PDA

View Full Version : Sculpture series



Pages : [1] 2

oDDity
10-27-2006, 02:47 AM
This is the first in 6 sculptures I will be doing in a classical/neoclassic style.
This was my first horse model and first zbrush model, so it turned out better than I expected. I'm not happy with the hair, but my zbrush knowledge (and RAM limitations) don't allow me to do any better right now, I'll probably replace it with better hair when I'm more experienced in the program.
Rendered with fprime using G2 scatter.

Turntable movie (http://www.pixelwerks.be/pictures/centp1.mov)

bryphi7
10-27-2006, 03:09 AM
sweet... superb work, odd.
I think the hair looks good at that distance. Something with the tail isn't looking right to me though...

soioartist
10-27-2006, 03:43 AM
tail is perfect in my opinion.
this is great and a really surprising idea.
best regards

soioartist
10-27-2006, 03:44 AM
...and G2 with Fprime is a perfect combination for LW (as we can see)...

starbase1
10-27-2006, 04:06 AM
Yeah, the strands in the tail look a little chunky, but otherwise, masterful. Maybe that's the original stutiue though?

Nick

oDDity
10-27-2006, 07:30 AM
I designed this as well, so any fault and any credit is my own)
As a I said, I was having a problem getting convincing looking hair in zbrush, I'm sure I'll work out a method in due time.

balogo
10-27-2006, 07:44 AM
beautifull work... great.

sammael
10-27-2006, 07:52 AM
Great model, some realy nice detail, texture and lighting is spot on. I agree that the tail lacks suffidient detail in comparison to the rest of the model. For adding some nice detail quickly some custom brushes in Projection Master might help.
As far as the memory issue, try adding all the finer detail with a normal map instead of displacement, it works well (displacement for main detail, normal map for fine details). In zbrush you can hide parts of your model so you can work more easily on certain areas without slowdown/memory problems hold crtl + shift and drag with LMB will select polys and hide the rest. Theres more to that but incase you already know ill stop there but if you want to know some more commands ill be happy to explain.
Anyway the thread says series... keep em coming please.

oDDity
10-27-2006, 11:58 AM
Normal maps are out since there's no way (I know of) to use them with fprime, and light setups involving radiosity just take too long in vanilla Lw.
I do have a bump map on the tail, but it doesn't seem to be showing up very well.
This model is only 250,000 polys though, (and the hair is 150k separate model) I just exported the obj straight from zbrush. didn't see much point messing around with displacement, since it's also a pain the butt with fprime, since it uses object display level, and you obviously get better results with the real model. This renders in 10 mintues.
I know about all the tricks for speeding up zbush, I've read the tips and tricks at zbrush central, but still, it takes an insane level of polys to do the sort of razor sharp detailed hair you get in fine sculpture, and zbrush always seems to end up looking smoothed out and horrible. I reckon a poly count in the order of at least 5 or 6 million would be needed to get really sharp hair.
Using the deco brush for bump maps to get the fine strands seems the best option currently, but it really doesn't cut it compared to the real thing.
I'M hoping that 2.5, if it ever arrives, will yield better results.

bryphi7
10-27-2006, 12:05 PM
I know...No normal maps in fprime:thumbsdow
G2 and fprime are great, but there are a few things missing. I still think its a better option then nodal and LW renderer. Are these sculptures for a job or for fun?

*Pete*
10-27-2006, 12:55 PM
Well done Oddity!!


on this Forum i consider 2 persons stand way abowe the rest of us, and it is you and Cesar Montero.

now, the two of you should go together and make a book/dvd with advanced tutorials and lessons for the rest of us.


are you planning to texture it "lifelike" or will you keep it as a statue?

parm
10-27-2006, 04:19 PM
Lovely model, very graceful. Nice work.

hrgiger
10-27-2006, 06:23 PM
Very nice oDDity. I really like the fragil appearence of the horse legs and I agree with the comment above, the tail looks really good.

Weepul
10-27-2006, 07:31 PM
Very nice model. :) Can't quite say the same about the material - it looks, well, like wax to me. Judging from the penetration on the base especially, it makes the figure look small, but from the pattern on the floor, I would guess it's meant to be a couple meters long. I'd suggest mixing in more plain diffusion and decreasing the penetration depth.

oDDity
10-28-2006, 04:20 AM
I've a long time before I'll be doing a final render on these, I've still 5 more to make. Still, it doesn't look waxy to me, and I highly value my own opinion.
For the next one is going to be two satyrs pulling back an angel trying to take flight, it's obvious they're about to rape her, but I was wondering on the implications of giving the satyrs visible erections. Not human genitals of course, animal genitals, such as a sheep or goat would have.
The intended rape is the focus of the piece (it's not an unusual theme for classical sculptures) so it seems ridiculous that the satyrs wouldn't have erections. I'm just wondering how offensive it would seem in the context of an otherwise classically sculpted work, since my opinion on things like this seems to be at odds with everyone else.

oDDity
10-28-2006, 04:26 AM
You can see here just how much scatter and tranlucence you can get in marble against a black background.

sammael
10-28-2006, 05:48 AM
For the next one is going to be two satyrs pulling back an angel trying to take flight, it's obvious they're about to rape her, but I was wondering on the implications of giving the satyrs visible erections. Not human genitals of course, animal genitals, such as a sheep or goat would have.
The intended rape is the focus of the piece (it's not an unusual theme for classical sculptures) so it seems ridiculous that the satyrs wouldn't have erections. I'm just wondering how offensive it would seem in the context of an otherwise classically sculpted work, since my opinion on things like this seems to be at odds with everyone else.
Im sure a lot of people would be highly offended. Its depends if you want the shock value of a piece "Art" or a decent model to show off your work to potential clients, if thats the case i would assume that you may limit your potential clientel but who knows.
I doubt I would find such a piece very pleasing to look at, more vulgar and disturbing.

kfinla
10-28-2006, 05:54 AM
Very nice work. I've been planning to do a series of sculptures myself. "Art" pieces with movement versus all the usual bind pose models we see.

As far as the next piece goes with the satyr's, i think it comes down to what the intention of the image is. If its just for yourself, do it up, sounds like a very dramatic piece. If you plan to use it for self promotion, then I can see some ppl being offended by it though.

If its in a series.. as in with the other sculptueres, or mid point in a series of stills with the other sculptures on a reel, it may blend in so to speak and have context, vs. if it is by itself.

Your work is very good, so if its done very well i think ppl will see the artistic value first.

oDDity
10-28-2006, 07:37 AM
What's shocking about an erection though, and only an animal erection. You see it all the time even in wildlife programs, animals copulating, even primates like chimpanzees.
These aren't humans I will be depicting, they're mythical creatures.
I guess you're right though, the erection, for some reason, is the last taboo in popular media.
It was just an idea inspired by this album cover which I always liked - and the erections on some of the characters, crudely painted though they are, do add a certain extra malevolence to it.
I wouldn't say shocking, but disturbing, yes. It depends if it's obviously gratuitous or not, but I don't think it would be.

bryphi7
10-28-2006, 07:47 AM
since when to you conform? Model the hard on!

bryphi7
10-28-2006, 07:51 AM
"do you"

UnCommonGrafx
10-28-2006, 08:53 AM
Agreed; Let's see the woodys.

Your work is exceptional. Those who might focus on such form have the issues un-resolved. Let them not control the freedom that is art.

parm
10-28-2006, 09:28 AM
It''s your work. You won't ever please every body

oDDity
10-29-2006, 02:42 AM
Well, I'll see what it looks like when actually realised. Things tend to change a lot between when I think of it and when I finish it, because I never restrict myself by drawing any concepts, I just keep it all in my head and it's constantly changing.
This centaur originally started off as a male holding a sword and a severed man's head.

jameswillmott
10-29-2006, 03:52 AM
If my opinion is worth anything I say model the erections. If anyone has a problem with it, it's their problem. You're not modeling the genitals for a cheap thrill, they're part of every male animal. After the great job you did on this model I'm looking forward to seeing the next. This one had little movement in it, from what you've said about the next one, it should be very dynamic.

Oh, and since when have you worried about what others think? :)

tyrot
10-29-2006, 03:57 AM
Oh, and since when have you worried about what others think? :)

dear james

a valid point.

should we call it "a progress" on his social skills?? :)

oddi, you know we are familiar with erections...make it unique. I think this will be your first "your art" right. I will watch this thread closely.

By the way, thanks for attaching Reign in Blood cover.mmm slayer..

best

oDDity
10-29-2006, 04:15 AM
All true, but I am actually going to be putting some of these in a modeling reel, so I do have to consider how other people will view it.
I'll have to think of a tasteful and discreet way of showing them, or not at all.
I actually hate starting a new model, I've been putting it off for days. No matter how many times I surprise myself by coming up with a good model, I never have any confidence that the nest one will be any good. Mainly due to the fact that I expect each one to be a distinct improvement on the last, or else it's failure.
I guess 'self-imposed performance anxiety' would be the correct term.

*Pete*
10-29-2006, 07:38 AM
come on...even the David had "male genitalia" hanging between his legs.

there are numerous statues and paintings from all times with "all parts" included in the male models.

the only "piece of art" i seen without "it"...is the male barbie doll Ken.


i say, go for it...a real artist should be able to see, and replicate the beaty of human anatomy as it is, without censorship.

oDDity
10-29-2006, 08:42 AM
There's a marked difference between a flacid and erect penis though.
Actually, looking at various satyr depictions, it seems it was common practice to portray them with erections, on ancient greek pottery etc, so I have a good precedent.
Most people won't know that though, and just see it as vulgar.

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/images/satyr_aulos.maenad.jpg

sammael
10-29-2006, 10:01 AM
Funny I would have thought an erect penis preparing to rape an angel would have offended the majority of people... seems like my assumption was wrong. I dont think its the erection that would be vulgar but more the implied rape, but then im totally against rape, but i guess in the context of fantasy maybe it wouldnt seem as brutal.
I cant see why anyone would find it beautiful though, "oooooh look at oddity's beautiful stunning picture those goat testicles are delightful and the erections, stunning! theyre raping an angel how wonderful" What is the purpose of such a piece if not to get a somewhat disturbed reaction from the viewer?
You would certainly have a fairly original and controversial piece in terms of cg art. Any piece you made would show off your modeling and texturing skills. If its controversial your after why not depict a catholic priest raping a child in neoclassical style?

Nicolas Jordan
10-29-2006, 10:01 AM
Very nice work, I especially like how the human torso is seamlessly connected with to the horse body. :thumbsup:

Tzan
10-29-2006, 10:33 AM
The concept of the piece changes depending on which one you choose. If not erect, then maybe its evil capturing good, rather than a rape scene. The erection instantly indicates what is going to happen. Without it, the viewer has more room to choose his own story.

I would model it. Then make a second version that has it broken off, like old censored works. Maybe even make a fig leaf :)

Dave Jerrard
10-29-2006, 02:56 PM
For the next one is going to be two satyrs pulling back an angel trying to take flight, it's obvious they're about to rape her, but I was wondering on the implications of giving the satyrs visible erections. Not human genitals of course, animal genitals, such as a sheep or goat would have.
The intended rape is the focus of the piece (it's not an unusual theme for classical sculptures) so it seems ridiculous that the satyrs wouldn't have erections. I'm just wondering how offensive it would seem in the context of an otherwise classically sculpted work, since my opinion on things like this seems to be at odds with everyone else.It's your art, so do what you want. Opinions change over time and location, but your art will still be what you intended, no matter where or when it's seen.

Of coruse, you could do an 'edited for US television' version for the prudes. :hey:


He Who Really Hates Any Kinds Of Censorship.

jameswillmott
10-29-2006, 03:24 PM
Funny I would have thought an erect penis preparing to rape an angel would have offended the majority of people... seems like my assumption was wrong. I dont think its the erection that would be vulgar but more the implied rape, but then im totally against rape, but i guess in the context of fantasy maybe it wouldnt seem as brutal.
I cant see why anyone would find it beautiful though, "oooooh look at oddity's beautiful stunning picture those goat testicles are delightful and the erections, stunning! theyre raping an angel how wonderful" What is the purpose of such a piece if not to get a somewhat disturbed reaction from the viewer?
You would certainly have a fairly original and controversial piece in terms of cg art. Any piece you made would show off your modeling and texturing skills. If its controversial your after why not depict a catholic priest raping a child in neoclassical style?

I don't think controversy was the point of the piece. And I doubt seriously that Oddity condones rape even if he decides to depict it visually. As he said, rape is not an uncommon theme in art. Do a search for 'Rape of the Sabines' to see some famous examples. Check out Giambologna's sculpture, it's very expressive of both mood and motion, and I can imagine Odd's sculpture to 'feel' similar.

Captain Obvious
10-29-2006, 03:25 PM
Honestly, Oddity, since when do you care about whether or not you offend people? I swear, sometimes you act as if offending people was your goal! Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. So don't go and get all defensive now! :)

But I digress. The statue is first-rate, to say the least. What scale do you imagine it being? The rather hefty amount of subsurface scattering on the base makes it look fairly small. What's the intended scale?

oDDity
10-29-2006, 04:11 PM
Life size. That base is just a box I put under it, it's not the final base.
I suppose I can do two versions of the satyr model, one with erections for general viewing, and one without if I want to put it on a demo reel.

voriax
10-29-2006, 06:02 PM
It's funny. I see all this controversy over showing an erection (an animal erection at that) and "implying rape", but no negative comments about a half-naked female figure that has just slaughtered an animal and is parading it's head around in triumph.

Personally, I would enjoy the realism it brings to the piece. But that's just me.
By the way, your centaur is missing it's genitals.
:D

sammael
10-30-2006, 01:35 AM
I don't think controversy was the point of the piece. And I doubt seriously that Oddity condones rape even if he decides to depict it visually. As he said, rape is not an uncommon theme in art. Do a search for 'Rape of the Sabines' to see some famous examples. Check out Giambologna's sculpture, it's very expressive of both mood and motion, and I can imagine Odd's sculpture to 'feel' similar.
Im not saying that oddity condones rape, in fact im sure he doesnt. The original question was that do you think people would be offended by such a piece. Although I would not be offended myself im sure that some people would, at least judging from some of the prude uptight people I have met & theres the controversy. I think its a great idea for a piece but I dont think it would be seen as anything other than at least slightly disturbing by most people. Would that not be the intention? Im sure its not to depict harmonious beauty or some such.
To be honest I just think this is a great debate and thought I would stur the pot a bit to see how people react. I imagine that anyone who would be offended by this thread would steer clear of it having read some of the content, you wont get much but positive reactions here. But who knows maybe im just tripping? Surely everyone here would personally know at least a couple of people who might find the piece gross and offensive?

Werner
10-30-2006, 02:03 AM
oDDity, I truly think you are disturbed.
I just came from cgtalk.com, where I read your ridicules comments on Mr. Stahlberg's art, being soft porn because of exposed breasts. Dude, you need to go see someone. How do you find erect animal penises and rape to be ok in art.

Unbelievable! :thumbsdow :screwy:

*Pete*
10-30-2006, 02:43 AM
Funny I would have thought an erect penis preparing to rape an angel would have offended the majority of people... seems like my assumption was wrong. I dont think its the erection that would be vulgar but more the implied rape, but then im totally against rape, but i guess in the context of fantasy maybe it wouldnt seem as brutal.
I cant see why anyone would find it beautiful though, "oooooh look at oddity's beautiful stunning picture those goat testicles are delightful and the erections, stunning! theyre raping an angel how wonderful" What is the purpose of such a piece if not to get a somewhat disturbed reaction from the viewer?
You would certainly have a fairly original and controversial piece in terms of cg art. Any piece you made would show off your modeling and texturing skills. If its controversial your after why not depict a catholic priest raping a child in neoclassical style?


you're taking it too seriously...i have seen statues of attempted rapes, not to mention numerous paintings of the same theme.

there is however a difference between porn and art.

a pornographic image would show the rape being done, with sexual purpose and with one or more "dominating" males and a wictim woman.

but a piece of art, would not be showing the rape, or give any kind of sexual thoughts in the viewers mind.
it would show the rape more in terms of "wild beastly desire, angel of innocense, battle between the brutal dark side and the weak, fragile good side"

a piece of art (showing rape) should not give the viewer sexual arousement, but more a feel of beaty in the balance of absolute evil vs absolute good.



i see in my mind that the rape-scene will be a angel in flight being held by her leg, there is a chance she can escape, there is a clear signal for what the satyrs want with her...a statue frozen in time, perhaps the next moment she kicks the satyr with her other, free leg, and escapes..

id like to see drama, a picture that i watch and that i can imagine what happened seconds before and what will happen seconds after...



besides..."priest raping a child " is not fantasy, or fiction...it is something that has happened numerous of times.
it doesnt mean that priests ARE pedofiles...only some are, the same as with firemen, musicians and carpenters....but when it is about satyrs, its in the nature of the beast, so to say.

sammael
10-30-2006, 03:06 AM
*pete* im not taking it too seriously at all, meer speculation.

but a piece of art, would not be showing the rape, or give any kind of sexual thoughts in the viewers mind.
it would show the rape more in terms of "wild beastly desire, angel of innocense, battle between the brutal dark side and the weak, fragile good side"
I find that statment laughable, so if something is dubbed as "Art" then the thought of sex is automatically put out of the viewers mind so that they can start analizing the piece like an artist would and prattle on and on in deep yet meaningless arty farty terms. Thats one thing I cant stand about the art world. You know theres a whole profession devoted to such drivel.
Maybe the satyrs should be depicted as priests. Anyhow dont take any of that too serious.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 03:45 AM
oDDity, I truly think you are disturbed.
I just came from cgtalk.com, where I read your ridicules comments on Mr. Stahlberg's art, being soft porn because of exposed breasts. Dude, you need to go see someone. How do you find erect animal penises and rape to be ok in art.

