34 replies to this topic

[tyree]

this is a 3d modeling, rendering and animation question, not a programming question. is it really art, when all the person making it. has to do is put in some values. when the software is doing essentially all the work. when nothing is done by hand outside of setting some numbers. can this really be called art

[Grandmaster B]

First of all, to create art you have to do it on purpose. You can not create art by accident, it's important what you thought or intended when creating it. A good artwork may represent or show your intentions, some artworks leave room for interpretation.

Having this in mind, if you have some kind of generator that takes numbers and creates patterns this can only be art if you can foresee the output and changed the numbers to create a pattern that "matches" your intention or thoughts. If the output is soely random, it's not art. It does not matter how good it looks.

The effort to make art is not important, you can put a stick on the floor and call it art but you have to do that intentionally to create art. If somebody likes it is not important but it may give it value. A work that takes years is often much more respected than a lazy effort.

[.oisyn]

Grandmaster B said:

Having this in mind, if you have some kind of generator that takes numbers and creates patterns this can only be art if you can foresee the output and changed the numbers to create a pattern that "matches" your intention or thoughts. If the output is soely random, it's not art. It does not matter how good it looks.

I do not agree. Of course, you can't really call it art if you press a button while saying "one art, please" and the computer produces one.

However, that whole process of creating work out of randomness can be art itself, and the programmer is the artist.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

In the games industry, when we say "art", we mean every visual element, really. You can have art (visual elements) which is made by hand, or art (visual elements) which is generated entirely procedural. The people who make these visual elements are called artists. The departments they work within is called art departments. What they produce is called art, regardless of how they made it - even if it would be entirely randomly generated.

This is not to be confused with the wider use of the term art (as in artistic or made by an artist) - there's no agreed definition to this one, which is why a lot of people say things like "I don't consider it art, unless.." or "It can't be art if..."

[.oisyn]

Mattias Gustavsson said:

This is not to be confused with the wider use of the term art (as in artistic or made by an artist)

I could be wrong but isn't that exactly what we're talking about here?

[Mattias Gustavsson]

On a game development board? I don't think we should automatically assume that we're talking about art outside of the games industry, no. Even if it is on the "lounge" board. :P

[alphadog]

Are we taking about "Art" or "art assets"?

And, if the former, is Art a function of the process that lead to it? Is it Art only when it is difficult or complex in process, as Tyree seems to prefer? If so, what of fractals? Where does it stop? An architectural building is much more complex than a painting, so is a painting not Art?

Is it Art only when the source had specific "intentions", like GrandmasterB suggests? If so, what about poems that may mean different things to different people?

I would say, the only thing that defines "Art" is that a) it is an emotive outlet for the creator, and it elicits emotions in that creator or in any individual that samples the art.

KISS.

[.oisyn]

Mattias Gustavsson said:

On a game development board? I don't think we should automatically assume that we're talking about art outside of the games industry, no. Even if it is on the "lounge" board.

I'm not "automatically assuming" anything, I'm basing it on how the openingpost is written. Needless to say, I could still be wrong, but that was how I was interpreting it

@alphadog: So, when rejecting the premise for the existence of God or a Creator, the moon is still a work of art according to your definition? I think intent is a very important aspect. If I just accidentally throw a bunch of matches all over the floor, I don't consider that a work of art. However, if my intention as an artist to create a composition of matches thrown all over the floor (how random it may be), then it is art. But obviously, the end result is the same.

[moe]

.oisyn said:

So, when rejecting the premise for the existence of God or a Creator, the moon is still a work of art according to your definition?

...

.oisyn said:

If I just accidentally throw a bunch of matches all over the floor, I don't consider that a work of art. However, if my intention as an artist to create a composition of matches thrown all over the floor (how random it may be), then it is art. But obviously, the end result is the same.

If an artist accidentally drops some matches in hindsight the artist can just claim to have done it on purpose. No one could prove the opposite. Thus, accidentally created art would still be considered art. So, whether someting is art or not mostly depends on those who judge it but not on the one who created it. In that sense pressing a button could result in a piece of art. Also, the moon could be considered art, regardless whether there was a creator or not. In reverse, even the most famous artist could create something where everyone would agree that this is no art at all. Although, in that particular case human stupidity would probabely kick in and they call it art because of it's creator and not because of it's actual value. Ultimately, art lies in the eye of the beholder.

