3D Rendering. Is it art? (your opinion wanted)
cbviz99
Posts: 0
Hello all. I had a question I would like your opinions on. My situation is, I have story ideas and scenes in my head but don't have the artistic talent to create graphic novels or comics like I want to. I can draw, sometimes quite well, but not at the level I would want for my finish work. So I decided to use my computer skills and design skills, I am finishing up my graphic design degree currently, to use Daz3d to render scenes, then Photoshop and Manga Studio to finish it up. While talking to others locally I get given a hard time that I am "cheating" and should learn to do it with pen and paper instead. I have also heard others say it takes no artistic talent to use models and props and render a photo from it. Now I am not talking about the artists who design the clothes and textures etc.. I am referring to those, like myself, who use the products to complete other projects.
So what are your opinions?
Does it take artistic talent to set up a nice render?
Is using Daz3d cheating in creating my scenes for my comics?
I still intend to do what I set out to, in the end I am trying to please myself, I just wanted other opinions from the community. A lot of the others I was referring to that made the comments have fine art degrees and can be somewhat stuck-up on the subject.... Thanks in advance!! Interested to hear some opinions.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Is it cheating to go to the local mall and pick up a pencil and paper, instead of beating the snot out of a bunch of flax stems, soaking them for a few weeks and then beating them some more...while they are soaking, going out and finding some nice willow branches to cook into charcoal?
Well said! That is definitely a way to look at it.
I will be kind and not say ''Oh no not again'', oh whoops I just did say it. lol
It all depends what you do with your 3 D rendering.
Take a look at this, and then tell me if it is art.
Then I will tell you how it was done
http://digisprawl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/To-Earth-Reclaimed.jpg
It's a tool, like any other...and those that lift their noses are both hypocrites and snobs.
I think it is art for sure!!
This is just another round of the age old discussion that has been waged for years between "traditional" artists and those who use new technologies. Through the years, we've also heard the debates rage...
"Is photography 'art'?"
"Are movies 'art'?"
"Is digital painting 'art'?"
These are questions which have no "right" or "wrong" answers. They are in the minds of the audience who is judging the work.
Give me a paintbrush and canvas, and I'll pretty much guarantee you that whatever I create won't be "art" either.
The tools used are not nearly as important as the vision of the artist and the skill with which they use their toolsets.
Well said!
I think it is art for sure!!
Pure Bryce render. Most of it is actually made in Bryce as well. http://www.digisprawl.com/blog/artist-feature/bryce-artist-feature-03-michael-frank/
This guy is terrific, imo.
I've had a few debates on this very topic in the past and seems to stem from the idea that a 3D artists is using pieces (Figures,Props,Materials) created by another "Artist" to create there artworks. And can't truly claim it as there own art, unless they create all of the components.
Ironically the fine art masters often used teams of apprentices when creating there masterpieces and quite often had only an elemental interaction with some of there art pieces. Did Leonardo Da Vinci give birth to the Mona lisa or weave her clothing? Did Monet prune the gardens and create the ponds so often featured in his masterpieces.
Do great architects form every stone? ...
I believe that the argument is flawed in many ways and that 3D imagery definitely falls into the category of Art.
The dictionary defines Art as the following.
Art
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms:fine art, artwork, creative activity
So in essence art is about communication, creativity and imagination. The Medium and content is of lesser importance to the act of creation, composing and intent. If I take a white canvas and paint a blue circle in the middle there is nothing unique about any of the elements but combined they make a statement. What the statement is is totally open for interpretation by both the viewer and creator. Do I own any of the elements, not really, but I can claim the art as my own creation because I conceived and created a physical realisation of it to share with others.
Some people may say "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." But I believe the conversation is definitely worth having. And in the end you make your own reality and what you choose to believe will be based on your experience and will be influenced by your peers and mentors.
Which is the best art form Realism or Minimalism? There really is no right or wrong answer, just opinions, discussion and a million shades of grey.
Art is in the eye of the beholder... so...
The morning sunlight glistening on a dew flecked flower is art...
The Venus De Milo is art...
The Sydney Opera house is art..
The Works of any of the great masters is art...
The works of any child with a crayon is art...
The works of any 3D artist is art...
Art surrounds us in more forms than many ever see. Music, words, nature and others but if the person does not see the art then it simply is not art to them.
Often the 'is it art?' question really means, 'is it _good_ art?' And the answer, of course, depends on the artist. The artistic skills and talents you apply are different from those you would use in drawing; but the same can be said for photography.