Unbelievable! :thumbsdow :screwy:

As a purveyor of such pandering, kitsch, pretty maidens yourself, I can see why you'd be against my criticism of Stahlberg. You're nothing but a Stalberg wannabe.
The level of (deliberate) ignorance you display on the matter speaks for itself.
The intent of Stalberg's puerile work was to display his fantasy of what the breasts of some computer game heroine look like, to the drooling, masturbating viewers of the playboy website. The result was nothing but a generic full frontal display of the figure concerned, as a butcher would display a haunch of meat in his shop window. It's only purpose was to display the figure as a sexual object for the pleasure of the low-brow viewer.

I'm not actually portraying a rape scene. It's not clear to the view whether the angel wiil escape or not. All it's portraying is the intent of the satyrs, who know nothing else but desire, that's their nature.
Perhaps you should actually wait for the work itself before labeling it as disturbed. Even I show that courtesy to people.

jameswillmott
10-30-2006, 03:48 AM
Im not saying that oddity condones rape, in fact im sure he doesnt.

Yes, you're 100% right, I'm not entirely sure why I said it that way to suggest you did say that, sorry... :D


The original question was that do you think people would be offended by such a piece.

Some would, definately!



Although I would not be offended myself im sure that some people would, at least judging from some of the prude uptight people I have met & theres the controversy. I think its a great idea for a piece but I dont think it would be seen as anything other than at least slightly disturbing by most people. Would that not be the intention? Im sure its not to depict harmonious beauty or some such

I think its a great idea for a piece too, the subject certainly has many opportunities to express emotions and movement through form alone. Given Odd's record I'm quite looking forward to seeing the end result.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 03:55 AM
Actually, Pete got it spot on without my input, nice to see some intelligence on display.
If only everyone thought like that, I need not be concerned with the erection issue at all.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 04:03 AM
Also, the reason this is even an issue is exactly because digital art has become blurred with porn due to all the Stahlbergs producing work which is nothing more than erotica fringing on soft porn, and therefore it has tainted perceptions of the medium to the extent where a puerile or vulgar connotation is suspected, even in work with no such aspirations.

*Pete*
10-30-2006, 04:12 AM
Sammael: I think you misunderstand me completely...let me give an another example.

Look at computer games, look at comic books, they can show war, they can show killing of "people", dead people, they can show violence in many forms, and it is accepted as entertaiment..i dont mind it, i can even like to see it.

but then look at the news, or even find pictures that are not shown in the news not to disturb the public..a war gives burned bodies, loss of bodyparts, endless suffering, death of relatives and rape of women of all ages.

its horrible to see, i dont want to see those things, i dont even want to hear such stories...this is discusting for me.


Art belongs to the same group as computer games and comic books, it is entertaiment...

the same as you, i am against rape, murder, theft...all of us are, thats why those things are illegal, but in the form of a game, movie, painting, statue....as long it is not real, or too realistic, it doesnt bother me at all.

starbase1
10-30-2006, 04:14 AM
Well, I'd suggest not including an erect penis or two, not for reasons of taste or anything, but because it would probably distract from the excellent modelling of the rest of the piece...

Maybe you could add a veil, so we can be sure the angel is doing nothing to encourage them...

*Pete*
10-30-2006, 04:21 AM
Maybe you could add a veil, so we can be sure the angel is doing nothing to encourage them...

LOL!!

a hijab perhaps??

Werner
10-30-2006, 04:37 AM
As a purveyor of such pandering, kitsch, pretty maidens yourself, I can see why you'd be against my criticism of Stahlberg. You're nothing but a Stalberg wannabe.
The level of (deliberate) ignorance you display on the matter speaks for itself.
The intent of Stalberg's puerile work was to display his fantasy of what the breasts of some computer game heroine look like, to the drooling, masturbating viewers of the playboy website. The result was nothing but a generic full frontal display of the figure concerned, as a butcher would display a haunch of meat in his shop window. It's only purpose was to display the figure as a sexual object for the pleasure of the low-brow viewer.


HA-HA you crack me up. Now, go see someone, who can help you with your attitude problem. :)

I don't have a problem with Stahlberg's art, neither do I have a problem with the art you are producing...erect animal penises or not. It's your attitude towards other people that sucks. :thumbsdow
Leave the name calling for a different forum, and please work on your people skills. It's just childish beyond belief.

mav3rick
10-30-2006, 05:32 AM
hey crazy ody actually is great artist:) congrat oddy!!! looks really good.. now do some more great stuff

serge
10-30-2006, 05:41 AM
Maybe you could add a veil
Why not a fig leaf, to keep the (neo-)classical style. (Just over the head of the penis, so the erection is still obvious.)

starbase1
10-30-2006, 05:52 AM
Why not a fig leaf, to keep the (neo-)classical style. (Just over the head of the penis, so the erection is still obvious.)

Now now, that would be silly. You must remember that this image might be seen by children or Americans. And if they were so shocked by the astounding discovery that Janet Jackson had at least one nipple, they are certainly not ready to discover what is in mens trousers.

CMT
10-30-2006, 08:33 AM
Also, the reason this is even an issue is exactly because digital art has become blurred with porn due to all the Stahlbergs producing work which is nothing more than erotica fringing on soft porn, and therefore it has tainted perceptions of the medium to the extent where a puerile or vulgar connotation is suspected, even in work with no such aspirations.

First off, nice job oDDity for surprising me with with a cool original concept! Well done and executed.....

Now, as for the above statement, I couldn't disagree more. There's been porn, soft porn, pinup art .... all sorts of art like that in every medium in not too recent history. When I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) think of digital art, I don't think soft porn or anything close. This is the first I've heard of any type of preconceived idea of digital art like that.

Oh, and my take on the erection issue. Don't do it. Even though you, me and most artists would see the value, most people would just be distracted by it.

starbase1
10-30-2006, 09:39 AM
When I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) think of digital art, I don't think soft porn or anything close. This is the first I've heard of any type of preconceived idea of digital art like that.



Well, there is a lot of very sad stuff lurking in the Poser forums on Renderosity... That area is awash in inept amateur pornographers, most of whom, I suspect, have only seen a woman naked after paying admission.

I'm not personally against pornography, but it really is a bit pathetic.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 09:46 AM
You call soft porn art?
I don't, I distinguish between work that is specifically intended to sexually arouse he viewer and work that isn't.
That's not to say that some people can't be sexually aroused at seeing any form of nudity, of course they can, but that's their personal problem, it's not the intention of the artist to do so.
Any work that is intended to sexually arouse, leaves the category of art, and enters some other category, such as erotica or porn.
For me, there is no such category as artistic porn, you either have porn or art, black or white, and it's all in the intention of the creator.


When I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) think of digital art, I don't think soft porn or anything close. This is the first I've heard of any type of preconceived idea of digital art like that.
Anyone who frequents any CG art forum must see the endless array of pouting fantasy chicks on display for no other purpose than sexual fantasy.
There seems to be a randy, sniggering teenage boy lurking in many digital 'artists' - either that or many digital artists are actually teenage boys.
It has certainly left me with a low opinion of the motivations they have.

parm
10-30-2006, 10:17 AM
Art belongs to the same group as computer games and comic books, it is entertaiment...

Not necessarily.


I'm not actually portraying a rape scene. It's not clear to the view whether the angel wiil escape or not. All it's portraying is the intent of the satyrs, who know nothing else but desire, that's their nature.
Perhaps you should actually wait for the work itself before labeling it as disturbed. Even I show that courtesy to people.

Why don't you just get on and make the piece? Why are you even asking for opinions before it's made?

The questions are rhetorical. Look forward to seeing it when it's done.

CMT
10-30-2006, 11:21 AM
You call soft porn art?
I don't, I distinguish between work that is specifically intended to sexually arouse he viewer and work that isn't.

I didn't say that I value it as much as other forms, but I'm not getting into another conversation about what is and isn't art.


Anyone who frequents any CG art forum must see the endless array of pouting fantasy chicks on display for no other purpose than sexual fantasy.


True, there is a lot of this. But not nearly as much as you make it out to be on most sites. Thought, the worst I've seen of it is on gfxartist.com. There you have to swim through it and all the adolescent themed art to get to the good stuff.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 11:55 AM
Oddity, I like the sculpture. However, the hooves are quite wrong, in fact if a real horse had hooves like that they would most likely be dead lame. I have followed a lot of your posts and know you like people to study and become an expert in the item they are attempting to model, and I would hope you would do the same. I know you mentioned on the zbrush forum that you used a reference photo, but I'd have to say it was either a poor photo, one of a horse with an inexperienced or just plain awful farrier, or perhaps the perspective was misleading. I would sincerely hope you will take the time to correct the hooves... If you'd like me to send you reference photos from my own horses, I'd be happy to help.

Other than that, the body, muscling and overall feel of the horse-portion of the statue is very much right on (although a bit narrow-bodied for the length and height of the beast, but it's an individual and as such, could conceivably just be narrow), and I like the facial expression. The best part is that it's very graphic without resorting to modern (read: cheap) methods of showing death, i.e. blood and gore.

As to the erection issue, I'm a female and personally wouldn't be offended by it in the least. It would seem to be a natural state of the creatures, if rape is their intent. If you show no genetalia, it will open up the possibility to interpretation by viewers. If you don't want that possibility to exist, you have to depict it in its entirety. If you want the viewer to have the ability to escape your intent, show nothing.

bobakabob
10-30-2006, 11:59 AM
Oddity, I must say your latest model is an accomplished piece of work. It's original, anatomically convincing and delicately crafted. I'd be interested to know how you found modelling in Z Brush compared to Lightwave.

Nontheless, Werner is absolutely right. You seriously need to work on your people skills. Your personal comments are totally out of order. Of course you're entitled to your views but is it necessary to make such aggressive attacks on artists? Talk is cheap in virtual reality - you wouldn't last 5 minutes if you made them face to face. Why not take a deep breath, calm down and constructively and tactfully criticise instead of lobbing grenades into discussion threads? You might find people will take you more seriously.

Maybe you're enjoying the "notoriety" of a guy who "speaks his mind". :rolleyes: However, at this rate you'll get yourself banned from the forums. It will be nothing to do with censorship - it's called "common decency". It would be a shame as it's reassuring to see work of your calibre made in Lightwave. But how about showing some tact?

oDDity
10-30-2006, 12:56 PM
I try, but it's impossible to do it 24/7. You seem to think it's some sort of deliberate act, but it's just me. If I see something I strongly disagree with, it puts all thoughts of moderation out of my mind.

Oddity, I must say your latest model is an accomplished piece of work. It's original, anatomically convincing and delicately crafted. I'd be interested to know how you found modelling in Z Brush compared to Lightwave.

A lot faster and a lot easier, particularly when it comes to the really subtle anatomy of a pose, rather than generic t-stance. I'll never go back to poly modeling. I've nothing to prove in poly modeling anyway, having already made the David from polys, right down to his veins. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to ignore poly modeling entirely and go straight to zbrush sculpting, it's good to be able to make a detailed organic model from polys if it's required.

Oddity, I like the sculpture. However, the hooves are quite wrong, in fact if a real horse had hooves like that they would most likely be dead lame. I have followed a lot of your posts and know you like people to study and become an expert in the item they are attempting to model, and I would hope you would do the same. I know you mentioned on the zbrush forum that you used a reference photo, but I'd have to say it was either a poor photo, one of a horse with an inexperienced or just plain awful farrier, or perhaps the perspective was misleading. I would sincerely hope you will take the time to correct the hooves... If you'd like me to send you reference photos from my own horses, I'd be happy to help.


Yes, that would be great, thanks. I'd never looked twice at a horse before I needed to for this, and just had to cobble together reference from whatever pics I found on google. Still, it would seem to be a success if someone who owns horses only has the hooves to criticise :D
You'd also have to remember that these would have the hooves of wild horses that have never seen a shoe - at least I don't image centaurs making shoes for themselves, but then again why not, they're a fantasy, so you can imagine whatever you like.
Some decent reference a female horse would be welcome.

Captain Obvious
10-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Oddity:

So, tell me. Why isn't erotic art, art? You keep going on about how "low-brow" people appeal to our "base desires" and whatnot. I fail to see why. Sex is a good thing, I'm sure you agree. Art depicting sex is bad, because...? If one can make a pretty painting commemorating a battle and call it art, why would a pretty painting commemorating the sexual appeal of a beautiful woman (or man, for that matter) not be art? I fail to see the difference. Not everyone enjoys erotic art just because it gives them erections. And even then, so what? If I enjoy a piece of art because it appeals to my imagination, or my sense of aesthetics, or whatever, why is that more legitimate than if I enjoy it because of sexual appeal?

I really don't understand.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 01:18 PM
I'll get some close-up photos for you tomorrow evening.

Just a quick description - hooves are generally longer at the toe than at the heel, and don't come straight down out of the leg. They are almost like a cylinder that angles forward. Wearing shoes or not doesn't really affect the overall shape of a hoof. (And if this were a true wild horse never having seen a farrier, the hooves would have very uneven/rough edges, old breaks filed smooth by sand and rock, new breaks with jagged sides).

My mare has shoes on her front feet, none on her hind feet. And there are lots of photos of her here: www.indiansummerfarm.com (on the Lily page) if you'd like some body shots of a female horse. Some are even in motion, posed almost like your statue.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 01:21 PM
@Captian Obvious - As I said, it's the intent and execution, there's nothing wrong with nudity, even sensual nudity, such as the many incarnations of the Graces, but full-on 'look at my tits, come and get it' is just crass and artless.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 01:26 PM
Oddity, can you PM me with your email address? I'll send the photos directly to you. Let me know if you want anything more than what's on my site.

oDDity
10-30-2006, 01:29 PM
Your description is pretty much what I have isn't it? I'm still not sure what the problem is, but the photos will solve it.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 01:30 PM
It looks like your hooves flare out and flatten at the heel, a serious problem for soundness. And the toes are the same length as the heels - toes should be longer.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 01:35 PM
Ah, looking at the attachment I'd say you have more of a conical shape, going out in all directions. The hoof only goes forward. You have to send it straight down on the back side - not out. You'll see from the closeups I'll send you.

Safe Harbor
10-30-2006, 01:40 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/vlayne/hooves.jpg

OK, here you go. Hope this helps a little.

Captain Obvious
10-30-2006, 01:54 PM
@Captian Obvious - As I said, it's the intent and execution, there's nothing wrong with nudity, even sensual nudity, such as the many incarnations of the Graces, but full-on 'look at my tits, come and get it' is just crass and artless.
You won't find anyone in the graphics industry who agrees more with the emphasized portion, but I hardly think Stahlberg's art, while generally erotic, is quite in that ballpark. If you want an example of what you're talking about, take a peak at that this (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/). While some of them are really quite beautiful (in my eyes, at any rate (1 (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Red_Opium.jpg), 2 (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/too_sweet.jpg))), quite a few of them are really just lookit, boobies! style pieces. Poorly comped Bryce & Poser crap where some sexually immature teenager just cranked up the titsize (Hazem Mahmoud, I'm looking at you (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Mariana.jpg)).

Do you honestly think that this piece of crap (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/ladyinblue.jpg) is comparable to Stahlberg's latest (http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/566/566_1161970683_large.jpg)? You're entitled to that opion, of course, but don't get the idea that your emotions on the subject are universal. I definitely think his latest image is downright smutty, but I don't see what's wrong with that. Perhaps you can explain? :)

bobakabob
10-30-2006, 01:58 PM
I try, but it's impossible to do it 24/7. You seem to think it's some sort of deliberate act, but it's just me. If I see something I strongly disagree with, it puts all thoughts of moderation out of my mind.

No doubt Z Brush is a leap forward for this kind of modelling and good point about the problems associated with the generic T pose. It would be a shame if you abandoned poly modelling though, as a character like this would be superb animated.

I think you do make fair points about the way women are often crassly represented in 3D. The endless poser doll clones are awful. But distinguishing 'porn' from 'sensual' is a notorious minefield in art. So much comes down to culture and individual subjective attitudes and values.

However, you should apologise to Werner who generously shares his expertise on the Lightwave forums and whose sophisticated creations are in no way comparable to the kind of art you're describing.

Speedmonk42
10-30-2006, 02:19 PM
Why don't you try to sell one of these on eBay for fun.

It could even be a good NT PR stunt.

Speedmonk42
10-30-2006, 02:23 PM
There's a marked difference between a flacid and erect penis though.
-----------------

I would say this can be voted as one of the 'least likely' things I ever thought I might read here...lol

oDDity
10-30-2006, 04:53 PM
I vote that me saying 'I apologise' to anyone as the least likely thing that will ever be heard.:D



Do you honestly think that this piece of crap (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/ladyinblue.jpg) is comparable to Stahlberg's latest (http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/566/566_1161970683_large.jpg)? You're entitled to that opion, of course, but don't get the idea that your emotions on the subject are universal. I definitely think his latest image is downright smutty, but I don't see what's wrong with that. Perhaps you can explain? :)


Well, Stahlberg's latest is worse than that from a porn viewpoint, it was created for playboy, and has only one purpose. It is obviously technically superior to that one you linked to, but you make the mistake of being swayed and blinded by the technical quality of the work. I make no distinction between high quality and low quality technical work, if the content and intent of it are the same.
I don't want to see well-crafted artporn any more than noob artporn.

However, you should apologise to Werner who generously shares his expertise on the Lightwave forums and whose sophisticated creations are in no way comparable to the kind of art you're describing.
Werner is not in the same league as the pornmeister Stahlberg, but he'll surely end up there if he carries on in the same direction.

voriax
10-30-2006, 06:06 PM
I have to say, I find very few peices of Stahlberg's work to be truly "artistic".
The latest one? I see a busty commando chick with a slutty look on her face telling me "watch me while I change out of my revealing lycra uniform".

When the name Stahlberg is mentioned, what are the first thoughts that come to mind? Hot women? Nudity? I don't think anyones thoughts jump straight to "thought-provoking artwork", and I doubt it's his intent to have his work thought of as such.

His work is amazing from a technical standpoint, but to me it is simply eye-candy and nothing more. I certainly wouldn't have one of his pieces hanging on my wall at home.
I would rather see an erection that tells a story than look at another mindless picture of some uber-perfect semi-naked virtual female's boobs.

