first off, i have seen several museum exhibitions that included CG, or were entirely CG, and where the digital creations (printed or not) were considered art, and where the focal point of attention. digital art exists!
here is one example: http://www.tamuseum.org.il/en/about-the-exhibition/orit-raff-priming
to the OP: one thing to remember is that art exists for roughly 100 thousand years, and just as there are a lot of artists, there are a lot of people that teach art. the chances that some random digital artist will be the next picasso are very slim. likewise, the chances that some random tutorial maker will be as good as ernst gombrich in talking about art and teaching art is also quite slim. so if you want to learn about art, even as a digital artist, limiting yourself to blender tutorials (or maya/max/modo tutorials) is plain wrong. look in the library, or in amazon.com (if you have no alternative). look for general references about art. people here talked about it before, just use the search engine.
While again, I would agree about the generic properties of a lot of CG art, I do not agree that those people are wasting their talent.
For some it’s the journey, the process, the discovery, the joy of creating something to such realism that it looks like it could’ve really been seen in real life (even if it’s something like a Dragon), the feeling of achievement when you continually top yourself in overall and detail…
I would prefer to keep a little bit of an open mind in this respect (as in, I’m not going to tell people to quit what they are doing because they disagree with me on the definition of art).
Please attempt to read the text correctly. I’m not telling you what to do. I’m using a figure of speech “If you asked me”, i.e. “if somebody asked me”. I’m not literally talking to you personally. I don’t know you and I don’t care to convince you of anything, either.
I’m not sure what bubble you’re talking about. I’m well aware of the sites you mentioned. And others. I just don’t agree with you.
Like I said, I’m fine with whatever you do.
I think that’s something we can all happily agree on. It exists.
It’s a waste to me. I’m just telling you how I see thing, I’m not saying you should see the world as I do. I’m not interested in having an objective discussion about art, that would be absurd.
For some it’s the journey, the process, the discovery, the joy of creating something to such realism that it looks like it could’ve really been seen in real life (even if it’s something like a Dragon), the feeling of achievement when you continually top yourself in overall and detail…
You can find the feeling of achievement in an arbitrary amount of things. Imagine you found the greatest joy in stacking houses of cards and you invested all your time into perfecting this craft. If you never question that habit, you’ll never realize your actual potential.
This thread posits a question on change, this is my answer. Question your habits.
I would prefer to keep a little bit of an open mind in this respect (as in, I’m not going to tell people to quit what they are doing because they disagree with me on the definition of art).
What is it supposed to mean to keep an “open mind” here? One can’t just start liking things by force of will. Again, I’m not telling anyone to do anything. I’m not saying all this “stuff” isn’t art. Sure it’s art, whatever.
The point is, can you name a single artist of wide renown who uses CG as a medium? (architects don’t count!)
Have you ever heard the phrase “the famous computer graphics artist”? It just doesn’t seem to exist. How could that be?
Let’s stay on topic folks (and the topic is not “what is art?”… no one every enters that discussion with experience, only ignorance).
As for the actual topic—that is, the general lack of fundamental art instruction in tutorial material—there are a number of reasons for this… but the core of it boils down to the very nature of tutorial-based instruction. There’s an immense amount of difference between instruction/education and tutorial. It’s not limited to computer graphics, either. You see it in painting, in sculpture, and in music. Guitar how-to videos show you how to work the instrument and play a particular tune, but they don’t provide you with music fundamentals. Bob Ross could get you to put a happy little tree on your canvas, but he doesn’t explain the underpinnings of color theory and composition that explain why you put the tree there.
It’s the nature of tutorials as a medium. They’re not the right place to go for what you’re looking for. You don’t want a tutorial. You want education… but good instructional material (video or otherwise) is more difficult to do well and it’s not nearly as marketable as a tutorial that shows you how to make a really neat spaceship. That’s why you see more tutorials than “proper” instruction.
If that’s not considered ‘fine’ enough as far as art goes, you’re just going to have to give it up trying to find it in CG.
I will also note (for the person who started the thread), the person who made the site linked above has actually managed to find an immediacy in the CG medium. It’s possible, but like every other medium, it won’t come easy if you don’t really have much of a passion for it (and CG isn’t for everyone as it requires a higher level of technical thinking than say, painting).
A lot of people come to Blender without any artistic background. So the first port of call is usually learning something about how the program itself works. A hobbyist isn’t necessarily going to carry it much further than that. Which is probably the bulk of current users. I think the numerous tutorials reflect that. A quick project here and there when they get the time. Nothing too involved.
As Fweeb mentioned, Blender centric instructionals are probably not the place to look for information on things like light, composition, form, colour theory and other aspects of art. Not all Blender users with a good knowledge of those subjects are good at teaching either. Or simply don’t have the interest in producing a decent video or article. I think anyone who’s serious about making it more than just a hobby, is going to go outside of the Blender environment to pick it up. Developing the skills to be an artist that just happens to like using Blender. Rather than being a Blender artist. If you see what I mean.
