element of sujectivity of course when deciding how good a particular piece is compared to another one, humans so love to think themselves as free, but even that can be largely decided using 'the rules'.
After all, 'the rules' and the subjective nature of personal opinion are really the same thing, 'the rules' simply being the condensed and unambiguous version.

bobakabob
06-30-2006, 05:00 AM
This is exactly the point in drawing up the list in the first place, to put an end to the current situation of people arguing over what is art, using their personal opinions

In art you should learn the rules to break the rules.

You're confusing "rules" with technique, and following a stifling list of rules will only get you so far as an artist. Leonardo emphasised the importance of technique in drawing a human face, but he saw caricature - pushing the boundaries - as a true skill. "Rules" devised by art critics can be deadly - look at how mocked Van Gogh was in his day. You seem to be forgetting something pretty important - imagination. We'd never have any innovation or creativity if artists - or critics - adhered to some list of "rules" devised by a commitee. Or your good self.

Try pushing the parameters or throwing the rulebook out of the window.
David Hockney is a good example - he just gets on with being creative and lets academics create fancy sounding theories about his work

Van Gogh, Picasso, Michaelangelo - the list is endless - of pioneers who did much more than follow some self appointed art critic's definition of art. They made their own rules.

Lightwolf
06-30-2006, 05:21 AM
Now when people start to argue over whether something is art or not, you simply hand them the rules and say 'look for yourself'
No ambiguity.
Lol... I love this... I wonder what courts of law are there for, after all, the rules are all written down, no ambiguity ;)

As for the topic at hand:
* Crazy modelling, and I like the outcome
* Sloppy modelling? Yup, the same could be achieved with a lot less, but I gues that wasn't the point of the excercise.
* Art or not art? Who cares - honestly.

Subjectively I see a pretty picture, prettier than a lot of other 3D stuff. As far as art is concerned... there is hardly any 3D I'd classify as art in the first place, but that's me ;)

Cheers,
Mike

bobakabob
06-30-2006, 05:27 AM
Lol... I love this... I wonder what courts of law are there for, after all, the rules are all written down, no ambiguity



He he...

True - Oddity is "The Law". This thread is getting weirder and weirder :D

SP00
06-30-2006, 08:27 AM
Hey StereoMike,

It wasn't really addressed to you, it was a cultural communication course that I took. From a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being highly indirect and 10 being completely direct. The Japanese Culture is as indirect as you can get, while Germany was at the other end or was it Russia. I don't know how true it is and it obviously does not apply to everyone. Of course there will be exception where people can go beyond the scale.

Edit - I guess the idea is to adapt to the culture to be taken seriously.

StereoMike
06-30-2006, 08:46 AM
Hehe, I got it right, but I wanted to make fun out of it, I was just kidding :)

I find Germans most of the time rather "cold" and "obedient" and "mature" while I feel more like kinda mediterranean spirit. That doesn't mean I get angry easily, but in regards of how I see life (rather relaxed) and how easy I can have fun.

that was off topic.
Now (somehow) on topic:

Oddities statement (it's either 1. all or nothing is art or 2. certain things are art, others not) is rather logical compared to the rest of his argumentation, cause that are the only possibilities in the end (e.g. art is in the eye of the beholder is point 1).
I think the way you tell something is sometimes at least as important as what you say. If you say things in an unacceptable manner, it is the same as if you said nothing at all. So it won't help, it will just bring someone down.

Mike

SP00
06-30-2006, 08:48 AM
:agree:

Lightwolf
06-30-2006, 09:52 AM
Oddities statement (it's either 1. all or nothing is art or 2. certain things are art, others not) is rather logical compared to the rest of his argumentation...
Well, he forgot a third one, nothing is art... which in a way is almost the same as 1. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

oDDity
06-30-2006, 04:49 PM
Lol... I love this... I wonder what courts of law are there for, after all, the rules are all written down, no ambiguity ;)
If we were talking in pure argumentation terms here (which I hate, since they sound so anal), I believe that's referred to as a fallacy of equivocation.
The terms used have different meanings in either case.

oDDity
06-30-2006, 04:55 PM
In art you should learn the rules to break the rules.

You're confusing "rules" with technique, and following a stifling list of rules will only get you so far as an artist. Leonardo emphasised the importance of technique in drawing a human face, but he saw caricature - pushing the boundaries - as a true skill. "Rules" devised by art critics can be deadly - look at how mocked Van Gogh was in his day. You seem to be forgetting something pretty important - imagination. We'd never have any innovation or creativity if artists - or critics - adhered to some list of "rules" devised by a commitee. Or your good self.

Try pushing the parameters or throwing the rulebook out of the window.
David Hockney is a good example - he just gets on with being creative and lets academics create fancy sounding theories about his work

Van Gogh, Picasso, Michaelangelo - the list is endless - of pioneers who did much more than follow some self appointed art critic's definition of art. They made their own rules.

But, they didn't you see. They did not work in a vacuum, they did not grow up in a vacuum. Everything they did they based on their experience of other art, what they did is only superficially different from other art, what every artist does is only superficially different. Nothing is ever really new, it's either based on nature or on other art. That's why I beleive drawing up a set of criteria for what consitutes art would be possible, and as I said, that list would change with the times, just as language changes and evolves.

T-Light
06-30-2006, 05:24 PM
Oddity, I'm not attacking, I like your work, but draw me up a criteria for this...

Artist sits in a hall
Audience invited to cut part of her clothes away
Audience gets a little carried away
Audience gets down to her underwear
Audience cuts her bra strap
Artist sobs

It's a Yoko Ono piece.
Didn't truly get abstract art till I saw that, what's your thought's?

parm
06-30-2006, 05:41 PM
But, they didn't you see. They did not work in a vacuum, they did not grow up in a vacuum. Everything they did they based on their experience of other art, what they did is only superficially different from other art, what every artist does is only superficially different. Nothing is ever really new, it's either based on nature or on other art. That's why I beleive drawing up a set of criteria for what consitutes art would be possible, and as I said, that list would change with the times, just as language changes and evolves.

Superficially? What's superficial about it ? Sure, all art is made by human beings.

But really. How is the work of Brancusi only superficially different to the work of Rodin? or how is Pollock only superficially different to Hopper. Serra only superficially different to Flanagan. etc....

Art is everything made by, or conceived by human beings. The proper question is not: 'is it art?' but, 'What kind of art is it ?'

Btw. by made, I mean fabricated or synthesised, any non instinctive type behaviour.

Recommend you look up Marcel Duchamp or Joseph Beuys for starters. In fact the past 150 years of Art history is a must for any credible discourse on what constitutes Art in the present milieu.

T-Light
06-30-2006, 05:48 PM
parm-

Art is everything made by, or conceived by human beings... Btw. by made, I mean fabricated or synthesised, any non instinctive type behaviour.
Woah there, what about Tracy Emin's bed? neither synthesised or fabricated, but definitely instinctive .Where are we all going with this? :D

aurora
06-30-2006, 06:01 PM
I have been avoiding this threadf for a while since it went whacko but I have to jump in and throw another curve ball. In all my years working on Ambulences, then in the ER and finally as a Med Officer we always stated and any good Dr will that medcine is way more art then it is science. Vevrybodies biochemistry is different from everybody else, sure we had scientific protocol's but in the end we always treated a patient just the same way we treat a canvas with paint or a computer with pixels. Art goes FAR beyond some of these closed and ah the heck with it POOR definitions.

Lightwolf
06-30-2006, 06:28 PM
... I believe that's referred to as a fallacy of equivocation.
The terms used have different meanings in either case.
Bingo. Unfortunately that covers just about all of human communication, which not only makes this discussion so hard (since it seems the question is not what is art, but what does "art" mean), but would make setting up rules even more difficult.
Which ggoes back to my example... and text of law is quite well defined, and still leaves room for wide interpretation it seems.
Listen to a bunch of art critics and lawyers discuss their subjects... I'd assume in either case you'd :screwy: ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-30-2006, 06:33 PM
That's why I beleive drawing up a set of criteria for what consitutes art would be possible

I've been waiting for you to give some suggestions as to what this list might entail. You seem to know what art "isn't", give us some items that you would include on your list of what art is. Genuinely curious here.

T-Light
06-30-2006, 06:46 PM
My thoughts on art, oDDity's may differ?

Two quotes from Meaty -

I always love these discussions. Thousands of years of Aesthetic philosophy reduced to five sentances and self-proclaimed truisms.
and

Thinkers have tried to define it in terms of just about every angle imaginable: representation, evocativeness, process, commodification, etc.
I'd never pick an argument with someone who can place evocativeness and commodification in the same sentence :D, so...I won't. Instead let me pick one of the words. 'evocativeness'

I like simplicity. Five sentences is WAY too many. I like one.
My entire scope, the works of Turner, my fascination to Seurat's 'The Bathers', my entire belief in anything with the tagline 'art', can be summed up with these two words...

'Evoke Something'

Sorry to be unruly, but that simply does it for me.

mjcrawford
06-30-2006, 06:51 PM
A model has to work without being textured, or you're simply hiding your inadequate model behind your textures..