Iain
10-31-2006, 04:42 AM
The thing that gets me is when people look at these 'erotic' CG images and post things like "ooh I'd like to load her gun" and so on.
That kind of reaction is almost acceptable from 13 year old boys but when it's grown men, I really wonder about their mental state. So you have to wonder the same thing about the motivation of the artist.

I used to admire Stahlberg's work but his recent stuff makes me think of a testosterone-choked teenager sitting in his room realising his wet dreams in 3d.

Anyway, great model but my vote is 'no to the boner'. You still can't show an erection on British TV for some obscure reason. Cutting someone in half with a sword is acceptable though (after 9 of course!)

oDDity
10-31-2006, 05:04 AM
I tried to say that in his latest CG talk porn thread, but all I got for my trouble is that now my posts have to go though a censor before being shown publically)
I wish some of you people would speak up about it where it matters, and then it wouldn't look like a minority opinion.
To see all the drooling kids fawning over his thread at CG talk, he obviously gets the idea that he's popular, and it encourages him.

bryphi7
10-31-2006, 05:15 AM
but all I got for my trouble is that now my posts have to go though a censor before being shown publically

Now that is funny!:D

After hearing you rant about him, I had to go check out his work...

His work is good, but you are right. I definitely see your point.

bobakabob
10-31-2006, 05:58 AM
I tried to say that in his latest CG talk porn thread, but all I got for my trouble is that now my posts have to go though a censor before being shown publically)
I wish some of you people would speak up about it where it matters, and then it wouldn't look like a minority opinion.
To see all the drooling kids fawning over his thread at CG talk, he obviously gets the idea that he's popular, and it encourages him.

Oddity,

The point you made on the forum was valid and for once I found myself actually agreeing with you. :eek:

But you blew it with your character assassination on Stahlberg and expressing your views in decidedly less than diplomatic language. This predictably sparked a flame war which many forum members doubtless wisely stayed away from, not wanting to contribute to what looked like a hijack of Stahlberg's thread.

oDDity
10-31-2006, 06:35 AM
Why shouldn't I attack him personally though? He's deliberately deciding to do this, it's entirely his fault. If I dont' agree with what he's doing there's no point attacking his work, his work is innocent, it's the man creating it that's the problem, and that's where the attack needs to be made, on his whole philosophy and attitude.

sammael
10-31-2006, 07:09 AM
Sammael: I think you misunderstand me completely...let me give an another example.

Look at computer games, look at comic books, they can show war, they can show killing of "people", dead people, they can show violence in many forms, and it is accepted as entertaiment..i dont mind it, i can even like to see it.

but then look at the news, or even find pictures that are not shown in the news not to disturb the public..a war gives burned bodies, loss of bodyparts, endless suffering, death of relatives and rape of women of all ages.

its horrible to see, i dont want to see those things, i dont even want to hear such stories...this is discusting for me.


Art belongs to the same group as computer games and comic books, it is entertaiment...

the same as you, i am against rape, murder, theft...all of us are, thats why those things are illegal, but in the form of a game, movie, painting, statue....as long it is not real, or too realistic, it doesnt bother me at all.
I agree with you 100% pete, I just have issues about the whole practice of art theory thats why I never went to art school dispite being more interested in art than anything else. I prefer to see things for what they are or take in the meaning provided by the actual artist. I just cant stand the whole analitical side of it. Listening to alcoholics trying to sound intelligent as they sip their wine while they look at two squares and a circle on canvas. When i re read your post im sure thats not what you meant anyway. Although I do think art is a little diferent from computer games and comics. It is more of a statement designed provoke thoughts from the viewer. I know im kinda contradicting myself and I can apprecitate that aspect of art that I enjoy but I cant stand people going on and on about a piece of rubbish.
Its a complex subject and its hard to sum it up ones opinion without writing a thesus sized post. Basic fact is oddity is a good artist and an inspiring artist he should do whatever he wants. He did ask a specific question and I have voiced my opinion on that, now I have other things to do.

art
10-31-2006, 08:36 AM
Anyway, great model but my vote is 'no to the boner'. You still can't show an erection on British TV for some obscure reason. Cutting someone in half with a sword is acceptable though (after 9 of course!)
I can understand that at least, but I think censorship here (u.s.) is weird in some cases (or I do not understand the reasons behind it). I saw the best(common) example yesterday. While channel browsing I happened to stumble on a channel showing some crap about playmates, with their boobies taking probably quarter of the screen and their curves all over the place. While the shots were done in such a way as to not display their private parts, all they blurred were the tips of their boobs.
That was 6pm or 7pm on a regular cable programming(!), not on some erotica themed channel. Out of a fully naked women they blurred probably less than 5% of them.

Erection:
While I do not enjoy when looking at an erection on its own, if it is important part of the composition I'd say go for it. They will always be people who like it and people who dislike it.

CG Girls:
Those saying they are not art are probably right, but I enjoy looking at the good ones at least from a technical standpoint and no, not to get aroused. If it is subtly erotic in theme it is ok, but if it tries to push too hard and/or it is technically sub-par (poser etc), I'd join oddity and say it is crap. True, some people create their cg girls for the sole purpose of arousal, but others, i believe, find the subject interesting.

I just wrote the above, and started thinking to myself: but that's a lie! If it is technically good, I should just as much enjoy looging at CG renders of men. I do, and there are plenty of those too, but somehow deep under there I like looking at renders of women just a tiny bit more even though in majority of cases the erotic fantasy never precipitates in my brain when looking at such piece. Maybe I'm hardwired thit way, and I guess the fact whether I like or not has not much to do with art.

I guess pretty faces sell. Man, I have fallen for it. I should hate pretty girl renders. After all I hate when they push pretty faces in the entertainment industry (music, movies, tv, etc) for the sake of their "prettyines". What a weird post.

CMT
10-31-2006, 08:56 AM
Why shouldn't I attack him personally though? He's deliberately deciding to do this, it's entirely his fault. If I dont' agree with what he's doing there's no point attacking his work, his work is innocent, it's the man creating it that's the problem, and that's where the attack needs to be made, on his whole philosophy and attitude.

This is exactly why you are now censored on cgtalk. It is not a popular position that we trash others so harshly. You can disagree with his philosophy and that's fine. But to go that extra step and attack him personally, isn't a smart thing to do.

But I should congratulate you though.... This is the first time I've seen someone hijack his own thread :) :hijack:

oDDity
10-31-2006, 09:41 AM
Your statement make no sense. To attack someone's ideology, is[ to attack them personally. You cant separate the man from his actions.

CMT
10-31-2006, 09:53 AM
Your statement make no sense. To attack someone's ideology, is[ to attack them personally. You cant separate the man from his actions.

You don't have the capacity to disagree with someone without degrading them? Everyone here can do it. You don't even try.

bobakabob
10-31-2006, 10:41 AM
Your statement make no sense. To attack someone's ideology, is[ to attack them personally. You cant separate the man from his actions.

It's all about tact. Why start World War III?

Regarding ideology, a paradoxical quirk of art is that a work may say absolutely nothing at all about the artist. Wilde: "To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."

parm
10-31-2006, 12:20 PM
Why shouldn't I attack him personally though? He's deliberately deciding to do this, it's entirely his fault. If I dont' agree with what he's doing there's no point attacking his work, his work is innocent, it's the man creating it that's the problem, and that's where the attack needs to be made, on his whole philosophy and attitude.

What kind of pictures someone chooses to make, has nothing to do with you.
If you don't like them you're not oblged to look at them.

Why are you so bothered anyway?

Philosophy? Attack? what is this; "My Kung Fu, better than your Kung Fu" Idiotic!

Besides: People who live in glass houses... well, you know the rest

tyrot
10-31-2006, 01:09 PM
dear people

where is that stahlberg's thread..i hate to search in cgtalk..

to be erected or not..that is the question..

best

Captain Obvious
10-31-2006, 02:12 PM
It is obviously technically superior to that one you linked to, but you make the mistake of being swayed and blinded by the technical quality of the work. I make no distinction between high quality and low quality technical work, if the content and intent of it are the same.
So you think your images and models have the same artistic merit as if I would've tried to create them? I like to think of myself as a fairly decent architectural modeler, but I'm horrible at creatures. I'd make a total mess of things.

Yet the content and intent would be the same, so they have the same artistic merit. Right? Well, I beg to differ.

At any rate, you avoided my main point: Why isn't pornography art? I'm not really saying that it is, as such. I'm just curious why you are so adamant in that it is not art.

Nicolas Jordan
10-31-2006, 02:29 PM
dear people

where is that stahlberg's thread..i hate to search in cgtalk..

to be erected or not..that is the question..

best

Just go the 3D Stills section and check the first 3 or 4 pages and you should find it.

oDDity
10-31-2006, 05:50 PM
So you think your images and models have the same artistic merit as if I would've tried to create them? I like to think of myself as a fairly decent architectural modeler, but I'm horrible at creatures. I'd make a total mess of things.

Yet the content and intent would be the same, so they have the same artistic merit. Right? Well, I beg to differ.
You misunderstand. Two works, the intention of each being pornographic in nature, are both equally artless, regardless of the technical proficency of the respective artists. In fact, if anything, its worse to see technically proficient people, who should know better, producing such pathetic, pandering crudity, at least the ignorant have an excuse.


At any rate, you avoided my main point: Why isn't pornography art? I'm not really saying that it is, as such. I'm just curious why you are so adamant in that it is not art.

That question can be phrased as 'why isn't <insert anything in the universe here> art?'
The obvious answer is that humans in general have designated certain things as art, and pornography is not one of them, potatoes aren't one of them, sh1t on a stick isn't one of them, the dried mucous in my left nostril isn't one of them.
Now, if a few radicals want to change the contents of my nose to the status of art, then they better have a **** good reason for it. I haven't heard any good reason for changing the status of pornography to art.


What kind of pictures someone chooses to make, has nothing to do with you.
If you don't like them you're not oblged to look at them.

Yup, that would indeed make for a perfect world - ignore any issue which doens't personally affect you.
Good call.


You don't have the capacity to disagree with someone without degrading them? Everyone here can do it. You don't even try.
This is a different issue. This is not a group of people sitting around a table discussing a lateral problem. The person I'm addressing is the cause of the problem, or is at least deliberately exacerbating it. Therefore, he deserves to be personally attacked, because his personality is the problem.


Regarding ideology, a paradoxical quirk of art is that a work may say absolutely nothing at all about the artist. Wilde: "To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."
Yes, but then again, he also liked to insert his penis into teenage boys, so does that really make him the best authority to appeal to?

jameswillmott
10-31-2006, 06:16 PM
What Wilde did with his penis is quite irrelevant with respect to his thoughts on art.

sculptactive
10-31-2006, 11:13 PM
Pornography has always been a form of Art.
In fact you could argue that it has been one of the most consistant forms thoughout Art History.

parm
10-31-2006, 11:39 PM
Yup, that would indeed make for a perfect world - ignore any issue which doens't personally affect you.
Good call.


We are talking about illustrations, done by someone, who's not you.

Not violent crime in society, child poverty or global warming.

Right?

jameswillmott
10-31-2006, 11:46 PM
I disagree.

Pornography provokes an instinctive response, art must provoke a cognitive one.

The two are different in both the end result, and the aims of the person that created them. Porn requires no thought or effort to fulfill it's goals, good art requires both talent and dedication to accomplish it's.

Pornography ( explicit sexual depictions for its own sake ) is no more art than if I framed the squashed cane toad outside my door and hung it in the Louvre.

oDDity
11-01-2006, 01:51 AM
What Wilde did with his penis is quite irrelevant with respect to his thoughts on art.
No, it isn't.
Someone who failed to display the slightest modicum of self constrain concerning his genitals and adolescent boys, simply cannot be trusted as a voice of reason.


We are talking about illustrations, done by someone, who's not you.

Not violent crime in society, child poverty or global warming.

Right? Doesn't matter what the subject is, the principal remains the same. IF you disagree with seomone's actions and consider them to be contrary to what you think would be best for the world, then don't keep silent about it - especially if all you're talking about is making a post on a forum. It's not going to change a whole lot by itself, but it doesn't cost me anything, it makes me feel better, and it shows his motivations up to some people not perceptive enough to work it out for themselves, and I always get some people agreeing with me, even though it's only every a tiny fraction of people who do actually agree but don't want to rock the boat. I like to get things clearly out on the table where everyone can see them, even if most people don't like it.
You'd be surprised how many people float though life taking everything at face value, thinking no deeper than what their physical senses dictate to them.

parm
11-01-2006, 02:42 AM
Doesn't matter what the subject is, the principal remains the same. IF you disagree with seomone's actions and consider them to be contrary to what you think would be best for the world, then don't keep silent about it - especially if all you're talking about is making a post on a forum. It's not going to change a whole lot by itself, but it doesn't cost me anything, it makes me feel better, and it shows his motivations up to some people not perceptive enough to work it out for themselves, and I always get some people agreeing with me, even though it's only every a tiny fraction of people who do actually agree but don't want to rock the boat. I like to get things clearly out on the table where everyone can see them, even if most people don't like it.
You'd be surprised how many people float though life taking everything at face value, thinking no deeper than what their physical senses dictate to them.

I've just had a good look at Stephen Stahlbergs (http://www.androidblues.com/gallery/5/) site. Frankly, you are over reacting. Your accusations are totally unjustified.

Further more. As someone who is interested in the figure. Instead of slagging him off, you could learn an awful lot from him.
His figure work is among the best I've seen using 3d software. His figures have a great sense of balance and movement. His poses seem natural and animated. A stark contrast to the stiff manakin like efforts most elsewhere including own.
Admittedly this latest Centaur effort is a huge improvement. At least up until the female torso makes contact with the rather wooden horses body. Any suggestion of movement from her arms and twisting torso, killed by the militaristically raised front leg. The stillness of the image further emphasised by the stopped pendulum of her pony tail.
A better artist would have found a solution that maintained the momentum of rythmn, through the arms, torso, hair all the way to the horses tail. Injecting some life. Still it is a pretty ornament, and would make a great paperweight if it was ever cast up in resin.

Look at sculptures byBernini (http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bernini/bernini_apollo.jpg.html) you'll get the idea.

Iain
11-01-2006, 03:12 AM
Surely the point is that deliberate titilation is not art.

I've stayed away from CGTalk recently as I find it quite an unappealing place to be. However I've just read through that entire thread and had to comment.
People don't get it there either. They actually think it's the nudity that people are objecting to.

Captain Obvious
11-01-2006, 01:46 PM
No, it isn't.
Someone who failed to display the slightest modicum of self constrain concerning his genitals and adolescent boys, simply cannot be trusted as a voice of reason.
Oookay. :oye:

oDDity
11-01-2006, 03:05 PM
Surely the point is that deliberate titilation is not art.

I've stayed away from CGTalk recently as I find it quite an unappealing place to be. However I've just read through that entire thread and had to comment.
People don't get it there either. They actually think it's the nudity that people are objecting to.

Exactly, even after I explicitly stated than nudity was irrelevant, and have several full nudes in my model portfolio there.
They deliberately see anyone who's against that type of crude soft porn render as some interfering old lady on a puritanical crusade. That way, they can just write off the point of view entirely and don't have to think about it seriously.


Further more. As someone who is interested in the figure. Instead of slagging him off, you could learn an awful lot from him.
His figure work is among the best I've seen using 3d software. His figures have a great sense of balance and movement. His poses seem natural and animated.
That's exactly my point. I never said he was a bad artist, technically, but it's even worse to see a good artist scraping the barrel like this. His work is mostly erotica verging into soft porn at times, and you can be sure the sort of people who like it are not art lovers, but hormonal males. Just take a look at the viewers comments on his site. It's ridiculous, and he only has himself to blame.

kopperdrake
11-01-2006, 03:54 PM
I would say that the erect depictions you talk about tend to be of a very stylised approach emmersed in an historical context, ancient greek Your work so far seems to lean towards realism in these pieces, or at least a neo-classical version, which almost never in my knowledge resorted to distinct erections, focusing more on the enhanced beauty of muscle structure.

I think the real issue here is that of rape, and if you really feel you can add something to that whole subject then perhaps try it. Personally, if I saw it in someone's portfolio I'd like a good reason given for a piece of work that moves so close to a sensitive subject other than 'oh - it's art'.

Like your work by the way.

:)

anim8r
11-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Great Model oDDity! I was hoping to find the other 5 (models in the collection) throughout the 7 pages of this thread. Instead it looks like it was hi-jacked by the "porn is art" group.

Digital Hermit
11-01-2006, 07:32 PM
Of course the model and your modeling is great, an inspiration, indeed!

On the subject of art vs. porn, I think the rule is..

If it is out of focus, it's art. If it's in focus, it's porn! – heh ;)

Regards,

Digital Hermit

bobakabob
11-02-2006, 04:44 AM
Oddity,

Your comment about Wilde is crude in the extreme, but only serves to underline his quote. Your work is delicate and refined, but in reality you're like a bull in a china shop!

CMT
11-02-2006, 08:13 AM
Your work is delicate and refined, but in reality you're like a bull in a china shop!

Yes. A perfect example of how a work could say absolutely nothing at all about the personality of an artist.

DogBoy
11-02-2006, 08:56 AM
Yes. A perfect example of how a work could say absolutely nothing at all about the personality of an artist.

it is also a perfect example of how a work can say nothing at all.
I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but honestly, this piece leaves me cold.
Technically it is, as usual for oDDity, perfectly executed. Despite the lack of horse reference materials, the modelling is near flawless. Well done.

Unfortunately, like the Bernini that Parm linked to, I find the subject matter slightly dubious. The pre-pubescent nymph thing, where a handy bit of drapery covers their modesty, is just so tawdry. It was a area of art used to belittle earlier, pagan beliefs, while giving the owners the chance to ogle smutty sculptures. it may not be so blatantly crass as Stahlbergs stuff, but it is of the same ilk: idealised/airbrushed nudes.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem wi' nudity. I just don't like naif waifs in semi-classical ballet poses. It's just so twee.