[tyree]

as I said in the 1st post Im referring to art done by hand. take a cloth simulation thats a 100 percent done by the computer. can that really be called or considered art. in the same way as hand animated art. people post things like this and say look what I did. but they havent done anything but set values.

Im not referring to the person who made the software. not a programming question. its the person using it, the end user. who doesnt realize that was not an artistic effort

part of this goes to the larger question of automation. automation is what makes 3d possible. but when the automation makes everything so easy that it requires no effort, and no skill is that really art. when it gets to this point. doesnt it falls under the same category as particle systems, visual effect

there is clear distinction made between a visual effect and art thats really made by hand. made by hand doesnt mean, not made on a computer using software, we all do that. its when your just setting values and not doing anything by hand. doesnt it stop being art and becomes an effect

[Reedbeta]

Just because your activity consists of "setting values" doesn't mean it's not art. I mean, you could view digital image painting as "setting the values" of the pixels, or 3D modeling as "setting the values" of the vertices.

You brought up particle systems. Particle systems can have a quite large number of parameters, such as emission rate, the colors/sizes/lifetimes/trajectories of the particles, and can include multiple emitters with different looks. It actually takes quite a bit of time and skill to make a good-looking particle system. Here at Sucker Punch we have two guys who pretty much make particle systems full-time. It is absolutely art just as much as modeling a character, painting a texture, or animating a walk cycle is. The fact that it consists mostly of "setting values", as opposed to more traditional-looking art activities like painting or sculpting, doesn't invalidate that.

I think there's a continuum of how much art there is in a task. If you truly are just plunking down a cloth simulation or a particle system with all default settings, you're not doing art; but as soon as you start iterating and tweaking things to explore the possibilities and/or drive toward some desired result, you're doing art at least a little.

[fireside]

Computer assist does bring in a lot of questions as to how much is done by the computer and how much is done by the artist. It's still art because in the end it's what a person has visualized in his/her mind and then brought to some kind of visual or physical reality. Instead of slowly chipping away at rocks or mixing paints, we change parameters in a computer program. There's a big time difference there, but the artist is still doing the same thing. There's a point where I think it becomes coloring book art when the selections are too few. I think game players engage in that when they do character selection. It's still somewhat creative, but there isn't a lot of skill involved.

[rouncer]

tricky concept, everyone knows what people are talking about when you say "game art" but it means a completely different thing to "fine art".

of course, programming is an artform too just to confuse the situation beyond any form of logical reasoning. :)

[.oisyn]

fireside said:

It's still somewhat creative, but there isn't a lot of skill involved.

But what is the skill in laying a peanut butter floor? (Yes, that actually was on display recently in a Dutch museum)

.edit: found a link: http://www.cloggiece...tter-floor.html
Fun fact: the artist in question, Wim T. Schippers, is also the voice actor of the Dutch Sesame street's Ernie

[TheNut]

Oxford Dictionary said:

noun. 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:

I think that pretty much lays it out. A paint brush is not art. It is a tool to produce art. "Setting values" in software is no more different than a paint brush is to a painter. Now the context of the matter is important. You mentioned cloth simulation. Well, it's just that, a simulation. It is not the cloth simulation that would be considered art, rather it is the final render that would be considered art. Is that man made? Yes, it is. The computer didn't magically conjure up the scene. A human was involved in laying out the scene and physics to get the target result. Just like a photographer would compose his scene before taking the photo.

tyree said:

automation is what makes 3d possible. but when the automation makes everything so easy that it requires no effort, and no skill is that really art.

Art is not about skill. It doesn't matter if it takes you a couple seconds or a couple years. Art is art.

tyree said:

there is clear distinction made between a visual effect and art thats really made by hand.

Yes, you're right. Lighting, bump mapping, film grain, materials, etc. These are all effects. It's when you combine them into a final result that they become art.

[fireside]

Quote

But what is the skill in laying a peanut butter floor?

There are a lot of modern artists that admit it's part sham. It's only art because it gets the right people's attention. The definition I hold is that it's only art if it conveys a message to the viewer. Peanut butter on the floor really doesn't do that except in the eyes of someone a little deluded. We've kind of done it all, so we end up with these "emperor's new clothes" type of scams. It will be quickly forgotten. I hope.

