/Battlewraith
Yeah in digital art in general reuse is a powerful asset. And most highend 3d is a collaboration between people who specialize in specific facets of the process. But if you were going to apply for a job or enter a 3d competition, you would be very clear about exactly what your contribution to the product was (modeling, animation, texturing, lighting, etc.).
This distinction is lost on the hobbyist/freelancer level where you have someone presenting "their work", which constists of someone else's meshes, skin textures, etc. with posing and some post work.
A lot of people are fine with that. Not everyone has the same opinion about what an artist is or does. I just think its silly to look down on this guy for cannibalizing his own stuff, when so many people are using shortcuts and incorporating other people's labor into their own stuff, as if calling it 3d somehow elevates it another category where that is justified. It's all the same, 2d or 3d doesn't make a difference.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Not to derail, though I think the actual topic has run it's course already. I do have to make a reply to this last sentence though
"It's all the same, 2d or 3d doesn't make a difference"
It does in fact make quite a difference. There are fantastic sculptors that couldn't draw a circle to save their life, and at the same time wonderful painters that couldn't sculpt an ash tray. The differences are no less profound in 2d and 3d digital arts. Many 3d graphics instructors have commented, that the first, most important, and most difficult thing to do, is to get their students to actually start thinking in 3d.
The rest of that post, I pretty much agree with. I just had to respond to that last sentence.
Most sculptors out there have traditional foundational skills in which they utilize to create their pieces. Most of them will draw out what they want to do first before they actually sculpt. And most painters could also sculpt. Having gone to a school where the finearts department had you do both, I've got fairly good evidence for that.
Most good 3D instructors will tell you to have good foundational skills in 2D before going to 3D, because in order to understand 3D you need to understand how the real life translates from physical article to flat piece of paper.
I believe the 3d and 2d statement was made in reference to the equality of the 'moral' decision to re-use pieces.
Really, they're both valid types of art. Just because one uses virtual models really doesn't make it better or worse than a flat line drawing, it's simply different. As much as people may choose to not like it, or perhaps support it, it's no less 'lazy' than reusing a pose for a sculpture or a same model for a virtual actor. Just because one person deems it to be immoral does not mean that it's not perfectly acceptable in another situation or to someone else.
If people dislike the re-use of poses or 'reskinning' then I submit to you that Rowr's recent dressup doll is immoral as well. Any of the various people who do 'Timms' are also guilty of this sin. In fact, if you want to go down this road, Andy Warhol is supremely guilty because he only recolored photographs for his famous Marilyn piece. Are you willing to say that all of these art pieces are 'wrong' because they reuse art? Really, who is to say what art can and cannot be? The moment you start to put personal classifications on it, you fail to recognize it for what it is; Art.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
[ QUOTE ]
Not to derail, though I think the actual topic has run it's course already. I do have to make a reply to this last sentence though
"It's all the same, 2d or 3d doesn't make a difference"
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I didn't mean to imply that the were identical in terms of process, just that cutting corners in 2d is not somehow worse then in 3d because the latter lends itself to specialization, recycling of assets, etc.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
[ QUOTE ]
If people dislike the re-use of poses or 'reskinning' then I submit to you that Rowr's recent dressup doll is immoral as well. Any of the various people who do 'Timms' are also guilty of this sin. In fact, if you want to go down this road, Andy Warhol is supremely guilty because he only recolored photographs for his famous Marilyn piece. Are you willing to say that all of these art pieces are 'wrong' because they reuse art? Really, who is to say what art can and cannot be? The moment you start to put personal classifications on it, you fail to recognize it for what it is; Art.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well no, because my dress up doll was purposefully -meant- to get different outfits. That was it's whole purpose, agreed upon by both the artist and the commissioner.
Of course I can see how you are relating it to the re-use of 3d objects and stuff but again, that's the whole -point- of those props.
We're talking say if someone commissioned someone to draw the Mona Lisa, and that person did, and then decided after giving it to the commissioner, to paint over parts of it and turn it into the Mona Rowr, then that is not so cool I believe.
