Sorry but...it IS both the artist AND the tools.
wolf359
Posts: 3,931
Hi I was going to comment in the "Poser is still king "
,mutual validation thread.
However I decided to start a separate discussion on the extremely ill advised bit of internet mythology:
"Its not the tools.. its the Artist"
Whenever I see this posted online , I cringe.
First there is no substitute for raw talent and well developed technical skills in seeking a certain creative outcome.
However assuming these elements are present
(raw talent and well developed technical skills)
Better tools will Always result in a better outcome.
And if these elements
(raw talent and well developed technical skills)
are not present or weak.
Better tools will still likely result in a better outcome.
This delusional mantra "Its not the tools.. its the Artist"
is an extremely reductive statement that does not seem to consider that peoples creative objectives are widely varied
and thus their tool requirements will be also.
This mindset often results in really bad advice being given when a person asks for input from the "Community"
on the best software to achieve X,Yor Z
Understand this; by "tools" I mean Specifically 3DCC Software for modeling and rendering stills /animation/VFX
Not Figures which are essentially premade content assets.
To be fair, poorly worded & vague questions will usually result
in a deluge of largely useless answers from the various
partisans advocating from the position of their area of focus
or apsiring focus:
"What is the best program for animation??".... Sorry a bad question,
that will likely result in Maya enthusiasts regurgitating
predictable bloviation about the Mighty Autodesk product.
Or the anti-Daz pontificators who will respond with an equally useless and vague" anything but DAZ studio" narrative,
despite never having used Daz studio for any animation task themselves.
or a Daz or Carrara loyalist claiming those apps are all one needs because well ..they do "everything" in it.
A better question would be:
"I am interested in animating People.. or , nonorganic objects
( cars etc) or visual effects.
and will,be rendering in Daz studio or Maya or Carrara etc,
I will need lipsinc & possibly cloth dynamics."
A question like this will result in more informed/educated responses from the people who actually have similar objectives
and Experiences thus avoiding having the thread polluted with people putting forth thier general philosophies that may not really offer useful info
"Its not the tools.. its the Artist"
The narrative is alway the same:
"some snob from the Maya,Max , Houdini etc community
Slammed my(Poser/Daz) work on my Deviant Art page, I asked him if he coded & compiled his own software...blah blah blah
...Yeah Me too way to go!!!!"
let the mutual validation
,of our software loyalties, frenzy begin.
More reductive nonsense from BOTH parties.
the "snob" May be just a garden variety internet troll
or perhaps a person who thinks that everyone
aspires to be producing Hollywood level VFX shots.
However the "Victims" who often posts these anecdotes,
are often not willing to admit their creative outcomes
("hobbiest" or not) ,are being severely limited by a near religous Loyality to a program
or render engine etc even when other , better options are within their economic means and dismiss any objective
critique of thier output by huddling under the impervious shelter of "Its not the tools.. its the Artist" .
Having no interest/time or frankly being too lazy to learn a better tool is perfectly fine.
Just be honest about it because
in modern Visual/Artistic communications,
Better tools usually result in better outcomes .
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Time is scarce.
Learning basic and advanced tools takes time.
Learning basic and advanced art techniques takes time.
So, I will focus on the word TIME when you say "...Having no interest/time or frankly being too lazy to learn a better tool..." rather than the words "interest" or "lazy."
Art technique happens to be my bigger weakness. Even as I put time in learning new programs, I intend to put even more time in learning basic art techniques. Because of my background and innate talents (or lack thereof), it is much better advice when people tell me that "it is not the tool, it is the artist" because...
Better art techniques usually result in better outcomes.
Edited for typos
Agreed. Same exact concepts apply to photography. But I'd like to add a third element for those that want to make money; i.e. business-savvy.
As a software engineer for over 30 years, the technical part comes easy to me. I started with simpler photography gear, and once I fully understood its technical limitations, I moved on to better gear. Same can be done for software.
I need to practice the art side of things much more. I'm personally giving myself at least 5 years to hone those skills. Boucing between real photography projects and 3D renderings have benefitted each other a bit in that area.
Business-wise, while I do make money from software sales, not sure yet if I will ever pursue photography and/or 3D imagery services/content.