Oddity, you are a very skilled bloke. If this were done by anyone else I'd just ignore it. In fact I have been ignoring this since you posted it. I just feel you are wasting your time doing this kinda stuff.

Sorry, to rain on the party :thumbsdow

oDDity
11-04-2006, 01:30 PM
What do you think the purpose of this model was? To 'say' something to you?
No, it's a technical anatomy and digital sculpting exercise, nothing more, and I didn't waste a second of the time I spent on it, I've learned a lot about both horse anatomy and zbrush, neither of which I had touched before..

DogBoy
11-04-2006, 05:22 PM
In that case, good job!!!:bowdown:

starbase1
11-05-2006, 01:55 AM
What do you think the purpose of this model was? To 'say' something to you?
No, it's a technical anatomy and digital sculpting exercise, nothing more, and I didn't waste a second of the time I spent on it, I've learned a lot about both horse anatomy and zbrush, neither of which I had touched before..

Well, that was pretty clear to me from the start!

One thing I would like to ask though - what motivates you to do this stuff? I have always been seriously impressed with your results, and I am curious.

Not least because I suspect it is nothing like my own motivation - I love to come up with something that could not be done any other way, something with no real world equivalent. Or sometimes to explore - I love to do astronomical work, and I spent an age after making the first Saturn model I was really happy with, just finding perspectives that you never get from Earth.

Though for all that, I am sure I would produce better imaginary stuff if I had a better grasp of the real thing.

Nick

oDDity
11-05-2006, 03:32 AM
My only motivaton currently it to be technically proficent in character design and anatomy. It's a large and complex subject, especially whn you branch out from human anatomy into all the animal variations, added to the endless number of poses you can imagine.
I'd call myself a craftsman rather than an artist, I get enjoyment just from the making of the thing, it doesn't have to have any profound meaning as such.

While you can have a good pose with a technically inferior and incorrect stick figure, for me it loses a lot of power and appeal unless it's technically well crafted

Captain Obvious
11-05-2006, 04:42 AM
I'd call myself a craftsman rather than an artist, I get enjoyment just from the making of the thing, it doesn't have to have any profound meaning as such.
Yet you consider yourself qualified to comment on the artistic merits of the work of others?

oDDity
11-05-2006, 06:43 AM
Everyone considers themselves qualified to comment on the artistic merits of all works. The entire point of art is that you don't need any qualifications to consider it.
Technical craftsmanship on the other hand, does very much require specific knowledge to intelligently comment on.

Pavlov
11-05-2006, 07:51 AM
excellent works.
I was thinking... since G2-Fprime pipeline is open, it would not be so bad if Worley put Normalmapping into G2 surfacing tools... who knows.

Paolo

oDDity
11-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Normal mapping by itself couldn't be too hard, I mean, every game engine has it these days, but I guess there will be no G2 update unless it's to say it can work with nodes, in which case, that would mean normal mapping I suppose.
BTW, this piece has surprised me by getting me into the CG choice gallery again at CG Talk. I wasn't expecting that at all (especially after slagging off the golden boy Stahlberg and now having all my posts censored) if I'd known I'd have taken better framed shots of it...

Pavlov
11-08-2006, 04:59 PM
especially after slagging off the golden boy Stahlberg and now having all my posts censored


Rotfl, so it's an habitude..

Paolo

Stooch
11-10-2006, 04:12 AM
yo oddity, great work - keep up the good sculpting.

even though i somewhat agree about some artists making naked chicks out of erotic motivation - the fact is that its art that caters to an audience. The trick is realizing that not everyone considers classical style to be all that. For what its worth, i feel that art has evolved greatly since then and rarely feel awestruck even by most famous pieces. However i would never let that detract from the mastery it takes to create them.

Just lose the grandiose air about yourself and step off the pedestal, you will find that your attitude will affect the oppinion of others much more then an edgy theme. Personally, if its tasteful - im down, its up to you to find the ballance.

-d

oDDity
11-10-2006, 06:33 AM
It's nothing to do with being grandiose. You don't need to be on a high horse to look down upon this nonsense as being the crass daubs of someone with no integrity left.
This is some character from some computer game portrayed topless for playboy.

DogBoy
11-10-2006, 07:52 AM
Yeah, I agree that is just cheesy, and has no real relevance to the game.
At the end of the day though, his work has always been pin-up/Vargas/Vallejo-type material and there has always been a market for that.

I honestly don't think has anything to do with "integrity". Integrity, is a personal thing, it's about you reconciling what you feel is right, with what you do to make a living. He doesn't see anything wrong with his work, and it pays. The guy has to feed his kids, this is how he does it.

If you don't like where his work is going, avoid his work.

Stooch
11-10-2006, 02:13 PM
It's nothing to do with being grandiose. You don't need to be on a high horse to look down upon this nonsense as being the crass daubs of someone with no integrity left.
This is some character from some computer game portrayed topless for playboy.

so?

i think the skin has great shading and the breasts are accurate. It definitelly took talent to create the model anatomically speaking and it serves a purpose SINCE IT WAS MADE FOR PLAYBOY... jeez its not like playboy is going to contact a classical artist and have magical creatures attempt to rape angels ;) They had a specific need and the artist fulfilled it! I bet you will encounter alot of projects in your career that might not live up to your moral standards but pay the bills....

Since we are on the topic of pornography, alot of the classical art WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR PORNOGRAPHIC PURPOSES! Rich people commissioned wall murals and paintings solely for the purpose of staring at them and tugging away... Thank god we have internet eh?

anyway, all im saying is, dont question the integrity of the artist or their personality when discussing THEIR ART! thats the part of attitude that can and will get you into trouble! if you dont like it, just ignore it! I doubt you will change anyones motivations anyway! just unnecessary conflict imo...

lw3d23
11-10-2006, 06:54 PM
Guys, don't waste your time to discuss with someone who has personality / mental problem. His posts are always lot of BS. something like what art is bala bala, but look at these images he created, wow, what a great artist, are these image copied from amateur erotic artworks? (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58927). Maybe he does modeling only or his ability is modeling only , so he always mentions "its all about a great model...." zzzzzz, This just prove his poor knowledge and skills. we never have to respect this guys, just like what he did to other users, reading his posts are entertaining though, the clown of NT forums.:jester: :thumbsdow

oDDity
11-11-2006, 03:21 AM
so?

i think the skin has great shading and the breasts are accurate. It definitelly took talent to create the model anatomically speaking and it serves a purpose [SINCE IT WAS MADE FOR PLAYBOY... jeez its not like playboy is going to contact a classical artist and have magical creatures attempt to rape angels ;) They had a specific need and the artist fulfilled it! I bet you will encounter alot of projects in your career that might not live up to your moral standards but pay the bills....

He chose to do this, he wasn't forced into to it by lack of money. Even if he did do it due to financial desperation, it would only prove my point. Either way, I'm correct.
I'd rather beg on the streets than make crap for playboy, and I'm not joking. A beggar at least has some dignity left.


Since we are on the topic of pornography, alot of the classical art WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR PORNOGRAPHIC PURPOSES! Rich people commissioned wall murals and paintings solely for the purpose of staring at them and tugging away...
That's a disconcertingly vague statement to make, perhaps if you'll post some exapmles of ye olde porne dressed up as art, you might actually have a point worth considering - and so what if some works in the past were made for that purpose? Are you of the opinion that anythng old is automatically good and to be revered?
I'm not, I'd despise old porn dressed up as art, every bit as much as new porn dressed up as art. Two wrongs don't make a right.

anyway, all im saying is, dont question the integrity of the artist or their personality when discussing THEIR ART! thats the part of attitude that can and will get you into trouble! if you dont like it, just ignore it! I doubt you will change anyones motivations anyway! just unnecessary conflict imo...
IF you want to go through life sticking your head in the sand when you see something you don't like, that's your affair.
Not me.

kopperdrake
11-11-2006, 04:25 AM
That's a disconcertingly vague statement to make, perhaps if you'll post some exapmles of ye olde porne dressed up as art, you might actually have a point worth considering - and so what if some works in the past were made for that purpose? Are you of the opinion that anythng old is automatically good and to be revered?

I believe there are drinking vessels from ancient Greece that depict nakedness between young men and slave girls/prostitues intended to be used at their equivalent of stag parties - essentially porn-on-a-cup :) But the majority of nudity in Western Greek/Latin culture was to do with portraying the godliness of the person/God in question. Artists used the perfect naked form to bring about the senses of awe and admiration. Likewise the ancient Eastern cultures used to emphasise the genitals for exactly the same reason, though to us with a strong Judao-Christian background it at first seems vulgar as shock and shame are the reactions we've been taught are the 'right way'.

I think the rather interesting thing with this whole discussion is more about why you loath work with a supposed tincture of pornography? It's a body, nothing more, nothing less. In actuality something we as humans are naturally meant to find the most pleasing thing we are likely to encounter. Its place in art is constantly changed by current ideologies and practices, and not everyone shares the same Judeo-Christian upbringing as perhaps the majority on here have, which means tolerance to others is always a good thing if you don't wish to come across as arrogant, or even ignorant.

For my part, I'd be more concerned of a scene depicting physical and mental hurt than something hinting at soft-porn, as that's pretty much a global taboo that everyone can understand, but then that's just me :)

oDDity
11-11-2006, 05:27 AM
What the **** has Judeo-Christianity got to do with it? Someone with a muslim or Hindu upbringing would be more likely to enjoy porn dressed up as art would they?
Exactly which religions or cultures preach tolerance for artistic pornography?
It's got nothing to do with religion, I'm an anit-theist, and I've got nothing against pornography either, I enjoy a good wank as much as anyone else here.
I like to draw a line however, and do not want to see everything else polluted with pornography. Keep it in it's place, it's serves a very basic purpose, and that's all it's good for.
Don't try to dress it up as something it's not.

starbase1
11-11-2006, 12:21 PM
Well, as I don't think it's possible for me to take this any further off topic...

Personally the widespread stuff I find most offensive tends to be along the lines of 'surgical enhancement', (I'd love to know what Freud would make of THAT!), and the extremely bad fake porn (like there's a shortage on the net of the real thing!), you get all over places like Renderosity.

Indeed, I'd say that some of the stuff done by 'cosmetic' surgeons is considerably less realistic than my character modeling, and I can't model characters for toffee!

Finding non existent characters sexy just doesn't make any sense at all to me, though it does remind me of the great exchange on Red Dwarf.

Lister: I must be going mad, I think I'm in love with Wilma Flintstone.
Cat: What?!? You are completely mad!
Cat: She'd never leave Fred!

Interesting to note that this thread is being dominated by UK / Europeans too.

I never have understood the US attitudes to sex / nudity. Half of them seem to want to enlarge various bits of my body and sell me hard core, the rest were apparently astonished and horrified to discover that Janet Jackson has at least one nipple.

Incidentally, nice model!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

iconoclasty
11-11-2006, 02:02 PM
I never have understood the US attitudes to sex / nudity. Half of them seem to want to enlarge various bits of my body and sell me hard core, the rest were apparently astonished and horrified to discover that Janet Jackson has at least one nipple.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I'm sorry, should we all conform to a single, national set of morals? Does everyone in the UK have exactly the same views and beliefs?

starbase1
11-11-2006, 02:27 PM
I'm sorry, should we all conform to a single, national set of morals?

Nope! And that is why I didn't say that...

Did you have an American education?
:devil:

iconoclasty
11-11-2006, 03:19 PM
So sorry. I must have misunderstood.

I was taught by the streets.

Exception
11-12-2006, 12:25 PM
Example:
Titian (Tiziano).
Internationally revered artist, early renaissance.

Paintings of him comissioned mostly by rich merchants, for the sole purpose of private enjoyment in the bedroom.
Pornographic? Absolutely. High art? Completely. Masterful crafmanship? Just look at it. Something wrong with this? I'd say find someone who does find something wrong with this painting, and I'll show you and illiterate and shallow presence.

There was just a large retrospective in the Kunsthal in Rotterdam of 50 years of Playboy. If that highly respected museum feels Playboy has some artistic merit to be worth considering, then I think that counts as something to take seriously.

UnCommonGrafx
11-12-2006, 01:08 PM
I love those kinds of paintings. Early porno was so much better.
;)

kopperdrake
11-12-2006, 01:17 PM
What the **** has Judeo-Christianity got to do with it? Someone with a muslim or Hindu upbringing would be more likely to enjoy porn dressed up as art would they?

I was referring initially to the common attitude towards nudity in art from an historical and social background, as I said of which I presumed the majority, maybe rightly or wrongly, in this discussion were from. Ironically, the ancient Near-East imagery of genital focus was found in the area which is now modern day Iraq. I said nothing about modern day Hindu/Muslim attitude towards nudity in art or culture and nor would I as I know little about it, but the Kama Sutra, seen as both art and extremely sexual, is from the ancient Hindu world. I was just trying to bring some social and historical context into why it is relatively common to have negative reactions towards nudity in the modern Western culture where sex was taught by the Church for 2,000 years as being purely for procreation, although this is being eroded by marketing, lessening of reliance on religion and mixing of cultures.


Exactly which religions or cultures preach tolerance for artistic pornography?

I feel you'd be suprised at modern-day Japan. I may be wrong but from friends living there it seems to have an entirely different attitude towards such things.


It's got nothing to do with religion, I'm an anit-theist, and I've got nothing against pornography either, I enjoy a good wank as much as anyone else here.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. It's not the religion per se but the inherited attitude we have as a culture towards nudity and nakedness from a long history of it being 'bad'. I was also discussing 'the supposed hint of pornography' in modern art as you not accepting, not full-on hardcore as you imply above. It is this slight element in some modern work you say you dislike; to cut out a huge proportion of human emotion, passion and urge and say 'an element of that is not good enough to be in art', seems to me to be an extremely rigid point of view.


I like to draw a line however, and do not want to see everything else polluted with pornography. Keep it in it's place, it's serves a very basic purpose, and that's all it's good for.
Don't try to dress it up as something it's not.

Lines and artists really do not sit well together.

Happy day to you - I'm going back to work :)

oDDity
11-12-2006, 05:03 PM
Example:
Titian (Tiziano).
Internationally revered artist, early renaissance.

Paintings of him comissioned mostly by rich merchants, for the sole purpose of private enjoyment in the bedroom.
Pornographic? Absolutely. High art? Completely. Masterful crafmanship? Just look at it. Something wrong with this? I'd say find someone who does find something wrong with this painting, and I'll show you and illiterate and shallow presence.

High art? No. It's only considered high art by default due to it antiquity and connection with the name Titian. Any artist, no matter how great, makes some good works and some bad ones. It's no more appealing that the Stalhberg render above. Both were conceived and executed with the intention of pandering to horny men who'd enjoy drooling over some young flesh.
The technical skills of the respective artists are not in question, only the use to which they put those skills.

There was just a large retrospective in the Kunsthal in Rotterdam of 50 years of Playboy. If that highly respected museum feels Playboy has some artistic merit to be worth considering, then I think that counts as something to take seriously.
I wouldn't pay much attention to that, it's no doubt a new generation of curators there who feel the need to show how cool and 'with it' they are.
Lesson #1 - sticking something in an art gallery doesn't make it art.



I feel you'd be suprised at modern-day Japan. I may be wrong but from friends living there it seems to have an entirely different attitude towards such things.
I doubt it. Genitals still have to be pixelated out there, even in under the counter hardcore.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. It's not the religion per se but the inherited attitude we have as a culture towards nudity and nakedness from a long history of it being 'bad'. I was also discussing 'the supposed hint of pornography' in modern art as you not accepting, not full-on hardcore as you imply above. It is this slight element in some modern work you say you dislike; to cut out a huge proportion of human emotion, passion and urge and say 'an element of that is not good enough to be in art', seems to me to be an extremely rigid point of view.

You contradict yourself. You say lines and artists do not mix, but then you draw a distinction between a 'slight element' of porn in art, which is acceptable, and hardcore. There has to be a line of some sort in there surely?
Where does a 'slight element' and gratuitous, crass titillation meet?
You strike me as the sort of person who follows other people's ideas of what constitutes art and what is acceptable, rather than your own.
If someone decides to put some hardcore spread legged photographs in a gallery, that seems to be enough to make it art in your eyes.

starbase1
11-12-2006, 05:25 PM
Lesson #1 - sticking something in an art gallery doesn't make it art.


I really wish someone would point this out to the guys at Tate Modern!

While I rather enjoyed Anish Kapoor's Marsyas (http://www.softxs.ch/alan/photos/kapoor/index.html), (The only thing they ever showed that really used that vast space), putting slides in a gallery as art is daft beyond belief.

I'm with Oddity on the Playboy too - a way to make a quick buck or three if you ask me...

Nick

Exception
11-12-2006, 06:13 PM
High art? No. It's only considered high art by default due to it antiquity and connection with the name Titian. Any artist, no matter how great, makes some good works and some bad ones. It's no more appealing that the Stalhberg render above. Both were conceived and executed with the intention of pandering to horny men who'd enjoy drooling over some young flesh.
The technical skills of the respective artists are not in question, only the use to which they put those skills.

You clearly are not familiar with Titian.
Ok, so this discussion is useless then.

kopperdrake
11-13-2006, 02:51 AM
I doubt it. Genitals still have to be pixelated out there, even in under the counter hardcore.

You've missed my point entirely. I'm speaking of a cultural attitude towards nudity and sexuality, not pornography in and of itself.


You contradict yourself. You say lines and artists do not mix, but then you draw a distinction between a 'slight element' of porn in art, which is acceptable, and hardcore. There has to be a line of some sort in there surely?

Again, you missed my point...in fact I've started to reply but really can't be bothered if you're simply going to ping-pong between things you like to think I said.



Where does a 'slight element' and gratuitous, crass titillation meet?
You strike me as the sort of person who follows other people's ideas of what constitutes art and what is acceptable, rather than your own.
If someone decides to put some hardcore spread legged photographs in a gallery, that seems to be enough to make it art in your eyes.