*wonders if I actually know what I'm trying to say!*
[ QUOTE ]
...Yeah I didn't mean to imply that the were identical in terms of process, just that cutting corners in 2d is not somehow worse then in 3d because the latter lends itself to specialization, recycling of assets, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a significant difference between 2D and 3D assets in that a 2D image is usually perceived as a final image, whereas a 3D asset is never a final image. In fact, I can't think of an existing 3D creation that isn't created to be viewed through another 'window' (be it a game, movie, or 2D imaging software). That is to say, the 2D image is considered complete and there will be no alterations on the part of the customer. A 3D asset is EXPECTED to be posed, lighted, and arranged until the customer creates their final output.
*EDIT* - For the record, I agree that claiming a model as one's own work is tasteless. I'm happy to send modelling credits to anyone who needs to know where I get my 3D items. Also, many of the communities I frequent make it a practice to list modelling credits. Yay, modellers! You guys rock.
[ QUOTE ]
We're talking say if someone commissioned someone to draw the Mona Lisa, and that person did, and then decided after giving it to the commissioner, to paint over parts of it and turn it into the Mona Rowr, then that is not so cool I believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that this is all opinion and not fact. Simply because you feel that this is an incorrect way of operating, doesn't actually make it incorrect. That's a distinction that you as a person have put onto that piece of art. There is no right or wrong way to create something.
[ QUOTE ]
a 2D image is usually perceived as a final image, whereas a 3D asset is never a final image
[/ QUOTE ]
As for 3d and 2d art distinctions, because you present your art in a 2d fashion, you are creating 2d art. Regardless of if that started as a manipulated model that was carefully crafted in another program, the finished image you present is 2d. It's not interactive and it doesn't have true depth, it's a flat image. So does your image count as a 2d image, or a 3d image? What makes it unique from other pieces of art that gives it the right to be "outside the normal rules" and free from the same critique of reuse? An artist using a model as basis for a life drawing is essentially copying someone else's form. A photographer does nothing but frame things that already exist. Why are these things considered 'correct' and yet others do not share this distinction?
I submit to you that it's simply opinion and nothing else. A set of 'morals' that people try to push onto other people with no real basis other than personal belief. Art is too ethereal and subjective to form into such hard cut lines. Regardless of how anyone may feel about it, they are not always right. Neither am I. There's going to be a truth and a falsehood to all of it, based on where your particular viewpoint is.
Your lazy is someone else's genius. If they're successful then who's to say different?
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
/Battlewraith
A 2d artist draws a picture from scratch. Then paints over parts of the image to create a new version. That's lazy.
A 3d artist uses someone else's mesh, somebody else's props, maybe textures and/or default lighting and that's ...not lazy?
I don't see that big of a difference. And for my part, I'm a little more comfortable with the 2d guy because at least I know he's responsible for everything I'm seeing.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
im not seeing the difference either really
[ QUOTE ]
/Battlewraith
A 2d artist draws a picture from scratch. Then paints over parts of the image to create a new version. That's lazy.
A 3d artist uses someone else's mesh, somebody else's props, maybe textures and/or default lighting and that's ...not lazy?
I don't see that big of a difference. And for my part, I'm a little more comfortable with the 2d guy because at least I know he's responsible for everything I'm seeing.
[/ QUOTE ]
A 3D artist using meshes, light settings and props which are all separate items and not a finshed product in and of themselves is not the same thing as painting over parts of a finished 2D image.
I would think the 3D equivialant would be the same thing. Taking a finished work and changing a few parts and calling it something else. That's what this guy did. He even said as much in his original description.
Seems to me, whether it is a foul ball or not pivots on disclosure. If the work is presented as original and it is not, well, for me, it's a foul ball. If the person says, this is what I did, then what the hell, people can decide for themselves. The fact that it was his original work counts for something.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your last part. Just like the 3D guy, your not sure if he's responsible for everything your seeing. His line work? His color? Stock photos used? Pre-made photo shop brushes? Just like the 3D guy, it depends on the artist and what tools he brings to the project.
1 is a finished product being changed, the other is base items and or settings which by themselves are nothing being used to make two different images.
My take anyway.
