PDA

View Full Version : Finally some Lightwavers Joined in.



Wickster
07-24-2006, 03:01 AM
I was kinda disappointed on the last last time "The Most Beautiful CG Girl" Contest, because of the wasn't 1 Lightwave entry, but now I'm glad some Lightwavers joined in.

http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/

Start preparing for the next one!

Kuzey
07-24-2006, 04:18 AM
This is the first time I've been to that site but it's great to see "Project SS6" there!!


The Angelina Jolie pic seems to be a bit off....shame that.

:D

Kuzey

oDDity
07-24-2006, 05:18 AM
Personally, I'm be glad if Lightwavers had the continued sense and dignity to stay away from such 'let's make a hawt CG chick' contests.

JML
07-24-2006, 06:41 AM
the best one by far is number75. (i think)

I saw her at cgtalk, and it's amazing.
really nice makeup/eyes, cool clothes (nicely modelled and not too sluty).
I love her expression.. she seems alive.

Exception
07-24-2006, 09:30 AM
They all seem to go overboard on the SSS... all these girls look like they can melt if you light their hair with a match.

spec24
07-24-2006, 10:46 AM
Personally, I'm be glad if Lightwavers had the continued sense and dignity to stay away from such 'let's make a hawt CG chick' contests.

and there's something wrong with this because.....?

Stooch
07-24-2006, 11:26 AM
yep 73 takes the co.. cake for me as well.

Wickster
07-24-2006, 11:28 AM
I'm glad to the fact that Lightwave is getting more exposures on forum/site contests. I mean look at the CG books by Ballistic publishing, there aren't that much entries by that are made with Lightwave on their Expose series of artbooks.

Then again most of us are probably busy working on real 3D jobs. heheh :D

oDDity
07-24-2006, 12:00 PM
and there's something wrong with this because.....?

Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.

JML
07-24-2006, 12:35 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.

I understand and agree.
but not all girls on that site are like that, some are more artisitic, and more
mature..

Earl
07-24-2006, 12:43 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.
Actually I know of some women who like that type of art. So perhaps generalizing isn't the best way to handle your displeasure of it.

But for the most part I agree with you. Just not how you go about giving your opinion.

tonybliss
07-24-2006, 01:42 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.

I is a 14 year old virgin and I are love that tipe of art


.... just ask my two sons and my wife

spec24
07-24-2006, 02:02 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.

I assume you mean "kitsch". Does this include Boris Valejo? I'm not really sure why the distaste for the female form oDDity but have it your way. Other than some bad work on the site I didn't see anything that was in poor taste, again, unless you feel a naked female is distasteful.

By the way oDDity - very nice work on your site.

Verlon
07-24-2006, 02:14 PM
to each their own. oDDIty, I'll second that its some nice work on your site.

I also find nothing offensive on the CG beauty contest site. I do not even hate poser, though I think it would be a shame for poser to win the contest because I would prefer a more creative winner. And 73 is like a runaway winner.

Nicolas Jordan
07-24-2006, 02:21 PM
I would have like to see Werner Ziemerink enter his image Pink. :)

lilrayray77
07-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Curious. I am surprised no one found these demeaning to women. They are good creations; I most certainly can't insult any of these. After all, my abilities do not come close to those of these people. I do feel though, the lightwave entries were not so convincing.

Wickster
07-24-2006, 03:51 PM
I would have like to see Werner Ziemerink enter his image Pink. :)
That's what I'm saying! Werner creates some of the most beautiful Lightwave CG women I've ever seen.

Lamont
07-24-2006, 04:05 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.Did someone just see that high-horse ride through here? Are you Gandalf or something? Thank you for enlightening us. You can have your opinions, don't be an blood-spewing-a-hole about it.

You can look at any of those and tell if it's demeaning to women or not.

lilrayray77
07-24-2006, 05:19 PM
You can look at any of those and tell if it's demeaning to women or not.

Was that intended to be agressive towards me? I was joking. How could a topic like this become so sensitive?

T-Light
07-24-2006, 06:24 PM
Oddity-

Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room...
Are we here again ? :D, Why it doesn't seem two months since we last met on this subject Mr Oddity Sir. Personally I took the printed airbrushed ladies to a whole new level, I cut them up behind squares of glass and had them on my batchelor flat walls till I was at least 25. Girlfriends never complained.

"It was fun". Sez former 14 year old virgin :D

Digital Hermit
07-24-2006, 11:33 PM
Well, maybe you're the sort of guy who has those kitch paintings of semi-clad girls draped over fantasy bikes hanging in you living room, but I've always found them contemptuous, as well as that whole pseudo-genre of hawt chck fantasy art in general. I can't imagine how it holds the slightest appeal to anyone other than 14 year virgins.

Come on oDDity, we know you have a kitsch painting of "Elvis on Velvet" hanging above your couch. ;)

Anti-Distinctly
07-25-2006, 01:27 AM
Did someone just see that high-horse ride through here? Are you Gandalf or something? Thank you for enlightening us. You can have your opinions, don't be an blood-spewing-a-hole about it.

You can look at any of those and tell if it's demeaning to women or not.

NB: This isn't directed at you Lamont, just quoted for the essence :)

Isn't oDDity entitled to voice his opinions? Personally, I love pictures like these. Sure they're base to an extent, but I'm a human male. Go figure.

spec24
07-25-2006, 06:40 AM
Was that intended to be agressive towards me? I was joking. How could a topic like this become so sensitive?

glad you were joking. I'm always cracked up by people who find images of the female form demeaning (and I'm not talking about pornography). People sure are in denial of what we (people) are. Men like women. This should come as no shock to anyone. It's only demeaning to those who perceive themselves as something less than they are.

CMT
07-25-2006, 07:53 AM
glad you were joking. I'm always cracked up by people who find images of the female form demeaning (and I'm not talking about pornography). People sure are in denial of what we (people) are. Men like women. This should come as no shock to anyone. It's only demeaning to those who perceive themselves as something less than they are.

Absolutely agree, Spec24!

Throughout history people have been depicting their ideal female and male forms. How is this any different? Sure, I think several of the pieces look more like pin-up art than anything, but it still is art.

If you want to see images that degrade women, go read Penthouse magazine.

spec24
07-25-2006, 09:39 AM
Hey, Penthouse Magazine is art as well, if those Poser models fit the "art" label.

Let's all have a jolly discussion about what's art and what's not.... again... :devil:

Anyone?

well, if Jesus on the cross in a jar of urine is art then I guess anything is :cry: :)

Wickster
07-25-2006, 10:24 AM
Okeeyyy...this discussion went sour really fast. Please don't attack each other's opinions let's all get along and get busy and create something for the next contest. May the best Lightwaver wins. :D

newtekker04
07-25-2006, 11:57 AM
Is it just me, or does entry #38 (Yuka) look almost too real? Looks like it's a photo painted over. 75 is definitely the best 3D, but I'm split among three 2D pieces: #15 (The ascend), #25 (Ash), and #38.

BTW, is anyone familiar with a CG artist (makes flawless human figures) with the first name michael, last name beginning with an s? Sorry to be extremely vague, but I came across his work quite some time ago and I cannot recall his last name. If this helps, he did a pic of a girl sitting up in the nude, with her leg covering her, talking on the phone. Any ideas?

ThriJ
07-25-2006, 12:09 PM
newtekker04 are you thinking of Steven Stahlberg?


The only thing I don’t think is right is that they have 3D work 2D work and poser all in the same category. 2D is a respectable creative art form, but it is a vastly different process with different strengths and limitations. As far as poser goes you have to ask yourself, should a DAZ model that has been tweaked for 30 minutes or so have the same merit as a 3D model constructed from scratch?

CMT
07-25-2006, 12:31 PM
Is it just me, or does entry #38 (Yuka) look almost too real? Looks like it's a photo painted over.

http://www.lukx.com/

I found a tutorial I saw on how he made that image on his site. Nice workflow and technique.

Wickster
07-25-2006, 12:39 PM
The only thing I don’t think is right is that they have 3D work 2D work and poser all in the same category. 2D is a respectable creative art form, but it is a vastly different process with different strengths and limitations. As far as poser goes you have to ask yourself, should a DAZ model that has been tweaked for 30 minutes or so have the same merit as a 3D model constructed from scratch?
Yeah...but that's probably because of lack of entry contestants...i guess.

http://www.lukx.com/

I found a tutorial I saw on how he made that image on his site. Nice workflow and technique.
That's cool, thanks for the link.

newtekker04
07-25-2006, 01:11 PM
newtekker04 are you thinking of Steven Stahlberg?

Yes, that's him! Why the heck did I say Michael? I meant Steven.;D You are absolutely correct - thanks for reminding me.:thumbsup:

Twisted_Pixel
07-25-2006, 02:17 PM
Edit: And what's up with a guy like Henning Ludvigsen emptying his entire portfolio of cliché fantasy art in to a competition. Like, make up your freaking mind dude and enter one piece, not your entire portfolio... gee.

Henning Ludvigsen entered 12 pieces, which is a small collection of what he has produced. It's always hard to pick a favourite piece of artwork in my experience anyway. A very talented artist in my opinion.

Lamont
07-25-2006, 02:21 PM
Was that intended to be agressive towards me? I was joking. How could a topic like this become so sensitive?Nah, just oDDity.

http://www.flowers-flowers.com/images/roses_traditional.jpg

lilrayray77
07-25-2006, 04:41 PM
Lol, forgive and forget. ;)

oDDity
07-25-2006, 05:02 PM
I assume you mean "kitsch". Does this include Boris Valejo? I'm not really sure why the distaste for the female form oDDity but have it your way. Other than some bad work on the site I didn't see anything that was in poor taste, again, unless you feel a naked female is distasteful.


No, I meant kitch, I don't speak German, and so I convert it to decent English.
I've nothing against the female form in art at all, it's the way it's done and the reasons for doing it that are the issue. I see this contest as nothing but a 'let's make some hot pixel-chicks and then drool over them' exercise, brought to you by the same mindset as those who find the latest starlet chicks in the media attractive, and talk about them in suitable bawdy fashion. It's pathetic, and I don't think anyone who's left high school should be involved in it. I couldn't pick Angelina Joline or any of the rest of them out from a line up, and I'm proud of it.
It's just that kind of low brow tackiness that brings CG into disrepute. THe fact there are a few decent pieces in there doesn't drag it out from under the barrel. I guess those artists take the view that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Then again, I utterly despise just about all popular culture and everything it stands for, so I might be a little biased.

mrunion
07-25-2006, 05:10 PM
Then again, I utterly despise just about all popular culture and everything it stands for, so I might be a little biased.

I have to say I'm with you on that! And on most of the other stuff too! My opinion on the subject is this:

ART is intended to invoke thought.

PORNOGRAPHY is intended to arouse.

Note: I have NOT looked at the pics linked to in the post. I'm not saying its either art or porn. I'm just expressing an opinion.

JML
07-25-2006, 05:35 PM
....

....

judging from your comments, isn't the beautiful picture oddity made "the david" pornography too ?

oddity, you seem to have no problem modelling a naked guy but you have a problem with a naked woman?

if I would model a naked woman similar to the david, you probably would
trash it, right?

I'm sorry, but I find the curves of the women body to be much more interesting than the man.
(and I mean artistically, not sexually)

but that's just my opinion.
I just don't think people that like that kind of art should be called 14years old
virgin by somebody that model naked guys :D :D

toonafish
07-25-2006, 05:39 PM
ART is intended to invoke thought.

PORNOGRAPHY is intended to arouse.


these images seem to invoke a lot of thoughts :D

newtekker04
07-25-2006, 09:19 PM
these images seem to invoke a lot of thoughts :D

Nicely put:D

llongino
07-25-2006, 09:46 PM
Then again, I utterly despise just about all popular culture and everything it stands for, so I might be a little biased.

Could you define "popular culture"? This "I'm so above popular culture" attitude is so, well, popular. Bor-ing! Get over it. Dime a dozen, dude.

No, I'm not a fan of Britney, or Big Brother, or Korn.... But I am a fan of Rob Zombie, Pixar's Cars, and America's Next Top Model. Is it a bad thing to like some aspects of "popular culture"??? Someone who can really see the world can find inspiration in a lot of what others might brush off as "popular culture". I'm using the word "see" not in a real literal sense, but in a more wide sense. Get it?

What I wanna know is, where is the CG beefcake contest? Then I might be interested. I'm guessing most 3d geeks are young straight guys, judging by the number of "hot chick" images flooding various websites....

And what's with the concern about what piece of software someone used? All that matters is the result - who gives a sh*t if it wasn't created with Lightwave? Really? Some painters use acrylic, some use oil, does that have anything to do with the final product??? I don't think so.

oDDity
07-26-2006, 02:55 AM
Could you define "popular culture"? This "I'm so above popular culture" attitude is so, well, popular. Bor-ing! Get over it. Dime a dozen, dude.

I'm not above it. That would be awful. I'd be able to look down on it and see it all wallowing in it's own garish shallow filth. No I'm off to the side of it somewhere, ideally in the next valley, so I don't have to look at, or hear it at all, and considering I don't watch televison or read newspapers, that's a pretty good analogy.

No, I'm not a fan of Britney, or Big Brother, or Korn.... But I am a fan of Rob Zombie, Pixar's Cars, and America's Next Top Model. Is it a bad thing to like some aspects of "popular culture"???
I don't know what any of those things are, but make up your own mind, you sound as though you're trying to justify it to yourself, because you're certainly not going to alter my views on the matter.