My only problem with this is that texturing is a artform in itself, one could reasonably say that if you overmodel (which you said this one was overworked earlier on) you are hiding your inadequate texturing skills... I do not think that weather the model is all poly-detail or all texture or some mix is important.. only the final product.



That's assuming that originality is the main goal of art. Perhaps you'd care to define orignality as it relates to art. For example, Michelangleo's David is considered a masterly work of art, but it isn't exactly original. It's a sculpture of a man holding a sling. It's a copy of reality more than anythig else. Originality seems to have become more important in modern art, to the point where it is literlly the only point. It's a case of being original for the sake of being original. It doesn't actually matter what you do, so long as it's original..

There is no new information. only new combanations of information. A man is not original but put a man in a unlikely situation and it might be... I think that trying to do art simply to be 'original' is pointless... urine is nothing new, neather is Christ, but Maplethorpe's Piss Christ caused quite a stir. nothing new about it.. just a new combanation of common elements.


Anyone can think up an outlandish fantasy creatures such as the one displayed in that image, and there are enough people doing that already, it is not a difficult skill, and does not define a good artist..

I have to disagree on a couple of points... first perhaps for YOU it is easy to model somthing this intricite, but for others it may not be. Weather or not you like his design, his skill level is obvioulsy high. also creating 'outlandish fantasy creatures' is not something that 'anyone' can do.. it takes skill, study and imagination as you have pointed out in many other threads when you tell people to study anatomy.


It's the technical difficulty of making such a detailed model that is on display there, and that is what is wowing the audience, and what prompted the thread starter to make this thread in the first place. It wasn't
'wow, look at this fantastic piece of art, it should be on display in the Louvre', it was
'wow, would you look at the poly count on this model'.

as far as I know, no 3d model has ever been displayed at the louvre, sure it is the technical difficulty (although according to you this model is not that difficult so which is it?) that would draw people like us to look at it, but if the model was not interesting everyone would just shrug it off. As I said before, this model is not my cup of Tea, but it is extreamly well done. With your obvious skill level you should be able to at least reconize that the artist acheved the look and feel he was going for and it is impressively detailed.



Art is not subjective. If it was, then no one would have to bother studying it, there would be no galleries - ater all, who is to decide which works of art are more worthy than others, if anything can be art. Anyone could make any mark on any surface and proclaim it to be art.

Art is in fact, "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects" according to Webester and this peice certenly qualifys as it obviously uses skill and creative imagination... a random mark on any surface would not.

Lightwolf
06-30-2006, 07:01 PM
'Evoke Something'

Now that's far to easy and subjective... but my sentiments exactly :D

Cheers,
Mike

umstitch
06-30-2006, 07:49 PM
if the national socialist party had been triumphant some years ago, then oddity would have his list

thankfully the forces of freedom prevailed, and hyuns monster got a shot at the big time




Pretty pointless really.


it's just repetitive displacement maps that have been frozen. Big deal,


There's a ton of cloning as well.


I think its garbage, remember this is not lightwave..
I would say it was Z brush and photoshop.
further more why his body is way to big for his head ie look at his head and
compared to his hand. Disfunctional art I would have to say. In other words to busy and masterfuly constructed, using Zbrush and photoshop and some
3d package of his choice.

crap


The only people on your side, lauding it without reservation are the naive 'oooh look at all the polies, I wish I could be a good modeler like that' types.
That image doesn't fool any experienced modeler.


Regardless of the technical considerations, since they are not the important thing, this model doesn't work on an artistic level either, as I have pointed out, and others have agreed.-I think some of you guys are being awed simply be the amount of detail, and that is no basis with which to judge a model.


Well there only are two possiblities



If a list of criteria were to be drawn up of what constitues art and what doesn't (and this is technically possible, if very difficlut) then it would be useless if just anyone could decide to change the list at any time, it would have to be a panel of knowledgable people who decide, for art is not just subjective, there are many rules to follow and technicalities to understand.



Anyone can think up an outlandish fantasy creatures such as the one displayed in that image, and there are enough people doing that already, it is not a difficult skill, and does not define a good artist.


THere is a thread here about this model for one reaosn, and one reason only - the massive poly count.


You can't seriously expect me to come up with a definitive list of criteria of what constitutes art


I didn't say it wasn't art, I said it wans't successful art. You'd think they'd at least teach you to read at university.


If the rest is at the same level as you avatar, then don't bother


Now when people start to argue over whether something is art or not, you simply hand them the rules and say 'look for yourself'

No ambiguity.


humans so love to think themselves as free, but even that can be largely decided using 'the rules'.


what every artist does is only superficially different.







:hijack:

DragonFist
06-30-2006, 08:01 PM
And all that is in this thread alone. ODDity's has a wonderful fallback in debate which is "If you disagree with me, you obviously suck as an artist too. Otherwise you would clearly see how right I am. So, shut up!"

Wording is just varied to fit the context.

stevecullum
06-30-2006, 08:05 PM
Art's meant to be calming and relaxing...not much sign of it in this thread 8/

:)

T-Light
06-30-2006, 08:16 PM
stevecullum-

Art's meant to be calming and relaxing...not much sign of it in this thread
~~~Babbling Brooks ~~~
Evoke Something
~~~Babbling Brooks ~~~

Lightwolf agrees with me, we're on the right track, we're creating the new movement of '21st century positivity'

stevecullum
06-30-2006, 08:31 PM
The thing about this piece is that it has acheived the one thing that qualifies it as art - its evoked a response, emotional or otherwise...10 pages of it!

T-Light
06-30-2006, 08:38 PM
Indeed.
The young Mr Giger has introduced us all to the 21st century 'envoke something' artform. We should applaud his insight.

hrgiger
06-30-2006, 08:53 PM
Indeed.
The young Mr Giger has introduced us all to the 21t century 'envoke something' artform. We should applaud his insight.

I humbly accept your praise.

It's funny how I was just thinking how amazing it was that a program could handle 100 million polygons when I started this thread...

T-Light
06-30-2006, 08:59 PM
hrgiger-

I humbly accept your praise.
You're welcome Sir, the royal academy shall await your presence. :thumbsup:

Andyjaggy
06-30-2006, 08:59 PM
Art's meant to be calming and relaxing...not much sign of it in this thread 8/

:)

Hmmm, I would have to disagree with that. Not the part about this thread being relaxing of coarse :) but the fact that art is meant to be relaxing. Art is meant to evoke emotion. That emotion doesn't have to calm and relaxing.

Adrian Lopez
06-30-2006, 09:07 PM
Art is meant to evoke emotion. That emotion doesn't have to calm and relaxing.
Definitely (http://www.visi.com/~reuteler/vinci/anghiari.jpg).

T-Light
06-30-2006, 09:11 PM
So I'm right then 'Evoke Something' is the biz?

Come on, take me on if you think you're hard enough :devil:

parm
07-01-2006, 12:14 AM
parm-

Woah there, what about Tracy Emin's bed? neither synthesised or fabricated, but definitely instinctive .Where are we all going with this? :D

Well. The spectrum of art practise is very broad indeed.

Some artists are engaged in pure visual research, others may make decorative mirrors and clocks, or greetings cards.

Part of the reason this type of discussion get so heated. Is, very different parts of that spectrum get thrown into the discussion willy nilly. And gets used, in an often inappropriate way, to justify apov.

afaik, ( I could be wrong), no one is yet using the CG medium, for the 'pure visual research' type of Art. If anyone knows different. Please provide links, I'm very interested.

jameswillmott
07-01-2006, 01:03 AM
So I'm right then 'Evoke Something' is the biz?

Come on, take me on if you think you're hard enough :devil:

What if a piece evokes something in some people, but nothing at all in others? I'm referring to architecture in this case. I know it well and appreciate it, and all architecture evokes an emotional reaction in me ( however slight ). Other people probably couldn't care less and feel nothing. There are probably other branches of 'creative outlet' like this. Are they considered art? Can stories and movies be considered art since they also evoke reactions. Music? Dance?

oDDity
07-01-2006, 02:51 AM
IF you're going to use that definition then literally anything can be considered art, all it has to do it evoke 'something' in one person. It's a scope so broad that it becomes meaningless.
Not only does it encompass anything that can possibly exist, but it also includes everything that doesn't exist as well, since even imagined things can evoke an emotion.

bobakabob
07-01-2006, 03:21 AM
The idea you can draw up a "list of rules" to define art is absurd. completely futile. And frankly, quite scary.

Yes, there have been attempts to set up "Courts of Law" determining what is and isn't art. Think Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban! :deal:

There are however, many debates about art, and they will rage and rage long after this thread burns out.

A quick Googlesearch will reveal the countless disputes over the term. Seems it's all pretty subjective. Guess what? In the end, you can make your own mind up.

More recent debates include: Art is for self expression (Emin's "Bed") art as cultural criticism (Groenig's "The Simpsons"), Art as mass production (Warhol's "Marilyn"), Art is dead (Koons' "Puppy").