Well, just as an update, aparently he got some bad PR, from who I dunno >.>
But, and I quote, 'if I am that desperate to post it, then go right ahead.' So, lesson learned? Nadya always wins. :P Unless it's checkers, I suck at checkers...and chess...and pac-man...you get the point.
-Virtue's First Naughty Girl-
/Battlewraith
Go Go Nadya!
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your last part. Just like the 3D guy, your not sure if he's responsible for everything your seeing. His line work? His color? Stock photos used? Pre-made photo shop brushes? Just like the 3D guy, it depends on the artist and what tools he brings to the project.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mean every 2d guy. Based on the information I've been given about this particular case, with this particular artist.
[ QUOTE ]
1 is a finished product being changed, the other is base items and or settings which by themselves are nothing being used to make two different images.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's the whole "base item which is nothing by itself" attitude which motivated me to bring 3d up. It really seems that a lot of 3d people view base items as simple raw material there for them to produce "art."
I've studied 3d modeling for years. The first head I did took me 2 weeks and was pretty crappy. Even now it takes me a few hours to sculpt something I'm satisfied with. When you buy someone's 3d asset, it's not nothing. You're buying their expertise and whatever aesthetic sensibility they bring to the table. How is it any different then me doing a quick thumbnail sketch and handing it off to a friend to draw and render the antatomy, and then doing some paint-over work when he hands it back to me? I'm comparing this to the guy that reuses his own art as an asset.
Also, who decides when something is finished? I would assume the artist unless its commercial work.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
[ QUOTE ]
A 3d artist uses someone else's mesh, somebody else's props, maybe textures and/or default lighting and that's ...not lazy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Normally, I just sort of avoid this thing, because I don't tend to care, nor do I really have an opinion (though I pick up things to remember when I do eventually go into the commission zone, thus the reading - The more you know!), but I sort of disagree with this.
Mostly, because I know a LOT of people that create their own props, textures, and so on. Not every 3d Artist does this, and it's usually a point of interest to ask (and could be rude considering how you do so), but it's asinine to assume that just because a few do, that everyone does.
That's akin to saying that a lot of people trace, copy, or borrow/retouch-up other people's backgrounds all the time. You cannot, and should not, apply broad generalizations to an entire group of anyone, regardless of the circumstances.
And, on that note, I saunter out again.
Lol I'm drawing a comparison between different practices, not characterizing the entire 3d world. I am a 3d artist. I said it's a common practice and in certain segments of the 3d community it is--look at the volume of meshes, texture packs, props, etc. that are on the market.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
I'm suddenly reminded of Chasing Amy and the classic "You're a tracer" scene....
I think before 3D came around, inkers caught this same kind of flack.
[ QUOTE ]
/Battlewraith
Go Go Nadya!
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your last part. Just like the 3D guy, your not sure if he's responsible for everything your seeing. His line work? His color? Stock photos used? Pre-made photo shop brushes? Just like the 3D guy, it depends on the artist and what tools he brings to the project.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mean every 2d guy. Based on the information I've been given about this particular case, with this particular artist.
[ QUOTE ]
1 is a finished product being changed, the other is base items and or settings which by themselves are nothing being used to make two different images.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's the whole "base item which is nothing by itself" attitude which motivated me to bring 3d up. It really seems that a lot of 3d people view base items as simple raw material there for them to produce "art."
I've studied 3d modeling for years. The first head I did took me 2 weeks and was pretty crappy. Even now it takes me a few hours to sculpt something I'm satisfied with. When you buy someone's 3d asset, it's not nothing. You're buying their expertise and whatever aesthetic sensibility they bring to the table. How is it any different then me doing a quick thumbnail sketch and handing it off to a friend to draw and render the antatomy, and then doing some paint-over work when he hands it back to me? I'm comparing this to the guy that reuses his own art as an asset.
Also, who decides when something is finished? I would assume the artist unless its commercial work.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hear what your sayin. When I say nothing. that is not to discount the work or the value. The point is, it, in and of it's self is not an image. It is how it is used that makes the image. When I first started doing this, DJ made a point that has really stuck with me and that is the notion that just grabbing a bunch of 3D pieces and rendering is not really bringing anything to the table, it is just a start. I could use V4 and DJ could use V4 and it wouldn't be a contest.