And you couldn't resist getting personal...lol! I'm wasting no more time on this :)

oDDity
11-13-2006, 03:30 AM
You've missed my point entirely. I'm speaking of a cultural attitude towards nudity and sexuality, not pornography in and of itself.
That's precisely what this topic is about you fool. The line between nudity/sexuality and pornography, and how it is being crossed.
IF you don't want to debate that, then I'm not sure why you bothered replying to the thread in the first place.
I have repeatedly made clear I have nothing against nudity or sensuality in art, it's a very common theme, but when it gets dragged down to the level of crass titillation for its own sake, then it's is worthless - or at least has the same worth as any porn site you might happen across on the internet.




Again, you missed my point...in fact I've started to reply but really can't be bothered if you're simply going to ping-pong between things you like to think I said.

That's rich, given that you've missed the entire topic of the thread.

You clearly are not familiar with Titian.
Ok, so this discussion is useless then.
Yes, I am familiar with him, and he was the sort of guy who would quite happily paint the odd completely worthless playboy centrefold to make a quick buck, exactly what [email protected] been accusing Stalhberg of.
The mistake that's often made by modern viewers, is to revere old artists or musicians as gods, so that every one of their works becomes sacrosanct no matter how low quailty it actually is. 'It was painted by Titian, and therefore it's a masterpiece' end of argument.
HE was greedy for money like a lot of people are, and would no doubt have painted anything for the right price. That doesn't mean you have to automatically revere it as a masterpiece.

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 05:14 AM
That's precisely what this topic is about you fool.

Wow, nothing like a bit of reasoned debate, eh? All he was saying was that titillation is endemic to art. I'm a big fan of Hokusai and Hiroshige, both not above a bit of titillation (or down-right porn). I'd still call their work great art, even their porn.

You are also proving his point by showing that, culturally, you have been brought up to think porn is dirty. Other cultures do not, or did not.

The problem is you do not like to admit that some of your views are influenced by your upbringing. You want us to believe you are your own man, and by doing so you try reinforce your own illusion that you are untarnished in your opinions. You are not. You wear your cultural baggage for all to see.
You are embarrassed by your own ignorance and try to cover this by spouting your moral superiority schtick.


That's rich, given that you've missed the entire topic of the thread.

And there was me thinking it was about your own work. Silly me 8/

Iain
11-13-2006, 05:30 AM
You are also proving his point by showing that, culturally, you have been brought up to think porn is dirty. Other cultures do not, or did not.

Depends on what 'dirty' in your context means. In our society I think it means distasteful in the eyes of conservative minded individuals.
So porn is dirty. That's why it's referred to as porn and not sex. It's seperated from sex.
Sex is natural and spontaneous, porn is staged and calculated.

Art can depict sex without being dirty but porn is there to deliberately titillate and arouse.

Extreme porn is a different matter but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Dirty, dirty b**tads.

Lightwolf
11-13-2006, 05:47 AM
Art can depict sex without being dirty but porn is there to deliberately titillate and arouse.

Not quite, but that again depends on the cultural context.
For example, there is still a difference between porn and erotica (and depending on the cultural context, the difference is substantial).
Both are meant to arouse, but porn is more explicit. By that definition, none of the imagery in this topic (including links) are porn at all, but erotica.

As for the artistic merits... nothing wrong with erotic art at all, otherwise I'd have to exclude anything that depicts violent actions from art as well, since I think violence is more despicable than a penis.

I still think "dirty" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic though ;)

Cheers,
Mike

oDDity
11-13-2006, 06:04 AM
Wow, nothing like a bit of reasoned debate, eh? All he was saying was that titillation is endemic to art. I'm a big fan of Hokusai and Hiroshige, both not above a bit of titillation (or down-right porn). I'd still call their work great art, even their porn.
You are, of course, entitled to your naive views, I wouldn't have it any other way. If you want to enjoy the sexual fantasies of all these male artists depicting women in lewd fashion for the pleasure of other men, in an age and culture when women were seen as property akin to goats or pigs, then well done, but there's no need to boast about it as well.
I'm glad you can so ignorantly divorce the subject matter and context of a picture from the pretty colours in it.


You are also proving his point by showing that, culturally, you have been brought up to think porn is dirty. Other cultures do not, or did not.
I haven't been brought up to find either sex or porn dirty, in fact, my mother is quite a liberal on such matters, and a child is much more influenced by its family than external culture.
I certainly find no intrinsic value in blatant sexual titillation, I just find it rather coarse and lowbrow, the sort of thing a caveman might enjoy. I find it a complete waste of anyone's talent.


The problem is you do not like to admit that some of your views are influenced by your upbringing.
You want us to believe you are your own man, and by doing so you try reinforce your own illusion that you are untarnished in your opinions. You are not. You wear your cultural baggage for all to see.
Well of course everyone's personality, and therefore outlook on life, is influenced in some way by their upbringing - well done Mr Freud, I think you've missed your true vocation.
If I am wearing cultural baggage, I glad it's the sort of baggage which makes me curl my lip up in distaste at such images, rather then the cultural baggage which caused such images to be produced in the first place, or mindlessly drool over them as you do.

Iain
11-13-2006, 06:05 AM
Erotica is soft-core porn. It's porn in coffee table format.

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 06:35 AM
LOL, whatever, oDDity.

kopperdrake
11-13-2006, 07:16 AM
Wow, nothing like a bit of reasoned debate, eh? All he was saying was that titillation is endemic to art. I'm a big fan of Hokusai and Hiroshige, both not above a bit of titillation (or down-right porn). I'd still call their work great art, even their porn.

You are also proving his point by showing that, culturally, you have been brought up to think porn is dirty. Other cultures do not, or did not.

The problem is you do not like to admit that some of your views are influenced by your upbringing. You want us to believe you are your own man, and by doing so you try reinforce your own illusion that you are untarnished in your opinions. You are not. You wear your cultural baggage for all to see.
You are embarrassed by your own ignorance and try to cover this by spouting your moral superiority schtick.

Thank God someone understood - I was beginning to think I was going crazy :hey:

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 07:17 AM
I certainly find no intrinsic value in blatant sexual titillation, I just find it rather coarse and lowbrow, the sort of thing a caveman might enjoy. I find it a complete waste of anyone's talent.

So why are you wasting your time sinking to this level?
You want to have it both ways. You bleat on with your pseudo-feminist "denigration of women" and then admit to whacking off over porn.

You can't talk about violence to women after saying your next piece is an arty rape scene, and expect to be taken seriously. You undermine your own stance.

You can dress it how you like, but your argument lacks conviction.

*edit* Kopperdrake, no worries. I thought it needed reinforcing.

oDDity
11-13-2006, 07:31 AM
Well, as they say, naive minds think alike.
My next piece isn't a rape scene - and even if it was, you shouldn't be getting turned on by it (is there anything you don't find erotic??), and therefore it's not porn, either soft or hard.
At least real porn is honest, and knows it's lowly place and limited value, so I have nothing against it, and of course, women these days can make their own decisions to appear in it.

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 11:40 AM
Well, as they say, naive minds think alike.
Yeah, that was a naive post, but I was trying to appeal to your black and white attitude.

My next piece isn't a rape scene - and even if it was, you shouldn't be getting turned on by it (is there anything you don't find erotic??), and therefore it's not porn, either soft or hard.

Sorry, I was obviously misreading this (cut for space by me):


For the next one is going to be two satyrs pulling back an angel trying to take flight, it's obvious they're about to rape her, but I was wondering on the implications of giving the satyrs visible erections...
The intended rape is the focus of the piece (it's not an unusual theme for classical sculptures) so it seems ridiculous that the satyrs wouldn't have erections. I'm just wondering how offensive it would seem in the context of an otherwise classically sculpted work, since my opinion on things like this seems to be at odds with everyone else.

Sounds like rape is the next one in the series. OK, you'll say it's implied rape but you are the one implying it. You'll say that it isn't your intention to titillate, but by taking it from the realms of reality and dressing it in pseudo-classical fantasy you are sanitising an unsavoury and violent situation. It becomes a rape fantasy, which does fall into the area of erotica, like it or not.




At least real porn is honest.

I agree. It says what it is on the tin.

What I'm trying to say is, that like it or not, art has often been used to titillate (I mean that it is to induce a pleasurable, possibly sexual, frisson and not neccesarily full arousal). It doesn't detract from it being great art.

I said I like the work of Hokusai and Hiroshige, not that I get my rocks off to it. Art is designed to elicit a emotional response from the viewer. If you think want to divorce it from the area of sex, more fool you.

P.S. I like the idea of animal penises (penii) it's more classical ;)

anim8r
11-13-2006, 01:10 PM
Since the beginning there have been 2 types of thought concerning porn (regardless of the time you live in). Doesn't matter what you're upbringing was, is, or how "enlightened" you are. You fall into these 2 camps.

Type 1 sees and instantly recognizes smut and hangs it on his wall, calls it art, and belittles others who disagree and tells them to get their minds out of the gutter.

Type 2 sees and instantly recognizes smut, points it out, and tells the first type to get his mind out of the gutter.


However, both types will look at portraits of clothed individuals and wonder what they look like naked :D

oDDity
11-13-2006, 02:17 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, blatant titillation does detract from anything masquerading as art, and for some of you it doesn't.
Anyway, I've changed the composition of my next sculpture, it's still a satyr and an angel, but I'm basing the pose on Bougereau's Le Ravissement de Psyche
It's not a moral climbdown or anything, I just could think of a satisfactory pose with an angel somewhat caught in mid-flight. It's supposed to be a marble sculpture, so I'm not sure how she could be suspended. The balance just won't work.

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 03:04 PM
That's a pity, I was looking forward to it.
Never mind, I'm sure your next piece will make up for the loss.

DogBoy
11-13-2006, 03:05 PM
*repost*

parm
11-13-2006, 04:38 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, blatant titillation does detract from anything masquerading as art, and for some of you it doesn't.
Anyway, I've changed the composition of my next sculpture, it's still a satyr and an angel, but I'm basing the pose on Bougereau's Le Ravissement de Psyche
It's not a moral climbdown or anything, I just could think of a satisfactory pose with an angel somewhat caught in mid-flight. It's supposed to be a marble sculpture, so I'm not sure how she could be suspended. The balance just won't work.

Bougereau!!

After all that guff about titillation. Really! Behave yourself man.

Exception
11-13-2006, 04:46 PM
T
Yes, I am familiar with him, and he was the sort of guy who would quite happily paint the odd completely worthless playboy centrefold to make a quick buck, exactly what [email protected] been accusing Stalhberg of.
The mistake that's often made by modern viewers, is to revere old artists or musicians as gods, so that every one of their works becomes sacrosanct no matter how low quailty it actually is. 'It was painted by Titian, and therefore it's a masterpiece' end of argument.
HE was greedy for money like a lot of people are, and would no doubt have painted anything for the right price. That doesn't mean you have to automatically revere it as a masterpiece.


So what YOU think is or is not art is what should count for all eh?

You calling the Venus de Urbino not art is just typical. It doesn't even justify a response, it's just ignorant stupidity. Made even stronger by the senseless response you give it. YOU wanted an example. I give you one, and then claim it is not art. By whose standard? It is groundbreaking in many terms, it is critical in its timeframe (or do I need to explain to you what metaphysical criticality is?), revered for its subtlety, its latent implied political significance and its exquisite depiction of female beauty. Of which I think you are just downright scared, since it offends you so much. About on par with the debasedness of your response.
And if you don't think those issues are a part of art, you can just wallow in your own made up definition of it, which would make sense for nobody but you. "I find Kiwi's to be great art." Great, Oddity, go for it. But don't bother us then with your artistic crusades which have meaning only in terms of your own definition of it, or judge other people and their work, since you have no grounds for judgement nor the necessary knowledge to defend your stance.

oDDity
11-13-2006, 04:51 PM
Bougereau!!

After all that guff about titillation. Really! Behave yourself man.I don't find anything titillating about that particular painting, and I'm only taking reference from one pose, not endorsing all of his massive body of work, which admittedly strays from sensual to provocative at times.

anim8r
11-13-2006, 09:31 PM
I don't know Exception,

I can't find where oDDity said it's his way or the highway. He has simply defined what he calls art, and doesn't mind sharing his opinion and the rationale behind it. Pretty much like you, me, and the rest of us.

To me? Stick a couple staples in "Venus de Urbino" and you have the centerfold of the 16th Century. Does that mean it isn't art to some? no. It simply means my tastes differ. Does nudity have a place in art? sure. I just haven't found many pieces that warrent more than a cursory glance.

This particular work (though skillfully created) looks "commissioned" to me rather than inspired like other works from him. Just my opinion tho. Seriously, I imagine Titian would be far more comfortable behind a camera in this age instead of holding a brush, but again... my opinion.

I used to think Rothko was the biggest con man in the game, but now he's one of my favorite painters. By his own admision, he was frustrated that no one understood his work. But, art is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's ludicrous for people to be taught that a painting is a masterpeice because of this and that. The work should stand on it's own or fail with any given viewer.

Some people hate chocolate. Regardless of how much is forced down their throats, they will never gain an appreciation for it. Doesn't make them "wrong". In the end, they either still hate it or they'll "fake" an appreciation to minimize ridicule from the chocoholics. The same can be said with imagery.

oDDity
11-14-2006, 05:31 AM
Exception sounds to me like he suffers from an art school education, where they told him who to like and why to like them, and now he goes around repeating it like a robot. If that's the definition of intelligence, I'm glad I'm dumb. I'll just carry on making up my own mind, ignorant as it may be, what I like and dislike.
In reality, there's nothing exceptional about that painting, or many other of Titian's work that hasn't been done a lot better by many other artists. In a techical painting respect, Bouguereau makes Titan look like an amateur.

kopperdrake
11-14-2006, 05:58 AM
Lovely weather we're having :)

parm
11-14-2006, 06:13 AM
In a techical painting respect, Bouguereau makes Titan look like an amateur.

Would you care to elaborate. From a technical standpoint, justify that.

oDDity
11-14-2006, 06:46 AM
The painting technique and the anatomical accuracy. Bouguereau captured the essence of his subjects with a breathtaking accuracv in way that Titan did not have the ability to do.
It doesn't need justifying with words, just go and look at the pictures, they speak for themselves.
Of course, there was 300 years between them, and painting techniques changed, but even so, there were none of Bouguereau's contemporaries who could match him either.
I'm not saying Titian wasn't a great artist of course, just that every single one of his paintings were not a default masterpiece simply because he painted them, as some would have you beleive.

oDDity
11-14-2006, 07:23 AM
Just one example of hundreds of the absolute technical perfection of Bouguereau in figure painting.
Of course, I realise some of you guys don't hold technical perfection in the same esteem that I do, but it's not just technical perfection, it's also aesthetically beautiful (at least to me it is, and that's all that matters).

Exception
11-14-2006, 07:24 AM
Dude!
Bouguereau = 1825-1905
Titian = 1488 - 1490

And it's 'Bouguereau'!

Really, man, educate yourself. Such a huge time gap makes bouguereau completely nonsignificant from an critical perspective. Unless you think art is all about pretty pictures and the way you hold the brush. If so, Bougueraeu was just copying his artistic forefathers, whereas Titian was exceptional for his time. 350 years earlier. Threehundred and fifty years earlier.

Oh oh right... an education is a 'bad thing'.
Oddity, I've never been to art school. But now art school is the bad guy eh?
This gets funnier by the minute. Ignorance is bliss, shall we say?

Exception
11-14-2006, 07:28 AM
Oh yeah... comissioned art is bad, you say?
Oh boy, now it gets to be fun.

Then please burn all paintings of Rembrandt, Vermeer, Dali, Matisse, Karel Appel, Jeroen Bosch... etc. Majority of their works were comissioned. And I'm sure all patrons were illiterate single minded horny old men who just happened to have a lot of money. Easy! Case solved.

anim8r
11-14-2006, 08:16 AM
Oh yeah... comissioned art is bad, you say?
Oh boy, now it gets to be fun.

Then please burn all paintings of Rembrandt, Vermeer, Dali, Matisse, Karel Appel, Jeroen Bosch... etc. Majority of their works were comissioned. And I'm sure all patrons were illiterate single minded horny old men who just happened to have a lot of money. Easy! Case solved.

Actually this does remind me of when I was in art school, I swear half the teachers there didn't allow us to think for ourselves either...

To me (if in fact we're actually allowed to have our own opinions here)... Commissioned artwork generally is... 'meh'. The works can be masterfully created, but generally lack creativity, experimentation, and inspiration that can normally be found in Non-Commissioned works.

Note the total lack of absolutes. I'm using terms like 'generally' and 'normally'. There are commissioned works out there that break the mold, but I suspect the artist was given a lot more freedom than in other works. For example, a lot of Van Gogh's commissioned artwork is fantastic.

If you don't like my opinion, so be it. Not like I'm changing it lol.

parm
11-14-2006, 08:18 AM
The painting technique and the anatomical accuracy. Bouguereau captured the essence of his subjects with a breathtaking accuracv in way that Titan did not have the ability to do.
It doesn't need justifying with words, just go and look at the pictures, they speak for themselves.


Just one example of hundreds of the absolute technical perfection of Bouguereau in figure painting.
Of course, I realise some of you guys don't hold technical perfection in the same esteem that I do, but it's not just technical perfection, it's also aesthetically beautiful (at least to me it is, and that's all that matters).


Oh dear. I see.

The key word and major clue here is, 100's. Use your eyes like you suggest others to do.

The technique and subject is formulaic. See one, and you've seen them all. Endless dreary, sentimentalised and demure 'lady Di eyed' girls. painted with exactly the same academic technique. Like a party trick, repeated, over and over.


Of course, there was 300 years between them, and painting techniques changed, but even so, there were none of Bouguereau's contemporaries who could match him either.

I assure you,at this time there was no shortage of Bouguereau contemporaries who could also perform the same way: Lawrence Alma Tadema, Frederick Lord Leighton, and John William Waterhouse to name just a few.