Then there's:

Art is useless vs. art is important
The real vs. the surreal.
Art is for the state vs. art is for the gallery
Art should depict the visual world vs art should depict the inner psychological world
The art of tribes vs. the art of modern civilizations.
Elite art vs. plebian art

In my own humble subjective opinion, from Duchamp's signed French urinal, to Van Gogh's bandaged ear, to Hirst's pickled sheep, to Hyun's 3D art, one thing they all have in common is self expression. Provoking thought in the viewer.

Art is surely about creative freedom, not a bunch of "rules".

DiedonD
07-01-2006, 03:46 AM
The idea you can draw up a "list of rules" to define art is absurd. completely futile. And frankly, quite scary.

Yes, there have been attempts to set up "Courts of Law" determining what is and isn't art. Think Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban! :deal:

There are however, many debates about art, however, and they will rage and rage long after this thread burns out.

A quick Googlesearch will reveal the countless disputes over the term. Seems it's all pretty subjective. Guess what? In the end, you can make your own mind up.

More recent debates include: Art is for self expression (Emin's "Bed") art as cultural criticism (Groenig's "The Simpsons"), Art as mass production (Warhol's "Marilyn"), Art is dead (Koons' "Puppy").

Then there's:

Art is useless vs. art is important
The real vs. the surreal.
Art is for the state vs. art is for the gallery
Art should depict the visual world vs art should depict the inner psychological world
The art of tribes vs. the art of modern civilizations.
Elite art vs. plebian art

In my own humble subjective opinion, from Duchamp's signed French urinal, to Van Gogh's bandaged ear, to Hirst's pickled sheep, to Hyun's 3D art, one thing they all have in common is freedom of expression. Provoking thought in the viewer.

Art is surely about freedom, not a bunch of "rules".

ANd there you have it. Nicely said and complete.
And to make matters even more complicated, regardless how good or bad your artwork is, what you wanted to provoke on a viewer may not be provoked at all, and instead something completely different might be provoked! Cause everyone is different and sees things differently, and you cant control that!

Also, appart from helping you express yourself better in provoking a thought or a feeling on a viewer, what other role of a critique could there be?
Who is to say that a certain artwork (model, animation, texture etc) is or isnt right?
Who would know for sure, 100%, that a certain art would envoke a certain emotion or thought and theres nothing more into it than that, so you mind as well do it his way?
Who is God?!
So whats the point of criticizing beyond what could be helpful, appart from causing harm to ones expressions, for egoistic benefits.
See, this is what I mean when I say "Nobody is right and everybody is"
Theres vacum between us. So what matters is just to perform art, and all we really do here is chatting and making points of view.
Cheers :thumbsup:

DragonFist
07-01-2006, 03:57 AM
Art, in its most simplistic definition, could be said to be a quality of communication. There for, there must be an audience (even if the only audience to ever view it is the creator) for it must communicate something. What that something is can be quite broad and the level of quality much have enough technical perfection to achieve and emotional (there are many emotions) effect on the audience.

That is the basic definition I go by. And it doesn't leave "anything" as art. I would also add that art is at its best when it elicits contribution from the audience. (A movie that gets the audience involved, hoping the characters win or lose is more art than one that the audience just watches).

That is what is true for me on this subject.

stevecullum
07-01-2006, 04:06 AM
Hmmm, I would have to disagree with that. Not the part about this thread being relaxing of coarse but the fact that art is meant to be relaxing. Art is meant to evoke emotion. That emotion doesn't have to calm and relaxing.

I was referring to the actual creation part, rather than the end result..but it kind of fitted my original jibe ;)

DiedonD
07-01-2006, 04:30 AM
Art, in its most simplistic definition, could be said to be a quality of communication. There for, there must be an audience (even if the only audience to ever view it is the creator) for it must communicate something. What that something is can be quite broad and the level of quality much have enough technical perfection to achieve and emotional (there are many emotions) effect on the audience.

That is the basic definition I go by. And it doesn't leave "anything" as art. I would also add that art is at its best when it elicits contribution from the audience. (A movie that gets the audience involved, hoping the characters win or lose is more art than one that the audience just watches).

That is what is true for me on this subject.

The only minute thing to add to that DragonFist would be, that for the most part, its a unidirectional communication. The creator communicates to others, and the other way around comes back in smaller intensity, with various alternate feedbacks.

BusyWolf
07-01-2006, 05:23 AM
:argue:
Humm, I just have to put my two cents in! Art stirs the emotions and is a thing of beauty.
Beauty to whom, you ask?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! It does not matter what tools were used to create it.

hrgiger
07-01-2006, 05:35 AM
The idea you can draw up a "list of rules" to define art is absurd. completely futile. And frankly, quite scary.

Yes, there have been attempts to set up "Courts of Law" determining what is and isn't art. Think Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban! :deal:

There are however, many debates about art, and they will rage and rage long after this thread burns out.

A quick Googlesearch will reveal the countless disputes over the term. Seems it's all pretty subjective. Guess what? In the end, you can make your own mind up.

More recent debates include: Art is for self expression (Emin's "Bed") art as cultural criticism (Groenig's "The Simpsons"), Art as mass production (Warhol's "Marilyn"), Art is dead (Koons' "Puppy").

Then there's:

Art is useless vs. art is important
The real vs. the surreal.
Art is for the state vs. art is for the gallery
Art should depict the visual world vs art should depict the inner psychological world
The art of tribes vs. the art of modern civilizations.
Elite art vs. plebian art

In my own humble subjective opinion, from Duchamp's signed French urinal, to Van Gogh's bandaged ear, to Hirst's pickled sheep, to Hyun's 3D art, one thing they all have in common is self expression. Provoking thought in the viewer.

Art is surely about creative freedom, not a bunch of "rules".

Quoted for agreement.

I remember a few years back someone threw some elephant feces on a picture of the Virgin Mary (http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p2648.htm). Is it Art? I think so. Many painters, sculptors, and other artists have used various mediums to express some of their beliefs or values in a visual manner. This is no different. It may certainly lack the charm of a beautifully crafted sculpture but it is a form of self expression that certainly evokes an emotional response out of a lot of viewers. You may not like it, but then, your particular liking of a particular piece does not determine its general status as "a work of art". It may not be art to you, but that doesn't mean it's not art to someone else. Some art is commissioned from someone other then the artist, but typically, art has been a form of self expression since the birth of man/womankind.

I hate Nascar and don't consider it a sport, but that doesn't mean it's not a sport to others. Same goes for people calling bowlers athletes.

Anyway, I think this thread has about run its course and I'm out.

pixelranger
07-01-2006, 06:01 AM
IMHO all art evokes emotions, but everything that evokes emotion isn't nessecarily art. I was impressed by the rich detailness of the model (the one that orig. was the reason for this thread) and it definately evoked emotions in me (awe and fascination surely are emotions, no?) but I wouldn't call it art. Good craftsmanship, yes definately, but not art. Still, like bobakabob and hrgiger says, art is pretty subjective and all about freedom, so this thread can only be a place where we give our subjective, humble opinions wether oneself thinks of it as a piece of art. There's no place for discussions on the subject.

As for the poly count (which I wasn't impressed with), it's just a matter of typing a high enough number in the rendertime subdivision parameter. A monkey can render a 100 M poly object.
The model was specked with details, yes, but I think (maybe I'm wrong) he could have shown the same level of detail with a fifth of the poly number (20 M). That is still a HUGE model and an insane amount of work (some copy/pasting, but which artist doesn't??...)
I, for one, would be very proud if I had made that model. I wouldn't be presenting it as art, though..
:thumbsup:

Bog
07-01-2006, 07:29 AM
but everything that evokes emotion isn't nessecarily art.

...just as anyone who's been kicked in the crotch. Oooh, that's emotional, for sure...

Andyjaggy
07-01-2006, 09:37 AM
this just in, getting kicked in the crotch is now considered art! :) This debate could go on forever and will never be resolved so I am out of here. Have fun defining art guys.

bluerider
07-01-2006, 02:26 PM
I thought I would share this with those of you who havent' seen this over at CGTalk. This is a work in progress for a model which is now finished that has over 100 million polygons in it. It wasn't done with Lightwave, but it's certainly mind boggling in complexity.

http://www.xcomicx.com/cgi-bin/zb41/view.php?id=dq_shine_gallery2&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=32

Thats for providing that link. Awesome model

oDDity
07-01-2006, 02:27 PM
In my own humble subjective opinion, from Duchamp's signed French urinal, to Van Gogh's bandaged ear, to Hirst's pickled sheep, to Hyun's 3D art, one thing they all have in common is self expression. Provoking thought in the viewer.

Art is surely about creative freedom, not a bunch of "rules".

Like it or not, your life is totally governed by rules, social norms and the rule of law, physics, nature, games you play in your lesuire time, life is all about rules and structure, if something is totally freeform and has no structure, if it can't be defined properly, then it has no real value IMO.
IF we're all agreed that not everything is art, then there must be a sum total of properties that all the things that are art have, and those can be distilled down to a set of rules. The rules would be so many, that I doubt you could complain of being stifled. As I already pointed out, all new art is only a rehash of old art with superfical differences anyway.
The differences between a 100,000 year old cave painting and a Picasso are surprisingly small.

parm
07-01-2006, 03:22 PM
The differences between a 100,000 year old cave painting and a Picasso are surprisingly small.