The one statement I've made in the past, is why are there so many different brushes for artists of watercolours, pastels and oils, if it isn't the tool?
I think 3D rendering is a very special case, you've mentioned the figures, but you can also buy complete scenes and/ with camera and light presets, so you're able to get great results, just with some 'hit render button' and maybe 'zoom, pane, rotate' skills.
If we are talking about 'hand drawing/ painting' you can buy expensive colors, brushes, markers etc., but without drawing skills, these are nothing but expensive tools.
And a lot of 'influencers' making a lot of money by telling the people what they have to buy to get good outcomes, speaking of tools, lifestyle, make-up etc.
So for me the tools/ skills relation is a different one in each genre...
I agee with everything you said , But you missed one very huge huddle for most arist( mostly beginning artist.) in order to become a great artist and have the great tool to make great animations or art work it takes money and resourses & some education.
Yes its is true, there are many free 3d programs like blender, daz studio, pose, iclone , etc that are free or reasonably affordable priced for a beginner to dabble in 3d and do a fairly great job at getting the job done.
Programs like Maya 3ds, zbrush, mudbox etc usually take significant amount of money for the software & to build resources use those software programs . which most beginners are not willing to invest in with out proper school or training. where as on the other hand, daz, iclone or poser is a more out of the box user friendly software at low start up investment, Hence why the appeal for this software to beginners and hobbyist .
What you had state is true, that maybe great tools do produce better results with a medium talented artist. Just think how great a talented artist using cheap software would be if they could afford the better software tools or a super computer to run them. . It takes a great deal of money to get those more robust tools compared to a software like daz or poser where you just buy your assets, or make them your self with another free software like blender or hexagon. Some aritst are great talents , But do not have the proper economic resources to upgrade to the more robust tool and are greatful to work with what they can get their hands on. Those are the real talents, learning to work and be successful with what they have. I celibate those people who can work with nothing and still be a success in their artistry.
"Most Maya(Autodesk) Snobs" I have seen on YouTube have nothing to show for all their educations, the animations you see on YouTube from them are most short demo reels, and if you do see a animated short flim from the Maya crowd is usually has more that 5 people involved in the project . where you & I my friend do our work alone in a software we can afford that works for our needs that we can afford. so stand up be proud of what you can do with what you have . I am never ashamed of working with only that I can afford
Thank you Wolf for sharing this sediment and stating what I have always felt with this on going software vs talent debate
I agree with you 30%? 50%? There are definitely hard limitations: if your theoretical render engine doesn't have SSS, no amount of artistry is going to make you a truly realistic skin shader. *That said* if your theoretical render engine (let's say iray) does have some remotely proper form of SSS (which it does) than switching to some other theoretical engine that costs lots of money isn't going to magically give your skin intrinsically superior SSS. I can do full chromatic SSS with no diffuse and proper scattering distance in iray, I can do the same in Cycles, is one somehow intrinsically better? (Well Cycles is definitely faster)
Similarly, but a less theoretical example, DS + Iray doesn't have a proper strand rendering solution. This is an absolute hard limitation. If you take someone moderately competent in a software + render engine that does do strands, there's not really any level of artistry that is going to make up for that in a program that doesn't. .... That said if you take someone who has no idea what they're doing and give them Maya and tell them to make hair that is not going to be intrinsically superior to someone who is skilled, even if they are skilled in a program that one has polygonal hair.
To sum up, there are absolutely hard limitations on software but I would argue that the only ones that really matter are when a a feature is completely missing. Slightly better/worse implementations of similar features can absolutely be made up by skill. Also, artist over program remains true, as long as the skill differential is high enough. If you pit, say, me in iray vs someone who's literally never used a 3d program before in Maya, I like my chances disirregardles of their superior software :)
I'd say the statement is true more often than not, but it depends on so many things. Let's switch to more general crafts for a moment and talk about piano tuning. You need a tuning hammer to do that, so there's the tool. Sounds easy enough and anyone with a tuning hammer can start tuning. But you need years of training before you truely mastered the technique.