Someone who can really see the world can find inspiration in a lot of what others might brush off as "popular culture". I'm using the word "see" not in a real literal sense, but in a more wide sense. Get it?
No, I don't. What have you done to show that you really 'like, see the world and stuff, dude', and show me what you've produced that you've cunningly derived from the best of popular culture.

Exception
07-26-2006, 03:14 AM
No, I don't. What have you done to show that you really 'like, see the world and stuff, dude', and show me what you've produced that you've cunningly derived from the best of popular culture.


Interesting thread...
There's definately going some rope pulling as to how far popular culture actually affects our daily lives and thoughts.
For instance, Oddity, I think it would be easy for me to make an argument that Warcraft, those real time dungeon and fantasy games and the books of Tolkien perhaps have influenced your own work? I would consider these to be part of popular culture as much as graffiti art, hip hop or some other sub-genre.

To each his own thing, I don't read newspapers either and havn't had TV for 7 years, but that doesn't mean all of popular culture is without value. My personal opinion is just that it is rather thinly spread, and I prefer therefore to not be confronted by the overwhelming mediocricy in favor of more dense mediums such as books or art films. (Not to mention not having to be exposed to the commercial whims of advertising, which sicken me deeply).

But hey, Pixar's film Cars was just wonderful and a great achievement, and Pixar's been continuously showing our (the 3D) industry can have both depth and public appeal, which is something to be absolutely applauded. Oddity you say you havn't heard of the film, well, unless you have a specific dislike of film which can address a large audience, including children and adults of all ages, it's a great film, and I can sincerely recommend it. True, it's no tarkovsky, but then again, if I'd watch tarkovsky every week I would have probably killed myself by now.

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 06:07 AM
What have you done to show that you really 'like, see the world and stuff, dude', and show me what you've produced that you've cunningly derived from the best of popular culture.

Then again, I utterly despise just about all popular culture and everything it stands for, so I might be a little biased.

OK oDDity, I'll bite, what do you think is of merit? Your constant smug condescension so obviously wants to tell us where we are going wrong. So enlighten us

I don't recall you ever pointing something out to us you did like. I've suspected for a while it may not be your own work, as like a lot of peoples stuff it is on the whole very pop cultural, being in the main fantasy art for computer games. How popular culture can you get?

Don't get me wrong, I value your criticism of technique. You obviously have some skill, but the kind of work you are dissing in this thread is also the kind of work you yourself have done and advertise on your site everytime you post.

So come on, what floats your boat?


No, I meant kitch, I don't speak German, and so I convert it to decent English.
The English spelling is Kitsch, so I question your defense of "decent English". If you making a spelling mistake, just admit it. We all do it, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

mrunion
07-26-2006, 06:16 AM
JML:

In MY opinion, the "David" is not meant to arouse. It studies form. The focus ain't on David's "bits". C'mon, Playboy/Playgirl wouldn't put David in there to please anyone's fantasy. He ain't porn.

Now, if "David" arouses YOU, then maybe it is porn TO YOU. That's the beatuy of opinions: everyone has their own Special Edition of them.

BTW, I looked at the link and there may be one or two I'd consider porn-ish. The others appear to be either the artists idea of beauty or the idea of beatuy that was thrust upon him by the masses. Whichever, the material is not really "objectionable".

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 06:27 AM
In MY opinion, the "David" is not meant to arouse. It studies form. The focus ain't on David's "bits". C'mon, Playboy/Playgirl wouldn't put David in there to please anyone's fantasy. He ain't porn.

I wouldn't call David porn either. Far from it. But I would say he is an idealised human nude. So to a certain extent he has been fetishised/sexualisd, just like at his pose. Most of the work on that site are equally idealised, though some are a heckuva lot more sexualised. Just becomes he isn't in a state of arousal, doesn't mean he isn't sexualised.

I personally think a digital beauty contest is facile thinking, but if people want to get involved let them. Also from the contestants it's obvious this isn't merely a male fantasy session, there are women artists entered there too, though not as many as I'd expect. The Fantasy art market has a lot of women contributors.

I put beef/cheese cake down as a guilty pleasure, as I like doing figurative work myself. I appreciate when someone does it well.
I think Stahlberg is very good at cheescake, I like his modeling technique but I can't say i like his art.

oDDity
07-26-2006, 06:35 AM
Well, Cars may be a half decent movie, but hardly a life changing experience, I'm sure I'll survive without ever seeing it. You'd be surprised at the number of big, talked-about movies I've never seen. The Matrix films for a start.
My playing of computer games has dwindled from 3 or 4 a year to zero, they're all the same generic, repetitve crap, I was working on the biggest doom 3 total converison, which is what the stuff you say was 'influenced by tolkein and warcraft' was made for, I was hoping to make something innovative, and making a non-commercial mod is the perfect opportunity to do that, but I've quit that mod now, because the rest of the team were only interested in making the same old, same old crap.

As for what 'floats my boat',. I like the classics. Classical and neo-classical sculpture, 17th century Northern European painting, Impressionst painting, and most music written between 1600 and 1940, excuding most of the 'classical' period.
I know you're going to say 'but you can't live in the past, art and music has to continually move on' etc, but I don't see the point moving on unless you're moving upwards, but as far as I'm concerned, they are the heights of art and music, and everything else is inferior to them, both technically and aesthetically.
We are very fortunate today, in that we can take the best of what people have produced in the last 500 years, and listen to and look at that.
It just so happens that none of the best stuff has been produced in the last 80 years.
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.

Exception
07-26-2006, 07:20 AM
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree with that, however, you seem to forget, that which you refer to as 'worthwhile' was made in times when there was just as much nonsense floating around as there is now. That means that pieces of brilliant music and art that are brought to us from the past have time as a filter to distinguish them from the masses. There were just as many silly britney spears-like songs in the golden ages as there are now, they just didn't have the strength or content to thrust them to our time.

That means that there isn't any less quality material being produced today, it is just harder to find it because it hasn't been handed to you on a silver platter with a note saying 'this is good' on it.
Having studied classic, modern and contemporary art, cinema, architecture and music for over 10 years now, I can honestly say that in corners where I least expected to find life changing art and works, they were there... And as good as some of those classics are, there is nothing like finding your own personal inspiration or examples... but they are most often not what all the other art lovers read about, listen to or discuss, thus you will probably never encounter them unless you make an effort. These efforts are always rewarded...

Being selective in what you hear and see is to be encouraged, but to completely seal your environment off from important developments is your own loss, one not to be taken lightly for yourself. You do live in a time and a place, and it might very well be that someone out there is trying to make the quality and effort that you so cherish. By denying his existance, he has lost a supporter, and even talking about people like that in a forum like this can be helpful...
It might very well be that something is made today which will influence you more profoundly because it functions on the same frequencey as you do. You are not the only one that is trying to find the exceptional...

Here, I'll do my share; If you like classical music, and you are not afraid of difficult music that requires concentration and repeated listening, try Canto Ostinato from Simeon ten Holt. Or, if you are into architecture, investigate Terragni, Raimund Abraham or Carlo Scarpa... which are along the same lines of exceptional and completely brilliant work that will be even more important in the centuries to come than they are now.

colkai
07-26-2006, 07:22 AM
Man, and I thought I was born slightly out of time. ;)

Please, please don't tell me you go round in a powdered wig and britches. :p ;)

(Ah-ha, I have it, oDDity is related to Black Adder - thus the scathing, I thank ye.) :)

colkai
07-26-2006, 07:25 AM
you seem to forget, that which you refer to as 'worthwhile' was made in times when there was just as much nonsense floating around as there is now. That means that pieces of brilliant music and art that are brought to us from the past have time as a filter to distinguish them from the masses.

Plus, one has to think I suppose, at the time, they mroe than likely were popular culture. I'm sure at teh time, people were saying, this music and art, tis but a fad, I prefer the true music of the 800's.

Oh gawd, can you imagine, in 200 years time, people preferring the classic 'visual art' of "Big Brother" and "I'm a celebrity..." and DJ "I'm kickin' Kool" music techno garage hip-hop ? :help:

(Of course, if they think Led Zep and Def Leppard are the old classics, I'll conceed that :p)

EDIT: You know, come to think of it, the stuff we accept as "the best" from times gone by are really only the most succsessful / popular. I wonder how many musicians from that era are never even heard of now outside of very well informed circles? As they say, history is written by the victorious, so scarily, it could well be the things many folks despise are seen as highlights of our culture.
May the Gods help us all.

lilrayray77
07-26-2006, 07:38 AM
I see many people expressing their opinion, and an off topic (the thread is already off topic?) question. How do international laws work on the internet. There are countries where opinions can not be freely expressed correct? So how does that effect one's usage of the internet. Sorry if it is comptely off topic, but I gotta knonw.

JML
07-26-2006, 07:43 AM
JML:
In MY opinion, the "David" is not meant to arouse. It studies form. The focus ain't on David's "bits". C'mon, Playboy/Playgirl wouldn't put David in there to please anyone's fantasy. He ain't porn.
Now, if "David" arouses YOU, then maybe it is porn TO YOU. That's the beatuy of opinions: everyone has their own Special Edition of them.


david is a work of art because it's a naked man?,
and if it would be a woman, then you would call it porn, right?

don't be afraid of the woman body so much :D

in simple words, david is a naked guy and you are fine with that,
and you make fun of other people that find interesting half or full covered woman.
right..

Exception
07-26-2006, 07:44 AM
You know, come to think of it, the stuff we accept as "the best" from times gone by are really only the most succsessful / popular. I wonder how many musicians from that era are never even heard of now outside of very well informed circles? As they say, history is written by the victorious, so scarily, it could well be the things many folks despise are seen as highlights of our culture.
May the Gods help us all.


Oh, boy Colkai, my man, what are you saying!
You think they listened to Bach on the market square? Yeeeee-err-no.
In past times it was only the highly educated that appreciated high art, and unfortunately, it was therefore only the elite that could do so (since education was expensive), therefore there is often this tinge of only-for-the-rich about classical art... but that also meant that these artists had way more time and were higher regarded than their peers... it was not popular culture at all... and some of the greatest of them were complete failures in their own life, in any circle. There's so many of them that comitted suicide and died in poverty and dispair... van Gogh anyone?

The cool thing of our time now is that everyone can have a great education and everyone can be exposed to all the art that is around. This might be overwhelming, but sticking with the neatly catalogued examples from the past is, well... a shame.

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 08:09 AM
Well, Cars may be a half decent movie, but hardly a life changing experience, I'm sure I'll survive without ever seeing it. You'd be surprised at the number of big, talked-about movies I've never seen. The Matrix films for a start.

I doubt you missed much. Though for every Matrix, there is a Memento or Devils Backbone.


My playing of computer games has dwindled from 3 or 4 a year to zero, they're all the same generic, repetitve crap, I was working on the biggest doom 3 total converison, which is what the stuff you say was 'influenced by tolkein and warcraft' was made for, I was hoping to make something innovative, and making a non-commercial mod is the perfect opportunity to do that, but I've quit that mod now, because the rest of the team were only interested in making the same old, same old crap.

Hey, I never mentioned Tolkein or WarCraft (I actually was thinking of Holbein and M John Harrisons In Viriconium). There still good games out there, Bethesdas Everscrolls series being good examples of the fantasy genre, but like all areas of human endevour there is more chaff then wheat. I'm sorry to hear you dropped out of the mod, but if it was just gonna rehash "the same old" tired stuff, you're well shot of them.
So what are doing now? more of the 17th C. stuff?

As for what 'floats my boat',. I like the classics. Classical and neo-classical sculpture, 17th century Northern European painting, Impressionst painting, and most music written between 1600 and 1940, excuding most of the 'classical' period.
I know you're going to say 'but you can't live in the past, art and music has to continually move on' etc, but I don't see the point moving on unless you're moving upwards, but as far as I'm concerned, they are the heights of art and music, and everything else is inferior to them, both technically and aesthetically.
We are very fortunate today, in that we can take the best of what people have produced in the last 500 years, and listen to and look at that.
It just so happens that none of the best stuff has been produced in the last 80 years.
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.

As much as I like Jellyroll Morton and Robert Johnson, I'm not much for earlier Western music. Give me the last 40 years any day :D . I like the recycling and sampling of the modern era, the absorption of surrealism into mass conciousness. We have transcended representaional art, for better or worse, so we'd best get used to it.

I feel, in these post-Dworkinian days, we should loosen up on the art/porn debate, as the border is so intangible. Art is porn, and often porn is art. Get used to it.

bobakabob
07-26-2006, 08:16 AM
Well, Cars may be a half decent movie, but hardly a life changing experience, I'm sure I'll survive without ever seeing it. You'd be surprised at the number of big, talked-about movies I've never seen. The Matrix films for a start.
My playing of computer games has dwindled from 3 or 4 a year to zero, they're all the same generic, repetitve crap, I was working on the biggest doom 3 total converison, which is what the stuff you say was 'influenced by tolkein and warcraft' was made for, I was hoping to make something innovative, and making a non-commercial mod is the perfect opportunity to do that, but I've quit that mod now, because the rest of the team were only interested in making the same old, same old crap.

As for what 'floats my boat',. I like the classics. Classical and neo-classical sculpture, 17th century Northern European painting, Impressionst painting, and most music written between 1600 and 1940, excuding most of the 'classical' period.
I know you're going to say 'but you can't live in the past, art and music has to continually move on' etc, but I don't see the point moving on unless you're moving upwards, but as far as I'm concerned, they are the heights of art and music, and everything else is inferior to them, both technically and aesthetically.
We are very fortunate today, in that we can take the best of what people have produced in the last 500 years, and listen to and look at that.
It just so happens that none of the best stuff has been produced in the last 80 years.
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.