I believe "good art" is interpretation and taste of the viewer more than anything to do with the skill of the creator.
Art can't really be judged on skill alone, is a complicated watch cog more artistic than a tribal mask?
In effect "good art" is "I like this art form or style better" rather than good or bad, skilled or unskilled, Art of not Art.
Good art is personal critique and not so much definition.
But your right that people often see 3d art is not being sophisticated enough to be called art.
I have to disagree there...there IS a right answer. In fact, there's over 7 billion right answers...
I have to disagree there...there IS a right answer. In fact, there's over 7 billion right answers...
Lol, good response.
I have to agree and stand corrected all or our opinions are definitely correct in being our own opinion even if they stand at odds with each other. In essence that was the idea that I was trying to convey, however inaptly. That the opinion on whether 3D images are art or not is purely a concept of our own reality. As a rock maybe art to me but not to you. And really we are both right. Or is a rock in a japanese rock garden art but not if it lays in a field?...
Maybe the real question is not "is 3D Imagery Art?" but "What do you define as Art?"
Whether 3D images are art will depend on your definition of Art which tends to vary from individual to individual.
Arguing whether something is art seems to be close to arguing whether something/someone is beautiful or not, the concept of beauty is closely associated to the individual rather than any hard or fast rules of certainty or definites as Jaderail pointed out above.
I am appreciating all the responses. Like I said, I have my own opinion and believe it is art. I was just wondering about what others thought. Glad to see I am not alone!!
If that field happens to be where my garden is going, it's gonna have to be a darn big rock to stay there long enough to become art...
%-P
Its funny but sometimes it takes new methods and techniques a while to soak through the layers of cultural acceptance.
What's new and fandangled today may be the norm and best practice in the future.
Taking comic books as an example:
Originally illustrations had one color to work with black Ink and a white substrate.
Shading was achieved by stippling and often involved painful manual processes to create basic effects.
Four colour presses brought a new level of unrestricted colour usage to comics and illustrations, the quality of which was often dictated by the substrate used. Mainly in newspapers which comics first appeared the quality of the paper was poor and the norm for colour was large dotty areas and huge blocks of solid color.
Many people now look back to the 4 color process days of comics with nostalgia and wistfulness. Its often described reverently as the Silver age of comics.
I wonder what they would say in this age of Photoshop colorists and digitally distributed comic books? I imagine the sneers of "Back in my day we used true coloring techniques" or "its not a real comic if its not printed on paper." And I'm sure there are still others that don't see comics as a form of art at all.
Often people will try to devalue things they fear, don't understand or feel have no relevance to them.
In the end we all choose what to embrace and what to discard as trend or trash.
In the art world falling into line with accepted norms and failing to experiment can often be detrimental to an individuals growth.
I believe your right to follow your own intuition and you shouldn't be discouraged by the criticism of your peers.
Enjoy the ride and follow through with your convictions, worst case scenario you will learn some lessons and grow as an artist and as an individual.
Imagine if every time we wanted to create a message it involved dragging out a huge linotype machine and setting lines of lead block text.
I'll stick with using my new fangled modern Micro computer and this interweb thingy. Whether its cheating or not :D
Lol :)
For some reason this comment made me think of the Long Meg Stone circle.
Where the road doesn't go around this bronze age stone circle but neatly dodges between the stones.
Mystic wonder melded with human practicality.
Ahh Rubilith lithography, they were days. :D
I was going to mention them but thought I would skip ahead a few years for conciseness. :D
Can't say I had the pleasure of using the process myself but read about it in books.
Anyone who says it is or it isn't is entitled to an option, and how you feel about it is your answer.
Do you need artistic talent to set up a scene? You can blow into a tuba and make noise but if your after music you will need practice or training or both, modeling, surfacing, texturing, lighting, color theory, rendering and post production are some of the talents you should really look into to make an effective image but without knowing how to make an arranged image effective in the first place makes it ineffective.
You're trying to tell a story: even with dialog your images need to follow the story and become part of it. If your story is cluttered than a cluttered might just work, if it's a a dystopian future you should probably avoid pastels for the overall feel How do you do that? You don't need to go to art school to be an artist but most of the great ones had some form of formal training or hands on exposure that made them effective. If you're writing a comic that's a form of creation which is the basis of art, Unless your plagiarizing that art which is theft.
Many Japanese Samurai practiced flower arrangement, it kept the mind and the will focused. It was considered a martial art. You could argue they weren't doing anything other than moving already made flowers around and it's not art but they probably would have killed you six times before you hit the floor if you told them that.