Thinking about the OP’s original question… I would argue that there are no 3D software packages that are truly artist friendly. An artist doesn’t want to think about polygons, texture maps, or render modes. They want to think about the materials they are using, the methods of working those materials, and the light that falls on the object they have made.
I don’t think we will see these types of applications until we have something like a full AR type systems that is cheap and easy to use.
Wow this thread blew up a little. there’s a lot I wanna reply to from everyone but I’m on break right now and have to get back to work.
The main thingI wanna say right now is that this is 100% about instilling a foundation in the new comers, not what art is or isn’t, or which style or work is more relevant. If someone wants to create. Then call it art.
I don’t know about that. Any artist must learn their medium… and the details of how to choose and use the tools that manipulate that medium. A painter has to learn colors to be really good… I mean, I think on some level we’d all like to be able to think it and have it come to life… but I’d argue that part of what makes something special is the effort required to make it. That’s probably why there isn’t a memeartists.org forum, or even a discussion on the topic of whether it is or isn’t art.
It’s also interesting to me that nobody has brought up the full-length computer animated movies as demonstrations of CG as art, or much longer computer games. High art, maybe not, though some of it, I’d argue, is.
In any case, on the original question, the artists guide to blender… I think it’s a great idea to create / curate a list of art resources that are particularly applicable to Blender. Might even be a great specific forum (or thread) for blenderartists.org. Lighting, colors, depth of field, composition… those kinds of things would be awesome, especially if people talk about them in relation to blender specifically.
As a relative newcomer to Blender (ok, chapter 3 of trying to learn it… in which I actually dedicate real time to it) I’ve found youtube tutorials to be a phenomenal resource. Some of them are definitely a bit fast paced, but really, I have no complaints. Whether they are put out for reasons of upping someones Blend-Cred or not really doesn’t matter to me, if they are helping me to learn the tool, then they deserve the boost. I try to remember that everyone who is putting these things out is putting their time and effort into helping others become better at something. Are they all great? no. Do some of them skip over important bits? Yes. But I’m liberal with the use of the pause button, and multiple tabs let me jump to another video which talks about the piece that is being skipped over. I am guessing that some of the full-blown Blender tutorials at udemy or lynda.com are more complete, though I haven’t watched any of them.
I guess I just don’t expect very much and am happy to go into each tutorial with my mental chopsticks and pick out the pieces that I like or that make sense to me, and leave the bits I don’t like so much.
Congrats. You are an artist. :yes: The fact that you are both a) taking the time to work on stuff instead of watch TV or (insert time waster here) and b) thinking about how to become better at your chosen art form and what you wish was available to help that pretty much makes that indisputable.
Seems to me the best way to foster a more Blender-as-real-art community[SUP](I’d personally argue that it already is real art)[/SUP] is to treat it as though it is and share things you find that are particularly notable in that regard.
I’ll start. I found this video extremely interesting from a lighting in the real world and in Blender and it taught me some things about real world lighting, color and specifically how that plays out (or doesn’t) in Blender.
Literally nobody is talking about “what is art?”. If you want to dismiss my point, dismiss my point, not a strawman.
However you want to phrase it, you have to admit to yourself the lack of recognition the CG medium gets from the “outside”.
Maybe that’s not the topic, I’m still raising the point. If you don’t want to talk about it, then don’t.
I think that’s a really bad attitude. Yes, many instructors fail to deal with the obvious crossover in all these things with Blender. That doesn’t mean it should be that way. Obviously, since few Blender instructors ever talk about the basics of light and how it relates to your “virtual camera”, many people have no understanding about tonemapping (film-like or not) and how it makes huge difference on your render. Andrew Price is actually doing a good job here, though his material is rather basic and as a result, many advanced users probably dismiss his work.
Andy Warhol is not famous for using CG as a medium, nor are any of his CG works famous. He used pretty much every medium he could, including urine.
I guess I should change my mind about the tool being “irrelevant”. Besides a culture of infantilization, CG applications are deeply misleading and constraining. It takes a great deal of proficiency to go from this…
It’s not on topic. And I’d appreciate if you would adhere to the recommendation to remain on topic. I’d actually love to talk about this, but if you want to do that, let’s have that discussion in its own thread, where it belongs.
It is you who have push it to this level… is Movies are art ? is games are art ? are they as Dali, as Picasso ? ofc not… but on there own, the message is the same …
Seriously, before you push it this way, discussion was civilized, but then … Honeslty, you want to see CG as art ? CG is a tool for art, for movie, for paint, for image… I dont think CG is art, but is a tool for create art as a guitar, as a violin … sorry… We cant teach peoples to be artist … we can maybe reveal it… but they are or they are not …