"Warning, warning, danger, danger, Will Robinson! Flame alert!"

Isn't it rather silly to dismiss the last 80 years of popular culture as 'crap'? :eek:

How about swaggering down to Blockbusters, buying a jumbo bag of popcorn and treating yourself to a triple bill of Lasseter's 'Toy Story', Oshi's 'Ghost in the Shell 2' and Miyazaki's 'Spirited Away', for starters. Then come back to the forum for some informed debate. :)

colkai
07-26-2006, 08:55 AM
Oh, boy Colkai, my man, what are you saying!
You think they listened to Bach on the market square? Yeeeee-err-no.
In past times it was only the highly educated that appreciated high art, and unfortunately, it was therefore only the elite that could do so (since education was expensive),


Ok, maybe it was eliteist, but it was popular amongst the elite, and seeing as the comon man was not worthy of acknowledgement, I guess it still made it the most successful. Not that eing popular or successful was ever a mark of how much the artist made out of it, nor is it today. One hears plenty of stories of bands getting a "minimum wage" whilst the agents and so on rake in the cash.

The impressionists themselves were rather anti-establishment for along time, then they became the establishment. It's a wierd world we live in.

CMT
07-26-2006, 09:34 AM
Well, Cars may be a half decent movie, but hardly a life changing experience, I'm sure I'll survive without ever seeing it.

It just so happens that none of the best stuff has been produced in the last 80 years.
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.

There's nothing wrong with having your own ideals relating to art and music. If you hold the classics in art forms as the high standard that hasn't been met for the last 80 years, then that's your right. I disagree however.

But it sounds like you're not looking hard enough. But waiting around for some "life changing experience" before you acknowledge it's worth sounds depressing.

I have no problems watching mediocre movies (some are still pretty fun to watch) or viewing art that is substandard in technique. Why? Because if you allow yourself to, you can still have a good experience with it and find something of value in them.

jasonwestmas
07-26-2006, 09:56 AM
Lol!

Wickster
07-26-2006, 10:11 AM
Let's just face it folks the artist community is probably the most diverse community in the world...period.

I get the acceptance of giving strange opinions because of "oh you're one of those (artist)" i could walk around our building wearing red shoes, while the place is filled with men and women with nice suits. I could come to work wearing a yellow back-pack while everyone carries a leather suitcase. Zoom down 5 miles per hour on the freeway blasting movie OSTs on my radio right beside people you blast their cars with hip hop music. To the world I know, I seem to be an exception because I'm percieved as an artist like everyone else here.

So no matter what the this guy, or that guy, this girl and that girl says, think, do and feel should be all understandable. Artists are unique, we tend to separate, innovate and don't really care what people say. right?

ThriJ
07-26-2006, 10:13 AM
Interesting change of topic. I used to have an opinion similar to oDDity. I am still quite content reading old novels and listening to classical music. But, now I keep an eye on potentially great work circulating around with the vast amount of trash from modern culture. There have been too many times I have stumbled across content that is as greatly enriching as the classics.

Of course some people may think some of the things I prefer is crap, because of course different people have different tastes. I have been enjoying many films like some of M. Night’s work for example.

And I thought that a TV show could never compare to the quality of a well-made film until I saw Firefly. I thought a Sci-fi cowboy space opera made by some guy who made vampire shows would hold my attention for a laughable two seconds. But to my surprise along with the cheesy parts came a depiction of human behavior and character relationships that equaled some of these superior novels I thought I was reading. Now, as far as games go I think any gamer who is not tension deficit and has played through the PS2 game called ICO will agree that it is unquestionably a modern day work of art.


My point in saying all that is simply to say, you never know where inspiration can come from. So it is always wise to keep an open mind regarding new works.

lilrayray77
07-26-2006, 10:23 AM
Let's just face it folks the artist community is probably the most diverse community in the world...period.

I get the acceptance of giving strange opinions because of "oh you're one of those (artist)" i could walk around our building wearing red shoes, while the place is filled with men and women with nice suits. I could come to work wearing a yellow back-pack while everyone carries a leather suitcase. Zoom down 5 miles per hour on the freeway blasting movie OSTs on my radio right beside people you blast their cars with hip hop music. To the world I know, I seem to be an exception because I'm percieved as an artist like everyone else here.

So no matter what the this guy, or that guy, this girl and that girl says, think, do and feel should be all understandable. Artists are unique, we tend to separate, innovate and don't really care what people say. right?


Lucky for you. At school my opinions are quite impopular. I live in an area full of people who love reality shows, are super religious, and conservative. Me being the complete opposite, I often get people trying ot tell me how wrong I am. And it all comes down to one thing: Art is an expression of one's emotoin. Although you may not like that specific piece of art, that does not mean it is not art. I hate the style and beleifs of goths (what do they beleive), but none the less, it is an expression of ones emotion and therefore it is art. my$0.02.

Wickster
07-26-2006, 10:30 AM
Lucky for you. At school my opinions are quite impopular. I live in an area full of people who love reality shows, are super religious, and conservative. Me being the complete opposite, I often get people trying ot tell me how wrong I am. And it all comes down to one thing: Art is an expression of one's emotoin. Although you may not like that specific piece of art, that does not mean it is not art. I hate the style and beleifs of goths (what do they beleive), but none the less, it is an expression of ones emotion and therefore it is art. my$0.02.
Interesting...don't you feel tempted to shake the community up a bit over where you live? heheh.

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 10:53 AM
...treating yourself to a triple bill of Lasseter's 'Toy Story', Oshi's 'Ghost in the Shell 2' and Miyazaki's 'Spirited Away', for starters. Then come back to the forum for some informed debate. :)

Oh my gosh, i had forgot Oshii, or even Satoshi Gon: 'Tokyo Godfathers', 'Millenium Actress' or 'Perfect Blue'.

'Spirited Away' is awesome, but let's not forget 'My neighbour Totoro' or 'Princess Mononoke'

Cowboy Bebop

Kwaidan

7 Samurai

Belleville Rendezvous

Terry Gilliam,

dang the list goes on. I couldn't live wi' out 'em.

*Dans eyes glaze as he looks at his DVD collection*

oDDity
07-26-2006, 11:11 AM
There's nothing wrong with having your own ideals relating to art and music. If you hold the classics in art forms as the high standard that hasn't been met for the last 80 years, then that's your right. I disagree however.

But it sounds like you're not looking hard enough. But waiting around for some "life changing experience" before you acknowledge it's worth sounds depressing.

I have no problems watching mediocre movies (some are still pretty fun to watch) or viewing art that is substandard in technique. Why? Because if you allow yourself to, you can still have a good experience with it and find something of value in them.

In other words, sift though thousands of hours of movies, games, TV, modern music, and art in order to find the few good moments?
Doesn't sound very economical or enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's s muhc of it, and so much of it is bad, it's not worth the time trying to wade though it, that's what I'm getting at.

lilrayray77
07-26-2006, 11:35 AM
In other words, sift though thousands of hours of movies, games, TV, modern music, and art in order to find the few good moments?
Doesn't sound very economical or enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's s muhc of it, and so much of it is bad, it's not worth the time trying to wade though it, that's what I'm getting at.

Im gonna have to agree with oddity on this one. There just arent many movies/games/books/etc that are good and original these days. It is either remakes or just a common slightly twisted story line.

mrunion
07-26-2006, 11:52 AM
Slow down there JML, I never made fun of anyone!

I gave my opinion. Women or men, naked or clothed -- it is possible for BOTH to be art or porn (or both?). And I'm not really "afraid" of neither.

CMT
07-26-2006, 12:01 PM
In other words, sift though thousands of hours of movies, games, TV, modern music, and art in order to find the few good moments?
Doesn't sound very economical or enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's s muhc of it, and so much of it is bad, it's not worth the time trying to wade though it, that's what I'm getting at.

Well as far as TV/movies are concerned you're pretty much right (except for Prison Break and 24). As for art/music, you just gotta know where to look.

lilrayray77
07-26-2006, 12:31 PM
Yeah CMT! Prison Break and 24 are just about the only good shows left(CSI and The Office are also good). As for music, I cant stand the new stuff, but that is just my opinion. The subjects of rap and pop are terrible: Sex, Drugs, Murder.

llongino
07-26-2006, 12:42 PM
Oh my gosh, i had forgot .... dang the list goes on. I couldn't live wi' out 'em.

*Dans eyes glaze as he looks at his DVD collection*

Don't forget all the great horror movies coming out of Asia: Marebito was especially incredible. Beautiful shots of the infrastructure underneath Tokyo, not to mention a great plot too. And the Jeunet & Caro movies: Delicatessen and City of Lost Children. Oh, and Rob Zombie's House of a Thousand Corpses (though I was really disappointed in The Devil's Rejects). Just to name a few great things thrown up out of that cesspool we call "popular culture".

And since we're still talking about Cars - no, it wasn't a life-changing experience. I didn't think it would be or expect it to be.... kind of high standards, don't you think? Though I may have had more of an emotional connection to the story than some other people, since I live near the old Route 66 and have visited some of the old dying towns along it here in Arizona, and find those places totally fascinating. So it was much more than a simple cartoon to me, but I suppose someone who lives elsewhere and isn't familiar with the "Route 66 Mystique" or whatever you want to call it wouldn't feel that connection to the movie.

Nobody's suggesting we need to wade through thousands of hours of stuff to find some rare gems.... Is it really so horribly difficult to find something good? Come on! You just have to know where to look.

parm
07-26-2006, 12:54 PM
It's really very easy to find quality contemporary Art and cultural events. If you know where and how to find them.

Listening to Radio 3 or 4 is a good starting point. It's free, and you couldn't get better, more knowledgeable reviews and in depth interviews.

I find WHSmith's and Borders to be excellent libraries. They really are very tolerant. You can peruse all the specialist magazines for the Fine Arts, Popular Culture, Science, anything you like. Oh, and pick up a Gallery Guide, or Time Out while you're there.

The 'World Cinema' section is usually much more interesting than the main section of the video shop. As others have already indicated here.

I used to be a bit snooty about television. But I got one a few years ago. And you know there are loads of very good programs on it, mostly between 11.00 p.m. and the very early hours of the morning though.

newtekker04
07-26-2006, 01:27 PM
In other words, sift though thousands of hours of movies, games, TV, modern music, and art in order to find the few good moments?
Doesn't sound very economical or enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's s muhc of it, and so much of it is bad, it's not worth the time trying to wade though it, that's what I'm getting at.

I do partially agree with you on this, oDDity, as I, too, have had a similair outlook on contemporary culture. Believe me, I have been raised by very conservative parents who are very set on tradition and what is of high quality. As such, I have been this way as well. However, after awhile, I get sick of eating "Quality-Os." This attitiude of "I don't want to waste my time searching when I doubt I'll find anything good" is a poor and cynical perspective. I'm not arguing with your opinion; rather, I am just trying to offer another perspective of someone who, too, usually doesn't like to waste his time on mediocre content.

Nowadays, because society's standards are so low, it is difficult to find quality content. I can't turn on the radio anymore without hearing a top 40 hit, or turn on the tube without seeing a crummy reality show. However, we are all guilty of wanting to turn off our brains once and awhile to 'vegg out,' whether it be a cheesy flick, or a Steven King novel.

For instance, up until a couple months ago, my TV diet was strictly 24, Prison Break, and EP/ROTR. However, once two of those shows were done, I really didn't have anything to watch. So, I caved in and flipped through the channels in search of something relatively decent. I eventually picked up three shows: Supernatural, Blind Date, and H*ll's Kitchen. Frankly, these shows aren't of the highest calibre, but they keep me fully entertained. IMO, we all need to loosen up and be entertained. If we all limited ourselves to what we consider stellar or perfect quality, life would be narrow and shallow. Experience life, the highs and the lows, and the subpars.:D



Well as far as TV/movies are concerned you're pretty much right (except for Prison Break and 24). As for art/music, you just gotta know where to look.

Yes, gotta love these shows.:thumbsup:

CMT
07-26-2006, 01:57 PM
If we all limited ourselves to what we consider stellar or perfect quality, life would be narrow and shallow. Experience life, the highs and the lows, and the subpars.:D


Amen to that! What would the world be like without the cheesy original Batman series?! :)

newtekker04
07-26-2006, 02:38 PM
Don't forget all the great horror movies coming out of Asia: Marebito was especially incredible. Beautiful shots of the infrastructure underneath Tokyo, not to mention a great plot too.

You brought up asian films, so I must ask: have you seen a film called "Cure"? If you haven't, I highly recommend you do. It is an exceptional movie, but a little unnerving. Regardless, see it if you can - I doubt you'll be dissapointed.



Amen to that! What would the world be like without the cheesy original Batman series?!

Who can argue with that?:thumbsup: :agree:

llongino
07-26-2006, 03:07 PM
You brought up asian films, so I must ask: have you seen a film called "Cure"? If you haven't, I highly recommend you do. It is an exceptional movie, but a little unnerving. Regardless, see it if you can - I doubt you'll be dissapointed.

Yep, that was a great movie. Very unnerving.

I've been wanting to see Survive Style 5+ but Netflix doesn't have it. Best I can tell it's not on dvd. Anyone know anything about it?

lilrayray77
07-26-2006, 03:37 PM
If we all limited ourselves to what we consider stellar or perfect quality, life would be narrow and shallow. Experience life, the highs and the lows, and the subpars.:D


I agree with you to a certain extent. But it is the reality shows and such that really make me angry. They are all the same!