And Titian's painting technique evolved considerably, during his own lifetime. Never mind 300 years. No endless regurgitation here.


I'm not saying Titian wasn't a great artist of course, just that every single one of his paintings were not a default masterpiece simply because he painted them, as some would have you beleive.

I have no idea what you mean by this term "default masterpiece". Titians output throughout his life is endlessly inventive, constantly throwing up new ideas, developing, changing and searching. He brings something to the table, making things possible.

Bouguereau by contrast, Is the fine art equivalent of pop music. It's the MIlls and Boon of Painting. 'Chocolate Box'

parm
11-14-2006, 08:26 AM
There are commissioned works out there that break the mold, but I suspect the artist was given a lot more freedom than in other works. For example, a lot of Van Gogh's commissioned artwork is fantastic.

Did Van Gogh ever get commissioned to produce an Artwork?

oDDity
11-14-2006, 08:48 AM
You're way behind the times with your dismissal of Bouguereau as a worthless chocolate box artist. In the last few decades he's at last been recognised as the great artist he is. He worked at a time when the impressionists were the new kids on the block and getting all the attention, and because he refused to follow the same popular path, was dismissed as old fashioned.
Some light reading to at least give you an alternative point of view to consider:

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2000/Genius_Reclaimed/genius1.asp

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/philosophy1.asp

I've discovered that site agrees with just about all of my own thoughts on art, so best to read it there.

Iain
11-14-2006, 08:58 AM
Did Van Gogh ever get commissioned to produce an Artwork?

Yeah I got him to do a picture of my front room a while back. It was crap-you can have it if you want.

Kept moaning all the time and asking for cups of tea.

cagey5
11-14-2006, 09:00 AM
I know what you mean oDDity. A bit like Cliff Richard when punk came along,.. considered old fashioned but had he given up we'd have never had Mistletoe and Wine...

anim8r
11-14-2006, 09:17 AM
Did Van Gogh ever get commissioned to produce an Artwork?

He was bankrolled by family mostly, primarily by his brother with letters containing money and stating "these sold well, send more of these...".

oDDity
11-14-2006, 09:37 AM
Dude!
Bouguereau = 1825-1905
Titian = 1488 - 1490

And it's 'Bouguereau'!

Really, man, educate yourself.

I already typed 'Bouguereau', and I am educating myself, but I prefer to spend that time learning technical skill and knowledge so I can craft my own work, rather than sit on the sidelines and argue over which long dead artist was better than which other long dead artist.

oDDity
11-14-2006, 10:07 AM
What's wrong with chocolate box art anyway?
This is the sort of painting parm and others would dismiss as worthless 'chocolate box' kitsch, but the majority of people in the world absolutely love pictures like the one below, because they can readily understand and appreciate them, so what have you ever done for art that gives you the right to dismiss them?
I suppose Titan's work includes really important life-changing hidden meanings does it?
No, it's just daubs of paint on a canvas like this one, some like it, some don't, but you're never going to make someone like or dislike it with reasoned argument.

parm
11-14-2006, 10:07 AM
He was bankrolled by family mostly, primarily by his brother with letters containing money and stating "these sold well, send more of these...".

Yes, his brother Theo, supported Vincent throughout his life. And I've read all their published correspondence. I won't dispute what you say here, but it really doesn't fit what is generally accepted as comissioned Artworks.

It wasn't much money, spent mostly on art materials and lodgings, very little left over for food.
It's one of the tragedies in art history that Vincent Van Gogh. Arguably one the greatest and most original of all artists, sold only one work before his death. After a botched up suicide attempt, having been driven to dispair by his continued lack of recognition. And now of course, Van Goghs are the most valuable paintings in the world.

oDDity, I strongly advise, (and this is just friendly), that you not to base your art self education solely sites like that.

If. As you have previously stated, integrity is an important issue for you. You won't find it in Bouguereau or anything of that ilk. That stuff was blatent consumerism, pandering to a market. They were literally churned out. How many I don't know, must have been close to a thousand. All virtually identical, no attempt at truthfulness or sincerity. Just something to entertain and indeed titilate the masses.

parm
11-14-2006, 10:33 AM
What's wrong with chocolate box art anyway?
This is the sort of painting parm and others would dismiss as worthless 'chocolate box' kitsch, but the majority of people in the world absolutely love pictures like the one below, because they can readily understand and appreciate them, so what have you ever done for art that gives you the right to dismiss them?
I suppose Titan's work includes really important life-changing hidden meanings does it?
No, it's just daubs of paint on a canvas like this one, some like it, some don't, but you're never going to make someone like or dislike it with reasoned argument.

I really don't care what you like or dislike, there is something for everyone.

And I never said there was anything wrong with chocolate box, or kitsch. I didn't even say it was worthless. The majority of people in the world love it. Because they are who it's aimed at. It is contrived that way.

It's just rich that you attack a perfectly respectable illustrator. And charge him with a lack of integrity, because he scores a superb gig with a prestigious publlcation. And fullfills the brief to the best of his ability.

And to cap it all the last image you hold up as great art. Is worst than porn. Worse because it's dishonest. Better to replace the spout with what it is meant to represent. :D

anim8r
11-14-2006, 10:52 AM
I so agree with you about Van Gogh Parm.

But is wasn't just his brother, his uncle also commissioned some work. Though, yeah, he was paid barely enough to cover the cost of supplies.

He also, if I recall correctly, created a few commissioned portraits. One was a set of a man and later his mother (tho he was only paid for one). I also remember him creating works in exhange for more art supplies, or something like that.

The point is, I don't remember seeing Any of his artwork that I didn't fully enjoy, whether the work was requested, steered, commissioned, or created at will. Unlike other artwork that appears to be (and in some cases are blatantly obvious) commissioned/directed works by some of the "greats".

anim8r
11-14-2006, 11:13 AM
Better to replace the spout with what it is meant to represent. :D

Great Parm, you just ruined that painting for me for all time :D

oDDity
11-14-2006, 11:18 AM
oDDity, I strongly advise, (and this is just friendly), that you not to base your art self education solely sites like that.

If. As you have previously stated, integrity is an important issue for you. You won't find it in Bouguereau or anything of that ilk. That stuff was blatent consumerism, pandering to a market. They were literally churned out. How many I don't know, must have been close to a thousand. All virtually identical, no attempt at truthfulness or sincerity. Just something to entertain and indeed titilate the masses.
Heh, it's funny, no one ever sees themselves as one of those masses, they're always those rather uncouth people next door.
What I do is judge each picture on it's merits, and if I like it, I like it. I don't try to decide if it was meant for the next door neighbours or not, and therefore beneath me.
I admire skill, and Bouguereau had as much as most artists who've ever held a brush.

starbase1
11-14-2006, 11:45 AM
I suppose Titan's work includes really important life-changing hidden meanings does it?

Well at the risk of offending both sides I would like to point out that Titan's art mainly consisted of pictures of aquaphibians, the occasional cityscape of Titanica, and, (during his religious phase), the gaping likeness of the fish god, Toifel. Unfortunately his paintings were so awful that his subject, surface agent X2-Zero, had them installed in rotating frames, so they could be easily hidden for reasons of taste.

anim8r
11-14-2006, 11:49 AM
Well at the risk of offending both sides I would like to point out that Titan's art mainly consisted of pictures of aquaphibians, the occasional cityscape of Titanica, and, (during his religious phase), the gaping likeness of the fish god, Toifel. Unfortunately his paintings were so awful that his subject, surface agent X2-Zero, had them installed in rotating frames, so they could be easily hidden for reasons of taste.

LOL!!

Exception
11-14-2006, 12:06 PM
I admire skill, and Bouguereau had as much as most artists who've ever held a brush.

This is exactly where the problem started. If you would have just admired skill, you would have no argument against the other theads' artist. You judge Titian's Venus de Urbino because you either don't like it, or have problems with its content, but you ignore his skill.

I don't care a single second about skill, I care about dedication, integrity, fighting for what you believe in, intelligent theoretical construct and engagement of the viewer. Those are my personal beliefs. But I'm not judging artwork or an entire artists' work by throwing out generalities like 'i don't like commissioned work', or naked females are generally a sign of debasedness, or other such dogma's which are so remote from the concept of art itself, they make no sense at all.

To each his own, but when people become judgemental, you have to argue about generally accepted notions. You can't argue about taste, it's useless. You like blue, I like red. So what? You CAN argue about wether titian was critical in his timeframe or not, and dismissing the whole academic debate about him is reinventing the wheel, and just propping up your taste as valid argument. Which it is not.

All I ask is to stop the judging without fundamental basis, as it is unethical, and I do have a problem with that.

Wether or not commisioned artwork is proper art or not is not worth discussing. They have nothing to do with one another. Artists need to eat and sleep and buy expensive material. What way they choose to attain these finances is their business, and whichever they feel they can work best at. It only influences the content of the art if the artist chooses so. Some art fields even can't do without commisioned art work. Architecture for example. Does that invalidate architecture?

oDDity
11-14-2006, 12:54 PM
I'm not sure why you're so concerned with how or why I judge paintings, it's not as if I have so much influence that Titian's paintings will be burned if I say I don't like them.
Like I said, you really can't change anyone's like or dislike of a painting by reasoned argument, it's a gut feeling you have when you see it. I think you decide you like or dislike an image in the first few seconds after you see it, and then later try to justify why you like or dislike it.
I don't see the point in analysing pictures too deeply.
The 'why I like it' you come up with is mostly fantasy and irrelevant to anyone but yourself, for if you could look at paintings and truly see exactly why they are masterpieces, exactly why they work, you'd be able to produce masterpieces yourself.
Likewise, the 'why' you dislike it is also irrelevant to anyone but yourself, since you will find many others who completely disagree.

anim8r
11-14-2006, 01:10 PM
Exception,

Everyone is judgmental. Otherwise, no one could give a critique on anything. Passing judgement on something is well... the definition of giving a critique.
Just because you don't like my term "commissioned", doesn't mean I can't label it that way. It was my critique to give. Telling someone they can't critique it " 'because he did this, he did that", doesn't negate their feelings on that piece. Not once have I said you were wrong for liking it and I've never mocked your reasons for liking it. You're free to enjoy anything you like--to judge as you see fit.

Having created primarily commissioned work (works for hire, same diff) through most of my life, I know the limitations imposed on an artist by the money people. I see where my work looks commissioned and sometimes I get the same feeling when I look at some examples of other artwork. I'm just not a huge fan of artwork that looks 'staged'.

I looked at the piece. It's nice, but to me, it just isn't "great" and certainly isn't his best piece (<--- in my opinion--seems I have to keep saying that). I find it to be a tedious layout. I could go on for hours about why I think that way, but then you'll be irritated with even more of my judgmental terminology. Basically, to me, it looks commissioned; to you, it's a masterpiece, it's obvious you like this style of artwork.

I didn't say Titian was unskilled, quite the contrary, but, it's true, he isn't in my list of favorite artists. So what.

bobakabob
11-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Did Van Gogh ever get commissioned to produce an Artwork?

Sadly not. He never sold a painting.

Nevertheless, IMO Van Gogh is an artist whereas Bouguereau, who undoubtedly has mastery of the human form, is a technician.

oDDity
11-14-2006, 02:15 PM
..and an expert craftsman, which shouldn't be pushed aside and ignored. It's not as if it's easy to be as good as he was.

CMT
11-14-2006, 03:18 PM
Heh, it's funny, no one ever sees themselves as one of those masses, they're always those rather uncouth people next door.
What I do is judge each picture on it's merits, and if I like it, I like it. I don't try to decide if it was meant for the next door neighbours or not, and therefore beneath me.
I admire skill, and Bouguereau had as much as most artists who've ever held a brush.

Well, if that's how you see it, then why should you have any problems with how others view Stahlberg's art?


Nevertheless, IMO Van Gogh is an artist whereas Bouguereau, who undoubtedly has mastery of the human form, is a technician.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but Bouguereau was more than just a technician. There's very few other artists I've seen who has such a mastery of form, color, contrast and composition.

I agree a lot of them were variations of the the same ol'.. but there's quite a few which really impress.

Exception
11-14-2006, 03:38 PM
Exception,

Everyone is judgmental. Otherwise, no one could give a critique on anything. Passing judgement on something is well... the definition of giving a critique.

I disagree. A critique is not holding up the work to be critiqued up to your own taste, it is to hold it up to commonly accepted theories, notions or practices of the field. You can argue about those practices, sure, that can be very interesting and productive, but arguing about wether or not you 'like' it, for whichever personal reason you have, is useless. Critics usually abstain from critiquing if they have a strong personal objection. They don't go out and roar about their dismay on personal grounds.

You can surely make the argument that art does not follow 'commonly accepted theories, notions or practices of the field', and I would probably agree for the most part, however, if someone seeks criticism, like posting his work here on a forum for others to discuss, you are subjecting yourself to an acceptance and understanding of this premise of critique. That is what critique is all about, it is about improving the qualities of the given object, qualities which are ratified by those notions earlier mentioned. Art criticism is NOT about critiquing those notions themselves, that is what critical theory is for.



Just because you don't like my term "commissioned", doesn't mean I can't label it that way.

Sure, and I can call a cat a dog, but everyone else will still think it's a cat, and it is therefore invalid in the general premise of the critique.


I looked at the piece. It's nice, but to me, it just isn't "great" and certainly isn't his best piece (<--- in my opinion--seems I have to keep saying that). I find it to be a tedious layout. I could go on for hours about why I think that way, but then you'll be irritated with even more of my judgmental terminology. Basically, to me, it looks commissioned; to you, it's a masterpiece, it's obvious you like this style of artwork.

I don't like it at all. I have actually never said I did. I have no affinity whatsoever for early renaissance works, and neither for Titian. That does not negate the fact that just by looking at it, yes by merely glancing at it, by knowing something about the timeframe and he practiced in and the normative conventions of the time, it becomes interesting in an art historic perspective, and most certainly extremely important and 'critical'.

What I 'like' or 'dislike' has no bearing on anything whatsoever. I like yoghurt. And kittens.
What I am getting at is that these discussions are about constructive criticism. What criticism is I touched upon above, and what constructive is you know as well. I'm fine with you or anyone else expressing their opinion, or displaying their taste, but judging artwork on that basis is just not valid, as both you and Odditiy say yourselves.

anim8r
11-14-2006, 04:31 PM
Good lord, I wasn't knocking his ability on the use of color, lighting, perspective, reproduction, etc. I said it was masterfully done.

I was expressing why I personally disliked the piece, its setting, framing, content, etc. I made no attacks on his ability. Nor did I "roar"

I prefaced all of my remarks repeatedly by saying "to me", "Personally", and "in my opinion", since I was, afterall, speaking for myself.

All of my teachers had different artists that they called their favorite. None of them were berated by the others to explain the formulaic process for choosing one over the other. Rather, they accepted that someone could be drawn to an artist that favored the use of darker pigments, while the other to brighter, one could prefer the "style" of their favorite, another the history, etc. etc.

You can't find any negative statement made by me about his capability or technique concerning this work. If I did, then I could see you getting all wrapped around the axle.

If you're asking me to apologize for having my own opinion, I wouldn't wait for it.

Concerning others posting their work on these forums and asking for criticism? I'll give my opinion freely based on my education and experience since, well, I've been very successful in art. I'll gladly share my perspective based on my experience and knowledge.

People can still choose to ignore or accept it.

You don't "like" the painting either. I simply expressed why (again, p e r s o n a l l y).

bobakabob
11-14-2006, 04:43 PM
..and an expert craftsman, which shouldn't be pushed aside and ignored. It's not as if it's easy to be as good as he was.

Yes, he's undoubtedly a brilliant draughtsman and knows how to use a brush.

But IMHO artists like Van Gogh and the Impressionists open doors of perception and makes the viewer look at the world in new ways. Bouguereau is more a display of technique.

Exception
11-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I was expressing why I personally disliked the piece, its setting, framing, content, etc. I made no attacks on his ability. Nor did I "roar"

I prefaced all of my remarks repeatedly by saying "to me", "Personally", and "in my opinion", since I was, afterall, speaking for myself.

If you're asking me to apologize for having my own opinion, I wouldn't wait for it.

Actually, I never adressed you, anim8or, I addressed Oddity, and I was surprised that you addressed me. Finally, I reacted to your definition of critique, and your implication that I would have said that people shouldn't think for themselves but listen to their teachers instead, which is as far from anything I would ever say, ever. evur. eeavour.

I have not commented on your critique.

anim8r
11-14-2006, 07:08 PM
Exception,

Well guess I missed something, I thought you were bothered by my "commissioned" remark a page back.

oDDity
11-15-2006, 03:12 AM
Yes, he's undoubtedly a brilliant draughtsman and knows how to use a brush.

But IMHO artists like Van Gogh and the Impressionists open doors of perception and makes the viewer look at the world in new ways. Bouguereau is more a display of technique.

And no one can adequately explain why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman.

Setebos
11-15-2006, 04:46 AM
And no one can adequately explain why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman.

Perhaps itís because some expert craftsmen seek the respect and worship thatís inexplainably afforded to adequate artists.

oDDity
11-15-2006, 07:35 AM
Not by everyone. I deem expert craftsmen just as worthy as any artist when it comes to praise and respect.

parm
11-15-2006, 07:35 AM
And no one can adequately explain why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman.

Perhaps it's because it's not altogether true.

Every field of craftsmanship, have their guilds and awards for excellence. To gain the respect of your peers, you have only to put your best efforts forward to be judged against the efforts of others.