One of the things I look at in 3D work is how well the piece is put together because in many cases, I know where the items have come from. Starting with little things like are people's feet on the floor or hands correctly gripping objects, are the poses realistic or awkward / lifeless, is there poke through, were the pieces simply imported or were new textures created. I then go on to things like composition, use of light, shading and so on. To finally looking at the work as a whole.
Without 3D modelers, there would be no 3D art so I'm not sure what else to call it but materials used by the end user to create art. The term "base" is not to devalue the work but to simply make the point that regardless of how much work went into it, the end user has to know what he's doing for it to really shine in HIS work.
My point in all this was that it seemed to me that you were looking at an after the fact deal for the 2D guy and comparing to a before the fact deal for the 3D guy. If they both have help beforehand, they should disclose that. If they take existing completed work and tweak it and call it fresh, they should disclose that. Especially is someone is paying for orignal work.
What's a finished work? Good question but I think if I do a paid commission and send that off to the commissioner as done. I would say going back and painting over parts of that and or changing some settings on the model (if it's 3D) and saying "hey, new image folks" would be the issue. For me anyway.
I would also say, there are different approaches to 3D. The modeler as the artist, where his work is the art. He makes the model, textures or paints it and renders. In those cases, I see those guys not building scenes so much as displaying their craft and talent as modelers. The other is guys like me, who would like to get into some modeling but really focus on the trying to produce a scene. To do that, I will not only rely on 3D but other mediums, 2D paint, stock photos etc. Any appreciation of my work, if any, would come from how well I put together my image. I also don't see them as mutually exclusive either but I do see how the two groups break out.
I don't devalue what modelers do at all. In fact, I'm quite envious.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm suddenly reminded of Chasing Amy and the classic "You're a tracer" scene....
I think before 3D came around, inkers caught this same kind of flack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Loved that movie.... but yeah, I remember that scene.
[ QUOTE ]
Lol I'm drawing a comparison between different practices, not characterizing the entire 3d world. I am a 3d artist. I said it's a common practice and in certain segments of the 3d community it is--look at the volume of meshes, texture packs, props, etc. that are on the market.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't necessarily make it any more or less 'lazy' then any other form of art.
Photography, in particular. All you do is line up a shot. That can't be that hard, right? On the surface, no, it doesn't seem like it is.
In reality... getting a GOOD shot has a ton of factors to it, and a lot of people (and professional photographers) can go through entire reels without any useable shots (sometimes because the people you do the shots for are picky sods), or get maybe 5-6 that are worth any real value (Again, people, picky sods, same drill).
My only real point is generalizations are stupid, whether something is a common practice or not. And it's somewhat insulting to use them when (if) you're trying to be objective.
(Sidebar: Technically, that's a generalization. Take that as you will.)
/Battlewraith
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't necessarily make it any more or less 'lazy' then any other form of art.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's sorta the point. Why lambast the 2d guy for recycling his stuff when it's a common practice to outsource digital assets in other communities?
[ QUOTE ]
My only real point is generalizations are stupid, whether something is a common practice or not. And it's somewhat insulting to use them when (if) you're trying to be objective.
(Sidebar: Technically, that's a generalization. Take that as you will.)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that everyone and everything in this world is a precious unique snowflake that deserves individual consideration but the tragic fact of the matter is that, unless you want to spend your life discussing endless permutations, generalization is necessary--even when discussing the horrors of generalization.
(BTW the earlier post was drawing a comparison, not making a generalization.)
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
[ QUOTE ]
I'm suddenly reminded of Chasing Amy and the classic "You're a tracer" scene....
I think before 3D came around, inkers caught this same kind of flack.
[/ QUOTE ]
heh, first time I ever went to the San Diego Comic Con, I got the chance to talk to BATT, one of the more famous inkers I knew of since I got back into comics via Tow Cow series. That scene in Chasing Amy was one of the questions I asked him about. He said when the movie first came out it really wasn't anything he was interested in seeing so right away it didn't make a difference until afterwards everyone, including other comic book professionals, including writers, pencillers and even inkers, around him start in with the "Tracer" jokes. He admitted at first due to that he didn't like the movie too much and took him awhile to actually go see it for himself. At that point he kinda just laughed it off. He knew what the movie was getting at, the common misperception and just takes it as that. The movie and like still bugs him a little to this day, but its nothing major, as anyone has seen his work anyway knows his work is well beyond just of a tracer.