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 04:39 PM
You brought up asian films, so I must ask: have you seen a film called "Cure"? If you haven't, I highly recommend you do. It is an exceptional movie, but a little unnerving. Regardless, see it if you can - I doubt you'll be dissapointed.

I'll look that one up.

I just saw a Tale of Two Sisters, that too is unsettling. A really staid family acting wierder and wierder by the minute, and scenes that just seem surreal until the big payoff.

I still think OldBoy is one of the better films of the last few years. I hate to think what will done be to it in the American remake 8/ .

There is so much good material coming out of Asia be it film, comics or music. If oDDity doesn't at least try some of the things mentioned in this thread, he'll be the worse for it.

DogBoy
07-26-2006, 04:42 PM
I agree with you to a certain extent. But it is the reality shows and such that really make me angry. They are all the same!

Yeah, that is the ONE good reason not to have a TV. I've seen maybe 3 installments of reality shows and that was 3 too many. I'll stick to watching movies & series on DVD, thanks.

jwilli3
07-26-2006, 05:02 PM
I agree with you to a certain extent. But it is the reality shows and such that really make me angry. They are all the same!

I would say the same thing about CSI. :neener:

llongino
07-26-2006, 05:10 PM
I still think OldBoy is one of the better films of the last few years. I hate to think what will done be to it in the American remake 8/ .

You can be sure that the scene involving the live octopus won't be in any remake, American or otherwise. Isn't that considered some kind of delicacy or "powerful food" or whatever in parts of Asia? I'm not too familiar with the cultural details of all that but that was definitely a squirm-worthy scene. Yuck. I'm pretty sure that wasn't computer generated.... If it was they did a pretty good job getting the writhing tentacles perfectly aligned with the contours of the actor's face. Hee hee.

skanky
07-26-2006, 05:11 PM
I've been wanting to see Survive Style 5+ but Netflix doesn't have it. Best I can tell it's not on dvd. Anyone know anything about it?
Yeah, very wacky, visually beautiful film. Love it. You can get it from
yesasia.com (http://www.yesasia.com) with a direct link here (http://global.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/code-j/section-videos/pid-1004184649/) It's only in region 2, and in Jap, but has subtitles.

Twisted_Pixel
07-26-2006, 05:15 PM
I still think OldBoy is one of the better films of the last few years. I hate to think what will done be to it in the American remake 8/ .


Agree with you Dogboy, it's been in my collection of favourites, since i first got it.

I think there may be a trend with my film collection, over half of it is subtitled.

bobakabob
07-26-2006, 05:41 PM
There is so much good material coming out of Asia be it film, comics or music

Oshi's Avalon is an oft overlooked classic from the far east which I heartily recommend if you've not seen it. Visually stunning, original and thought provoking, Avalon has a poetic measured pace and haunting atmosphere. Many of the ideas have been 'borrowed' by big budget directors. Made by a Japanese crew, groundbreaking CGI team, with Polish actors.

http://www.dragonsdenuk.com/reviews/avalon6.jpg

A good site, dedicated to unravelling Avalon's mystery, though beware of spoilers:

http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/decade/2000-current/avalon/

newtekker04
07-26-2006, 05:51 PM
I agree with you to a certain extent. But it is the reality shows and such that really make me angry. They are all the same!

Yeah, I guess I didn't make that clear. This is one area where I make an exception. Reality shows are simply monotonous and a waste of time/resources/etc. Think of all the money invested in reality programming - it could easily solve world hunger.


I just saw a Tale of Two Sisters, that too is unsettling. A really staid family acting wierder and wierder by the minute, and scenes that just seem surreal until the big payoff.

I still think OldBoy is one of the better films of the last few years. I hate to think what will done be to it in the American remake.

I would like to see TOTS. OldBoy has been on my list for a while. My older brother has it, but I forget to borrow it from him.


Yep, that was a great movie. Very unnerving.

I've been wanting to see Survive Style 5+ but Netflix doesn't have it. Best I can tell it's not on dvd. Anyone know anything about it?

Awesome - good to know someone else has seen it. Definitely one I won't forget.8/

I'll have to ask my brother about Survive Style 5+. He's a huge asian cinema junkie; I wouldn't be surprised if he had it. His fav director is Takashi Miike.

llongino
07-26-2006, 05:51 PM
Yeah, very wacky, visually beautiful film. Love it. You can get it from
yesasia.com (http://www.yesasia.com) with a direct link here (http://global.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/code-j/section-videos/pid-1004184649/) It's only in region 2, and in Jap, but has subtitles.

Wow, what a cool website! I had no idea that existed - it's like an Amazon.com but with every cool Asian movie you could ever want. Thanks!

And the visuals from Avalon look beautiful. I didn't read the text, didn't want to find a spoiler, but I'll definitely look for that one too. Thanks for the suggestion!

bobakabob
07-26-2006, 06:08 PM
Wow, what a cool website! I had no idea that existed - it's like an Amazon.com but with every cool Asian movie you could ever want. Thanks!

And the visuals from Avalon look beautiful. I didn't read the text, didn't want to find a spoiler, but I'll definitely look for that one too. Thanks for the suggestion!

You won't regret it. Avalon is also an 'open text' puzzle of a film, so Oshi is crediting his audience with imagination and intelligence in 'solving' it. The ending especially, is unique. Everyone has a different theory. :)

mjcrawford
07-26-2006, 07:01 PM
as an artist, I think that the female nude is a wonderful work.. that being said.. the stuff on that site is trash.. I am not saying that just because they are nude and particaly nude it is bad.. but this stuff is exactly what oDDity had been saying... porn for 14 year old kids. there is nothing artistic about a woman looking like she is in the middle of an orgasim while holding a sword. it is just junk.. yes it can be fun to look at, but in the end it gives CG a bad name. when I saw the most beautiful 3d woman idea.. I would have thought that it was for just that... beauty.. not who can get a the best rise out of the viewer and still be 'tastful' enough to get on a non 'porn' site.

I am no prude.. I just think that this is not good art.. and the over use of Poser is evedence of that.

my 2 bits

bobakabob
07-26-2006, 07:39 PM
as an artist, I think that the female nude is a wonderful work.. that being said.. the stuff on that site is trash.. I am not saying that just because they are nude and particaly nude it is bad.. but this stuff is exactly what oDDity had been saying... porn for 14 year old kids. there is nothing artistic about a woman looking like she is in the middle of an orgasim while holding a sword. it is just junk.. yes it can be fun to look at, but in the end it gives CG a bad name. when I saw the most beautiful 3d woman idea.. I would have thought that it was for just that... beauty.. not who can get a the best rise out of the viewer and still be 'tastful' enough to get on a non 'porn' site.

I am no prude.. I just think that this is not good art.. and the over use of Poser is evedence of that.

my 2 bits

Agreed, so much Poser art is rather sad not to mention a tad... peculiar. Grown men playing with computerised Barbie dolls. Not all of it is junk, however. Like any medium, there's also some fabulous work out there. Check out Richard Marchand as an example of someone who has elevated Poser to a true art form.

But isn't it rather silly to leap from discussion of a Poser gallery to dismiss the whole of contemporary art and claim that nothing revolutionary has been created in the last 80 years?

Edward Hopper, Francis Ford Coppola, Billie Holiday, Picasso, George Orwell, Lou Reed, John Lennon, Ridley Scott, Oshii, Dylan, Rachel Whiteread, Tony Hancock, Warhol, Pollack, Bill Hicks, David Lynch, Aretha Franklin, Antony Gormley, Roman Polanski, Aretha Franklin, John Cleese, Tarkovsky, Jimi Hendrix, Stahlberg, Igor Mitoraj, Krystof Kiewslowski, Woody Allen, Joni Mitchell, Dali, Jim Jarmusch, Miyazaki, Jack Kirby, Elvis, Laurel and Hardy, Kurt Cobain, Damien Hirst, Charles Hawtrey...

Dig it. :D

mjcrawford
07-26-2006, 07:57 PM
Agreed, so much Poser art is rather sad not to mention a tad... peculiar. Grown men playing with computerised Barbie dolls.

Not all of it is junk, however. Like any medium, there's also some fabulous work out there. Check out Richard Marchand as an example of someone who has elevated Poser to a true art form.

But isn't it rather silly to leap from discussion of a Poser gallery to dismiss the whole of contemporary art and claim that nothing revolutionary has been created in the last 80 years?

Francis Ford Coppola, Billie Holiday, George Orwell, Lou Reed, John Lennon, Ridley Scott, Oshii, Dylan, Warhol, Pollack, David Lynch, Aretha Franklin, Roman Polanski, Aretha Franklin, John Cleese, Tarkovsky, Stahlberg, Krystof Kiewslowski, Woody Allen, Joni Mitchell, Jim Jarmusch, Miyazaki, Elvis, Laurel and Hardy, Kurt Cobain, Damien Hirst, Charles Awtry... Dig it.:D


I never said that there has been nothing revolutionary created in the last 80 years, and while some of the artists you mentioned in your list are very good, they are not all examples of 'revolutionary' art. Coppola, while an excellant director, did not do anything 'revolutionary' with the possable exception of the first Godfather film.. althought quite frankly I did not see Godfather as being the holy grail that many consider it to be. to be 'revolutionary' the work must be "constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change" I do not know all the names you mentioned, but of those I do know the only one that I think could fit into this defenition would be John Lennon, Elvis, and Durt Cobain. Filmmaking has not had a lot of 'revolutionary' works in its history.. most films consist of minor new concepts and ideas... before Coppola, you could argue that George Lucas was more revolutionary as he has made a very real change in film with the advent of modern special effects. Lucasfilm invented the Pixar system of CG which of course brought us 'Toy Story' the first major CG film.. that was truly revolutionary... using poser is like using any tool.. it has it's uses.. but we agree as to the content issue of the site that is the subject of this thread. --- wow.. I can be long winded somtimes... sorry.. I will take my meds now... :D

newtekker04
07-26-2006, 07:59 PM
as an artist, I think that the female nude is a wonderful work.. that being said.. the stuff on that site is trash.. I am not saying that just because they are nude and particaly nude it is bad.. but this stuff is exactly what oDDity had been saying... porn for 14 year old kids. there is nothing artistic about a woman looking like she is in the middle of an orgasim while holding a sword. it is just junk.. yes it can be fun to look at, but in the end it gives CG a bad name. when I saw the most beautiful 3d woman idea.. I would have thought that it was for just that... beauty.. not who can get a the best rise out of the viewer and still be 'tastful' enough to get on a non 'porn' site.

I am no prude.. I just think that this is not good art.. and the over use of Poser is evedence of that.

my 2 bits

Do you really think that everything on the site is trash? Indeed, some of them are very fantastical and erotic, and are definitely geared towards arousal. However, there are many on that page that are very artistically pleasing, not erotic, but nice to look at because of their composition. Frankly, I've never been turned on by CG women, but some are visually pleasing.

bobakabob
07-26-2006, 08:09 PM
I never said that there has been nothing revolutionary created in the last 80 years,

Nope, you certainly didn't! It was a coupla posts ago. :D


and while some of the artists you mentioned in your list are very good, they are not all examples of 'revolutionary' art. Coppola, while an excellant director, did not do anything 'revolutionary' with the possable exception of the first Godfather film.. althought quite frankly I did not see Godfather as being the holy grail that many consider it to be. to be 'revolutionary' the work must be "constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change"

You must have seen Apocalypse Now? A sweeping epic that has influenced cinema beyond the war genre. If not, do hire the dvd - the original, not the Redux version - it's quite an experience.



I do not know all the names you mentioned, but of those I do know the only one that I think could fit into this defenition would be John Lennon, Elvis, and Durt Cobain. Filmmaking has not had a lot of 'revolutionary' works in its history.. most films consist of minor new concepts and ideas... before Coppola, you could argue that George Lucas was more revolutionary as he has made a very real change in film with the advent of modern special effects. Lucasfilm invented the Pixar system of CG which of course brought us 'Toy Story' the first major CG film.. that was truly revolutionary... using poser is like using any tool.. it has it's uses.. but we agree as to the content issue of the site that is the subject of this thread. --- wow.. I can be long winded somtimes... sorry.. I will take my meds now... :D

Heh... well the point is, the elitist boundaries between so called 'high art' and 'low art' are now mercifully and liberatingly blurred.

Exception
07-27-2006, 01:26 AM
In other words, sift though thousands of hours of movies, games, TV, modern music, and art in order to find the few good moments?
Doesn't sound very economical or enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's s muhc of it, and so much of it is bad, it's not worth the time trying to wade though it, that's what I'm getting at.


You're just being recalcitrant.
All you need to do is talk with like minded people. How do you know about Haydn or Shostakovich? Certainly not by listening too all that mediocre popular classical stuff, now did you? You heard it from someone, you read it in a book or looked it up somewhere or other... Same with modern and contemporary art. Dismissing the modern art area, from 1890 to 1950 is just a big shame. The major examples out of that era are well documented and have no less value than anything that went before.

There's people all around, even on these forums, that will know more about art of all kinds, than you do, there always will be. If art is important to you, these people can help you find things which WILL be life altering and bases for new personal development. There's more films in the world than any single person can ever watch, there more music than can fill 100 life times of listening. You want the pre-selected catalogue classics? Fine, but they are just the smallest denominator of all culture and therefore not even close to having the potential that other works have.

Some excellent examples have been mentioned... there's even TV series which are life changing in their quality and content! I have not watched hours of TV to find that out, I don't even have TV, but someone I trust told me, and it didn't take any effort at all...
Go Watch Lain: Serial Experiments... Go watch Stalker by tarkovski, or Waking Life by Linklater...

