Hi Everyone?
Welles? comment about the paint in my post over on the 3D thread prompted a great deal of thought on my part, so I?m opening a new area and welcome everybody?s input.
I guess the proper, or a more proper, title for this post should be ?Reality Versus Artistic Intent?. As an audience, we have an almost instinctive attraction towards dimensional stuff?a flat piece of paper isn?t as appealing to look at as a curled or crumpled. but ?reality? is still only a quality one discovers in Art, and no more the end-product of expression than any other technique.
Whenever I sit down to design something, I usually have an idea, inspiration, or whatever you want to call it. As a fellow victim of human frailty, however, I occasionally stray into creating a display of artistic technique, without proper regard to what it is I?m trying to communicate. The paint can illustration is kind of an example??what was I trying to say? Answer: not much?I was just working on a technique to better simulate fluid motion, and that technique will probably be well-applied to a different composition once I figure out what to say artistically.
Which leads me to artistic vision, a ponderous phrase, fer sure. We must all see something before we can create something, and this vision can come from the heart, the head, the soul, the imagination...they?re all valid starting places. The audience, your audience, reacts to different qualities of art, the vehicle, if you will, before arriving at the artistic message contained within, usually. Here?s an example: the rocking horse picture, below, is not an awfully photorealistic image, yet it has enough realistic qualities to get a childlike feeling across (I often explore my own childhood in my art). Perspective and hading are there, however, the image has a plastic sheen to it. But I don?t mind this?if I needed photorealism to convey the artistic idea here, I would have modeled and rendered the scene instead of drawing it in Xara. I?m not letting technique get in the way of the colors used, the camera angle, and so on. Same deal with the paint scene: I could go back and create sploshes around the paint can rim and make the splat on the floor more asymmetric, but my main intent was to create a surrealistic scene...a phantom pouring the paint and creating havoc in an orderly setting (and most of all; working on a study of how things pour
...the details in the scene might be inadequate to immerse the audience in the realism captured moment, but I was paying more attention to atmosphere, lighting, and other supporting elements, and didn?t feel as though the scene needs more fine details to carry off the overall composition.
I?m not being defensive; I agree with Welles that more detail would help the scene, but my point is that I was trying to appeal to the audience?s heart and not necessarily their heads.
Alvy Smith, founder of PIXAR and much-accredited with discovering the alpha channel, originally started developing 3D animation as a visual guide to medical imaging (so much for that lofty and noble goal with the release of ?Toy Story?!) He stated that the true purpose of dimensional imaging was to explain something using a modality that?s more comprehensive in scope that other vehicles. Huh? Okay, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words (as an author, I have to add that it?d have to be a really good picture!), and the logical corollary is that 3D helps get the artistic or medical idea across better, often, than 2D. But that doesn?t make 3D as a vehicle necessarily better than 2d or even the printed or spoken word. It?s just a method of expression, and this method I?ve seen used and abused just like the privilege of Free Press suffers in the wrong hands.
I?ll continue to work on my craft, for it is a life-long pursuit, and I welcome input, as this is what this forum is for. Thanks for your time reading this, and I?d very much like to know your feelings this subject!
My Best,
Welles? comment about the paint in my post over on the 3D thread prompted a great deal of thought on my part, so I?m opening a new area and welcome everybody?s input.
I guess the proper, or a more proper, title for this post should be ?Reality Versus Artistic Intent?. As an audience, we have an almost instinctive attraction towards dimensional stuff?a flat piece of paper isn?t as appealing to look at as a curled or crumpled. but ?reality? is still only a quality one discovers in Art, and no more the end-product of expression than any other technique.
Whenever I sit down to design something, I usually have an idea, inspiration, or whatever you want to call it. As a fellow victim of human frailty, however, I occasionally stray into creating a display of artistic technique, without proper regard to what it is I?m trying to communicate. The paint can illustration is kind of an example??what was I trying to say? Answer: not much?I was just working on a technique to better simulate fluid motion, and that technique will probably be well-applied to a different composition once I figure out what to say artistically.
Which leads me to artistic vision, a ponderous phrase, fer sure. We must all see something before we can create something, and this vision can come from the heart, the head, the soul, the imagination...they?re all valid starting places. The audience, your audience, reacts to different qualities of art, the vehicle, if you will, before arriving at the artistic message contained within, usually. Here?s an example: the rocking horse picture, below, is not an awfully photorealistic image, yet it has enough realistic qualities to get a childlike feeling across (I often explore my own childhood in my art). Perspective and hading are there, however, the image has a plastic sheen to it. But I don?t mind this?if I needed photorealism to convey the artistic idea here, I would have modeled and rendered the scene instead of drawing it in Xara. I?m not letting technique get in the way of the colors used, the camera angle, and so on. Same deal with the paint scene: I could go back and create sploshes around the paint can rim and make the splat on the floor more asymmetric, but my main intent was to create a surrealistic scene...a phantom pouring the paint and creating havoc in an orderly setting (and most of all; working on a study of how things pour
...the details in the scene might be inadequate to immerse the audience in the realism captured moment, but I was paying more attention to atmosphere, lighting, and other supporting elements, and didn?t feel as though the scene needs more fine details to carry off the overall composition.I?m not being defensive; I agree with Welles that more detail would help the scene, but my point is that I was trying to appeal to the audience?s heart and not necessarily their heads.
Alvy Smith, founder of PIXAR and much-accredited with discovering the alpha channel, originally started developing 3D animation as a visual guide to medical imaging (so much for that lofty and noble goal with the release of ?Toy Story?!) He stated that the true purpose of dimensional imaging was to explain something using a modality that?s more comprehensive in scope that other vehicles. Huh? Okay, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words (as an author, I have to add that it?d have to be a really good picture!), and the logical corollary is that 3D helps get the artistic or medical idea across better, often, than 2D. But that doesn?t make 3D as a vehicle necessarily better than 2d or even the printed or spoken word. It?s just a method of expression, and this method I?ve seen used and abused just like the privilege of Free Press suffers in the wrong hands.
I?ll continue to work on my craft, for it is a life-long pursuit, and I welcome input, as this is what this forum is for. Thanks for your time reading this, and I?d very much like to know your feelings this subject!
My Best,
I still like to paint on canvas, draw, etc. just as much after discovering digital media, I've just added digital 2d/3d to my tools.