Really? Which Picasso painting are you referring to?

"Woman with a Crow", "Les Demoiselles D'avignon", "Still life with chair caning", "Guernica", Portrait of Paul Picasso as a child ?

The concerns of Picasso, even within his own work is so varied, and output so vast and influential on so many complete Art movements. The differences could hardly be considered superficial.

Art is so culturally tied to the social and political clime; and all that that entails. That it is impossible to compare 20th century Art with 100 000 year old cave paintings, ( as trivial).

To trivialise the hundred thousand year journey of Art as a superficial progress. Is either breathtaking arrogance or breathtaking ignorance.

It's like saying that the technology of manned space exploration, is only superficially different to the technology of flint arrowheads.

oDDity, a very good model maker you are, an Art historian you are not.

StereoMike
07-01-2006, 05:05 PM
I think oddity is making fun of us. He found delight in denying everything exept his own words. Other than that I have no explanation for such opinions from a guy who should know better.

Feeding a troll?

aurora
07-01-2006, 06:01 PM
IF we're all agreed that not everything is art, then there must be a sum total of properties that all the things that are art have, and those can be distilled down to a set of rules. The rules would be so many, that I doubt you could complain of being stifled. As I already pointed out, all new art is only a rehash of old art with superfical differences anyway.

Well, no for one simple reason. Just because everyone agrees on the fact that not all things are art you still have to contend with the fact that person A will say exhibit x is art but y is not. While person B sill say exhibit x is not art but y is. Person C will come in and say both are art and person O will walk in and say neither is art. Obviously a single set of ground rules for art is as impossible to establish as it would be to get persons A, B, C and O to agree on exhibits x and y. And thats only 4 people looking at 2 exhibits. So now expand that out to the few billion people alive today and the few billion to trillion exhibits that would have to be catagorized to lay that foundation for such said rules.
And and lets not forget that the results will vary over the expanse of years. So what was great yesteday sucks tomorrow.

Cageman
07-01-2006, 06:37 PM
And who nows how much time it took him to get all this done. But I know for sure it wasnt done for a week..

I believe I read in the CGTalk thread that it took him 1 year (sparetime only) to finish the model.

I'm impressed with the patience he posess, as well as the technical level of detail, but it is hard to look at the modell. I think it's a great showoff for Vrays ability to render such huge objects, and, to some extent I think this is a form of art in itself; find a way to make it. :)

I'm still wondering how on earth he was able to get all details right, because I don't know of any computer that can have all those polygons loaded in memory. :) Maybe a 64-bit machine with 128GB ram could pull it off?

Insane, that is what it is... but impressive at the same time!

jasonwestmas
07-01-2006, 06:38 PM
I'm pretty sure Oddity is just having plain ol fun and no one needs to feel uncomfortable from what just one man says.

Cageman
07-01-2006, 07:06 PM
If he wants to help, he needs to stop stepping on people while he does it. It isn't honesty. It is just plain mean. :thumbsdow And I think he enjoys not only doing that but the wonderful attention he gets afterwards in the form of written jousts.

Hmm.. I have to agree... you should ALWAYS start with the good things, or the things that has potential to be good. Then, think again, think HARD about the negative stuff, but focus on how to give negative critics in a positive way. This is a win-win situation for the guy who recieves the critic. First, he will be happy about the things that are ok, then he will take the negative sides with a smile on his face. And, always give ideas on how to fix the negative to something positive.

But I really think that, if possible, give and take critics face to face. Online forums aren't that good to pass on a feeling/wibe that a real person can. That's why I seldom (if ever) give/take critics online.

DragonFist
07-01-2006, 07:23 PM
:agree:

oDDity
07-02-2006, 02:01 AM
Well, no for one simple reason. Just because everyone agrees on the fact that not all things are art you still have to contend with the fact that person A will say exhibit x is art but y is not. While person B sill say exhibit x is not art but y is. Person C will come in and say both are art and person O will walk in and say neither is art. Obviously a single set of ground rules for art is as impossible to establish as it would be to get persons A, B, C and O to agree on exhibits x and y. And thats only 4 people looking at 2 exhibits. So now expand that out to the few billion people alive today and the few billion to trillion exhibits that would have to be catagorized to lay that foundation for such said rules.
And and lets not forget that the results will vary over the expanse of years. So what was great yesteday sucks tomorrow.
It's not a matter of looking at every piece and getting at least two poeple to agree that it's art, its a matter of looking at all the artifacts which are already considered art by a certain minimum number of people and cross referencing its properties with other generally agreed artistic objects, until you have a list of common denomonators. That gives you a list of properties an object must have to be considered art. It has to be whittled down a bit obviosuly, that's unavoidable when trying to reduce an intangible mess to something with structure and meaning.
Art has to be deifned to have any real value or meaning.
How can you appreciate something unless you know what it is and why it is?
Sure you can look at it and say 'hmm....that's nice', but that makes it a totally shallow and superficial experience, yet that's all you can have unless you can base what you're seeing on some set of rules or criterea in a clear structural context. Art cannot be judged and cannot be fully appreciated until it's boundaries have been clearly deliniated, until all the muddy water has been washed off and you can see it clearly for what it is.

oDDity
07-02-2006, 02:17 AM
Really? Which Picasso painting are you referring to?

"Woman with a Crow", "Les Demoiselles D'avignon", "Still life with chair caning", "Guernica", Portrait of Paul Picasso as a child ?

The concerns of Picasso, even within his own work is so varied, and output so vast and influential on so many complete Art movements. The differences could hardly be considered superficial.

Art is so culturally tied to the social and political clime; and all that that entails. That it is impossible to compare 20th century Art with 100 000 year old cave paintings, ( as trivial).

To trivialise the hundred thousand year journey of Art as a superficial progress. Is either breathtaking arrogance or breathtaking ignorance.

Yeah, yeah, as Isaid, the difference are totally superficial, the subjects are more advanced, he has fancier paints to use, but the process is the same - marking a suface with pigment, and the meaning behind them is just the same. The reasons why modern painters feel the need to do paintings are essentially the same as the reasons the cave painters had. (though the wealth and fame had a lot to do with Picasso's motivaitons as well, and therefore the cave paintings are worthier than any cynical cubist painting, and I perfer looking at them than Picasso's doodles)


It's like saying that the technology of manned space exploration, is only superficially different to the technology of flint arrowheads.
Pathetic comparison.
Technolgy is tangible, it's based on exact mathimatical certanties, and this is why it has progressed so rapidly and so far, it's the exact opposite of art, and this is what I have been arguing - for a structure to be defined for art in order to move it forward like the vast leaps science has taken. Art, left in it's current messy, intangible state wiill never advance any furthur, it will only spread out sideways.

parm
07-02-2006, 02:59 AM
Yeah, yeah, as Isaid, the difference are totally superficial, the subjects are more advanced, he has fancier paints to use, but the process is the same - marking a suface with pigment, and the meaning behind them is just the same. The reasons why modern painters feel the need to do paintings are essentially the same as the reasons the cave painters had. (though the wealth and fame had a lot to do with Picasso's motivaitons as well, and therefore the cave paintings are worthier than any cynical cubist painting, and I perfer looking at them than Picasso's doodles)

LOL


The physical process of painting is similar, the artworks are very different.

Art is not intangible, it very often comes in the form of objects. Called paintings and sculptures :D Further more, Art today, (and it has been the case, for quite some time), is not just painting and sculpture.

It's not at all useful, to make definitions of what is, or is not Art. Classifications maybe, definitions no.

Every time a set of rules have been established, or manifesto drawn up by a group. Others come along to trash or subvert them. Even the most hardened empiricists, in the scientific community, are beginning to realise that laws are just a means to an end and are subject to change.

Much better to be inclusive. Accept that Art is something that humans do for a host of reasons. (I dare say some artists do paint animals to somehow magically improve their hunting) :D

Try to find a way to understand what's being said, and see where it fits into the body of artistic tradition. If it doesn't fit anywhere. Then the knowledge base has likely been expanded. So, add another letter to the ever expanding lexicon of Art.

History has taught us that it is dogma, and rigid thinking that impedes progress, (which incidentally need not be linear). There are always people ready to say what can't be done, backed up by sets of rules and laws. Thankfully these hapless souls, bewildered by the unpredictable get left behind to form their 'Flat-Earth' societies.

Unfortunately they are still however contributing to the gene pool. TIC




(TIC=tongue in cheek)

parm
07-02-2006, 03:14 AM
Pathetic comparison.
Technolgy is tangible, it's based on exact mathimatical certanties, and this is why it has progressed so rapidly and so far, it's the exact opposite of art, and this is what I have been arguing - for a structure to be defined for art in order to move it forward like the vast leaps science has taken. Art, left in it's current messy, intangible state wiill never advance any furthur, it will only spread out sideways.

Here. You are talking like a child.

The comparison serves to illustrate the conceptual gap between between modern and pre-historic art.