Did you bother to listen to Simeon ten Holt yet?

Those are all as much high art as any david or michaelangelo, l they have cost their makers blood sweat and tears, if not just huge chunks of their lives, they have been written about endlessly and ceaselessly, they have been analysed back and forth up and down, and still they prove to be deeper than analysis and beyond singular understanding.

oDDity
07-27-2006, 03:23 AM
I have tried a wide range of music, I listen to a station in the UK called Radio 3 which plays a large selection of music, new and old, and I've come to the conluson that I dont like anything written after the 40's/50's. 'Classical' music took a turn for the worse after that. It's no good saying to me 'you have to like this, because I think it's good' It doesn't work like that.
I am also well versed with popular music, I used ot be into it as much as anyone else when I was younger and knew no better.
I've made my selections of what I like an don't like, and I'm happy with them. I do from time to time get into new areas from hearing something on the radio, or just buying some CD on a whim, but not that often.
Where I come from is not exactly culturally enlightened, so I am rather cut off as far as visiting galleries is concerned, so I'll admit I'm only familiar with the more famous modern art, and none of it I like.

Exception
07-27-2006, 04:25 AM
It's no good saying to me 'you have to like this, because I think it's good'

Nobody ever said that here.

Well there's not much use reasoning further, I suppose.
Good luck with it.

toonafish
07-27-2006, 04:38 AM
We are very fortunate today, in that we can take the best of what people have produced in the last 500 years, and listen to and look at that.
It just so happens that none of the best stuff has been produced in the last 80 years.
I've little interest in looking at and listening to stuff just becasue it was made last week.


Maybe you should be glad not everyone has your attitude. You, me, and a lot of other peeps would be out of a job if everyone only wanted to see and experience the cream of the crop and ditch the rest.
You're no michaelangelo yourself as I'm sure you know.
Heck, if everyone had that kind of attitude, it would have been veeery boring teh last 80 years. And the art community would have shriveled down to the size of a raisin by now.

But I'm certain you're not creating those characters on you webpage "just" to change people's lives or create the best model ever seen by human eyes. You probably did it because it's fun to do, and to improve your skills, which is exactly what the guys did that started this thread.

Even though your own work is not the best I've ever seen it's nice to watch, and you obviously like to show it to the world even though you know it's not the best ever made. But showing it to other peeps this is part of the fun that makes you want to keep on going and improve yourself, and that's what it's all about.

Not to put you down or anything, but if you really believe what you're saying here. Why do you have a webpage to show your stuff? If you really think it's not worth showing anything that can't compete with the best art ever made it would be pointless.

You know, the good thing about this overkill on cultural expressions is that you can make up your own mind about what you like and what you don't like. If only the "best" stuff was shown, you'd need someone to make that selection for you which is something they do in some countries and what they have a word for :hey:

Puguglybonehead
07-27-2006, 05:56 AM
Well, I hate to say it but, the only pics I liked in that contest were all done in Photoshop, and therefore digitally 'painted'. Most of the stuff there that was done with 3D software was quite heavily flawed. Bad proportions, plastic expressions, some did not even look human. Not that I could do any better myself, at the moment. I can't even create a pleasing stick-man. I'm not saying that there isn't good 3D figure-artists out there. I've seen some fantastic stuff, but not in this particular contest.

The Poseur stuff definitely is a waste of space, and pretty easy to spot (and it's only clip-art IMO).

oDDity
07-27-2006, 06:23 AM
You know, the good thing about this overkill on cultural expressions is that you can make up your own mind about what you like and what you don't like. If only the "best" stuff was shown, you'd need someone to make that selection for you which is something they do in some countries and what they have a word for :hey:
Well, exactly, so I don't know why people get upset because I say I don't like the sort of stuff in that competition. It's not being arrogant, just expressing an opinion.

oDDity
07-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Nobody ever said that here.



Not in so many words, but you and others were urging that I should see and hear certain things that you personally think are good, implying thatr I will surely like them as well.
I don't know why you assume that your personal recomendation means I should be eager to view those things above anything esle. I don't even know you or what your tastes are. It would be no better than blind sampling at random.

toonafish
07-27-2006, 06:51 AM
Well, exactly, so I don't know why people get upset because I say I don't like the sort of stuff in that competition. It's not being arrogant, just expressing an opinion.

Because of the way you say it:

"It's just that kind of low brow tackiness that brings CG into disrepute. THe fact there are a few decent pieces in there doesn't drag it out from under the barrel. I guess those artists take the view that there's no such thing as bad publicity."

that's something else then "well, it's not my cup of thea but there are some decent pieces in there"

When I look at the David on your site I can do 2 things; I can tell you it's tacky and a waste of time to copy something so mainstream and safe, why don't you come up with something original !

Or I can congratulate you with your skills because you're a good modeler. :beerchug:

toonafish
07-27-2006, 06:55 AM
The Poseur stuff definitely is a waste of space, and pretty easy to spot (and it's only clip-art IMO).

In the music business they call it "sampling" :D

lilrayray77
07-27-2006, 07:21 AM
I have tried a wide range of music, I listen to a station in the UK called Radio 3 which plays a large selection of music, new and old, and I've come to the conluson that I dont like anything written after the 40's/50's. 'Classical' music took a turn for the worse after that. It's no good saying to me 'you have to like this, because I think it's good' It doesn't work like that.
I am also well versed with popular music, I used ot be into it as much as anyone else when I was younger and knew no better.
I've made my selections of what I like an don't like, and I'm happy with them. I do from time to time get into new areas from hearing something on the radio, or just buying some CD on a whim, but not that often.
Where I come from is not exactly culturally enlightened, so I am rather cut off as far as visiting galleries is concerned, so I'll admit I'm only familiar with the more famous modern art, and none of it I like.

Even if you dont like anything after the 40s or 50s, you can still appreciate it. Jimi Hendrix did stuff with his guitar that even compared to the skill of Mozzart and Bach on the piano (my opinion that is). Even if you dont like the art, music, etc. you can still appreciate the time, money and raw talent and even the attempt that went into the piece.

Exception
07-27-2006, 07:22 AM
Not in so many words, but you and others were urging that I should see and hear certain things that you personally think are good, implying thatr I will surely like them as well.

Nobody said you will surely like them.
They are things which are, in all reason in terms of artistic merit, conceptual basis, technical execution and emotional investment on par with things you named yourself of things you appreciate. I, and I suppose the others, have named these examples in the hope that you find it useful. I already told you I do not watch tv either, nor listen to the radio, nor read news papers and have studied art for over a decade. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking you would like to know what I, or others, found during our own personal searches. The stuff people will still be swept away from in 500 years (if it isn't George Michael because he sold more albums). But you are more than welcome to throw that in the bin, its just not very pleasant if you go and be all grumpy about it.


I don't know why you assume that your personal recomendation means I should be eager to view those things above anything esle. I don't even know you or what your tastes are. It would be no better than blind sampling at random.

Yes I am sure that a recommendation from me or from any of the other fine people here who, intelligently and clearly from an informed point of view, make a concise and well argued discussion with countless examples from high art from all ages, only familiar to few, is just as random as some drunk on the street.

CMT
07-27-2006, 08:25 AM
Not in so many words, but you and others were urging that I should see and hear certain things that you personally think are good, implying thatr I will surely like them as well.
I don't know why you assume that your personal recomendation means I should be eager to view those things above anything esle. I don't even know you or what your tastes are. It would be no better than blind sampling at random.

I think this discussion is getting redundant and repettitive now (not to mention slightly off topic).

oDDity, you have every right to dismiss art forms you choose as harshly as you wish. It is your opinion after all and a public forum. Just be prepared for those who value that type of art to come to it's defense - just as harshly

I may not like all types of art, but I can respect the fact that others do and consider that fact when making comments.

creativecontrol
07-27-2006, 09:38 AM
Frankly, I like it. Some nice work there.

Just for fun, here's one I did way back on V7.5, long before SSS and the like. I was bored one day and this was kinda a fun project.:D

llongino
07-27-2006, 10:23 AM
Because of the way you say it:

Exactly, oddity. If you're going to come on so strong, then don't moan "but I was just expressing my opinion" when other people come back strong. The general point most of us are making is perhaps you shouldn't be so immediately dismissive of everything that doesn't fall under your narrow definition of "worthy" material. Most of what I enjoy has been recommended by others - sometimes the recommendations are way off and I hate it, but nevertheless, it's still a bit more accurate than "blind sampling at random".

Maybe you should seek out people of like-minded interest: in this thread alone, I've been pointed to an incredible website yesasia.com that I wasn't aware of that sells a movie I'd been looking for for months, along with some great recommendations of other movies to see. Surely as much time as you must spend online you could find some like-minded people to have discussions with? A few people in this thread have tried to recommend things for you but you continue to brush them off without consideration.

oDDity
07-27-2006, 10:32 AM
Ok then, I'll admit I do have an unnacountable weakness for fantasy novels, even some of the ones that are the literary equvilent of Big Brother, so I'm not totally immune.

spec24
07-27-2006, 10:55 AM
Do you really think that everything on the site is trash? Indeed, some of them are very fantastical and erotic, and are definitely geared towards arousal. However, there are many on that page that are very artistically pleasing, not erotic, but nice to look at because of their composition. Frankly, I've never been turned on by CG women, but some are visually pleasing.

Are you implying that art cannot also be erotic? Or if something is erotic it cannot possibly be art? I think Giger would take offense :)

I'm just bothered by oDDity's elitist attitude when it comes to other people's work. oDDity you can like it or dislike it, doesn't bother me, it's your taste and opinion. But for all you know the artist, 'specially the LW artists, who posted on that site are here on this site and I'm sure they didn't appreciate the implication that they have no sense or dignity. Whether or not you like it, someone put their time and hard work into it, I think the comments were pretty harsh.

mjcrawford
07-27-2006, 11:39 AM
Do you really think that everything on the site is trash? Indeed, some of them are very fantastical and erotic, and are definitely geared towards arousal. However, there are many on that page that are very artistically pleasing, not erotic, but nice to look at because of their composition. Frankly, I've never been turned on by CG women, but some are visually pleasing.

I did not say that it was all unpleasing to look at, but art geared tward arousal is Pornography, and I personaly consider Porn to be trash... anyone can put a nakid person in a sexual situation in front of you and get you excited.. but it takes real effort to arouse somones thought process with a truly deep work of art... Trash is not all bad.. but it is not worthy of serious consideration. the day the acadamy gives a porn film an oscar, or they introduce a 'best sex' award, I will throw away my Sag card!

spec24
07-27-2006, 01:56 PM
I did not say that it was all unpleasing to look at, but art geared tward arousal is Pornography, and I personaly consider Porn to be trash... anyone can put a nakid person in a sexual situation in front of you and get you excited.. but it takes real effort to arouse somones thought process with a truly deep work of art... Trash is not all bad.. but it is not worthy of serious consideration. the day the acadamy gives a porn film an oscar, or they introduce a 'best sex' award, I will throw away my Sag card!

I would disagree that art geared towards arousal is porn. There's porn and then there's art. Would you consider H.R. Giger's art to be porn? And there are many, many, famous pieces of art that at the time would have been considered erotic or distasteful. Now, with our anything goes society, most of us don't look at it in that manner because we can turn on the tv and see (insert idiot actresses name here) practically naked any day of the week. We've become a BIT desensitized. I don't see any work on that page that comes any where near to porn.

T-Light
07-27-2006, 06:05 PM
Oddity-

Ok then, I'll admit I do have an unnacountable weakness for fantasy novels, even some of the ones that are the literary equvilent of Big Brother, so I'm not totally immune.
:D :thumbsup:

Going to have to scour around upstairs for something that I'd consider erotic 'art', I'ts actually a photograph by a guy who's name escapes me. If poss I'll post a pic soon. Essentially it's a pic of a couple doing what couples do on the roof of a tall building surrounded by even taller buildings. It's technically and visually stunning.

T-Light
07-27-2006, 06:30 PM
OK, I found it, unfortunately it's spread across two pages in the book (approx A3 in size), Unless I get out the photo gear and find some decent glass I won't be able to do this any justice.

Essentially, If you imagine a vast cityscape at dawn or dusk. Two skyscrapers are reaching up to the centre and the left of the image, lesser tall buildings can be seen in the distance on the right. The couple in question are slightly of centre at the very bottom of the image (they're small enough to cover with your thumb).

If anyone really needs to see this I'll see what I can do.

The photographer is Jeff Dumas
The picture was taken in Century City, California in 1977
The book in question is 'Captured Women'

ps - None of this would fall in to kitsch or 'glamour' photography :)

Edit - I should say 3D women looking aroused whilst touching a sword is not in the same class :D

mjcrawford
07-27-2006, 06:33 PM
I would disagree that art geared towards arousal is porn. There's porn and then there's art. Would you consider H.R. Giger's art to be porn? And there are many, many, famous pieces of art that at the time would have been considered erotic or distasteful. Now, with our anything goes society, most of us don't look at it in that manner because we can turn on the tv and see (insert idiot actresses name here) practically naked any day of the week. We've become a BIT desensitized. I don't see any work on that page that comes any where near to porn.

as for H.R. Giger, I never saw his work so I cannot comment on it.

as for what is porn:
from Websters...

Porn - noun - pornography

Pornography - noun - 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

note that in #3 to be defined as porn nudity nor even sexual acts are not required! just because it is everywhere does not change what it is. I stand by my statement.. it may be nice to look at, but it is porn.

