Digital Art Zone

wow if someone pays $12,000 for that render they need to contact me so i can sell them some good Bull Poo for fertilizer. and i’ll sell it cheap $500 a bag full.lol

The old saying there is a sucker born every minute ring any bells?

Miss B - 30 October 2012 01:20 PM

Zaarin - 29 October 2012 01:35 PM

. . . unfortunately, as do the people using the “real” 3D programs that cost what this artist is making for his render.

Or more likely double that price or more.  I’ve always wanted Maya as it was used to create the later Myst games, which is how I got interested in 3D in the first place, but it’s currently selling for $3,675.  ~sheesh~

Maya sounds great but I doubt I could ever afford it, unless I sell an Image for that kind of money before:))

Miss B - 28 October 2012 08:38 PM

I’m just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer.  Unbelievable!  You can’t get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK.  With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.

You’re never going to get RGB color with a printer - RGB is an additive colorspace, where white is created by adding R-G-B; CMYK is subtractive, and white is achieved by the color of the medium, shading down from there to black, which is enhanced by the “K”, or black (much blacker than just combining C-M-Y).

As for it being an inkjet print, it’s probably likely that it’s a giclée print - it’s not just a Lexmark sitting on a desktop - now you’re talking about pigments, rather than dyes, and archival paper. Maybe it’s not worth $12k to you or to most people, but it’s the art that’s being purchased, not just the manufacture; if this is an authenticated limited edition, why should it be worth any less just because it’s a print and not a lithograph, and just because it started as a 3D digital image rather than a photo or a painting? I’m not defending the artist, nor the gallery, but just trying to ask the relevant questions.

As for the artist, I have to say I like his style - clearly, he’s not just firing off Poser or D|S shots and then printing them for scads of cash . If you didn’t know that it was originally a 3D render, I don’t see anything, at least in the available images, to suggest it’s anything other than a skilled painter (much more skilled than myself, clearly, esp. at 3D rendering ).

At least he’s not selling JPEGs of his art . Let’s be honest - if 3D art is your chosen medium, and you’re trying to produce images rather than sculpture, what other options do you have other than printing? You certainly wouldn’t render it and then paint the image - that would kind of take the point out of your medium - your 3D work would be a ‘sketch,’ not your vision realized. As Poser/D|S artists, we can’t afford to dismiss others ‘higher up the food chain’ as being ‘not real artists’ just because they do what we do, on a more advanced level, and then command ‘real art’ prices on prints of their work, where most of us are content to post our work digitally in online galleries. Our works are unlimited - anyone can download them, copy them, and we have no control over their distribution or their use, at least not enough to control their worth. Sad as it is to hear, only by printing our work - and never offering it solely in its highest-resolution digital format - can we ever really lay any claim to the ultimate value of it; 20 copies of an artistic image, and no more ever, makes it worth a lot more money than 20 million, regardless of how it’s printed.

double post

Miss B - 28 October 2012 11:57 AM

Misty Whisky - 28 October 2012 07:40 AM

i personally wouldn’t consider Picasso art, but everyone else begs to differ

I think Picasso’s art, but I myself prefer others like Monet.

Fauvist - 28 October 2012 09:37 AM

There were many many inkjet prints at the art fair - all costing thousands of dollars.

It was printed on an inkjet????  Geeze, you’d think they would at least be printed on a commerical laser printer.

I just don’t see that price tag for that render.  That’s not to say I don’t like it, it’s just not worth it to me.  Beauty (be it art or otherwise) is indeed in the eyes of the beholder.

The label on the wall next to the arwork said it was an Ultrachrome print - which is a high-end, high quality “giclee” inkjet print.  The print was flawless, and very beautiful.  I thought it was a painting until I read the label.  Then I recognized the artists name.  I talked to the art dealer who confirmed it was an inkjet print on archival fine-art paper.  Hand signed and numbered by the artist.

Most of the photographs on sale at the art show were also printed using inkjet.  They were even labeled simply as “inkjet print”.  Some of those were between $40,000 and $60,000.  I didn’t recognize any of the artists names.

Hey, anyone who believes in themselves so much that they can convince an art dealer or anyone else to sell a Poser/DS render gets my vote.  My vote mind you, not my money. I don’t have $12K!

I think most people here are doing exactly what they always complain themselves about. You’re not excepting 3D renders as ‘art’ and therefore it’s ridiculousness for someone to charge heaps of money for a print because we know better than anyone else that what we do is just fooling around, it’s not art. Right? Well, that’s what your responses says! Shame on you for believing that nonsense. This guy should be given a medal for believing with his whole heart that he is indeed making art.

He obviously takes himself and his work serious and that is half the battle won right there. Familiarity breads contempt as they say and this topic is proof of that. Because we know how it’s done and understand the ‘magic’, all we end up seeing is ‘Blegh, I can do that too’. Art is not about medium, technique or knowledge. It’s about the magic. And when you can get others to see the magic they will want to own it for themselves. They don’t have poser or DS and they couldn’t care less if it was painted by Picasso or printed on an ‘inkjet’ printer. All they see is a pretty image that connects with them well enough to make them open their wallets.