So now it depends on the premise of the question: do you accept that a tuning hammer is just a given? In that case the statement is true. A beginner with the best tuning hammer (and yes there are very highend and expensive ones) is going to do mutch worse than a pro with the crappiest one. Or do you insist that one cannot tune a piano without a tuning hammer, and so the tool does matter a lot? In that case the statement is false.
Most people I think would accept that for many crafts you need a baseline tool without which you cannot work, and that it is not in and of itself going to make a dramatic difference when offset by years of training. Give Roger Federer a crappy tennis racket or even a remotely racket-shaped piece of wood and he's still gonna beat 99.99999% of people on this earth with it.
Something that isn’t mentioned much is ‘judgement.’ Maybe it’s the fitting between talent and technique but it’s something that’s developable and carries across fields. I thought of this because of j case talking about the different capabilities of tools, because another controlling element of quality is matching the project to the tools. If your tools don’t have SSS or stranding, you could still make awfully impressive cartoon-style art (for example).
It’s just way too subjective.
When you say ‘better tools,’ what defines better? What is a fair comparison? Is Photoshop a better tool than brush, paint and canvas? In the end, it’s ultimately the artist’s skills, talent and creative inspirations that define the artistry of their work.
I think that a lot of folks that use DS want the mechanics of the rendering process (i.e. lighting, shaders) to be recognized as artistic. We here will ooh and aah over a render because we understand the process and the degrees of skill and hard work involved. But to a broader audience, it’s just a rather mundane image of an attractive woman standing on a beach. Then compare to something produced by Sir Trancrede and you see where artistic skill and talent comes into play with essestially the same toolset.
For me, everything comes down to time and money. Art is a hobby, 1 of many. I can't justify spending large amounts of money on high end software and I have limited time to learn them. Now I've become pretty good at the software I do have, but I do want to learn more and try new programs. However, when I have the time for art, I have to make a choice everytime. Do I want to spend time creating this cool image I have in my head or do I take that time to learn new software?
A couble of weeks ago I started playing with Hexagon. I've only completed 1 item and I still need to finish up the 2nd. Then, two weeks ago, I wanted to try out this app I discovered for the iPad Pro called uMake. You can draw in 3D with it and export out your creations in OBJ. I though this might be great for some of my NPR fanart, where I can't find the right models. Well, my father had a heart attack and I traveled 13 hours to Hawaii. He unfortunantly passed and I spent a week there. When I got back, I was too tired to learn new software, so I lost 2 weeks. I'm still left with several choicies, do I create art with what I have, go back to Hexagon, or try out uMake? So TIME is a big deal for me, not lazness or brand loyality. I hope this adds to the discorse and understanding.
For me a lot has to do with composition and what you do with the tools. You can have a lot of money and hardware And understanding of the software but if you lack creativity to do anything with your scene it’s boring to me no matter how real or techniclal correct.
Tools can speed up an artist's expression of their art and so that speed is very important to developing a style and improved skills that pleases the artist themself. They may be trying to please others and have to if they are employed as an artist for a business, but that isn't a prerequisite to making good art.
So tools make the difference in time to be a maturely developed artist but are useless if someone doesn't really want to do art. And once one is mature in their technical and stylistic skills their is scant room for improvement. One doesn't improve in multiplication tables either once they are mastered.
Fair enough. My example was extreme. But another analogy would be - does a better word processing program make someone a better writer? Merit is typically judged by the end result, not the process. You still have to have the inherent skills and talent to make use of those subjectively determined better tools.
I can state that a set of tools are inferior while admiring the artist who painted amazing works with urine and blood.
The problem is that people constantly mistake analysis for personal criticism; both those who give it and those who take it. But it doesn’t have to go that way.
I could make an argument that Photoshop is superior to GIMP while supporting that GIMP might work better for someone’s tastes and workflow, and that free might be a bigger deal than the proposed advantage.
(for the record, I am NOT making a claim of Photoshop’s superiority.)
It is also true that people tend to be more absolutist than is warranted. Is crayon better than chalk? That’s a nonsense question.
When I comment about 3dl vs Iray, I do not broadly claim superiority of one over the other. But there are specific analyses that I think are simply wrong.