T-Light
07-02-2006, 04:59 AM
Bog-

...just as anyone who's been kicked in the crotch. Oooh, that's emotional, for sure...
For violence sake, no, unless of course the receiver wasn't well liked and someone in the local vacinity stated "Ooh, that was a work of art, Pele couldn't have struck em sweeter'

Of course, I'm using something overly base and simplistic there, but the point is, if the two people in question were performance 'artists' it would turn the whole subject around. A kick in the love spuds in that context could well be seen as art.

It does bring up something though. Most of todays 'art' ( I'm using a modern Western 2,500 year brush stroke here) is defined as such by the piece's creator/ creators.

Going back in history (ala cave paintings) it's doubtfull they saw art in it's modern context, but something instead that encompassed their beliefs, their understanding of nature and survival. ie, it's something functional rather than something designed to evoke an emotional response.

I love this thread :)

TheDude
07-02-2006, 05:23 AM
Seems to me all the "What is Art" posts just prove that art is in the eye of the beholder.
Oddity can tell everyone what is art and that anyone who doesn't agree with him is just to stupid or unedjucated to get it, but it won't change anyone's mind. Even those putting across a point without slagging people off won't change anyone's mind either (least of all Oddity's)

Wonder if Hyun has any idea what thread his polygon packed model has sparked off over here :rolleyes:

Bog
07-02-2006, 06:03 AM
I love this thread

I'll roshambo you for it ;)

It's very interesting to see what people call "art". I've come to the conclusion - over the years - that art is more personal that one's underwear drawer. It's different from person to person not merely in the "I don't know art, but I know what I like sense" but actually in what people are willing to accept as the definition of Art.

I sometimes find myself wondering if the cluster of ganglia in the human brain that's responsible for religion and acceptance - and the capacity for violence in the defence of one's beliefs - is also responsible for the way people treat art in their lives. The vehemence and passion with which one person will rubbish another person because person B doesn't agree with person A's opinion of a type of art (or whether or not that thing *is* Art) is scarily similar to religious debating.

Because there's no tangible hook to hang the Art tag off, in the same way that there's no physical proof of the existance or non-existance of any or many Gods, it shares that same emotional superabundance.

So I for one call for artistic tolerance. Don't be hatin' just cause someone calls Tracy Emin a charletain or decides that a point-one billion polygon model should count as Art. ;)

T-Light
07-02-2006, 06:25 AM
Bog-

I'll roshambo you for it ;)
OK, I had to look it up, but...
Rock :D

Bog
07-02-2006, 06:27 AM
Paper!

(Eww, hardcopy!)

*edit* There would have been bonus points for spotting the circularly referential South Park use of "Roshambo" where one person kicks another really hard in the happy sack, then it's the other person's go... ;)

T-Light
07-02-2006, 06:55 AM
Alas, my supply of Southpark is limited to a few early episodes and 'Team America', I am a loss to this artform :(

bobakabob
07-02-2006, 06:55 AM
At least some of us have the balls to show our stuff, and can take criticism.
Where's all your stuff I wonder?
Not shy are you?
If the rest is at the same level as you avatar, then don't bother.


Oddity,
Before I leave this thread, which seems to be less about Hyun's excellent 3D work, and more about your good self, seeing as you raised the subject of avatars, I can't resist making an observation about yours. You look like you're squaring up to a mirror and about to have an argument with your own reflection.
:argue:

Sadly you really don't seem to be reading what anyone is posting here. I hope in future you learn to show respect for the work of others, give constructive criticism and don't resort to boorish language like "terrible", "sloppy" and "pointless".


Bye :D

oDDity
07-02-2006, 07:34 AM
Here. You are talking like a child.

The comparison serves to illustrate the conceptual gap between between modern and pre-historic art.

You automatically assume them to be less intelleigent and less capable of artistic expression and therefore thir art being less worthy. In reality, all they lacked compared to us was knowledge, not the capablity, intelect or intent.
Look at cave paintings, they are stylistic depictions of animals, hunting scenes, fighting scenes.
Now look at Picasso's Gurnica - a stylistic depiction of a battle.
Why did Picasso paint that? To deptct man's struggle against his own agression?
Why did the pre-historic people paint their caves with hunting scenes? To depcit man's struggle against nature?
Some cave paintings consist simply of abstract patterns, but of cousre, you give more value to modern abstract art as something deep and meaningful, while you dismiss cave art as just the mindless scrawlings of apemen.
Even a different species, homo erectus, was capable of producing art, abstract patterns to decorate various artifacts.
I don't think art itself has advanced much at all, except in the sense that greater knowledge in general has made us capable of depicting it in more complex forms.

parm
07-02-2006, 07:59 AM
You automatically assume them to be less intelleigent and less capable of artistic expression and therefore thir art being less worthy. In reality, all they lacked compared to us was knowledge, not the capablity, intelect or intent.
Look at cave paintings, they are stylistic depictions of animals, hunting scenes, fighting scenes.
Now look at Picasso's Gurnica - a stylistic depiction of a battle.
Why did Picasso paint that? To deptct man's struggle against his own agression?
Why did the pre-historic people paint their caves with hunting scenes? To depcit man's struggle against nature?
Some cave paintings consist simply of abstract patterns, but of cousre, you give more value to modern abstract art as something deep and meaningful, while you dismiss cave art as just the mindless scrawlings of apemen.
Even a different species, homo erectus, was capable of producing art, abstract patterns to decorate various artifacts.
I don't think art itself has advanced much at all, except in the sense that greater knowledge in general has made us capable of depicting it in more complex forms.

No.

It's Art, just different concerns, at a conceptual level. No qualitative assertion at all.

aurora
07-02-2006, 08:12 AM
Art has to be deifned to have any real value or meaning.
Art is an individual experience designed to provoke an emotional experience.
What other definition is needed?

parm
07-02-2006, 09:06 AM
Art is an individual experience designed to provoke an emotional experience.
What other definition is needed?

Well. That's not so much a definition, as it is an observation, of one the characteristics/properties of Art.

One could also say that Art is; a cognitive tool who's purpose is to create metaphors for reality, or; Art is a mirror reflecting the cultural, social or political climate of an age, or; etc...

Thing is, Art is now used so diversely, that it defies definition. Categorisation, is, I suspect the best bet, but even then how, useful is that? It's just another way to avoid directly engaging with the artwork.

Look, try this. Go to any art exhibition, and watch the people there. A very good proportion will look at the work for 10 to 40 sec, Look at the title, the price, if there is one. But whatever else, will spend far more time reading the reviews or anything else written about the work. These are all indirect ways of evaluating the work.

There is a good argument to say that Art should work, as a pure visual experience, without written definition or categorisation. Other valid arguments exist too. So take your pick.

My argument,( meant to say advice), is, learn about Art, and acquire the skills required to experience and create Art on its own terms. If that 's what you want to do.

T-Light
07-02-2006, 09:55 AM
parm-

There is a good argument to say that Art should work, as a pure visual experience
If art should be able to work only as a visual experience, then the blind could never truly understand art, that can't be right can it?

Sorry, parm, must seem like I keep getting on your case, don't mean too, just my brain keeps firing when you post :D

parm
07-02-2006, 10:12 AM
Absolutely right you are.

Definitions of Art are a waste of time. Well,not really. It's great fun seeing them kicked to pieces as soon as they're made.

Obviously, Though, Blind people do unfortunately miss out a lot where visual art is concerned..

T-Light
07-02-2006, 11:01 AM
parm-

Obviously, Though, Blind people do unfortunately miss out a lot where visual art is concerned..
Indeed. :(

Here's something, I'm more Tchaikovsky than Strauss, but certainly don't have a problem with the word artist being used in their context. I do have a problem with the description 'artist' being used to describe the conveyor belt 'boybands' :devil: Anyone?

parm
07-02-2006, 01:57 PM
And don't forget the silent music of poetry. Are we allowed to call that Art?

Meaty
07-02-2006, 03:09 PM
Parm,

I noticed your signature quote from Aristotle. Though his writings are vast, to put it mildly, I was wondering if you opened his Poetics where set out to define what makes good art. From what I read, he focused almost entirely on the Greek plays. He was, I think, the first philosopher who really tried to tackle art. Plato/Socrates didn't talk much about it, but would have, no doubt believed it was morally suspect.

Aristotle, who many would regard as the single most brilliant mind to ever grace the planet, tried to define good art. If anybody could have "set up rules" it would have been him. Even those writings get kicked around.

Defining art is a philosophical effort. It is interesting and mentally stimulating, but it is ultimately futile and useless on a practical level.

Captain Obvious
07-02-2006, 05:37 PM
If the subject is not quantifiable, the debate cannot have a winner. Regardless of whether or not art is subjective, it is not quantifiable. Thusly, having a debate on whether or not something is art is largely pointless. Unless, of course, you're debating just for the social interaction, but that's a different debate altogether.

And I still think the monster is technically impressive, but horrible art. That is not to say that it isn't art — I'm just saying that regardless of whether or not it is, I still don't like it much. And that is not to say that I don't respect the "artist." Man, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, I'd be overweight by now.

jameswillmott
07-02-2006, 06:16 PM
I dont think anyone said the monster wasn't art... I'm not entirely sure where the thread diverted to that....

taproot2
07-02-2006, 07:02 PM
Yeah, yeah, as Isaid, the difference are totally superficial, the subjects are more advanced, he has fancier paints to use....