Gah, and I thought fifty was bad enough! ;)
Gah, and I thought fifty was bad enough! ;)
24 bit greyscale image? (though that's a tad more than a million...)
24 bit greyscale image? (though that's a tad more than a million...)
Nope, just fifty ...
It's quite a "new" medium so as always with new things, people will doubt it.
One of my friends is a succesfull artist, but she is of an opinion 3D isn't art...until I saw last week that she had some of her work mixed in with 3D art for an animation!
You can't go backwards or stop progression.
The only way to go is forward :)
You know, in all this debate...one seldom stops to think about what some of the greats of the past would think about all this...
Leonardo...he'd probably be loving it;
Salvador...yep, this would be right up his alley. It would be so easy to melt watches....
Andy Warhol...um, he probably did dabble a bit with it, but it was still in its infancy when he died.
Yes, it is art.
The tools dont make the artist.
I have a degree in commercial art, in which I got a straight 'A' average. I draw with acrylics, watercolors, color pencils, graphite pencils, you name it. I also have another degree to teach it, so if anyone could poke fun at 3d artists I could, but I do not. Quite the contrary. When I went to school I was taught to never use white when using watercolors. White is the paper. Before we graduated from art school, we were gathered together and told, 'You were taught to draw and paint as purists, just to make sure you knew how to do everything... but now, use paint for white on watercolor if you want, make a small drawing and project it on an interior wall if you're going to make a mural, use ALL of the technology and tricks that are available out there. A client isn't normally concerned with how you did what you did, but with the results you get. Don't fall into the trap of thinking technology isn't art and isn't 'artsy' enough. It's the final product that counts.
My professor went on to say that if new artists in new times didn't embrace technology then maybe we'd not consider ourselves artists if we didn't grind our own paint out of rock and plant dye and make our own brushes, weave our own canvas and make our own paper, like the great masters of ages gone by, but such a concept would be ridiculous. Is it no longer art when I hand draw something using a tablet/electronic brush? I've had some ppl suggest so (invariably non-artists), yet it works the exact same way a regular brush does and I can't tell the difference in the results. If I add something electronically to a scan of my hand painted watercolor, for example, if much time goes by, even I have to look at the original to remember what part was made on paper and what part on the tablet. It looks and draws the same.
Now let's take electronic models. I make such with programs like Lightwave. (You can get hexigon and do this and I encourage anyone who is so inclined to do. I've tutored art students in traditional art and digital media so, let's put it this way. Unless you never alter a model, just hit enter, and leave it the way it is, what you're doing is art. Just because a person uses modern techonogy doesn't mean he/she is not an artist, in the same vein that Norman Rockwell is an artist even if he doesn't grind his own paint, and make his own paper and brushes. A smart artist is not afraid to use everything that is at his disposition to make professional beautiful art, even if he/she practices the other more traditional art forms too, which I also recommend.
You can take two people, give them daz and one will make beautiful art while the other will just have something missing. That's because maybe one plays with the shadows, making sure they are hard or soft or whatever the desired effect it, they change textures, use tools for shaping the people to look just like they want them too, possibly change and/or alter textures on the figures so they look as realistic or as scifi or as whatever the person desires, maybe the person takes the time to make some surfaces corroded, add a birthmark and freckles to their model, include a scuffed shoe, puts delicate plants around the walkway with a few weeds, etc, where the other person doesn't. When all is said and done, one looks like rembrandt where the other looks like..... well, not like rembrandt:)
If it were not art, how could it be that two people can have the same programs yet one person's render inspires awe while another's is totally blau? Why does your art improve the more you learn and the more tutorials you read and the more you experiment with the medium? It's because the program can't read your mind. You have to make it do something even if it's a really cool tool. That's art. You have to learn it and yes, daz can help you achieve good results really fast, but if you continue to learn you will have awesome results, because you took the time to make it do what you want to do. As with any art you will learn little by little to make it better like we do with all mediuims, take my word for it. You might start experimenting with altering a texture (hint, if you haven't tried it you can rightclick a texture in your assets, browse to the folder, make a copy of it (rename it slightly as by adding something more to the end or something, then in any paint program you can add things like a dimple, freckles a birth mark and resave in the same folder. Later, in the surface tab, you can change the texture for the one you enhanced and viola, the birthmark, clown face freckles painted stripes or whatever you decided to add will appear on your figure like magic. The possibilities are endless because this is art and being art, you can make it anything you want to be.)