In physical media, if someone claims tempura is superior to crayons because tempura paints dry faster than crayons, it invites people saying ‘uh, what? No’
Think of it this way: a word processor (as compared to handwriting) allows good writers to emerge who otherwise would have never discovered and trained their talent. So, indeed, the word processor matters enormously. But comparing word processing programs at this point in their development is a lot like comparing different brands of watercolor. Complexity and ubiquity of a tool tend to change how crucial it's percieved to be.
A better word processing program doesn't so much allow one to be a better writer as a better typesetter. Latex vs Word fight, go!
I was focused on the OP’s statement of “better tools usually result in better outcomes.” It is a statement rooted in subjective analysis. All I’m trying to say is that it’s up to the individual to determine what are the best tools for their specific needs. There is no right or wrong.
There are objective analyses, they just have context that matters.
A box of 256 crayons objectively has more range of colors than a small box of pastels. Pastels are objectively more vibrant. Pastels get all over your hands and you need to seal the pastel artwork when you are done, crayons not so much. Crayons are generally cheaper.
But I agree that ‘better tools better outcomes’ is not well supported
If you take it with the later point that, as I read it, the best tool is the one that best suits your needs it becomes a much more reasonable statement. But since that part of the argument is less directly stated and not in **bold** it is much easier to just focus on the headline, as it were.
Maybe wolf needs that theoretical better word processor :)
I don’t know now, you’ve got me thinking. Gonna head to Hobby Lobby to pick up some urine and blood supplies, lol.
I disagree - DAZ Studio 4.10.x is unequivocally better than DAZ Studio 1, 3.x, and so on and does allow for better results and faster.
Automobiles of today are manufactured to much higher precision safety and quality standards than automobiles of the past. Guitars and other musical instruments likewise. Various artist mediums. Televisions. Computers and computer programs.
Tools matter. Tools matter for faster design iteration. Tools matter for faster manufacture interation. Tools matter for cheaper distribution. Tools matter for precision quality. Tools matter to cut material waste. Tools matter to cut labor waste. Tools matter.
I challenge any single individual, no matter how genius and talented, to single handledly marshall all the skills needed to design and manufacture a new model automobile as quickly, precisisely, and in as much volume as a Chevy Impala as an example, without all the modern tools and materials used in today's automotive industry. They won't get anywhere in their ambition and certainly not singledhandedly.
Think I am choosing a needlessly complex field in automotive. Then have that a genius individual do all the work to put together a program like DAZ Studio, from scratch, singlehandedly, discounting and granting them free technology like computers and all the SW they'd need to write a program like DAZ Studio. No one is going to step up so it's not going to happen. We are talking a program that allows a complete amateur to do a realistically lit render with no art training and no other training save a few clicks. Tools matter with regard to quality precision production.
Tools matter. Increasingly more than the individuals that are manning the subject matter niches that use those tools. They were designed to reduce human error and human costs and precisely so.
Don't think manufacturing has anything to do with the topic at hand though.
Sure it does, because you ain't doing a thing without manufacturing something are you? And more often then not, you use far more manufactured goods to acheive your artistic vision then you manufactured yourself to create that work of art. Computers, the intenet, DAZ Studio, and plenty of other tools used in your art endevors didn't manufacture themselves, weren't manufactured by you or me, and are very relevant to repeatable artistic productivity. Tools matter. Tools are manufactured.
Guitars and other musical instruments likewise
Not true, but I know what you meant. You're using 'number of features' over does features well or better than....
As such the phrase, "They don't make them like they used to".
It's also tied in to it is - the expectation of the product.
We had GLASS BOTTLES, now we use cheap plastic. No one will argue that cheap plastic is a better quality container, but it's supposed to...wait for it....be disposable.
And add manufacturing short-cuts and well.....There's versions of Windows and Mac Os that are known to be dogs and overall, in history, technology is not linear.
Heh... sure, but then we're going down into a bit of a silly rabbit hole. This is about artists and their tools today, not how our tools developed since the stone age. Obviously nobody can do CG without software, computers, electricity and so many more things. Does that have any relevance to the question of wether artistic mastery is more or equally as important as the tools used? Don't think so. It merely points out the rather obvious side fact that indeed since we all use tools since the stone age, they are very important.