.
Yaaaaawwwn. I looked at everyone of your models. You seem to have described your own work perfectly. Great texturing by the way. You seem to have found all kinds of ways to use the same model. Your opinions do show in your own work. Question....is your copy of David art or something else?

DragonFist
07-02-2006, 08:03 PM
I dont think anyone said the monster wasn't art... I'm not entirely sure where the thread diverted to that....

His name is Oddity and he most definitely said it wasn't:


Regardless of the technical considerations, since they are not the important thing, this model doesn't work on an artistic level either, as I have pointed out, and others have agreed.

This is where it all started

umstitch
07-02-2006, 09:05 PM
this thread was hijacked by post #3. odditys first post.

it was hijacked with a cynical attempt to dismiss the work presented, and give user:oddity something to do for a week or two.

personally i enjoyed the image and its info, i think its quite dramatic, i love to see other peoples efforts to express themselves, to push their skills, and flesh out a vision.

of course its art


:screwy:

:agree:

:dance:

faulknermano
07-02-2006, 10:06 PM
this thread was hijacked by post #3. odditys first post.

it was hijacked with a cynical attempt to dismiss the work presented, and give user:oddity something to do for a week or two.


i find oddity's comments rational, and with some qualifications, i agree with him. i hardly can consider him "hijacking" a thread because he said his mind about the model. everybody here is actually saying their minds about the model.

you can view the model as a model and appreciate the craftsmanship necessary to create it, and/or you can view the model as an artistic composition, and/or you can view the model on how it affects you (if it affects you). i prefer to look over it on those three levels at the same time and make your judgement call. can anyone actually disagree with oddity when he criticises it about form? maybe the modeller's artform is not about "form", but about texture, and he uses his still in modelling the texture. that's great, maybe. but dont dismiss a rational comment just because it appears negative.

but what irks me is this narrow-mindedness about CG. there's more to CG then just the ability to push all those vertices or use the most sophisticated software. unfortunately, the more people who dont critically judge a work based on the fundamentals of design or art (at least on that level) the more CG becomes a contest of who can do "more" of something - more detail, more polycounts, more lights, more texture, more everything. it's looking at an image and thinking: "wow, that's looks hard to do - it must be good."

parm
07-03-2006, 12:27 AM
Parm,

I noticed your signature quote from Aristotle. Though his writings are vast, to put it mildly, I was wondering if you opened his Poetics where set out to define what makes good art. From what I read, he focused almost entirely on the Greek plays. He was, I think, the first philosopher who really tried to tackle art. Plato/Socrates didn't talk much about it, but would have, no doubt believed it was morally suspect.

Aristotle, who many would regard as the single most brilliant mind to ever grace the planet, tried to define good art. If anybody could have "set up rules" it would have been him. Even those writings get kicked around.

Defining art is a philosophical effort. It is interesting and mentally stimulating, but it is ultimately futile and useless on a practical level.

Yes I have.

I agree that Aristotle's definition of Art is very attractive, and relevant in a very surprising way, today.

For Aristotle; Art is the giving of concrete form to a perfect idea. Aristotle believed that, behind the external appearances of things, is a perfect universal archetype. And it's the artists job to to improve on the imperfections of nature, bringing it in to line with its' true perfect form.

This tendency to idealise, is clearly at odds with a modern world view. And is even a bit inconsistent with Aristotle's own assertion; that knowledge gained through direct experience through the senses, is superior to that gained by deductive reasoning.

Don't write Aristotle off here, though.

He arrives at his definition, from the observation that humans love to imitate, and take delight in the recognition of likenesses.

So. Here we are now in the early 20th century, the ball gets picked up by Gestalt psychology. A branch of psychology that investigates, the pattern and form recognition functions, of the brain.

The Gestalt Psychologist. Rudolf Arnheim, asserts, that Art has a cognitive function, and that artistic expression is a form of reasoning. Further more. Perception through the senses, is in itself, indistinguishable from the process of thinking.

Which of course brings us right back to Aristotle. Sort of :)

Cageman
07-03-2006, 01:45 AM
this thread was hijacked by post #3. odditys first post.

it was hijacked with a cynical attempt to dismiss the work presented, and give user:oddity something to do for a week or two.


Hmm.. hijacked... funny word in a situation where everybody can do what they want; be hijacked or simply ignore it. It's not like being on a buss or plane where guys with guns force their way through and you simply can't do anytning about it... ;)

The image got frontpage on CGTalk... I think that speaks for itself...

StereoMike
07-03-2006, 03:59 AM
Yeah, it's a shame that we need the CGtalk frontpage as a reference. But it's not that bad, I guess there was only one guy doubting the artistic qualitiy... ;)

DragonFist
07-03-2006, 04:29 AM
Hmm.. hijacked... funny word in a situation where everybody can do what they want; be hijacked or simply ignore it. It's not like being on a buss or plane where guys with guns force their way through and you simply can't do anytning about it... ;)

The image got frontpage on CGTalk... I think that speaks for itself...

The term simply means something different in the subject of forums.

SP00
07-03-2006, 09:19 AM
In terms of art, I think one needs to make a clear distinction between Art and Marketing. As an artist, I would make things out of personal expression. As an employee I would not be trying to express my personal opinions, but one from a group of people, usually the marketing department. Their priority is profit rather than expression.

jasonwestmas
07-06-2006, 01:00 PM
Yeah, it's a shame that we need the CGtalk frontpage as a reference. But it's not that bad, I guess there was only one guy doubting the artistic qualitiy... ;)

I agree, Who needs CG talk. They don't validate the quality of creative thought. Mostly I see a rehash of similar concepts on CGT and many other popular 3D forums, of course that is a generalization. The mojority isn't always correct in their opinion either. Man, I'd be lost all the time if that was the case.

faulknermano
07-06-2006, 09:04 PM
I agree, Who needs CG talk. They don't validate the quality of creative thought. Mostly I see a rehash of similar concepts on CGT and many other popular 3D forums, of course that is a generalization. The mojority isn't always correct in their opinion either. Man, I'd be lost all the time if that was the case.

:agree:

cgtalk is a great place for reference, though, and sometimes they have good interviews.

oDDity
07-07-2006, 02:55 AM
I certainly do not agree that getting frontpage status at CGTalk means anything other than it's a reasonably competent image, even if some fo the front page images are occasionaly great. Technically competent that is, it has nothing to do with artistic merit.
Who does/doesn't get front page is often the judgement of one anonymous moderator at CGTalk.
THey do ave a quota to fill after all, they can't keep the same images up forever, so they have to replace them with something, an they take their pick from whatever happens to be in the galleries.

oDDity
07-07-2006, 03:13 AM
Yaaaaawwwn. I looked at everyone of your models. You seem to have described your own work perfectly. Great texturing by the way. You seem to have found all kinds of ways to use the same model. Your opinions do show in your own work. Question....is your copy of David art or something else?
It was a technical modeling exercise, no art involved. I already mentioned that none of my models hae been created for the sake of art, they were all created for specific circumstances and purposes.
I can at least do organic modeling well however, which is more than I can say for the majority of the people in this thread who are happily spouting off their opinions on other people's modeling, and expecting themselves to be taken seriously.
I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who's all talk and no walk.

@Dragonfist -I 've no diea why yu're still blabbering on about me saying that the model wasn't art. You even quoted what I said twice now, and both times deliberately misinterperated it so you could carry on slobbering over the thread about nothing.
I said 'it doesn't work on an artistic level'
That's saying that it is bad art, not that it isn't art at all. There's a big difference.

Cageman
07-07-2006, 03:23 AM
I certainly do not agree that getting frontpage status at CGTalk means anything other than it's a reasonably competent image, even if some fo the front page images are occasionaly great. Technically competent that is, it has nothing to do with artistic merit.

Agreed! And since the CG-industry needs both artistic people and technical people, this image is a great technical achivement (handling all those polys, get them out through the renderer etc)...

StereoMike
07-07-2006, 03:55 AM
I can at least do organic modeling well however, which is more than I can say for the majority of the people in this thread who are happily spouting off their opinions on other people's modeling, and expecting themselves to be taken seriously.
I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who's all talk and no walk.
hmm, I don't need to know how to cook to say that a soup tastes great or awful.
Having an educational background on a subject certainly increases competence, but you can't take away a persons opinion on things as like/dislike or statements based on their perspective on art.
And respecting only the advise of people who would do things better than you (and therefore givng you advise) is really poor.
There's alot of things everyone knows, but isn't able to do cause of too little time, weaknesses and inabilities.
Everyone knows something worth asking for and worth making it your own. No matter if he's able to achieve it by himself.

Rejecting these things limits your possibilities.

Mike

DragonFist
07-07-2006, 04:04 AM
It was a technical modeling exercise, no art involved. I already mentioned that none of my models hae been created for the sake of art, they were all created for specific circumstances and purposes.
I can at least do organic modeling well however, which is more than I can say for the majority of the people in this thread who are happily spouting off their opinions on other people's modeling, and expecting themselves to be taken seriously.
I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who's all talk and no walk.

