the Art in 3d Art?
polycounter lvl 7
Hello everybody,
so my buddy and I had this heated argument about art in 3d art. (I know this sounds really stupid already, bear with me :P) He believes that making hard surface models, in particular guns(realistic ones, no sci-fi or premade concepts, just what's in real life), is not art. He believes that it's just copying a blueprint and just moving vertices around. I disagree heavily with that. Although making stuff like that is merely a copying job at first I believe that there is certainly an artistic and creative component that comes in at some point along the process because every artists has a different interpretation of the object that he is supposed to make. If you give 10 different artists(with about the same skill level and experience) the same references of a M16 rifle I can guarantee you that each will look differently at the end and with that I mean that some made the barrel shorter added more holes, maybe added a part from a different m16 version and so on.
He then made the statement that you couldn’t do that if a client asks you to make a realistic Ak47 and that it would merely be a stale "copy" job; I quote: " you have to follow reference pictures you can't just use your imagination and creativity". He believes that its 95-100% skill based and that there is absolutely no real Art component involved. Even there I disagree because the client came to you for your artistic ability, and not your ability to just copy something; they could have just downloaded a premade model off the internet.
One of the biggest statements he made was that games like Battlefield 3 are not art compared to Borderlands (or something with an "imaginary" artstyle) since they are just copying real life, arguing that there is nothing creative of the process of making it. Of course I almost went ballistic when I heard that. I could go on and on about the debate we had but we were essentially going in circles, so I decided to settle this once and for all and ask for outside opinions.
So I ask you: "Do you think its art or not- a creative process and not just a copy job?"
Thanks a lot in advance!!!
so my buddy and I had this heated argument about art in 3d art. (I know this sounds really stupid already, bear with me :P) He believes that making hard surface models, in particular guns(realistic ones, no sci-fi or premade concepts, just what's in real life), is not art. He believes that it's just copying a blueprint and just moving vertices around. I disagree heavily with that. Although making stuff like that is merely a copying job at first I believe that there is certainly an artistic and creative component that comes in at some point along the process because every artists has a different interpretation of the object that he is supposed to make. If you give 10 different artists(with about the same skill level and experience) the same references of a M16 rifle I can guarantee you that each will look differently at the end and with that I mean that some made the barrel shorter added more holes, maybe added a part from a different m16 version and so on.
He then made the statement that you couldn’t do that if a client asks you to make a realistic Ak47 and that it would merely be a stale "copy" job; I quote: " you have to follow reference pictures you can't just use your imagination and creativity". He believes that its 95-100% skill based and that there is absolutely no real Art component involved. Even there I disagree because the client came to you for your artistic ability, and not your ability to just copy something; they could have just downloaded a premade model off the internet.
One of the biggest statements he made was that games like Battlefield 3 are not art compared to Borderlands (or something with an "imaginary" artstyle) since they are just copying real life, arguing that there is nothing creative of the process of making it. Of course I almost went ballistic when I heard that. I could go on and on about the debate we had but we were essentially going in circles, so I decided to settle this once and for all and ask for outside opinions.
So I ask you: "Do you think its art or not- a creative process and not just a copy job?"
Thanks a lot in advance!!!
Replies
One to express yourself, your creativity. Or "artistic art" I guess.
And the other.. more like.. "the Art of recreation". Or what I like to call "practical art", stuff that has uses for something.
Obviously there can be in betweens and most are.
But when it comes to aiming for realism, allot of the artistic and creative elements of art are on the backburner, and it is more about producing something practical.
Sure some might view guns as art and what not, but I myself am not interested in them and don't really get them anyway. So to me all weapon models look pretty much the same if they are done properly. Stuff like.. hey my guns has 2 extra holes in the muzzle or what not.. I don't even notice stuff like that.
Anyway yeah.. to me art is expressing yourself. And I cant do that by making guns.
If for you expressing yourself is making guns, than that is art for you.
So basically what I am trying to say is that art is subjective. Everyone sees it differently.
Soooo...
[ame="
Also, paragraphs man.
edit: oops bbox beat me to it
I think you and your friend are arguing over micro and macro artistic design. Even if the macro design is blueprinted, if you just leave it at that and don't add in little touches, it will look like every other realistic gun ever, the true sign of amateur work. Check out the based-on-real guns by Lonewolf and JFletcher Both are M4s (granted different stocks and bodies) yet they were tackled in different ways, and accomplished with a ton of artistic input.
Edit: Dayum, 4 people beat me to it. I type slow.
I am of the opinion that Art is not a form of something, but rather Art is imbued in something- to be found within it. For example, I do not believe the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is in and of itself "Art"- it's just a ceiling with layers of paint on it. The context of its' creation, however, is what enables me to find the art within it.