[imerso]

In any domain or profession, I personally only see "art" on things cutting edges, showing that the creator has mastered the related skills. Art for me always show absolute control, conscience, minimal features and precision. Total precision. The remaining is just bullshit. Sorry if it is against general definition of art. For me art must be like the original meaning of hacking.

Edit: answering the OP, yes I do believe you can make art using a software, if you have enough sensibility and precision to make something really incredible, even if it is just setting parameters.

[Nautilus]

You can clearly say that it's not art if it's not art.
If I spit on ground and yell ART! Nobody is gonna take pictures of it. Least of all I'll be invited to showcase my spit at a museum.

Likewise, you can clearly say it's art if it's art.
Leonardo da Vinci paints the Monna Lisa. That's art alright.

But can you find the exact threshold that separates non-Art from Art?
The paradox of the Tadpole and the Frog comes to mind.
Can you find the exact instant T in the creature's life such that at instant T-1 it was still a tadpole, but at instant T it's already a frog?

There's no such instant.
It's no binary switch. It's not digital.
It's analog. There's infinite quality in it and you can't reduce it to samples.
Can't set 'thresholds'.

So whatever arguments we bring to this discussion we may never find the 'exact threshold' that separates non-Art from Art.
But we can get close to it, by finding agreement over some things. Common Sense is the key.

Actually I think the threshold is not fixed. It constantly shifts. It's not even well defined. Imagine the threshold like a moving shadow cast by some far away light source.
It's borders are going to be soft, made up of infinite shades of black (or degrees of darkness).
Common Sense will dictate the current position of the light source, so dynamically changing what Art is and is not.

What is Common Sense?
Common Sense is what's believed to be the opinion of the majority of people on a given subject.
Scarily vague, eh? But this world is primarily ruled by Common Sense (at least that's the message we are supposed to perceive).

If we are 3 persons and I alone say that something is art, but the other 2 say it's not... then it's not art.

But of course the human race is made up of a tad more than 3 persons. So my Common Sense suggests me that even if the only other 2 present at the moment claim it to be *not* art... then there's still hope that I'm right and they are wrong.
So I -secretly- think it's art.

However, if a hundred persons claim it to be NOT art, then my Common sense suggests me to surrender and accept the fact that it's not art... Even though I know the world hosts a million times more than just 100 persons and that I could yet find 1 billion of individuals ready to support my claim that it is art.

Now the strangest thing of all is that should I ever find for real a billion persons to support my claim that it *is* art... then I'm going to definitely convince myself that I'm right, and that indeed that_is_art! No matter what the rest of the world will say. It's art and that's that.
And it will stay art even if 5 billions of persons phone me yelling my ears off that it is __not__ art.

Common Sense is a shifty beast.
But it's what drives and regulates most aspects of the world, and it commands respect. Only fools do ignore the Common Sense. In fact they are fools.

So you see, discussing here on what's Art and what makes it Art is like trying to estabilish what sex are the angels.
Are angels males or females? ... But does it matter at all?

Ultimately, Art will be what most people will say it is.
Otherwise it won't be Art.
And should they ever change idea on a piece of Art, then that piece of Art will cease to be Art.
Just like it happens that when the public decides that a lump of poo becomes Art then Noo it's no poo! it's Art you ignorant brute!


Good night, everyone :)

[tyree]

reedbeta. yes when you put in the time. you can create something that looks good and is very impressive, stunning even. with a particle system or any other automated system for that matter. but when anyone can duplicate it exactly by applying the same settings. can something that generic really be called art

nut, no a paintbrush isnt art. but if we both paint the same picture. no matter how many times we repeat it. me and you will never create the same thing

whats missing is the human factor.

vrnunes, I can get behind having a mastery of something but that would involve doing more than just setting values

I can give you an example of the human factor. we have bump, normal and parallax mapping. when doing something for someone else. I use the different types of mapping, but when its something personal for me. I want the art to stand on its own. so I dont use any render effects, obviously I still want it to look good. so I created a way to paint a standard diffuse texture thats flat and bumped at the same time. but there is no bump channel and the depth is still there.

it was done specifically to look good in engine

[Mattias Gustavsson]

fireside said:

The definition I hold is that it's only art if it conveys a message to the viewer.

Seems a bit narrow. What "message" does Mona Lisa convey, that the peanut butter floor doesn't?