@Dragonfist -I 've no diea why yu're still blabbering on about me saying that the model wasn't art. You even quoted what I said twice now, and both times deliberately misinterperated it so you could carry on slobbering over the thread about nothing.
I said 'it doesn't work on an artistic level'
That's saying that it is bad art, not that it isn't art at all. There's a big difference.

I am personally tired of watching you ruin good threads with your egotistical and sometimes vicious comments and opinions which you give off as facts.

Apparently, the only works that are art are your own works, because everyone else's is "bad art" or "pointless" or "not up to at least an average level".

You seem to have a decent hand at art yourself, but it gives you no right to attack and belittle the work of others, which is what happened in this thread and several others I've seen your comments in. You hide behind discussions of "what is art?" and "an experienced modeler would see what's wrong" but you're little more than a schoolyard bully with a vocabulary. Too bad you choose to use it to ridicule others.

DiedonD
07-07-2006, 04:35 AM
I am personally tired of watching you ruin good threads with your egotistical and sometimes vicious comments and opinions which you give off as facts.

Apparently, the only works that are art are your own works, because everyone else's is "bad art" or "pointless" or "not up to at least an average level".

You seem to have a decent hand at art yourself, but it gives you no right to attack and belittle the work of others, which is what happened in this thread and several others I've seen your comments in. You hide behind discussions of "what is art?" and "an experienced modeler would see what's wrong" but you're little more than a schoolyard bully with a vocabulary. Too bad you choose to use it to ridicule others.

:agree:

I might just add that, if you try to bully me, or some of my friends here... the bulliness will be returned to you miltiplied by 3.
And of course, Im just being polite.

tyrot
07-07-2006, 05:12 AM
this image is a great technical achivement (handling all those polys, get them out through the renderer etc)...


dear cageman

this is what i think...exactly.

and still i m with oddi on this one with one difference. This is an art ..a cloneart.


BEST

oDDity
07-07-2006, 05:27 AM
hmm, I don't need to know how to cook to say that a soup tastes great or awful.
Having an educational background on a subject certainly increases competence, but you can't take away a persons opinion on things as like/dislike or statements based on their perspective on art.
And respecting only the advise of people who would do things better than you (and therefore givng you advise) is really poor.
There's alot of things everyone knows, but isn't able to do cause of too little time, weaknesses and inabilities.
Everyone knows something worth asking for and worth making it your own. No matter if he's able to achieve it by himself.

Rejecting these things limits your possibilities.

Mike

If a guy is a great cook, and can make really tasty soup, his opinion on someone else's soup is valued more by that other soup maker than any average Joe's opinion, which can only be based on the most shallow and superficial considerations.
Anyway, like art, soup is not entirely a matter of opinion, it's possible to make soup that tastes awful to every single person on the planet.
If you can't do something yourself, it can only mean you don't properly understand it, or a better way of putting it is that you can be certain that a person who can do the thing definitely does understand it, everyone else it guilty (of ignorance) until proven otherwise.
Just another one of my (very unpopular I'm sure) personal views.

TheDude
07-07-2006, 06:59 AM
If you can't do something yourself, it can only mean you don't properly understand it, or a better way of putting it is that you can be certain that a person who can do the thing definitely does understand it, everyone else it guilty (of ignorance) until proven otherwise.
Just another one of my (very unpopular I'm sure) personal views.

Oddity, have you made a similar 100 million polygon model of a Manga-multi tentacled-thing?
If not (and I suspect you haven't), then according to your own "personal view", you cannot properly understand this model. So why do you think you are qualified to offer an opinion on it, least of all a technical one?
Surely you are (like the rest of us sub 100million polygon modellers) ignorant?

Is there someone on this thread who's got another 100 million poly model for us to have a look at....perhaps this thread will make a 100million posts... 8/

oDDity
07-07-2006, 08:36 AM
I haven't made that model specifically, and I never will, a bigger waste of time I couldn't imagine.
My analogy still holds however, since there are many different kinds of soup.
The size of the pot is of no significance.
Anyone can use a clone tool to fool the naive into thinking they've done a lot more work than they actually have. There isn't an individual section or theme in that model that would pose the slightest of problems for me, though certainly my computer couldn't handle the poly count of the whole piece.
For somehting that was intended as a peice of art, I find the concept uninteresting and cleverly derivitive, the execution (i.e. the modeling) is good, I'll grant him that, but the result is illegible.

StereoMike
07-07-2006, 08:50 AM
good point, TheDude!

If a guy is a great cook, and can make really tasty soup, his opinion on someone else's soup is valued more by that other soup maker than any average Joe's opinion, which can only be based on the most shallow and superficial considerations.
You don't get it.
It's not about valueing an opinon (the creator of the 100mio poly thing isn't at this forum and won't value any of our opinions).
It's about allowing others their opinion on soup and art. Everytime someone says "mhh tastes goood...!" you jump in and say "you plebeian layman, you don't know nothing about soup! I know everything about soup and I say this soup lacks devotion and skill!!!"

To me it seems you are very arrogant based on nothing.

umstitch
07-07-2006, 09:00 AM
I haven't made that model specifically, and I never will, a bigger waste of time I couldn't imagine.
My analogy still holds however, since there are many different kinds of soup.
The size of the pot is of no significance.
Anyone can use a clone tool to fool the naive into thinking they've done a lot more work than they actually have. There isn't an individual section or theme in that model that would pose the slightest of problems for me, though certainly my computer couldn't handle the poly count of the whole piece.
For somehting that was intended as a peice of art, I find the concept uninteresting and cleverly derivitive, the execution (i.e. the modeling) is good, I'll grant him that, but the result is illegible.


one can see that a bigger waste of time would be to offer up pedantic comments on 3d forums.
the apparent desire to pigeon hole hyuns modelling as "pointless", indicates to me that odditys only interest and reason for replying to the thread is to examine his own sad, narrow minded (bitter?) conclusions about life in general.

to suggest that the model is too busy,does nt work on an artistic level etc, is merely an attempt to deride hyuns efforts.

it may not appeal to you oddball, but i doubt if it was ever intended to appeal to insular western thinking.

you carry on following rules , let others express themselves and experiment, since you obviously cannot.

:dito:

Panikos
07-07-2006, 09:42 AM
I havent read much of the thread.

Trying to push the ceiling of something higher is an interesting idea.
Trying to do it with an agressive-monster model is so stupid idea that brings you back to floor.

I dont understand that passion with agressive monsters, holding weapons, guns, axes, bombs, ... to prove what ? That earth is in danger ? Is this what the cinema teaching you ?

I found these ideas stupid, very young, after I got social and made good friends and realized that is worth to try and trust people and make friends that being suspicious and try to find enemies.

Thats why "terrorism" is fashionable and for no reason, some stupid [email protected]@rds put bombs here and there and kill innocent people.

There are positive ways to show off how smart you are. As far as strength, sooner or later everybody leaves.

umstitch
07-07-2006, 09:52 AM
....i have no idea what you re on about..

..unless you are questioning why there is an eastern/asian/sino fascination with insane demons, i ve often wondered what thats all about too.

just a different way of looking at things i guess..

...whats it got to do with terrorism?

..maybe you should read this thread from the beginning?

Panikos
07-07-2006, 10:01 AM
Panikos....i have no idea what you re on about

my post is not a personal reply to you.
I visited this page with the high-poly model, read a couple of lines here and there to get an idea of what people think and wrote my thoughts.

umstitch
07-07-2006, 10:03 AM
Panikos....i have no idea what you re on about..

..unless you are questioning why there is an eastern/asian/sino fascination with insane demons, i ve often wondered what thats all about too.

just a different way of looking at things i guess..

...whats it got to do with terrorism?

..maybe you should read this thread from the beginning?


my reply was not a personal reply to you, it was a question based on your comment, which in large part made no sense to me.

...i therefore removed the name Panikos from my reply, i hope this makes it less personal for you

parm
07-07-2006, 10:56 AM
If a guy is a great cook, and can make really tasty soup, his opinion on someone else's soup is valued more by that other soup maker than any average Joe's opinion, which can only be based on the most shallow and superficial considerations.
Anyway, like art, soup is not entirely a matter of opinion, it's possible to make soup that tastes awful to every single person on the planet.
If you can't do something yourself, it can only mean you don't properly understand it, or a better way of putting it is that you can be certain that a person who can do the thing definitely does understand it, everyone else it guilty (of ignorance) until proven otherwise.
Just another one of my (very unpopular I'm sure) personal views.

How funny.

Of course it's entirely possible, to become extremely knowledgeable and expert, in any field. A connoisseur even.

A person may have a highly respected, and even an influential opinion. Without being a practitioner.

How many sommeliers, (for example), do you imagine are expert wine makers?

Take care. Because, by your own definition. You exclude yourself from having a valid opinion on Art.

RudySchneider
07-07-2006, 12:28 PM
Speaking of food...
Here in the San Francisco Bay area, people RAVE about Alice Waters' restaurant, Chez Panisse, in Berkeley. Personally, I find the food truly unexceptional, and I am far more than a "meat 'n' potatoes" guy. Does this make it so? Absolutely not, but that is MY opinion.