T-Light
07-27-2006, 06:46 PM
mjcrawford-

I stand by my statement.. it may be nice to look at, but it is porn

Funny this, there was a show on last week on UK Freeview about weird sexual practices. It was a mickytake but nonetheless managed to get in 'page three type' girls left right and centre.

In one of the pieces they where looking at people being turned on by patterns or tweed. They talked to a tweed expert:D He explained that tweed was a weave and NOT a pattern, the host then turned to his dictionary and read out a definition that stated Tweed was a specific 'weave or PATTERN', the host (convinced the expert was clearly wrong) glared at the camera and walked out on the expert.

At the end of the day, porn is so much 'in the eye of the beholder' that even governments restrict legislation depending on current knowledge and public feeling.

Edit - mjcrawford, if you've ever seen Ridley Scot's 'Alien' you've seen HR Giger's work. Here's a google link, It would be hard to look at modern fantasy graphics and see this guys work not reflected at least somewhere.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=HR%20Giger&sa=N&tab=wi

spec24
07-27-2006, 07:24 PM
as for H.R. Giger, I never saw his work so I cannot comment on it.

as for what is porn:
from Websters...

Porn - noun - pornography

Pornography - noun - 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

note that in #3 to be defined as porn nudity nor even sexual acts are not required! just because it is everywhere does not change what it is. I stand by my statement.. it may be nice to look at, but it is porn.

well here's another definition from dictionary.com:

porn

n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

So what's the point? I think anyone of rational mind would assume we're speaking in the vernacular when referring to porn and not necessarily to any image that causes sexual excitement as necessarily being porn. So if someone is excited by the statue of David it becomes porn? The swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is porn? Is this picture porn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jean-Honor%C3%A9_Fragonard_013.jpg)? It certainly might have been considered as such at the time by the definition you're standing by. And while we're on definitions, here is one for "art" from dictionary.com, 1st three defs only:

n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a.The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c.The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

So, imitating a naked female (painting, CG, what have you) - after all, we're all naked naturally, would be art. Very few works of beauty more pleasing to look at than the female form, I might add. So, while you may call erotic works porn, the work you call porn you're gonna also have to call art.

p.s. Many people consider Giger's work vulgar. I am not one of them. But his paintings can be both erotic and disturbing... good stuff :)

mjcrawford
07-27-2006, 07:27 PM
mjcrawford-


Funny this, there was a show on last week on UK Freeview about weird sexual practices. It was a mickytake but nonetheless managed to get in 'page three type' girls left right and centre.

In one of the pieces they where looking at people being turned on by patterns or tweed. They talked to a tweed expert:D He explained that tweed was a weave and NOT a pattern, the host then turned to his dictionary and read out a definition that stated Tweed was a specific 'weave or PATTERN', the host (convinced the expert was clearly wrong) glared at the camera and walked out on the expert.

At the end of the day, porn is so much 'in the eye of the beholder' that even governments restrict legislation depending on current knowledge and public feeling.

Edit - mjcrawford, if you've ever seen Ridley Scot's 'Alien' you've seen HR Giger's work. Here's a google link, It would be hard to look at modern fantasy graphics and see this guys work not reflected at least somewhere.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=HR%20Giger&sa=N&tab=wi

I did not recognize the name, but now that you mention his work in Alien, I remember him; I did look at a presentation of his work years ago... I would not simply classify all of his work as porn, but much of his work is. Obviously his design of the Alien from the films was not pornographic in nature the creature was not designed to be sexual in nature, but many of his works are clearly sadistic/masochistic erotica.

Not being from the UK I do not understand the 'page three' reference nor the term 'mickytake' what do they mean?

As for the tweed example, it is obvious that a tweed is a weave that forms a pattern and the semantic argument between the two was silly as they were both right in that case.

As for porn being in the eye of the beholder, I disagree. It is exactly that kind of argument that people make when they want to defend something that is clearly wrong by saying it is not what it is... I am not referring to you directly, rather the practice of attempting to re-define a word to support one's position Like when President Bill Clinton said that oral sex was not sex, or "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." If oral sex were not sex, then prostitutes across the USA should be suing the states for wrongful prosecution, and "is" is a clearly defined word... as is pornography.

Pornography is not a bad word... and it is not whether something is pornographic that is in debate, rather what is socially acceptable and what is 'indecent' or ‘lewd.’ I would agree that 'indecency' or ‘lewdness’ is in the eye of the beholder, but not porn. My point is to call it what it is… and personally I do not approve of gratuitous use of human sexuality in ‘art’ whether that art is film, print, CG or whatever. Is it possible to have a nude that is not porn? yes but it would have to be an image that was not intended for sexual arousal (like David, or Venus) rather than the overwhelming majority of work that is on the site that we are discussing.

I said before that I personally considered it trash, which is only my opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but arousing images are porn by definition, that is not opinion, that is fact.

mjcrawford
07-27-2006, 07:36 PM
So, imitating a naked female (painting, CG, what have you) - after all, we're all naked naturally, would be art. Very few works of beauty more pleasing to look at than the female form, I might add. So, while you may call erotic works porn, the work you call porn you're gonna also have to call art.

I do not believe I said that this was not 'art' as art can be any result of applyed skill... it does requre some skill (although not much) to create porn.. if I did say that it was not art.. I will retract that statement.

and as I said before nude does not mean sex... but in todays sociaty we have a dificult time potraying a nude without including some kind of sexual intent.. perhaps it is the maturity of the artist.. perhaps it is the differance in cultures from early Pre-Europian sociaty to today... it does depend greatly on the context of the art.. if you are painting a picture of natives in a sociaty in which women go around with no covering over their brests, of course you are going to render them with their brests exposed and that would be non-pornograpic as it is non-sexual. There are many works of art that potray nude men and women in non sexual situations..

newtekker04
07-27-2006, 08:55 PM
Are you implying that art cannot also be erotic? Or if something is erotic it cannot possibly be art? I think Giger would take offense :)

Sheesh, one has to be very careful with his or her words.:D No, art can surely be erotic. You don't have to be a master arteest to distinguish between a picture that is meant for pleasurable purposes and one that is of tasteful merit. My comment was mearly making an assessment based on mjcrawford's "trash" comment. In my opinion, and I repeat, in my opinion, some of the pics on that site don't strike me as great pieces because to me they just exude male fantasy.

But what do I know...?;D

Captain Obvious
07-27-2006, 09:04 PM
Personally, I'm be glad if Lightwavers had the continued sense and dignity to stay away from such 'let's make a hawt CG chick' contests.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. This is just silly. Some of the images are great, sure, but most of them just seem to be people who want to create something they can drool over. I mean, honestly, what is this (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Paradise_Babe.jpg)? A naked Poser model stuck in a Bryce environment? Yeah, that's real impressive.

Wickster
07-27-2006, 11:20 PM
Guys c'mon the purpose was that its good that Lightwave artists are starting to join contests. Good for them right. It could be any contest, best cg cars, cg environment, etc.

I wonder if anyone would anyone feel any different if it was say "The most buffiest CG Men Contest." heheh. :D

Captain Obvious
07-27-2006, 11:25 PM
I wonder if anyone would anyone feel any different if it was say "The most buffiest CG Men Contest." heheh. :D
Modeling a muscular man is a heck of a lot more difficult than modeling a flawless young female with no wrinkles or anything like that, so at least it's more of a technical challenge... :dance:

DiedonD
07-28-2006, 01:04 AM
Oh I looooove number 56, the lady in blue :D :thumbsup: . Just my kinda gal. ;) . Theyve made it complicated to vote, for she wouldve had my HIGHEST MOST STRONGEST vote :cool:

spec24
07-28-2006, 06:12 AM
I do not believe I said that this was not 'art' as art can be any result of applyed skill... it does requre some skill (although not much) to create porn.. if I did say that it was not art.. I will retract that statement.

No - I believe you equated it to trash. So if trash=art then my appologies. :)

spec24
07-28-2006, 06:13 AM
...some of the pics on that site don't strike me as great pieces because to me they just exude male fantasy.


What is so wrong with art that does this?

DiedonD
07-28-2006, 06:50 AM
What is so wrong with art that does this?

:agree: and emphasized in square

Captain Obvious
07-28-2006, 07:44 AM
What is so wrong with art that does this?
It's cheezy. I don't like male chauvinists. Why would I like their art?

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 08:05 AM
No - I believe you equated it to trash. So if trash=art then my appologies. :)

Please Spec, do not put words in my mouth, yes I said that this work was trash, not that all art was trash.. I am so sorry you could not come up with anything better than that.

porn may be art, and I may consider most porn trash, but that does not mean I think that all art is trash... or are you trying to say that ONLY porn is art? or maybe that is the only kind of art you look at? :D

CMT
07-28-2006, 08:23 AM
It's cheezy. I don't like male chauvinists. Why would I like their art?

Haha! At least you acknowledge it's art, where some here have dismissed whole genres as non art.


What is so wrong with art that does this?

Nothing.

Are we to limit the definition of art to evoking an emotional response from the viewer except for emotions involving arousal? Seems that's contradictory to the whole idea of creative freedom and expression.

Personally, I agree that there isn't much skill or artistry involved in depicting most porn. Just point and shoot a couple doing the deed or some bimbo arching her back over a chair. But when done artistically by a skilled artist, it can be so much more than just a picture that arouses.

IMO, Most of the images on that site I equate with velvet Elvis paintings. Still art - but art that takes limited imagination and skill to create. Some pieces have strong artistic points to them (#s 23,64,72,73,74,75). Its easy to spot those images. They are the ones you spend more than 10 seconds looking at, observing the personality (devoid in most of the entrees), or the artistry in the clothes colors, patterns and material, and even the quality in technique.

Captain Obvious
07-28-2006, 09:06 AM
Haha! At least you acknowledge it's art, where some here have dismissed whole genres as non art.
People tend to think that if it's not good, it is not art. I think this is illogical.

And of course it takes skill to create good pornography!

Wickster
07-28-2006, 09:27 AM
agreed, if you could take a flawless woman beautiful in every way and strip her naked. but evoke no erotic feeling but raises one's intellectual about the piece, then that would be very impressive.

Some models actually have that in them. They don't need to do anything else but pose, and you get the striking appeal how beautiful they are and not how erotic they look. They're look just freezes your thought but not flip your switches.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 09:32 AM
People tend to think that if it's not good, it is not art. I think this is illogical.

And of course it takes skill to create good pornography!

well said Captain! Art is anything that is created using skill... after all one can be highly skilled at the art of medicine, but most people do not think of a doctor as an artist..

Just becasue it is not good does not mean it is not art, and just because it is art, does not make it good! I simply do not see much merit in the works on that site, the characters are rather bland, and as was stated earlier, lacking in personality. they are just there to show off the fantesys of the artists... I would rather look at a peice that is interesting on many levels than just sexual stimulation for stimulation's sake.

Good porn is not impossable, it is just rare. just as good films, games, and other artforms are rare. this is why Hollywood just cranks out sequal after sequal and remake after remake... the same is true in the gaming indurstry (final fantasy 13 or whatever it is on now) it is easier than creating something truly new, origanal and interesting. and it makes lots of money. Most Hardcore Porn is sold not basied on its oraganality, or skilled filmmakeing... just the level of beauty of the 'talant' involved. This site is obviously not hardcore Porn, but it also lacks any interesting origanal work. the women are all flawless, and as such lack personality, and many of them seam to be in the middle of a sexual climax for no apparnt reasion other than to make it more interesting without any real thought.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 09:33 AM
agreed, if you could take a flawless woman beautiful in every way and strip her naked. but evoke no erotic feeling but raises one's intellectual about the piece, then that would be very impressive.

Some models actually have that in them. They don't need to do anything else but pose, and you get the striking appeal how beautiful they are and not how erotic they look. They're look just freezes your thought but not flip your switches.
:agree:

hrgiger
07-28-2006, 10:59 AM
Well for once I completely agree with oDDity. I think it's probably a good thing that Lightwavers aren't well represented in this particular gallery. Most of it is just tacky.

spec24
07-28-2006, 11:09 AM
Please Spec, do not put words in my mouth, yes I said that this work was trash, not that all art was trash.. I am so sorry you could not come up with anything better than that.

porn may be art, and I may consider most porn trash, but that does not mean I think that all art is trash... or are you trying to say that ONLY porn is art? or maybe that is the only kind of art you look at? :D

I didn't put words in your mouth mjcrawford. You said that porn was trash and that porn was still art. What you did was say that what you consider trash is in fact art. I'm sorry you could not understand what I said. I in no way suggested you though all art was trash - hence the trash=art and not vice versa.

spec24
07-28-2006, 11:13 AM
It's cheezy. I don't like male chauvinists. Why would I like their art?

I don't see how male sexual fantasy makes someone a male chauvanist. That's a pretty shallow view of men. It doesn't make a man a chauvinist any more than a female sexual fantasy makes her a whore (whether they put in down in art or not).

Captain Obvious
07-28-2006, 11:15 AM
final fantasy 13 or whatever it is on now
This annoyed me somewhat. Final Fantasy is the benchmark of quality video gaming, and to date they've only made ONE sequel. All the Final Fantasy games except for "X2" is completely stand-alone and original. The basic concept is the same, sure, but the actual story is different in all of them.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 11:18 AM
I didn't put words in your mouth mjcrawford. You said that porn was trash and that porn was still art. What you did was say that what you consider trash is in fact art. I'm sorry you could not understand what I said. I in no way suggested you though all art was trash - hence the trash=art and not vice versa.