And the artist who you admire, Bouguereu, enjoyed widespread celebrity and respect. He was rewarded with huge wealth and status in his own lifetime. In stark contrast to his contemporary, Van Gogh, who enjoyed none of those things. It is only posterity that places them into their proper perspective.

oDDity
11-15-2006, 08:01 AM
In that case, it's evened out, since Bouguereu, after a long time in the dark, is now gaining popularity and open respect again, his works can be seen in major galleries, and sell for millions.
Still, it doesn't stop people like you looking down on him, even though you're far beneath him in every respect, artistic or technical.
I think I admire skill and craftsmanship so much, mainly because it seems to have all but disappeared from modern art, and I want it back.
Long gone are the days when people like Michelangelo was both a great artist and expert craftsman. Now works such as 'blue square on red background' or 'blob on canvas' get the plaudits from the self-appointed elite.
Rather like how it's become almost illegal to include a tune in a piece of classical music since the 1950's and Schoenberg, it's now all percussion and dissonance, and it's similarly almost illegal to show any technical skill in modern art. It has to look like a blind 1 year old chimpanzee could have made it, or it's no good.

IgnusFast
11-15-2006, 08:03 AM
Yes, he's undoubtedly a brilliant draughtsman and knows how to use a brush.

But IMHO artists like Van Gogh and the Impressionists open doors of perception and makes the viewer look at the world in new ways. Bouguereau is more a display of technique.

Of course this is IMHO, but the only doors Van Gough and other Impressionists/Modernists opened was the door to crap. It's like someone has taken the movies of Ed Wood and elevated their status just because they're "interesting", not because they're actually any good. But again, this is IMO. :)

Exception
11-15-2006, 08:17 AM
And no one can adequately explain why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman.

Because the master artist is critical in his or her respective timeframe, while the craftsman or woman is separated from peers only by technique, which, save for slow progression through the years, is relatively timeless.

Now then again, I'd say that they're often related. But they don't have to be.

As the role and perception of art changes, so does the definition of expert artist. The definition of expert craftsman however, does not.

kopperdrake
11-15-2006, 08:43 AM
I think I admire skill and craftsmanship so much, mainly because it seems to have all but disappeared from modern art, and I want it back.
Long gone are the days when people like Michelangelo was both a great artist and expert craftsman. Now works such as 'blue square on red background' or 'blob on canvas' get the plaudits from the self-appointed elite.

I have to agree with you on this point. We're constantly told it's the idea behind the art which counts, which in part is fair enough, but a piece of modern art that is accessible to no one outside of the artist's own head can give some modern artists carte blanche to do what they feel like and explain it all later. Personally I get more excited by a good craftsman or artist whose passion and dedication comes through in his work and the mastering of his medium.

I had the pleasure to meet a sculptor from Zimbabwe last night who knew his local stone so well it was a pleasure to speak to him - the way one lump of rock can give tones from near-white through to ebony black using only sandpaper, clear wax and stone-mason chisels, textures from the original rough cut through to a gloss-like polish. An artist that can convey his ideas *and* master his medium is something I do admire.

oDDity
11-15-2006, 08:46 AM
Art and craft are not mutually exclusive ideals.
You can be (should be, in my view) an innovative artist and be a master craftsman as well, and realise your innovations and ideas in a masterful way.
Art seems to be separating entirely from skill or craft (or sense for that matter).
Art seems to have become the idea itself, rather than the manifestation of it, but that means that everyone is a full time artist,and therefore the ones who bother manifesting their ideas are wasting their time. Nothing but show-offs:
'Look at the great idea I had'
'Yeah? So what, I had 50 ideas today, big deal'

CMT
11-15-2006, 08:51 AM
And no one can adequately explain why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman.

Take the statue of David you recreated. Very well executed. Very well crafted. An artist would take inspiration from the original and interpret it in a different way. And try to express something a little different. Make it his/her own. Any other "craftsman" would just reproduce it.

Your Centaurette is a bigger step toward artistry than anything else you've done. It's not as technically brilliant as your David or Milkmaid, but artistically, it's well above anything else you've done. To me that deserves more respect than just reproducing someone elses work, which is what most craftsmen would do.

CMT
11-15-2006, 08:52 AM
Art and craft are not mutually exclusive ideals.
You can be (should be, in my view) an innovative artist and be a master craftsman as well, and realise your innovations and ideas in a masterful way.

Very true.

Exception
11-15-2006, 08:55 AM
Art and craft are not mutually exclusive ideals.
You can be (should be, in my view) an innovative artist and be a master craftsman as well, and realise your innovations and ideas in a masterful way.
Art seems to be separating entirely from skill or craft (or sense for that matter).
Art seems to have become the idea itself, rather than the manifestation of it, but that means that everyone is a full time artist,and therefore the ones who bother manifesting their ideas are wasting their time. Nothing but show-offs:
'Look at the great idea I had'
'Yeah? So what, I had 50 ideas today, big deal'


Well, you know, you can argue that it is now about the wuality of the idea that counts, or its impact upon a given field or society. However, as we all know, art is a profession in itself. There's the money hounds, and the publicity freaks, and the self absorbed airheads, and so on. They get attention from their respective audience, like Britney Spears from hers, and you can often easily debunk their value as art in a critical context.

Howver, I don't think that was the point, there will always be bad art. There is great pleasure to be had though from someone like Sophie Calle, who, I would say, doesn't have any distinctive craftsman like abilities, but is such a clear conceptual thinker with such rich and wonderful ideas, that her work is righfully revered as great art. Unlike, in my opinion, someone like Damien Hirst, who within some kind of predefined artistic context tries to attempt to shock and move the boundaries of nauseau. There's great skill involved in what he does though, and he does have a major impact on the art world, but as far as I am concerned, having an impact on the art world with art is like a staples factory making staples to hold its own factory together. Purely self referential.

CMT
11-15-2006, 08:56 AM
The only thing I would add to that is, craftsmanship isn't synonymous with realism. It's just one way to approach it.

oDDity
11-15-2006, 09:24 AM
Glad we seem to be coming to some sort of agreement here.
Here's my argument for why I think the craft is more important than the art.
If you accept that the art is the idea itself, then there's nothing extraordinary about art. Everyone in the wolrd is full of ideas, we think constantly, ideas, concepts, daydreams, warped aspects of reality, it's all bounding around inside our heads from morning to night.
When Damien Hirst has the idea to cut a cow in half and put it in a big fish tank, that is the art.
Actually realsing that idea, cutting th cow in half and constructing the tank, is the craft.
I contend that it's the craft that gets the attention of the viewer, not the idea. If you were t simply tell someone of the idea, it would have little to no impact, only when you actually physicaly manifest the idea, does it have impact and effect.
And of course, unlike the art stage, the ideas, which we all have in abundance, our brains are, in fact, idea factories, the craft stage is a lot more difficult to achieve, and few people have the abilty to do it.
Therefore, the simpler the idea is to manifest, the closer it is to just being an idea (blob on cnavas) the less worth it has, since it's just one in billions of ideas that are has every day in the world. It's only when you add in the craftsmanship that the idea gains any worth.

CMT
11-15-2006, 09:43 AM
Well, the same can be said of craftsmanship. I can observe an extremely well sculpted blob and think nothing of it. It's the addition of worthwhile subject matter and concept that give it meaning to anyone viewing it.

An art piece definately needs both craftsmanship and artistry to be great. But craftsmanship, just like the concepts and ideas that make up geat art, take many different forms.

parm
11-15-2006, 11:11 AM
In that case, it's evened out, since Bouguereu, after a long time in the dark, is now gaining popularity and open respect again, his works can be seen in major galleries, and sell for millions.
Still, it doesn't stop people like you looking down on him, even though you're far beneath him in every respect, artistic or technical.
I think I admire skill and craftsmanship so much, mainly because it seems to have all but disappeared from modern art, and I want it back.
Long gone are the days when people like Michelangelo was both a great artist and expert craftsman. Now works such as 'blue square on red background' or 'blob on canvas' get the plaudits from the self-appointed elite.
Rather like how it's become almost illegal to include a tune in a piece of classical music since the 1950's and Schoenberg, it's now all percussion and dissonance, and it's similarly almost illegal to show any technical skill in modern art. It has to look like a blind 1 year old chimpanzee could have made it, or it's no good.

I disagree with you.

Nothing has been taken away or lost. The spectrum of art practice has only been broadened, the possibilities have been increased.

Many, many artists, still work in the vein that you so admire today. The standard is just as high as it ever was. I'll site the paintings of Frank Frazetta, as one example. I'm sure if you think about it, you can come up with many more. It is still all there, in abundance for those who want it.

The fact of the matter is: that serious Art is no longer simple. It is rooted within the 20th/21st century cultural realities, which are complex. If you are interested, you have got to learn about it, you have to study.


it doesn't stop people like you looking down on him, even though you're far beneath him in every respect, artistic or technical.

By all means, advise me on any 3d graphics that I may post here.

But I would thank you to keep your views on my artistic and technical merits to yourself. On those, you are eminently unqualified to judge.

Besides. I don't look down on Bouguereu. I find his imagery as entertaining to look at as the next man.

Exception
11-15-2006, 12:30 PM
Glad we seem to be coming to some sort of agreement here.
Here's my argument for why I think the craft is more important than the art.
...

I would rather say that the idea is the valid argument in art, and the craft is the vessel by which it ic communicated. The better the craft, the more you can see how much effort one placed in bringing the idea forward. It doesn't make the idea valid though, as CMT rightly notes.
I think your argument in terms of 'everyone has ideas all the time' is partly true, but not everyone has fantasticly brilliant ideas all the time. Really good artists are trained to have really good ideas, and then to take that idea and manifest it so that its communcation is maximised, which is also artistry for which craft is not necessarily required. But there's no firm line there, they're all interconnected.
I mean, in the end, your mind is also a tool. A good artists sharpens their tools, and thus their mind, and the ideas will cristallise all the better for it.

For an example I'd like to mention the reasonably popular art project 'postsecret (http://postsecret.blogspot.com/)', in which people take a postcard, write their inner most secret on it, and often put great care and attention, albeit purely amateurish, in decorating or designing the card, then send it in anonymously. That project was a brilliant idea by the artist, eventhough all that was needed for it was some pieces of paper with some text on it, no craft involved. But the idea taps in to our modern day's fascination with the individual versus the mass, voyeurism and Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, but also really achieves to touch people personally, the maker and the audience. This is something that in traditional art would not be possible, since it is purely idea based, not craft.

At the same time a photographer like Crewdson (http://www.fotomuseum.ch/presse/0606_GC/02.BeneathTheRoses,300dpi.jpg) receives world acclaim with photographs that I wouldn't even know how to describe how he made them although I've been a photographer for 12 years. All I know he's got a crew of 12 people and takes a week to make a photo. That's some serious craft.

Just some random examples of course.

hrgiger
11-15-2006, 04:40 PM
How do you get anything done oDDity when you have to spend all this time arguing with, well, everyone.

Setebos
11-15-2006, 06:50 PM
Trying to divorce the act of doing from the act of thinking in all this, and all other things like time, location, context and so on, then analyse them in turn on their own values in front of ones eyes in order to see the big picture of merit/contribution/worthiness is like pulling out roses, apples, and cannon balls out of a tub of water, placing them on a table then gazing through a magnifying glass for closer scrutiny, and pretending that one can accurately try to comment on and judge the level (and things written below) of water in the tub.

Art is not only the level of the water in this case but also it's quality, clarity, turbulence, it's ability to quench some thirsts while leaving others parched, (and a whole, whole lot more), while all the other elements bob, submerge, and float inside. Considering in isolation you tend to effectively alter and change not only the very essence of thing you are trying to study but also the nature of the bits which you so deftly extract in order to form your opinions and observations.

Exception
11-15-2006, 07:09 PM
Nothing like a bit of quantummechanics in art.
I find that a bit dramatized, Setebo. But it's well put, and I guess you can look at it that way. If you accept the post-crticial project that is, which I don't. It invites a structure without ideology, and resulting in loose pragmatism, you'll get ahead, but to areas unknown.

oDDity
11-16-2006, 03:31 AM
I would rather say that the idea is the valid argument in art, and the craft is the vessel by which it ic communicated. The better the craft, the more you can see how much effort one placed in bringing the idea forward. It doesn't make the idea valid though, as CMT rightly notes.
I think your argument in terms of 'everyone has ideas all the time' is partly true, but not everyone has fantasticly brilliant ideas all the time. Really good artists are trained to have really good ideas, and then to take that idea and manifest it so that its communcation is maximised, which is also artistry for which craft is not necessarily required. But there's no firm line there, they're all interconnected.
I mean, in the end, your mind is also a tool. A good artists sharpens their tools, and thus their mind, and the ideas will cristallise all the better for it.

For an example I'd like to mention the reasonably popular art project 'postsecret (http://postsecret.blogspot.com/)', in which people take a postcard, write their inner most secret on it, and often put great care and attention, albeit purely amateurish, in decorating or designing the card, then send it in anonymously. That project was a brilliant idea by the artist, eventhough all that was needed for it was some pieces of paper with some text on it, no craft involved. But the idea taps in to our modern day's fascination with the individual versus the mass, voyeurism and Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, but also really achieves to touch people personally, the maker and the audience. This is something that in traditional art would not be possible, since it is purely idea based, not craft.

I think that's a good example of the problem.
TO me, that is not art. It's a nice idea, and it has value, but it needs a different name, it's a different concept, as is a lot of modern art.
You mght argue that 'modern art' and 'classical art' are different names already, but they're not. THey still imply that the two things are the same, only created in different time periods.
I can't see any connection at all between your example, and any sculpture by Michelangelo, other than they both involve human thought.
Just as literature has a different name for a different concept, and even sub-labels like poetry, though it's essentially just 'art' in the form of words, I think a lot of these modern day ideas need their own distinct name as well.
Then we won't get confused by trying to compare them, just like we don't try to compare the work of Dickens to the work of Vermeer.

oDDity
11-16-2006, 03:40 AM
How do you get anything done oDDity when you have to spend all this time arguing with, well, everyone.
I don't dismiss argument as lightly as you do. I think it's a great thing.
Getting opposing points of view which you would never have considered yourself, forces you think a lot more deeply and laterally about things.

Lightwolf
11-16-2006, 03:40 AM
TO me, that is not art. It's a nice idea, and it has value, but it needs a different name, it's a different concept, as is a lot of modern art.
...
Just as literature has a different name for a different concept, and even sub-labels like poetry, though it's essentially just 'art' in the form of words, I think a lot of these modern day ideas need their own distinct name as well.

Easy, don't label a painting as "art" but as a painting and you're all set. Just like you don't label literature or music as art, even though both may be.

Then again, I am quite picky about the art definition, if it doesn't invoke a thought process within me (which is highly subjective) I see it as decoration at best...
It also has nothing to do with the quality of the work in most cases... excellent plumbing is just that, excellent plumbing even though it may be a master piece for every plumber.

Cheers,
Mike

oDDity
11-16-2006, 03:43 AM
double post....

oDDity
11-16-2006, 03:51 AM
Easy, don't label a painting as "art" but as a painting and you're all set. Just like you don't label literature or music as art, even though both may be.



That still doesn't work, because a painting by Jackson Pollock cannot be meaningfully compared to a painting by Vermeer, any more than you can compare 'A Tale of Two Cities' to a painting by Vermeer.

Lightwolf
11-16-2006, 03:57 AM
That still doesn't work, because a painting by Jackson Pollock cannot be meaningfully compared to a painting by Vermeer....
Why not? There are criterias you can use... actually even comparing Dickens to Vermeer.
It is another question if it makes sense at all, but in some cases it even does, especially once you enter into art history.

Cheers,
Mike

DogBoy
11-16-2006, 06:00 AM
Why not? There are criterias you can use... actually even comparing Dickens to Vermeer.
It is another question if it makes sense at all, but in some cases it even does, especially once you enter into art history.

Cheers,
Mike

I think you're are right, LightWolf. It's not the medium that is important so much as what the artist is trying to say.

Dickens and Vermeer? A bit of a stretch but they both comment on conditions of their time. Lowry and Dickens would be a better fit maybe.

Or Michel Gondry and M.C.(?) Escher.

Exception
11-16-2006, 07:40 AM
I think that's a good example of the problem.
TO me, that is not art. It's a nice idea, and it has value, but it needs a different name, it's a different concept, as is a lot of modern art.
You mght argue that 'modern art' and 'classical art' are different names already, but they're not. THey still imply that the two things are the same, only created in different time periods.

Well, that's why a date is so important. You can't really compare two things that are created hundreds of years apart. Thw whole premise is different. That is why in every remotely serious art publication there is always a date stated with the mentioning of a work of art.
And I would like to say that all 'art' shares some properties which make them art. In its most basic and stripped definition, art is a product of mankind which serves no direct purpose, in either a pragamatic of functional way, which is usually created as a reaction to rather than as a result of a society, and which is performed voluntarily by their creators. On a slightly more serious level I guess you could say that all art is a reflection on society, be it either conscious of this or not.


I can't see any connection at all between your example, and any sculpture by Michelangelo, other than they both involve human thought.
Just as literature has a different name for a different concept, and even sub-labels like poetry, though it's essentially just 'art' in the form of words, I think a lot of these modern day ideas need their own distinct name as well.
Then we won't get confused by trying to compare them, just like we don't try to compare the work of Dickens to the work of Vermeer.

Well we do...
Postsecret is typical conceptual art, of the post-critical period, Pollock is late expressionist art, of the pop art period, Kandinsky is Russian constructivism, which falls in the modern period (as opposed to the contemporary).

I can understand your reaction against conceptual art. Actually, it doesn't sit easy with me at all times. But it makes sense comparing conceptual versus conceptual, such as postsecret versus the earlier mentioned Sophie Calle. In this case, I'd say Calle is the better artist, if you want to talk about such things, since her output is consistently excellent for over 25 years, and postsecret is the only succesful project of Frank Warren I am aware of, and although it's a good idea, it is the people that make it, not necessarily him. I must say, that website does't do it justice. If you ever find yourself in a bookstore, look it up, and just leaf through it. Some of it is just downright hilarious, while others will break your heart. To me, that also has nothing to do with how a Lazlo Moholy Nagy (Modernist / constructivist) painting makes me feel, but I wouldn't say they wern't totally removed from eachother.

oDDity
11-16-2006, 08:04 AM
Why not? There are criterias you can use... actually even comparing Dickens to Vermeer.
It is another question if it makes sense at all, but in some cases it even does, especially once you enter into art history.