Why everyone gets all lathered up about some dolt expounding his "expert" opinion, simply because he himself may be very talented, is totally beyond me.

oDDity
07-07-2006, 02:58 PM
How funny.

Of course it's entirely possible, to become extremely knowledgeable and expert, in any field. A connoisseur even.

A person may have a highly respected, and even an influential opinion. Without being a practitioner.

How many sommeliers, (for example), do you imagine are expert wine makers?


That example doens't help your argument in the slightest, since I wouldn't accept a sommelier's opinon of which wine I should drink above my own tastebuds, and wine makers couldn't give a toss about their opinions either. They know their craft and can tell good wine from bad themselves. Sommeliers are only there to tell idiots what to drink. Same goes for art critics. What a completely worthless profession. They exist to tell the unwashed masses what's good art and what isn't.
Artist's only respect each others, and their own, opinons.


to suggest that the model is too busy,does nt work on an artistic level etc, is merely an attempt to deride hyuns efforts.

I see, so everyone is supposed to say that it's great, [inappropriate remark removed], even if they actually don't like it?
I'm sure hyun himself is not scared of criticism, so I've no idea why you're beng scared on his behalf.


it may not appeal to you oddball, but i doubt if it was ever intended to appeal to insular western thinking.

So now you bring racism into it as well. [inappropriate comment removed].
Woudn't go down too well, I'd imagine.
Insular western thinking indeed. It's a stupid derivative monster model that's getting bumped around the net becasue of the insane poly count, it hardly takes the 'superior' oriental mind to understand it, any more than it takes the superior oriental mind to understand henati.

TSpyrison
07-07-2006, 03:14 PM
Bet this thread is cube food now..

umstitch
07-07-2006, 03:53 PM
o dear oddity you just dont understand the problem here at all do you?

the question here is not whether or not you think this particular 3d effort is any good or completely rubbish

the point being made to you is simply that you re efforts to criticize reveal that you have no respect for the introduction of someones work, and see this thread as a vehicle to sport your amatuer artistic beliefs.

reading through your posts here and elsewhere, suggests that you decide every now and then to ditch the politeness for a soapbox.

this is what gets challenged.
your comments are often blinkered and mechanical

you entered the david modelling challenge on cgtalk and received a good response, some of your comments are interesting, but eventually the negative knowall attitude comes out and you spoil yourself.

i beleive your attitude must be contested.
i think hyuns monster deserves some air time , just like your own david modelling challenge.

and yet your first post says "pretty pointless really"

is it really as pointless as copying a sculpture?

perhaps hyun is learning at a faster rate than you

either way, a more sincere and less devisive approach could be offered by yourself

pointing out the obvious is not neccesarilly a critical exercise

you reveal an abject poverty of understanding and appreciation, which is curious considering that you know how long it takes to model, and indeed the effort and dedication required to get to the end.

and yet you ve sought to diminish the artistic integrity of a fellow 3d artist with some frankly absurd posts

i am deeply disappointed

but ill get over it

meanwhile i shall continue to protect hyun on this thread, from malicious intent

(heck i think his model is great but certainly not the best 3d model ive seen of late nor the most resolved conceptual art)

by the way "western thinking", is not a race

:thumbsup:

jameswillmott
07-07-2006, 04:51 PM
On the subject of high polygon models ( which is where this ridiculousness started ) here's another one from CGTalk. 3.3 million polygons, and in my opinion, infintely better artistically than Hyun's model.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?threadid=376800

T-Light
07-07-2006, 05:36 PM
TSpyrison-

Bet this thread is cube food now..
What's cube food? :confused:

jasonwestmas
07-07-2006, 06:53 PM
Ugg. . . amazing, I really didn't think it would go this far :-/ This goes well beyond brutal criticism of hyun and eachother.

taproot2
07-07-2006, 09:30 PM
It was a technical modeling exercise, no art involved. I already mentioned that none of my models hae been created for the sake of art, they were all created for specific circumstances and purposes.
I can at least do organic modeling well however, which is more than I can say for the majority of the people in this thread who are happily spouting off their opinions on other people's modeling, and expecting themselves to be taken seriously.
I have no respect for the opinion of anyone who's all talk and no walk..
Please then, by all means show us some of your art. If your models are not art because they were for a specific purpose or situation(David was itself created for very specific cicumstances and purposes by the way, is it still art?) then pull something out that you have done that qualifies as art, or at least something you think is art and let some of us decide. Let us taste the artistic soups you've cooked up so we can tell if your qualified to an opinion about art. How do you expect anyone to respect your opinions when you dont show us your artistic credits. Please, lets see some of your art. At the least read your own replies before you post. And as always, do keep us laughing.

oDDity
07-08-2006, 02:07 AM
uhh..taproot, considering your own risible 'abilities' which are evident from you recent alien head post, I really don't think you should be provoking me i nthis particular fashion.
No, best you just stay out of this discussion entirely, until you at least reach the level of neophyte.
As for whether Michelanglo's David is art, that's a tough quesiton. Michelangelo himself was of the opinion that the form was already in the lump of marble, and he was simply chipping away the right pieces to reveal it, so I'm not sure where he stood on whether he was actually creating anything.
Also, if a carpenter uses his tools to carve a statue, it's called art, while if he uses them to carve a table or a chair, it's just called a piece of furniture.
Everyone (but me) seems quite happy with this vague, wishy-washy lack-of-definition for art.
Where would we be if people had decided 'who cares if 1+1=2, just make up your own minds, I prefer it to equal 5'.

DragonFist
07-08-2006, 02:13 AM
You just cannot miss an opportunity to tell someone how badly they suck compared to you, can you?

This time you managed to do it to the same person twice, in two different threads within 15 mins of each other. Do you have a nightly quota or something?

oDDity
07-08-2006, 02:24 AM
o dear oddity you just dont understand the problem here at all do you?

you entered the david modelling challenge on cgtalk and received a good response, some of your comments are interesting, but eventually the negative knowall attitude comes out and you spoil yourself.
Not really, I'm just an argumentitive kind of person, the more people argue with me, the more strongly I argue back, until the point where I seem arrogant.
You shouldn't take very seriosuly what people say in the heat of forum arguments, I thought everyone on the internet who've been forum regulars for a few years understood that.
It's all a bit of fun to me.


i beleive your attitude must be contested.
i think hyuns monster deserves some air time , just like your own david modelling challenge.

and yet your first post says "pretty pointless really"

is it really as pointless as copying a sculpture?

It wasn't pointless at all, I learned a lot about anatomy from doing that model, which is the reason I did it, plus I did it in 3 weeks, unlike hyun who took a year (I think) to complete his. Also 80% of his is simple cloning which teaches nothing.
I don't know what he learned from doing this model, or even if he was trying to learn anything, but looking at it, it doesn't seem tha he could have learned much from it, because I certainly didn't learn anything new from looking at the WIP images. The modeling itself is all quite simple and basic, it's just all the cloning that makes it seem so complex. Thats' my 'expert' opinion if you like.
I've already made it clear that I think he is a good modeler, it's just the concpet and final result that I didn't like.

taproot2
07-08-2006, 02:35 AM
Please show us some of your art. How hard can it be for you to just post a couple images? Come on, Talk is after all very cheap and typing is even cheaper, I promise to shut up for at least 10 seconds if you do that for the group. And I still like your texturing by the way.

umstitch
07-08-2006, 02:39 AM
It's all a bit of fun to me.

yes its quite clear you are not a serious minded person, i appreciate that .

perhaps you ought to start a thread of your own, where you can discuss this at length, with yourself.

:agree:

DiedonD
07-08-2006, 03:41 AM
Not really, I'm just an argumentitive kind of person, the more people argue with me, the more strongly I argue back, until the point where I seem arrogant.
You shouldn't take very seriosuly what people say in the heat of forum arguments, I thought everyone on the internet who've been forum regulars for a few years understood that.
It's all a bit of fun to me.


Your not "argumentative" your an annoying little bully, that cant keep his attitude at a normal social level. Thats what you are.

Arrogant? Whats that, your giving yourself esteem there? Its easy to be "argumentative" as you say it, when your protected behind a screen on a comupter, typing any kinds of letters you wish, harming anyone you choose, with or without the camouflage of "intelectual criticism".

I bet things wouldve been different if we were all face to face of one another. Your an oppressed wussy, whom nobody gave attention and interest till now, and now that you found some talent and since you have this freedom to say belowering words to someone, your abusing them two, just like your environment abused it to you.

I wish we could have a real "argument" face to face once!

I can also see how it is fun to you, [name calling removed]. It wouldnt be all that fun if we were all face to face... Even calling you a bully would be giving you esteem wouldnt it.

I told you he is desperate for the attention. We gave it to him, now he is enjoying it. Since we dont have those hammers that are found in MSN Rooms, that kick people out, the best thing we can do is starve him of attention. Lets just ignore him.
He is abusing his talents and the freedom to say anything, for his self pleasure. We should decide something here. Otherwise to hyell with it. I cant pull his ear like this for all eternity.

Chuck
07-08-2006, 08:05 AM
The thread has clearly degenerated in name calling and invective. It's closed.