Spec your ignorance of simple logic is overwhelming.

newtekker04
07-28-2006, 12:05 PM
What is so wrong with art that does this?

Argh!:mad: OK, spec, I have no intention of arguing my point to you, but I do, respectfully, want you to understand what I am saying.


It's cheezy.

Most of it is just tacky

This is how I feel about some of them. Some of the pieces in that gallery just exude corny, sexual overtones for no apparent reason other than pleasing those who are turned on by fake women. I won't refer to the exact ones, as I'd rather not start another opinion war. However, take another look at the pictures and tell me some of them don't strike you as the least bit dorky, as though the artist created it just so that it could be ogled. Does anyone understand where I'm coming from here?:confused:

llongino
07-28-2006, 12:06 PM
I don't see how male sexual fantasy makes someone a male chauvanist. That's a pretty shallow view of men. It doesn't make a man a chauvinist any more than a female sexual fantasy makes her a whore (whether they put in down in art or not).

Yeah, I agree. You can't do much of anything nowadays without someone getting hacked off and calling you a chauvinist - and strangely enough, it seems that it's men throwing the word around more often than women. So some computer geeks like to model hot chicks... so? Personally I'm not interested in the hot chick graphics, and yeah, a lot of it is pretty facile and boring (as is a lot of other stuff, that's not exclusive to hot chick contests) but creating some corny softcore porn images hardly makes one a "male chauvinist". Feminism has really gone awry - people no longer can differentiate between what is really inappropriate and what is not.

Wickster
07-28-2006, 12:19 PM
Say your point of view comment on other just don't disrespect them please.

OK sisnce this is turning out to be a much more interesting topic here's a question to all. Looking at that site, what do you all feel about this product? (http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/exotique/index.php)

oDDity
07-28-2006, 12:28 PM
I wouldn't say this contest is chauvinism, it's just immature.
We can all tell when we look at an image of a women whether it is meant to be erotic or just artistic. The borders can overlap, but the main intent of the artist is always clear, and it's the intent behind this contest that puts me off.
It's nothing to do with nudity either. An image of clothed woman can be far more erotic and sexual than a nude, it all depends on the intent of the artist.
I think the porn industry is already big enough, no need to for CG artists to start adding to it.

About the link from the last post, I'm in two minds about Linda Bergkvist, technically she is an exceptional artist, there's no doubt about that, but I'd love her to branch out a little from painting beautiful chocolate box fantasy woman, and obviously the intent behind her paintings is not the same as the guys from the other contest.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 12:32 PM
This annoyed me somewhat. Final Fantasy is the benchmark of quality video gaming, and to date they've only made ONE sequel. All the Final Fantasy games except for "X2" is completely stand-alone and original. The basic concept is the same, sure, but the actual story is different in all of them.

I understand what you are saying.. but setting game after game in the same universe is hardly origanal.. it can be high quality and fun.. but not origanal. The reason I used FF as an example is because of the insaine number of 'sidequels' it had spawned.. thats right.. my new word 'sidequel' is a unrelated to the origanal except that it is the same 'world' like the Fast and the Furious films... now I want a nickel whenever anyone uses that word :D

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 12:33 PM
I wouldn't say this contest is chauvinism, it's just immature.
We can all tell when we look at an image of a women whether it is meant to be erotic or just artistic. The borders can overlap, but the main intent of the artist is always clear, and it's the intent behind this contest that puts me off.
It's nothing to do with nudity either. An image of clothed woman can be far more erotic and sexual than a nude, it all depends on the intent of the artist.
I think the porn industry is already big enough, no need to for CG artists to start adding to it.
:agree:

Very well said oDDity! I could not agree more!

oDDity
07-28-2006, 12:54 PM
..and also, I'll NEVER find an artist's image of a women more erotic or sexy than a photo of a real women, so i's a waste of time.

T-Light
07-28-2006, 01:01 PM
Wickster -

OK sisnce this is turning out to be a much more interesting topic here's a question to all. Looking at that site, what do you all feel about this product?
Jees, look at the price, $99 for the leather bound edition :D
Lot of photoshop retouching on the coverwork, that's a shame, some of the male characters towards the end look to be of a superior quality.

Mind you, if I saw it in a cut price bookstore I'd add it to the collection.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 01:14 PM
OK sisnce this is turning out to be a much more interesting topic here's a question to all. Looking at that site, what do you all feel about this product? (http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/exotique/index.php)

If you are asking if I would spend the money, the answer is no. If I want to look at a woman for sexual stimulation, I will look at my wife! If I were to purchese a work of art to display, I would not by anything digital. I am considering buying a painting by Crawfurd Anderson that is a very well done nude. and it was made with his hand.

I am not knocking Digital Art, but for me at least, I want art in my home that is unique and hand made.. not something that can be reproduced over and over until you cannot sell any more. I don't care how 'limited' the printing is, it is still a reproduction, not a work of art. When some were arguing about wether or not the images on the site that we have been discussing was indeed art, I said that it is.. but a print of it is not.. a print is not a skillfully created work.. it is a function of a computer. only the origanal is in fact art, so if I were to buy a peice, I would only buy the origanal files that were used to create it then if I wanted a print, my printer can produce as many as I want.

CMT
07-28-2006, 02:26 PM
When some were arguing about wether or not the images on the site that we have been discussing was indeed art, I said that it is.. but a print of it is not.. a print is not a skillfully created work.. it is a function of a computer. only the origanal is in fact art, so if I were to buy a peice, I would only buy the origanal files that were used to create it then if I wanted a print, my printer can produce as many as I want.

Hmmm... I don't agree here.

As someone who works almost exclusively in the digital mediums, I don't see any other way to display my art other than printing (and on websites).

If a print is not art, then what would I be selling? A reproduction? The reproduction is still art because it evokes the same feelings as the original digital painting/rendering, therefore it's still art. Consider a print to be just a different medium.

Gicleé prints can be printed and come very close to containing the full range of colors within a piece. If a digital painting were printed as a gicleé on canvas, it can almost be indistiguishable from a real painting.

llongino
07-28-2006, 02:43 PM
OK sisnce this is turning out to be a much more interesting topic here's a question to all. Looking at that site, what do you all feel about this product? (http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/exotique/index.php)

Technically, the work is very high quality. But beyond that, nothing jumps out at me - none of it seems to go beyond its genre, so after a while it gets boring. The robots with the very human face (are those the ones from that Bjork video?) are the most interesting to me. That's why I find myself buying a lot of photography books but very few "CG Art" books, because "CG Art" still seems stuck in a certain style, the whole hyper-perfect/science-fiction/ultra-embellished look. It's like CG artists often don't know when to stop with the tweaking in Photoshop. I'm not expressing myself very clearly.... It's like the techniques involved in generating digital images overwhelms the artistic intent(or perhaps the artistic intent is "look at this crazy extreme super-layered technique!!!"). It's more about the technique than the result. Something like that - it's the end of the week, I can't think clearly till I get my beauty sleep this weekend.

llongino
07-28-2006, 02:53 PM
I am not knocking Digital Art, but for me at least, I want art in my home that is unique and hand made.. not something that can be reproduced over and over until you cannot sell any more. I don't care how 'limited' the printing is, it is still a reproduction, not a work of art. When some were arguing about wether or not the images on the site that we have been discussing was indeed art, I said that it is.. but a print of it is not.. a print is not a skillfully created work.. it is a function of a computer. only the origanal is in fact art, so if I were to buy a peice, I would only buy the origanal files that were used to create it then if I wanted a print, my printer can produce as many as I want.

So what about photography? Would you not buy a photographic print (traditionally printed in the darkroom, not digitally) for the same reason? The logic you're using pretty much dismisses all of photography along with digital art.

And it's not that easy to get a good print.... it's much more than "a function of a computer". Merely having the file is not going to guarantee you can just spit out a print equal to what you would have bought from the artist. I've tried printing some of my digital photography, and it's not much easier to get the print right than it was in the darkroom. And if you're just going to display the file on a screen.... good luck getting the color/contrast to be anywhere close to what the artist intended. Having a physical print produced by or under the artist's supervision is the best way to know you're seeing what the artist intended to show - merely having an electronic file is not much better than an image in a magazine.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 03:38 PM
So what about photography? Would you not buy a photographic print (traditionally printed in the darkroom, not digitally) for the same reason? The logic you're using pretty much dismisses all of photography along with digital art.

And it's not that easy to get a good print.... it's much more than "a function of a computer". Merely having the file is not going to guarantee you can just spit out a print equal to what you would have bought from the artist. I've tried printing some of my digital photography, and it's not much easier to get the print right than it was in the darkroom. And if you're just going to display the file on a screen.... good luck getting the color/contrast to be anywhere close to what the artist intended. Having a physical print produced by or under the artist's supervision is the best way to know you're seeing what the artist intended to show - merely having an electronic file is not much better than an image in a magazine.

I feel the same way about photography... I am not saying that that type of work has no merit, but for me personaly... I like having something that cannot be duplacated be it digitaly or any other means.. my problem that is speicific to digital work is that it just does not feel right as a work that I would display..

I have a extencive collection of SCI-FI DVD's and video games which are of course reproduced digataly, but I have them for pure personal entertainment and research purposes, not to enhance the envroment in which I live. I would consider the production of the film or game artistic, but I do not consider the small plastic and metal disc that I own a work of art, just a reproduction of one. If you buy a book of that kind of art for personal enjoyment great, but I do not enjoy looking at photos of digital characters, and I would not want to show off such photos to others unless they were my own personal work.

Like I said before, I do consider the work artistic, and the final product could be considered art, but I do not consider anything that can and usealy is mass produced to be anything but a reproduction of a work of art.

I know people that have reproductions of classic works like the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper in their homes and it may look good, but you would hardly say that you had a work of Da'vinci would you? I would say you had a copy of a Da'vinci.

esper8
07-28-2006, 04:20 PM
The arguement about original or print/copy is an ownership issue. If someone gets pleasure from a painting then it makes no difference whether it is a copy or the original piece. I`m pretty certain that an artist will make more money selling copies of a picture than by selling the original work for a one-off fee.

That`s my two penneth worth

jwilli3
07-28-2006, 04:21 PM
I understand what you are saying.. but setting game after game in the same universe is hardly origanal.. it can be high quality and fun.. but not origanal. The reason I used FF as an example is because of the insaine number of 'sidequels' it had spawned.. thats right..

The FF games haven't been set in the same universe, I wouldn't agree that the term "sidequels" applied.

parm
07-28-2006, 04:31 PM
I am not knocking Digital Art, but for me at least, I want art in my home that is unique and hand made.. not something that can be reproduced over and over until you cannot sell any more. I don't care how 'limited' the printing is, it is still a reproduction, not a work of art. When some were arguing about wether or not the images on the site that we have been discussing was indeed art, I said that it is.. but a print of it is not.. a print is not a skillfully created work.. it is a function of a computer. only the origanal is in fact art, so if I were to buy a peice, I would only buy the origanal files that were used to create it then if I wanted a print, my printer can produce as many as I want.

That's very interesting.

I think you've really identified something important here.

The thing that seems most lacking in CG Art, (and this applies to stills, particularly). Is the complete absence of a sense of process in the final work. The viewer has no way of following the artists engagement with their subject. All the evidence of a fellow human intelligence at work is hidden. As you correctly pointed out, in the .psd document layers, or everything up to .lwo*_v028 etc.

Unless, the cg artist can come up with a strikingly original and compelling narrative. All we have to look at, pretty much, is visual cliché.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 04:39 PM
The FF games haven't been set in the same universe, I wouldn't agree that the term "sidequels" applied.

not being a player of many of the FF games I will take your word for it and retract that example... but you owe me a nickel for using the term "sudequels" :lol:

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 04:41 PM
That's very interesting.

I think you've really identified something important here.

The thing that seems most lacking in CG Art, (and this applies to stills, particularly). Is the complete absence of a sense of process in the final work. The viewer has no way of following the artists engagement with their subject. All the evidence of a fellow human intelligence at work is hidden. As you correctly pointed out, in the .psd document layers, or everything up to .lwo*_v028 etc.

Unless, the cg artist can come up with a strikingly original and compelling narrative. All we have to look at, pretty much, is visual cliché.

:agree:

I never thought of it that way, but I believe you are right!

bobakabob
07-28-2006, 05:25 PM
99% Perspiration: Learning Anatomy
1% Inspiration: Pushing the Boundaries

Personally, I do wish so many 3d artists wouldn't get so seduced by technique and learn the fundamentals instead of being slaves to photographic reference and instant Poser models. In other words, working hard, learning a craft and enduring the troughs and peaks of failure and success.

Sure for many, Poser is a toy that gives instant gratification to many non artists. I agree much of it is just throwaway 3d clip art. The worst is adolescent males playing with computerised Barbies. Poser shouldn't be derided as a program. It can be used with wit, skill and imagination. Look up Richard Marchand as an example. It's also a way of beginners making their first tentative steps understanding the world of CGI.

It's sad that many artists aren't practising life drawing or studying anatomy. They're missing out on the thrill of drawing or sculpting a human face from life or creating a human figure entirely from imagination, something from nothing. Maybe it's because our culture is all about instant gratification. Plugin X will make a 3d human figure model from scratch, saving blood, sweat tears and perspiration. Or software Y will allow you to modify a photo into an airbrushed work of art.

Yes, using reference material can be creatively and technically stimulating. It can of course be crucial, in engineering, for example. The Renaissance masters used optical devices and techniques to aspire closer to 'reality'. But as soon as you're completely reliant on reference IMO it's fatal.