It's all contextual. I believe a garbage man can artfully sling trash into a truck, but does that make the act of throwing garbage into a truck innately artistic? No.
Now, on a related note, I personally shy away from the term "artist." I don't call what I do "art." Now granted, I do refer to myself as a 'Character Artist' on my site, but that is just because of common convention, and is still something I am rather uncomfortable declaring. That is not to say that I don't strive to be artful in everything which I do, but don't consider everything that I've done to be art just because I've shat it out of my head. I'm sure that concept will get plenty of people up in arms, but it is how I interpret the enigmatic term, "art."
Its really a fine line if you feel you're more of an artisan or an artist. But in general if you're in the games industry you usually follow rather tight specs (maybe except in concept) and have rather limited creative freedom, as opposed to an artist who run his own studio and sets his own direction. If you make stuff like props there no statement or no message that this artwork conveys. Neither are those pieces complete artworks. They are out of context because they are part of something bigger. When we model a character we care about the character, but the final presentation of the piece isn't in our hands - it depends on whoever pieces it all together into a game.
In essence many of us are just making elements for a grander picture that may not be under our control but the art director's (or even game director's or even publisher's). In a way many of us are more like artisans, or the guys working under Leonardo or Michelangelo, who paint all the foldes of the clothing, the background, etc, while a few talented people do the heroes and hero assets and who decide what the piece is all about. I doubt Leonardo consulted with his underlings in democratic fashion what his next piece should be about...it's kinda like in games
and then somebody posts on polycount how someone ripped off their artwork
and this:
Are copies not made from imagination but from reference that the artist had in his studio.
The idea that trying to recreate reality closely is not art, is kind of a slap in the face to most of the artists throughout history. This idea of creativity through imagination, is actually a relatively recent (Modern) school of thought.
Unless I completely misread the argument. In which case ignore this
That is why [ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=26YLehuMydo"]these type of artistic statements can be made[/ame]
This is true even of Designs made by those who do not consider themselves artists who used a seemingly technical process to arrive at their design but in the process they inevitably made choices based on their own interpretation.
For example : you can look at a picture of a V8 engine and think that it is a pretty boring piece of machinery
Or
You can feel its cold metal, its tubes that lead to seemingly infinite complexity and the menacing glare of its band wrapped wheels :P
if you still don't believe me just ask how many people get inspired by visiting history museums
@OP: I will add that while there is no question that some things are more creative than others, the amount of creativity or innovation is not what defines art. ultimately art is in the eye of the beholder: you can see it in everything or you can be blind to it and see it in nothing.
Regradless though I think you can agree that if you model an M16 and the OP models an
M16 there will inevitably be a degree of variance between your individual interpretation, if its the edge flow, the polycount, the specular maps or the scratches texture overlay hence it is no longer a duplicate even if it is extremely derivative and not very creative it is still art..
If it still too confusing look at works of Andy Warhol which practically industrialize art,even if they mock it, are his works not art?
Also you should be mindful of the difference between Artisans and Artists, both produce art in the end because like I said, art is in the eye of the beholder, but one places value solely on execution and the other places value on the feeling it creates.
I know fine artist who wouldn't consider landscape and portrait work art, but rather illustrations.
From what I gathered from them, art must start or continue a dialogue. If it doesn't do either of those things, it is just an illustration (this is of course 2D work).
If you think about it, making something realistic or from a blueprint is really just copying what you see. You're not trying to entice the viewer to ask questions or give them information through your piece. You're just putting things in the right place to make a person go, oh this is a gun. It's kind of like that saying, anyone can paint or draw, but not everyone can make art.
Feng Zhu made a similar comment, stating, "For the first two years of art school, both individuals do fine, because learning to draw/paint isn't hard." (not a verbatim statement unfortunately).
This is the main reason why artist positions are competitive. Anyone can learn how to model something, but only certain individuals go further and understand how to be artistic with their creations (and as someone state earlier, not even they get very far with what they can be creative with).
All commissions for the church.
They wanted him and he had plenty of control but the content was dictated by the client. David's for a series they wanted to do of biblical heroes.
The works are remembered as fucking rad because he was an amazing artist. Not because he had the luxury to do them on the weekend.
Exactly and from what I remember, he worked on some sick M16 riflles!
EDIT: On a serious note, you've come to a forum where people work on Game art and asked that question - its similar to going onto the Unity forums and asking what they think is better out of Unity or UDK, or visa versa on the UDK forums.
I had a tutor who had a similar attitude in uni, he was one of these guys that believed artists shouldn't want to make money from their work but essentially should spend their lives working inside some loft or basement and living on pot noodle. Anyway, to answer your question I think your friend is wrong - weapon artists need to be just as analytical and creative as any other, observation being paramount! As others have said its all open to interpretation.