Post #206101 by Tiki-bot on Fri, Jan 6, 2006 4:55 PM

On 2006-01-06 15:08, Humuhumu wrote:
Did the artist create that shading, or was there a function in the program he was using that did it for him? Composition and color choice can still be pretty cleanly appreciated, but beyond that, it's just harder to appreciate. That will probably change as time goes on and a wider audience is able to understand what is hard on a computer, and what is easy.

Good point, Humu. But I contend that art is ultimately all about making decisions. Whether that decision is what to chisel away from a chunk of marble or which shader to apply to that 3D object, it's still just a decision that a human being has made to suit some end or other. But digital artwork is still in its relative infancy and will require some time for the general public to catch up to what's going on. Or not. I mean, does everyone who enjoys good photography understand completely the process that great photographers used? Probably not unless the viewer is a photographer himself. They know he used a camera and a darkroom, and that's about it. I'd say that creating "art" is less about technical accomplishment than about innovative or creative thinking.

Computers have popularized access to image creation tools like no invention has before. These new "visualizers" may not be "artists", but there sure are a lot of them out there. I see tons of horrible 3D artwork all the time and even the most hackneyed, derivitive, or in the case of computers, push-button work can sometimes reveal the glimmer of an interesting idea. Whether I'd pay for it or want to hang that artwork on my wall is another matter :wink: I've sene many traditional paintings that were technically brilliant but that communicated nothing, and many digital artworks that conveyed interesting ideas or emotions or even beauty while being technically inauspicious.