Cheers,
Mike

Of course you can compare them in some respects, just like you can compare a rock to an apple in some respects.
When is the last time you saw a debate where an author was being help up against a painter, to decide which had the most value.
I think classical art in general is as far removed from modern 'art' as writers from painters or rocks from apples, yet they tend to be treated as the same, with only a date separating them. You see endless debates comparing classical and modern art as if they're the same thing.
I'd like the modern concept of what art is to be given a new name, since it's a fundamentally different concept that little or nothing to do with art as the word has been used over the previous centuries.
It's like when one species evolves so far away from it's ancestors, it has to be given a new name, because it is funamentally a different creature.
Modern art has now evolved so far away from it's ancestor, that it is now a different species, and having it retain the same name can only cause confusion and pointless argument.

CMT
11-16-2006, 08:13 AM
Yeah, comparing paintings with books is stretching it. But comparing painting to painting is totally possible. Or even painting to sculpture. Even if one is abstract and the other realism. Because as you know, all art is based on fundamental principals and rules. Rules can be broken from time to time, but only by those who understand what they are doing.

That said, you can compare how each style approaches the problems of composition, color, etc... and who does a better job.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2006, 08:25 AM
Modern art has now evolved so far away from it's ancestor, that it is now a different species, and having it retain the same name can only cause confusion and pointless argument.
So what should we call it, then?

Iain
11-16-2006, 08:26 AM
pish

CMT
11-16-2006, 08:49 AM
Modern art is a term that describes a wide array of styles. 99% of which seems to be abstract. It should be called Abstract. Modern is a term associated with recent history and the present. 200 years from now we should not be calling Modern art "modern".

Lightwolf
11-16-2006, 08:54 AM
Modern art is a term that describes a wide array of styles. 99% of which seems to be abstract.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Modern art is a general term used for most of the artistic production from the late 19th century until approximately the 1970s. (Recent art production is more often called Contemporary art or Postmodern art)."

So, it does seem to be a well defined term already.

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
11-16-2006, 09:41 AM
To quote Wikipedia:
"Modern art is a general term used for most of the artistic production from the late 19th century until approximately the 1970s. (Recent art production is more often called Contemporary art or Postmodern art)."

So, it does seem to be a well defined term already.

Cheers,
Mike

Contemporary and Postmodern is the same issue. They describe more of a timeframe of recent history than describe the style. Expressionism, Realism, Abstract, Luminism. They all describe what's going on with the art itself, and not the timeframe upon which they were created.

If I created a piece right now in the Modern Art style. It's not modern art since it wasn't created before 1970's? It's now contemporary art? But wait. Contemporary Art can look just like Modern Art. This seems awkward to me. 500 years from now the only difference between Modern and Contemporary art will be when it was created?

Lightwolf
11-16-2006, 09:57 AM
They describe more of a timeframe of recent history than describe the style.
But it describes a timeframe where the artistic paradigm shifted (basically the timeframe where oddity got lost ;) ). So, it isn't related to a specific style, but encompasses a variety of them.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
11-16-2006, 11:39 AM
Contemporary and Postmodern is the same issue. They describe more of a timeframe of recent history than describe the style. Expressionism, Realism, Abstract, Luminism. They all describe what's going on with the art itself, and not the timeframe upon which they were created.

No, Postmodernism is a very strong clear style, that was created in opposition to modernism. Since modernism, and on top of Wikipedia I'd suggest it actually only runs to 1964 (generally regarded as the year the modernist project died) at maximum but even just until halfway through the fifties, is also a clealry delineated philosophy, ideology and aesthetic, probably the strongest there ever was in the history of mankind, postmodernism is very clearly in reaction to that.

It's only confusing if you relate 'modernism' to the every day use of the word modern, which isn't helpful :)
And yes, contemporary is the correct word for art that is created 'now'. And as always, when you're IN a period, it's hard to have an overview of what is going on, and giving it a name.

Exception
11-16-2006, 11:42 AM
Modern (http://www.iit.edu/~bagwaas/images/Table%20Mies.jpg)
(Mies van der Rohe)

Post-Modern (http://www.designaddict.com/img/pictures/object801_pic1523_normal.jpg)
(Ettore Sottsass)

Exception
11-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Also, this stuff only really becomes important if you let go of your dogma's. Really.
For instance, Mies van der Rohe is the quintessential modernist. And modernism is generally put directly opposed to classicism. But the funny bit it, that Mies van der Rohe's work was quite convincingly classical in nature, it just used new materials a new concept of space. It's not all black and white. In fact, it's all completely intertwined.

Pavlov
11-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Agree on this, segmentations and "genres" are good for teaching and to let guys learn more easily.
Once people get it, these should just stay as transparent guidelines.

Paolo

Lightwolf
11-16-2006, 12:13 PM
It's only confusing if you relate 'modernism' to the every day use of the word modern, which isn't helpful :)

Well hey, people even relate the term "art" to the every day use of the word art, which isn't helpful either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
11-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Well hey, people even relate the term "art" to the every day use of the word art, which isn't helpful either ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Just wait till we start talking about deconstructivism...
Or worse. Lacan!
300 pages theoretising about the difference between a gaze and a stare.

CMT
11-16-2006, 01:14 PM
Just wait till we start talking about deconstructivism...
Or worse. Lacan!
300 pages theoretising about the difference between a gaze and a stare.

*yawn* I don't think so.... :) I'll fall asleep just thinking about that. Maybe it's time that oDDity gets his thread back so he can start posting some other good stuff.

Exception
11-16-2006, 02:36 PM
I just posted some post-critical deconstructivist stuff for you here (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=461413#post461413)... :D

hrgiger
11-16-2006, 04:35 PM
I don't dismiss argument as lightly as you do. I think it's a great thing.
Getting opposing points of view which you would never have considered yourself, forces you think a lot more deeply and laterally about things.

Dont' get me wrong, I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy, probably more so. I just think it must be hard to balance your time if you spend so much time discussing the validity of your posts instead of the actual matter at hand (in this case, discussion of your sculpture which is quite nice).

bobakabob
11-16-2006, 05:30 PM
Who said "Talking about art is like dancing about architecture?" There's nothing wrong with an utterly futile argument. All that's missing is beer. :argue:

parm
11-16-2006, 05:48 PM
That still doesn't work, because a painting by Jackson Pollock cannot be meaningfully compared to a painting by Vermeer, any more than you can compare 'A Tale of Two Cities' to a painting by Vermeer.

Reading this, I can't help noticing how resistant your thinking is on this.

You seem to seek out reasons to discount. Rather than look for the relationships between these things. Being an artist is as much a matter of disposition as anything else. It's about how one relates to the environment we find ourselves within. The practice of art, is now thought to be. Primarily a cognitive process. It's more about the way we find value within things, making connections and expressing ideas or emotions.

Modern Art, as has already been noted. Is already a past period. Like the Baroque, Neo Classical, Gothic or Renaissance.

You asked earlier, 'why the artist should have more respect and worshippers than the expert craftsman'. Well, I would also ask, why an expert in any practical area, should be given more respect than another. Lightwolf's plumber example comes to mind.

For yourself. It seems to me. That if you're not happy with the Artworld as it stands. You are very well placed, with your skillset, to make a very good living in an industry, that recognises and values the qualities you have to offer. It's a waste of your time and energy trying to turn the clock back, in a place that has changed, and will go on changing forever.

bobakabob
11-16-2006, 05:53 PM
Btw, striving for anatomical knowledge is no bad thing.

But technique for it's own sake is surely a dead end.

As an example, look at comic book art of the 60s and the art of the great Jack Kirby. His exaggerated forms might be anatomically 'inaccurate' but the sheer dynamism and imagination of his style defined a genre.

http://www.madprofessor.net/images/silversurfer.jpg

oDDity
11-16-2006, 06:10 PM
That's great work, and requires a lot of skill and technique, so I'm not sure what your point is, I have no problem with people caricaturing reality, as long as it's within reason, and they do it in a knowledgable and skillful fashion, which that guy obviously is.




For yourself. It seems to me. That if you're not happy with the Artworld as it stands. You are very well placed, with your skillset, to make a very good living in an industry, that recognises and values the qualities you have to offer. It's a waste of your time and energy trying to turn the clock back, in a place that has changed, and will go on changing forever.

That may very well be true, but the bottom line is, I like most classical art, and dislike most modern art, it's really as simple as that. I think it's a natural response to try to diminish in importance what you don't like, since we are all, by our nature, self-centered.



Dont' get me wrong, I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy, probably more so. I just think it must be hard to balance your time if you spend so much time discussing the validity of your posts instead of the actual matter at hand (in this case, discussion of your sculpture which is quite nice).
I seem to spend most of my computer time doing anything but modeling, but My next model is coming along ok.
This is obviosuly a low res base mesh for the pose, I still have to take it into zbrush.

bobakabob
11-16-2006, 06:23 PM
My point is that striving for total anatomical accuracy can be a dead end and that 'rules' are made to be broken.

Your new models look great. I really like the pose of the female character. I thought you were using Z brush's modelling tools - have you tried them or is it preferable to create basic meshes using Lightwave's toolkit?

Blaine91555
11-16-2006, 09:24 PM
Great models!!!!!! You are indeed gifted.

Interesting conversation that seems to pop up a lot.

I'm a little out of my element here as I do abstract and surrealism. ZBrush opened up CG for me and now I'm tackling LW, Silo and Vue Infinite next. Now that I've picked up the language:)

To me there are no artistic boundaries and setting them only stifles creativity. I offer Dali and Grandma Moses as evidence. True art is anything that evokes emotion. Without emotion there is no art. When creating a creature never before seen, how could anyone know what correct anatomy is? It need only look plausible so that the brain will accept it and not interfere with the original emotion of the work. Modeling and creativity involve opposite sides of the brain and blending the two is not a task many can achieve.

OK, brains full:)

voriax
11-16-2006, 10:46 PM
Great looking models .. I'm a bit confused as to whats happening in the poses, though. The male character seems to be "moving" as in mid-step, but the female just seems to be casually leaning against him (no movement)..
Is this the model that the whole erection controvery began from?

parm
11-17-2006, 01:15 AM
The lastest seems to be coming along nicely. Nice modeling as usual, no doubts about your anatomy.

However the distribution of weight throughout the whole model is all wrong. It's giving the pose a sense of being stiff and awkward. The female figure especially. In that pose, with that leg raised, it coudn't work. If you don't believe me lean against a wall and try it for yourself. As well as being unnatural, it has the effect of interfering with, what would be a graceful turn of her hips in opposition to her shoulders.

Creating the illusion of movement is very important in Sculpture of this type. It's all about rythmn and balance. It's well worth planning out the way those things will work before hand. I also strongly recommend you enrol on some life classes. You seem to have learned anatomy very well. But still don't have enough experience of the way body massess work together. Life drawing will give you a first hand understanding of the weight and balance of the human figure.


That's great work, and requires a lot of skill and technique, so I'm not sure what your point is, I have no problem with people caricaturing reality, as long as it's within reason, and they do it in a knowledgable and skillful fashion, which that guy obviously is.


It's not a caracature of reality at all. It's pure fantasy.


That may very well be true, but the bottom line is, I like most classical art, and dislike most modern art, it's really as simple as that. I think it's a natural response to try to diminish in importance what you don't like, since we are all, by our nature, self-centered.

To actively cultivate ones predujices seems willfull and limiting. It's to your your loss.

oDDity
11-17-2006, 04:10 AM
The lastest seems to be coming along nicely. Nice modeling as usual, no doubts about your anatomy.

However the distribution of weight throughout the whole model is all wrong. It's giving the pose a sense of being stiff and awkward. The female figure especially. In that pose, with that leg raised, it coudn't work. If you don't believe me lean against a wall and try it for yourself. As well as being unnatural, it has the effect of interfering with, what would be a graceful turn of her hips in opposition to her shoulders.
I have tried it, and it does work, it's seems quite natural to me, but maybe my joints are articulated differently from yours.
The only thing I didn't like when I looked at it again this morning was the satyr's legs. They look ungainly, and not just because they have three knees each. I originally had them in the position below, but changed it because I didn't like the way both the feet wemeeting at the back, it looked cramped.
I will change it back to this pose, it looks much better, and sort the feet out in some way. I think I will, as you suggest, swing her hips around a bit more to get her foot pointing away from the satyr.
However, I can't see anything techncially wrong with the female's pose, it certainly isn't physically incorrect as you're suggesting, though you are of course entitled to disagree with it's aesthetic quailty. I'll be the first to admit my craftsman skills outweigh my artistic ones right now, and the pose is really where all the art happens.



It's not a caracature of reality at all. It's pure fantasy.

Nothing is pure fantasy, everything is based off reality. Our imaginations are not that good.
Those comic drawings are very heavily based on reality.



To actively cultivate ones predujices seems willfull and limiting. It's to your your loss.
We're all going to die soon anyway, I don't see much point wasting time on things I don't like. Better to spend it enjoying the things I do like.
There's enough variety for every one to have their likes and dislikes, you included. We can't like everything, there's no time.

Captain Obvious
11-17-2006, 04:42 AM
Out of curiousity, do you model them posed, or set them up with bones and such?

kopperdrake
11-17-2006, 04:54 AM
Great models. The only input I'd say is that the male's rear leg seems to be taking the weight of them both (as she seems to be leaning in towards him) in the side profile, but the front profile his hips seem swung so far to the right that it feels as if he should be toppling over. But then I guess his torso does counteract this, and fiddling with either of his legs could ruin the composition. Plus it's hard to say all of this for certain without seeing the model in its entirety. Lovely work though - can't wait to see the detailing :)

sammael
11-17-2006, 07:09 AM
Looks great so far, how did you do the hair? Could we se a closeup?
I am also curious to know if you use a rig to pose the model.

oDDity
11-17-2006, 08:11 AM
The hair is just modelled clumps, very much based off the style of curly hair in classical sculptures such as David.
I'm not sure if it's worth setting up a rig for this or not. I suppose on the one hand it would let me try out poses more quickly, but I'm really too lazy to be bothered with all the rigging and weighting, and even then I don't have as much control over is as when I'm just grabbing vert selections and moving them around in modeler. I get precise control.
I suppose I really should make a very basic low res version and rig it just to quickly try out poses.

oDDity
11-17-2006, 08:25 AM
-

parm
11-17-2006, 10:36 AM
Yeah, that looks a lot better, much less tortured.

From the waist upward it's very satisfactory. Pelvis downwards not so. Two figures with only two points of contact to the floor, doesn't make for a very stable looking arrangement. If you asked a pair of live models to adopt that pose, I doubt it would last long.

You need to apply some sleight of hand to carry it off. The judicious placement of a tree stump or rock outcropping. Something to make a third point of contact, will give it some stability. It would also be better to see some of the asymmetry of the arms, also in the leg arrangement.

Maybe setting up a rig as suggested earlier is the way to go.


Nothing is pure fantasy, everything is based off reality. Our imaginations are not that good.
Those comic drawings are very heavily based on reality.

By fantasy, I didn't mean anything philosophical. Just the actual meaning of fantasy. ie. From the imagination rather than observation. You don't see too many Silver Surfers with highly idealised or even stylised physiques ;)

Good work keep going.

starbase1
11-17-2006, 10:42 AM
Btw, striving for anatomical knowledge is no bad thing.

But technique for it's own sake is surely a dead end.

As an example, look at comic book art of the 60s and the art of the great Jack Kirby. His exaggerated forms might be anatomically 'inaccurate' but the sheer dynamism and imagination of his style defined a genre.


I'm with Oddity on this one - there is a world of difference between inaccurate and exaggerated. To get exaggerated believable you need to get the basics exactly right. I'm tempted to suggest that it ifs possibly even more demanding to do convincingly, as you are going for something convincing and unrealistic.

With Kirby's figures you are meant to believe such a person could exist, it's a lot different from comics styles like Flintstones or Simpsons (for example).

(And as an aside I think pretty much the first thing I did back in Poser 3 was export a figure to Lightwave, make him Chrome, and put him on a surfboard!)

bobakabob
11-17-2006, 06:32 PM
To get exaggerated believable you need to get the basics exactly right. I'm tempted to suggest that it ifs possibly even more demanding to do convincingly, as you are going for something convincing and unrealistic.

Starbase,

Perhaps I should have explained it more clearly as this was exactly my point. There's no way you can exaggerate anatomy convincingly without knowing the fundamentals.

All the greats, Leonardo, Picasso, Kirby, Hockney, knew this. Once they'd paid their dues and gone through hard graft they enjoyed the thrill of experimentation. In his early years Picasso was a brilliant draughtsman but figurative art began to bore him and his great dream was to rediscover the primal innocence of drawing like a child again.

IMO the best way to learn character modelling in 3d is to switch off the computer and find a good lifedrawing class. Myself, I'm never satisfied with my own skills and I can't recommend enough how enlightening drawing and sculpture can be. I'm hoping one day it will all sink in :D

There's an obsession in 3D to create the most super 'realistic' CG human which is absorbing to follow on the forums (INFINITE's work is a case in point). But so many of these images whilst technically brilliant are an arid display of technique and little else. Personally I like to see computers used to create images that transcend surface reality and open windows on impossible worlds.

Despite Oddity's erm, 'impulsive' comments about art, I must say his latest models are a nice balance between craft and imagination.

sammael
11-18-2006, 07:48 AM
Hair looks good close up


I suppose I really should make a very basic low res version and rig it just to quickly try out poses.
I have found that using a basic rig for poses, saving transformed then fixing up the mesh a bit in modeler is a good way to pose for stills, saves moving the verts around too much manually. No need for weight maps or anything just a basic bones rig. As you say its good to test out poses quickly as well.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 05:53 PM
I'm going to try mudbox for this one, just to please Werner.
Started it tonight.
I won't post any more WIPs, since this isn't the wip forum.
http://www.pixelwerks.be/pictures/mud1.jpg