Stop looking at material rooms, sss settings, morph dials and poses and start seeing images. Life is much more fun that way.

Harry Dresden - 08 January 2013 06:56 AM

couldn’t care less if it was painted by Picasso or printed on an ‘inkjet’ printer. All they see is a pretty image that connects with them well enough to make them open their wallets

You’re wrong.  They do care if it was painted by Picasso.  They care very much.  High end art is nothing but a status symbol.  The name signed on the canvas is the most important thing about the artwork.

Fauvist - 08 January 2013 12:16 PM

Harry Dresden - 08 January 2013 06:56 AM

couldn’t care less if it was painted by Picasso or printed on an ‘inkjet’ printer. All they see is a pretty image that connects with them well enough to make them open their wallets

You’re wrong.  They do care if it was painted by Picasso.  They care very much.  High end art is nothing but a status symbol.  The name signed on the canvas is the most important thing about the artwork.

Kind of like designer clothing…

Some had Stars upon thars…

Many years ago an art gallery in, of course, a prestigous area, was running a show which included a “work of art” by a friend. You know, I’ve forgotten what they actually entered, some tomfoolery. Now, another artist’s “work” was on display. It was a set of those oldtimey 1940s type suitcases packed with various bricks of cheese. Gets pretty warm in the summer…the “art piece” began to reek and the heath department came in and shut it down.

I think my question was, was this “art” or more likely, “theater”? Of course, the photogs who snapped the artwork’s existence I supposed made their art. Should someone pay a gazillion dollars? What does an owner do, replenish the cheese by contract with artist or gallery?

But, does agreement among several beholders make a piece of art more worthy than other? I guess that is the job of gallery and show judges. I was once told my art would never hang in a museum. It’s become a kind of koan for me. Maybe not, but should it? LOL! If I were into promoting my art, as another poster suggested, that is a different game: Schmoozing. Uh, after years in retail…no thanks. So when people say to me, “you can make money with that”, I just ask them how much, and hold out my hand, and the matter is settled with a laugh. Gosh, and I know some people who can draw so well, but lack, well, that inspiration that makes a person gasp, and say, I want that!

Well… I can’t help but wonder….

Has he actually sold any?

lol

Anyone check him out on the net to find out more about him?

Here’s an interview… http://arrestedmotion.com/2011/10/interview-ray-caesar-a-dangerous-inclination-corey-helford/

Harry Dresden - 08 January 2013 06:56 AM

Hey, anyone who believes in themselves so much that they can convince an art dealer or anyone else to sell a Poser/DS render gets my vote.  My vote mind you, not my money. I don’t have $12K!

I think most people here are doing exactly what they always complain themselves about. You’re not excepting 3D renders as ‘art’ and therefore it’s ridiculousness for someone to charge heaps of money for a print because we know better than anyone else that what we do is just fooling around, it’s not art. Right? Well, that’s what your responses says! Shame on you for believing that nonsense. This guy should be given a medal for believing with his whole heart that he is indeed making art.

He obviously takes himself and his work serious and that is half the battle won right there. Familiarity breads contempt as they say and this topic is proof of that. Because we know how it’s done and understand the ‘magic’, all we end up seeing is ‘Blegh, I can do that too’. Art is not about medium, technique or knowledge. It’s about the magic. And when you can get others to see the magic they will want to own it for themselves. They don’t have poser or DS and they couldn’t care less if it was painted by Picasso or printed on an ‘inkjet’ printer.

This is really well said. I think too many of us are beginning to believe what we hear in CG forums that what we do isn’t art. Yes it is art!

What kind of quality of art depends on the skill level and artistic ability of the person creating it.

It’s nice to see this type of work being accepted in Art Galleries. It has always taken time when new art forms arrive for them to be accepted as fine art. The Early Impressionists were told to go away that their paint daubs weren’t art. Photographers were originally told the same both are now accepted. CG will eventually also earn it’s place it’s just going to take time…

edited to add just followed the link to the interview…he apparently works in Maya and creates from scratch. This is likely to be accepted quicker and earlier than using premade figures but that will also change with time…just my two cents.

i could only dream of having 12k to spend on an art collection, or first edition.

Pendraia - 08 January 2013 06:35 PM

edited to add just followed the link to the interview…he apparently works in Maya and creates from scratch. This is likely to be accepted quicker and earlier than using premade figures but that will also change with time…just my two cents.

The two times I saw this artist’s prints at art shows I read the label on the wall, and talked to the art dealers about them.  Neither the labels nor the dealers said anything about Maya or about original or premade figures.  I doubt anyone shopping for art at these international art fairs have any idea about what Maya is.