MA Arcs - #67636, #92202
deviantart page
Slag Heap: Why you hurt Guardian!? Guardian no hurt you!
OK, here's my take on the whole "3D people reuse parts all the time" deal.
3D rendering is NOT like drawing.
It's more akin to photography.
You can have two different photographers using the same model, but their photographs will be radically different. Lighting, poses, settings, props... all of that goes to put together the key of ANY artwork:
COMPOSITION
It's not WHAT is in the scene, but HOW it is arranged and presented. This is how DJ can take a stock element (Victoria 4) and pose her and clothe her and set her in a scene, and completely blow away anything I render with Victoria 4, because (here's the key) DJ is a BETTER ARTIST when it comes to composition, as well as have skills with tools I do not (photoshop, drawing and painting in general, etc.)
To the 2D drawing argument... I can see reusing a base sketch to a point. Maybe even reusing a figure pose. But when the COMPOSITION doesn't change, and all that's altered is the colors or the textures of the model... what we have are Andy Warhol-esque 'versions' of the same picture. If I were to sell such a picture, I'd sell it as a series. "Miss X, as Naughty Nadya! Miss X, as Power Girl! Miss X as Rogue!" etc etc etc.
That's my interpretation. Take it as you will.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
http://pascalblanche.deviantart.com/...roces-91221145
Pascal Blanche is a noted 3d artist, been around the 3d scene from the early years. This is a typical workflow for a 3d artist, starting with a thumbnail sketch, rough modeling, sculpting, texture work, color correction, etc.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
To clarify, I consider a 3D item to be a tool. While there is artistry involved in the creation of that tool, the item itself isn't a 'finished' product because it's reliant on the rendering stage to bring it to life.
I also consider a paintbrush a tool. While there is artistry involved in the creation of the tool, the paintbrush itself isn't responsible for creating a final image.
In both cases, there is need for an artist to bring the item (whether virtual or real-world) to life.
Sometimes, I hear critics mention 'you used another person's mesh, textures, and scenes'. By that same logic, I will point out that a painter uses another person's paints, brushes, and canvas. It's remarkably rare for a painter to list every company that contributed to their paintings, and I've only met one artist in my life that actually made their own paints.
So why should a digital artist be required to make their own models?
I am an end-user. I pay good money to wonderful modellers who are better, faster, and more skilled at making great virtual models for me. Just like I pay Sharpie, Crayola, Faber Castell, and a dozen others for my real-world art tools.
I will credit my modellers, but I have yet to credit Bic for my ball-point pen work.
As I've mentioned before, artists that place models in a scene together, hit'render', and call it a finished piece will always produce sub-standard work. The Poser community is rife with just such pieces, and the program is completely evil in the wrong hands. But I constantly preach that posing and rendering is just the first step to a good 3D piece - postwork is vital. That, to me, is where the artist steps in and makes the image a unique creation.
*EDIT* - Also to clarify; re-using a 3D item isn't lazy... but re-using the same posed/lighted/rendered final 2D image of a plane is a travesty. If I were to render an image of Superman saving a plane, and then take a commission where I dropped out Superman and added GenericHero saving the same plane, that would be represensible.
[ QUOTE ]
...Not to mention 3d, where its commonplace to use other peoples meshes, textures, etc. to make a composition...
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember that in the 3D world, reuse is often intended and encouraged. 3D seperates between the modeller and the renderer as two different disciplines, and while some artists are able to perform both with equal skill, it's common for an artist to specialize in either the modelling side or the compositioning side. Additionally, the nature of a 3D model being relighted/reposed for a new piece of art makes reuse a powerful practicality.
In 2D, everything needs to be drawn/painted from scratch, so people expect uniqueness. When an artist repaints a commission to his own tastes (essentially recycling his own work), he's just being lazy.