If you someday want to learn to rig figures sure... go for it, but you say you've made a comic strip or graphic novel. Be proud of it. It probably looks cool as you sound happy at your results, and you're using the right ART tool, as this IS art. I draw and paint in all kinds of mediums so I can say that... this is an art medium so enjoy. Learn however much you want, since as with any art medium the more you get your feet wet the better it will work.
\Take your comic strip, enjoy it, or put it online, or even publish it if you want to. Nobody is going to look at a cool graphic novel and say, "hey, this is really cool.... I mean... wait a minute what medium did he use. It's only a cool comic/graphic novel if he made it on paper." This will never happen, if it's cool it's cool, and the reason you might be able to make cool things and some other people's work may or may not be as cool is because it is art and varies with the individual who is creating it regarless of the medium.
If it makes you feel better, in fact, I am friends with two people who have recently produced comic strips/graphic novels. One learned to draw freehand on his own, and I then helped get him started and going in 3d in Daz studio. The other is the ex-act director for NBC. Both are using electronic medium, and the latter could dazzle you with a piece of paper and a pencil, sure, but I think we would all agree.... that this is art. If you can do this with brushes and/or pencils and paper then you're a master, but if you can't and your art still looks great here, don't kid yourself, you are an artist regardless of the medium. Be proud of what you make and keep experimenting. Publish your either post or even publish your work if you wish. If ppl enjoy it they enjoy it. The next time someone tries to make fun of you tell them... both novices and professionals use this. As with all works the results depend on how much you try and your experience.
If you want to work someplace like Pixar, then you have to make everything from scratch and become a grand master, and nothing would stop you from going on and doing that, but if you don't, don't think for one moment that what you do with electronic media isn't art. The sculpting tools while powerful, created my programming geniuses, what you can do with them is art, and what you end up with is more often than not a far cry from what you started out with. For those who poopoo this idea, I took genesis an almost exact (I was making it from memory) likeness of smeegol. I can't see how anyone could say you can take something resembling victoria 5 and make it into an almost exact image of smeegol, and still say this isn't art - that it doesn't take creativity.
If you can take the same program and the same figures and elements and have one person turn out with a Miss Universe winner at a beauty pageant, another with an elderly couple taking care of the farm in late summer, or sending their grandchildren to bed on a blustery winter night while Santa sneaks down the chimney, another a young couple beaming down at their newborn in a manger, with a star shinding down, and yet another, a Chinese girl, talking excitedly to her friends, a black girl and a Hispanic boy, while all admire a new toy, and yet another produces smeegol on a desert island looking for the riiiiiiing.
Tell me how several different people can take the same figure and even the same elements, produce something so markedly distinct, all with different quality, mind you, and not have say it's creating and not call it art. If you can do that with a pencil, then congratulations, you're a master artist, but do it with daz, and you're still an artist, and it's still art, and you still can and should be proud of it. You can't have a room full of people get as many different results as those mentioned above, and especially with such differing quality, and not call it creative and not call it art. Yeah, the guy or gal who can do that with a pencil deserved credit due for being more advanced and a master in their field, but you're both artists. As an artist there will always be someone who is more advanced than you and someone who has more to learn, and no matter what we do or how advanced any of us are, I'm sure Rembrandt himself would admit that we are always and will always be learning more, but don't knock your talent. Art is art no matter what the medium unless all you do is click and paste.
art is everything ...so art is nothing as well
you all talk about artisans- not artists
art is when you say it is art
but who will judge
as everybody is saying what I do is art nobody can do art no more
you all talk about artisans- not artists
this is art
but who will judge
art is everything ...so art is nothing as well
art is surfing the wave of time
you all talk about artisans not artists
art is nonsense
talking bout art is nonsense
I like nonsense
you all talk about artisans- not artists
art is not existend
I am an artist
but who will judge
but who will judge ?
Yes, rendering 3D graphics is art. No, it is not the same as doing it some other way. The talents required are there, but they are different. Unlike painting, you possibly AREN'T creating everything from scratch, so on that aspect you have abandoned the painting part of art and have moved into the filming and directing part of art. However, you may decide you also wish to repaint the sets, or even build some of them from scratch, in which case you might still be painting some things. Ultimately you needn't worry about what the other critics are saying, unless of course said critics are paying your bills, living with you, or otherwise in a position to make your life difficult, in which case you might be better off lying and just agreeing with whatever they say to get them to shut up, then working on your art after they're gone.