Too many artists are just copying or recycling existing art, playing with dolls in Poser or tracing over photographs in Painter or Illustrator without creating anything new or pushing the boundaries. My own particular bugbear is seeing the endless vector art rotoscopes of photographs. As a result so much computer art these days looks constipated.

Learning anatomy can be fun if fraught with the occasional attack of angst. I don't think I've ever created a 3D CG model or left a life class thinking I've produced anything truly great, but the challenge was enough and a good excuse to go for a pint afterwards. Noone ever sees David Hockney's failures, they're always wisely consigned to his bottom drawer or the waste bin. Failure can be a positive learning experience. At least that's what I keep telling myself. :D

And having said all this, there's never been a better time to learn the fundamentals. There are so many brilliant artists and resources out there on the web, something that didn't exist when I were a lad.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 05:36 PM
99% Perspiration: Learning Anatomy

Plugin X will make a 3d human figure model from scratch, saving blood, sweat tears and perspiration. Or software Y will allow you to modify a photo into an airbrushed work of art.


so where can I get Plugin X? :neener: Just kidding! Bobdabob, you are 100% right! that is why I am in school studing the fundementals even now... and also why I have not posted a WIP of a human figure (I still suck at them) somtimes I think "maybe I should just get poser" but then I will not feel the real accomplishment if I let a program do my homework for me! great post!

bobakabob
07-28-2006, 05:48 PM
so where can I get Plugin X? :neener: Just kidding! Bobdabob, you are 100% right! that is why I am in school studing the fundementals even now... and also why I have not posted a WIP of a human figure (I still suck at them) somtimes I think "maybe I should just get poser" but then I will not feel the real accomplishment if I let a program do my homework for me! great post!

MJ, that's cool, you're very lucky. I would have loved to have gone to art school myself. I did a Lit degree! Keep working, your own unique style will emerge, but you've got to endure the pain ;)

If you ever need motivation, and you haven't done so already, check out David Hockney's life drawings, portraits and read his autobiography for inspiration. Here in the UK, he's campaigning for anatomy to be taught more seriously. As a student he was nuts about life drawing and couldn't believe how lucky he was being able to attend life drawing classes morning, noon and night. For 3D, you can't beat the brilliant threads and discussions about on CGTalk. Don't be afraid to post your first works, keep striving.

PS For pushing the boundaries, and the passion of art, you can't beat reading the letters of Van Gogh.

llongino
07-28-2006, 05:54 PM
[QUOTE=mjcrawford]I feel the same way about photography... I am not saying that that type of work has no merit, but for me personaly... I like having something that cannot be duplacated be it digitaly or any other means.. my problem that is speicific to digital work is that it just does not feel right as a work that I would display..

Like I said before, I do consider the work artistic, and the final product could be considered art, but I do not consider anything that can and usealy is mass produced to be anything but a reproduction of a work of art. [QUOTE]

I kinda see what you're saying.... In a sense, having a unique object (like a painting) is a totally different experience than having a photographic print, of which there could be a couple hundred identical prints made. Like having a real unique specimen of a plant, or mineral, knowing it's the only one like it gives it an extra bit of fascination to the owner. I suppose if someone thinks a print I've made of a photograph is merely a reproduction but not a work of art in itself, that's fine, to me that's really just about defining words.... I wouldn't take offense to that - but if they said it was crap, then I might take offense!

(oops, somehow I screwed up the quote. Ah, well.)

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 06:10 PM
Bobkabob, I am working toward a degree in CG animation, and our courses include many drawing freehand (including nude life drawing) and art history classes. I am not rushing into the field like I would like to, rather I am trying to "learn the rules before I break them" I had a class in Maya that I enjoyed, and have used many of the teniques in LW as well, I undersand more and more that choice of software (LW, MAX, Maya, 4D, etc) really is more a matter of personal taste and confort with the user interface. Maya is a great tool, but I like LW better it is good though that I will be skilled at both by the time I am done... thank you for the suggestions for insperation, I have a text on art history that focuses a lot on Van gough and he is a interesting man to say the least! I may check out David Hockney at some point, but right now I have to focus my efforts on my classwork... I do however spend a lot of time here at at other 3d sites for insperation and I find that it gives me an edge over most of my classmates becasue I spend time talking to pro's and accomplished amatures about their teniques and ideas.

Llongino, if you sell your prints I say get as much as you can for them! I know that I am somewhat strange in my feelings about art, but then this is a site of artists so we are all a bit strange! I would not call a work crap based on the media used, only on the content. A reproduction may not be true 'Art' but that does not mean that it does not serve a purpose. When I was younger (if it had existed) I would have probubly have covered my walls in CGI works.. but now that I am reaching middle age, I guess that I see the uniqueness of a work as much a factor as its quality

bobakabob
07-28-2006, 06:17 PM
"learn the rules before I break them"

That's a great maxim. I also like Paul Klee's idea about the adventure of creativity, "Taking a line for a walk". There's so much to learn, from the Renaissance Masters to Manga. :)

You're right about the software thing, go with whatever allows your style to shine through.

mjcrawford
07-28-2006, 06:25 PM
"learn the rules before I break them"

That's a great maxim. I also like Paul Klee's idea about the adventure of creativity, "Taking a line for a walk".

There's so much to learn, from the Renaissance Masters to Manga. :)

:agree:

DiedonD
07-29-2006, 01:55 AM
But theres something endlessly erotic on CG Woman, or CG Porn. It has to do with no boundraries. So you have this enormously beutiful girl and she wants you (in CG I mean).... You can animate ANYTHING being done to her, with no boundraries. Thats whats intriging about it. And there are somethings, that I probably cant mention here, that you cant do in real life, and there you have a non real perfect girl asking that from you. Since she isnt a real human then NO MERCY!! NO REGRETS!!! :devil:

Captain Obvious
07-29-2006, 02:10 AM
But theres something endlessly erotic on CG Woman, or CG Porn. It has to do with no boundraries. So you have this enormously beutiful girl and she wants you (in CG I mean).... You can animate ANYTHING being done to her, with no boundraries. Thats whats intriging about it. And there are somethings, that I probably cant mention here, that you cant do in real life, and there you have a non real perfect girl asking that from you. Since she isnt a real human then NO MERCY!! NO REGRETS!!! :devil:
It's a pedophiliac free-for-all! :thumbsup:





Say your point of view comment on other just don't disrespect them please.

OK sisnce this is turning out to be a much more interesting topic here's a question to all. Looking at that site, what do you all feel about this product? (http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/exotique/index.php)
Ballistic Publishing are so pretentious that it hurts.

DiedonD
07-29-2006, 02:29 AM
[QUOTE=Captain Obvious]It's a pedophiliac free-for-all! :thumbsup:

I hate pedophilia. Its a very hard disorder. I personally think they should be executed. But no, my point is that IMAGINATION and SEXUAL FANTASIES Interact, in the end there are no boundraries...

mjcrawford
07-29-2006, 09:50 AM
But theres something endlessly erotic on CG Woman, or CG Porn. It has to do with no boundraries. So you have this enormously beutiful girl and she wants you (in CG I mean).... You can animate ANYTHING being done to her, with no boundraries. Thats whats intriging about it. And there are somethings, that I probably cant mention here, that you cant do in real life, and there you have a non real perfect girl asking that from you. Since she isnt a real human then NO MERCY!! NO REGRETS!!! :devil:


Were you listening to me Neo.. er.. uh Diedond, or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?

I understand your point, but I would take the real deal any time.. give me my flawed imperfect wife over a computer generated bombshell any day!


I hate pedophilia. Its a very hard disorder. I personally think they should be executed. But no, my point is that IMAGINATION and SEXUAL FANTASIES Interact, in the end there are no boundraries...

but if there are no boundrys, if there is no right and wrong in the virtual world.. the next logical step is to say there should be no boundrys in the real world.. I know the idea of CG kiddyporn is heavly debated in various political relms as to wether or not it is ok, but I personaly do not think that porn for porn's sake is healthey in any lifestyle. The human being (especialy those with an 'addictive' personality) who gets into porn constantly needs more and more.. and eventaly porn cannot stimulate them enough so they try to get the real deal, which can be dangorious at best, and in the case of pedophiles, can ruin entire lives. I have no problem with sex (or violance for that matter) in film, games or any other media as long as it is a necessary part of the story, but hard-porn and games like GTA are not healthy.

newtekker04
07-29-2006, 10:01 AM
But theres something endlessly erotic on CG Woman, or CG Porn. It has to do with no boundraries. So you have this enormously beutiful girl and she wants you (in CG I mean).... You can animate ANYTHING being done to her, with no boundraries. Thats whats intriging about it. And there are somethings, that I probably cant mention here, that you cant do in real life, and there you have a non real perfect girl asking that from you. Since she isnt a real human then NO MERCY!! NO REGRETS!!! :devil:

I believe CG erotica will never appeal to many people because of the very reasons you mentioned: the women are flawless and they can be made to do anything. These factors are so beyond reality that I think most people (myself included) find that very unerotic. Also, a CG woman never "wants" anyone - that's purely the male putting a fantastical persona in his creation. Besides, most CG women look too artificial, i.e., a flawless epidermis (and rarely even a dermis) and lacking the warmth of life.

mjcrawford
07-29-2006, 10:52 AM
I believe CG erotica will never appeal to many people because of the very reasons you mentioned: the women are flawless and they can be made to do anything. These factors are so beyond reality that I think most people (myself included) find that very unerotic. Also, a CG woman never "wants" anyone - that's purely the male putting a fantastical persona in his creation. Besides, most CG women look too artificial, i.e., a flawless epidermis (and rarely even a dermis) and lacking the warmth of life.
:agree:

JML
07-29-2006, 01:26 PM
Modeling a muscular man is a heck of a lot more difficult than modeling a flawless young female with no wrinkles or anything like that, so at least it's more of a technical challenge... :dance:

on the modelling part, that's true,
but something that you have to think of a lot more with woman is makeup, clothing,etc..
and that is playing with color and patterns, which is something you don't have to worry too much on a man rendering.

I don't think it's that much easier to model a woman, it's just different..

after trying to model a woman head (just the head) I realize how challenging it is to create a woman that doesn't look like a shemale with a plastic face :)
so when I see those renderings (the 3d ones) I'm amazed by the talents
of some of those 3d guys that did that.
yes, some are just too much,
but when seeing the amazing '75' moon key, that makes me want to
try again and try to do a better rendering of a woman face.
(unlike the one I did and that my coworkers call the 'shemale' :) )

jasonwestmas
07-29-2006, 02:16 PM
Agreed, Female anatomy is all about subtlety! Subtlety isn't always easy. . .

DiedonD
07-31-2006, 02:23 AM
Were you listening to me Neo.. er.. uh Diedond, or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?
I understand your point, but I would take the real deal any time.. give me my flawed imperfect wife over a computer generated bombshell any day!
but if there are no boundrys, if there is no right and wrong in the virtual world.. the next logical step is to say there should be no boundrys in the real world.. I know the idea of CG kiddyporn is heavly debated in various political relms as to wether or not it is ok, but I personaly do not think that porn for porn's sake is healthey in any lifestyle. The human being (especialy those with an 'addictive' personality) who gets into porn constantly needs more and more.. and eventaly porn cannot stimulate them enough so they try to get the real deal, which can be dangorious at best, and in the case of pedophiles, can ruin entire lives. I have no problem with sex (or violance for that matter) in film, games or any other media as long as it is a necessary part of the story, but hard-porn and games like GTA are not healthy.

Oh I was looking at, and am still looking at the lady in blue actually, number 56. I know reality kicks *** over imagination. But reality has boundraries and CG work in imagination doesnt.

So you could interact the following: chains, fire, tight hand chains, exotic flawless women, PERFECT response back after each move, elastic stretching women hair, extreeme viciousness, spanks, ... somebody stop me :devil:

And I know CG woman dont want anything for that matter, and a male artist has put the willing in her. But maybe a male artist has put the whole CG existence of that woman in the first place. So I dont get the point.

I just really like number 56 thats all :D

llongino
07-31-2006, 09:14 PM
But theres something endlessly erotic on CG Woman, or CG Porn. It has to do with no boundraries. So you have this enormously beutiful girl and she wants you (in CG I mean).... You can animate ANYTHING being done to her, with no boundraries. Thats whats intriging about it. And there are somethings, that I probably cant mention here, that you cant do in real life, and there you have a non real perfect girl asking that from you. Since she isnt a real human then NO MERCY!! NO REGRETS!!! :devil:

Yikes! After a while though, if you can animate any fantasy you've got, then that will get boring, eventually. Then what? Start thinking "hmm, maybe I can get away with just this little bit of the fantasy with a real person", and it goes from there? Seems like a bad road to go down.

It's like seeing animated dinosaurs nowadays doesn't get much reaction, but when Jurassic Park first came out it created a stir. When you get to the point where you can animate anything at all, then it gets kind of pointless. If the story is bad, no amount of great special effects can fix it.

mjcrawford
08-02-2006, 01:12 PM
:agree:
Yikes! After a while though, if you can animate any fantasy you've got, then that will get boring, eventually. Then what? Start thinking "hmm, maybe I can get away with just this little bit of the fantasy with a real person", and it goes from there? Seems like a bad road to go down.

It's like seeing animated dinosaurs nowadays doesn't get much reaction, but when Jurassic Park first came out it created a stir. When you get to the point where you can animate anything at all, then it gets kind of pointless. If the story is bad, no amount of great special effects can fix it.
:thumbsup: