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
I suspect that there a relative small number of brushes needed to accomplish said effect or style - meaning they could be achieved (if not easily) using some other brush?
Personally, I think the tool is important, but not essnetial, whereas the artist is essential.
Take away the tool, and the artist will make art in a different way - sure a digital artist couldn't create digital art without the computer and its associate software, but some would feel the need to create art in some form anyway.
... Others may just decide they needed a computer and set about creating new tools.
If no one knows how to paint, the paint brush stops being a tool and becomes just some weird stick lieing around unused. (Maybe someone turns it into a stilleto and tries stabbing someone with it.) Tools, of course, can fulfill purposes for which they were not invented/designed.
... The computer is one such beast.
1) Daz is NOT a tool. Bad definition and an ill-advised analogy path. Daz Studio is a working environment. That HAS TOOLS.
You judge tools by precision. That is a measurable thing and NOT subjective. Words like favorite and easy are subjective.'
Best for a person is subjective.
Its not the tools.. its the Artist
This statement has been taken out of context and mis-used. It means that THE ARTIST (by definition of artist, we can stop including 'someone who just started' or 'someone with no skills and/or experience') has enough working knowledge to approach EVERY TOOL/tool set the same way and perform their required task(s), And so, whether they use program X or program Y, they will be doing the same thing. That is why they will say it's not the tools. When those that are 'power users' argue back and forth about what's better than what, they mean the precision of the tools or included (or lack of) tools.
The fact that it is the artist and the tools is a bit of a no-brainer, but I'd like the add it's the artist and the mastery of whatever tools one has at his/her disposal. The saying "It's the artist and not the tools" is simplistic at worst and merely a reflex defense against the equally erroneous notions of "industry standard" and "expensive gear" whenever tools and technology become available to the masses.
Sadly most people merely dabble at the arts, or never take it beyond the recreational level. As a result I find many people who NEVER master the tools they have before they are upgrading or moving on to something else. They NEVER take the time to master the basics. For example the person who has not taken the time to learn the fundamentals of motion is going to produce lackluster animation whether they are using Blender or Maya -- the tools they are using aren't going to make a hill of beans difference in the quality of their output. The person who hasn't taken the time to understand light and composition is probably not going to produce fantastic, dynamic renders.
Sure, sometimes tools absolutely can make the difference, but at the stage and level this discussion usually comes up, it ain't about the tools so much as it really is about the artist and them learning their craft AND mastering their tools.
Editted
How many digital artists are there out there who can use (to a similar standard) Studio, Blender, Maya, 3DSMax, Cinema4D etc and etc? It wouldn't surprise me if there were none; this would discount a considerable number of tallented (what to call them if not artists?), we'll go with artists.
If its the artistic talent and tools, why have I been sacrificing all these goats? Oh well.... barbeque at my place.
I think this "Its not the tools.. its the Artist" comes more from the idea, that if you don`t have a basic knowledge on how things move (in animation) or react to light (rendering,compositing), no sophisticated application can really compensate for this.On the other hand, a missing crucial feature in a specific software (like a working IK-solver) can really hinder creativity big time.
How many digital artists are there out there who can use...
Looks like you misunderstood my post as I have no idea how this is a relevant response question- in regard to my point.
The point was - if an artist (or craftsman or worker or 3D-somebody) knows ONE program well and figured out their workflow. That person now only needs to figure out HOW to do what they do in any other program and therefore THE PROGRAM no longer matters as much, if at all. And so, for many (aged, experienced/top) artists when you ask what they use, they say "doesn't matter, you can get these results using anything".
----------
There was a second part that I wrote that dealt with comfort with GUI or user preferences being akin to how well a tool box is laid out or the tools, themselves labeled. I edited it out.
That's the subjective part, different from someone saying "It doesn't matter what you use".
Agreed they need to figure it out, but that ignores the learning time required, and the fact they just may not get it or like the software - this has an affect. Tools are very important, but folks have always had preferences because they (feel/think) they do a better job with tool A instead of B. Maybe they do too.
My point was, you state that artists can move with equal facile from tool to tool; you yourself indicate (in your follow-up post) at least a learning process, which negates the same skill-set between aps.
A good point and hits on the aspect that many people who harp on "specific" tools are really just fanboys of certain software or gear, or they hate the idea that technology is now making some aspect of a trade that used to take years to do, now doable with the time it take to learn some bit of software in months instead of years and often without the necessity of formal training.
I've always said that if we're talking about tools that have the ability to actually "get the job done" on some level, most people really just have a bias about the tools themselves, for example there is a Sports Illustrated photographer (in fact there are several famous photographers) who use polaroids -- and not some tricked out polariod, but the standard consumer vers. If I gave a polaroid camera to a photography student and access to models and a someone's swimming pool and let him take photos and then put his next to Maripol, or some other professional, you may indeed be able to notice a difference, but it's not going to be because of the tools being used, or that they aren't typically considered "professional" gear. It's amazing and spotlights the disingenuity at work that consumer gear is oft-times legitmized and lauded only after a professional decides they want to try their hand at it, where before the initiate who had been using said gear up to that point was being told they'd never be a professional if they continued to use it.
folks have always had preferences because they (feel/think) they do a better job with tool A instead of B. Maybe they do too.
I did include that But that's also why a "pro" might say pick the one you like and don't worry about what's the best- hence- it doesn't matter, it's not the tools.
What's best for a person is subjective.
My point was, you state that artists can move with equal facile from tool to tool
If by tool - you mean tool, then yes. If you mean Suite or Software environment or app then no. I said they know their TASK or technique well. And if it's a regular tool box for that system, you'll have the tool needed for the expected job/task. Also, it's not the same as learning from scratch. The learning curve is expected, but there's one for every program, even the FIRST one you aquired the experience on.
And once you start the "This is easier to learn than this" "This GUI looks better", we are back to preferences, which is down to the individual.
So the ultimate catch-all would be "Among any set of quality tools, the tools don't matter".
Then follows the philosophical
"When art reachest its highest levels, you no longer see the hands or tools that created it" - The ancient philosopher Griffican Avidicus.
Overly semantic contortion IMO. Software is absolutely a tool. Just because it's in the nature of software to provide various functions in one package doesn't mean this distinction needs to be made. It serves no purpose.
This is correct I think and the reason why you hear the phrase "the tool doesn't matter" so often in 3D software. If you know how to model, you can do it in any package after a period of adjustment. Sure there may be cases when one software really just flat out doesn't have functionality that you would need. Like j.cade mentioned, no strand-based hair solution in Daz Studio is a limitation that we can work around only with pretty big caveats. In general though I think this statement still holds true in this context.
Overly semantic contortion IMO <---> Just because it's in the nature of software to provide various functions
Instead of just saying tools. lol
You're saying Daz is a Tool, that, you know, has other tools in it.
As opposed to quite relevant understanding that Daz is a tool box.
As you say " If you know how to model"
Which means you are comfortable with the modeling TOOLS and technique, but not the software environment.
That's statement can't be made without the distinction.
Yes, you can spend thousands of dollars on tools and they will be awesome. If you spend thousands of dollars buying the education to use it, it will be fantastic. If you have the time and the money and wish to do this professionally, by all means do this. If you are doing this as a hobby for your own pleasure, you need not go to such extremes. You can spend too much time beating yourself up because your work is not better than a pro with thousands of practice hours and thousands of dollars worth of software and thousands of dollars worth of education behind them. I suggest a med for OCD in this case so you can enjoy and be more satistfied with what you accomplish with the tools and resources and time constraints you have. It is wrong to think hard work and man hours to make an orange into an apple is a good use of anyone's time and energy. It is helpful to have realistic expectations. False assumptions about what a software can do will waste a ton of your time if your expectations are not realistic and you are trying to bang a square peg into a round hole for ages and ages. I use a ton of free and open source software and I am happy using it and happy with the results I get for my own personal, non-professional use. I love supporting the artists here at Daz and in this 3d community. I know my free copy of blender will replace none of them. I know I may never make a 3d object of any kind simply because Blender is not really my program or thing. Perhaps I could spend X number of dollars and be building 3d objects in another program. Here I draw a line and say it is Blender or nothing. If I don't have time or inclination to work in Blender some then I don't rate the spending as a good investment in my intentions paying off. However if I had spent hours in Blender and was really intent on learning, then I may choose differently and upgrade to a pay program. But, no it is not practical to try and paint a master work with a toothbrush. It may be possible but it is not ideal and I would not find that a fun challenge. I must mention that free programs get better every day and what would have been impossible ten years ago with them may be more than possible with them today. They will never be the cutting edge I don't think. But I am quite happy with eating an orange and I don't try to make it taste like apple pie. (I take my antipsychotics, thank you very much and they really help my OCD intersting offlable use for those not in the know)
The computer is the house, the OS is the tool shed, the software is the toolbox, the modelling tools are... a collection of tools? And the extrude tool is an actual tool. I don't see what we is to be gained by making this distinction. Wether someone says my tool is better than yours or my toolbox is better than yours doesn't change a thing about the underlying discussion. All it may do is confuse people.
All it may do is confuse people. What imaginary people are you...imagining? No one is confused. No one will be confused.
If you want to consider Daz a tool, an asset, a workstation, a plug-in, a bit of kit, a way of life, go ahead. It's all good.
How many tutorials have you seen where the host says "I'm using XYZ, but it doesn't matter, this technique works in anything that supports...ABC."?
That's the point. If it's too precise or specific or all semantics, okay.
Saddly the resident crazy person here would like to give an unsolicited comment on perfectionism. I think it, like everything else can be carried too far and in many cases can do more harm than good. Everything in moderation is a valid recommendation. You need to have real facts like all software is not created equal to make rational decisions about your choices. Your time is valuable too. There is a reason software makers can charge pros so much and get it day after day for their products. Do you have more money than time? What is your actual earning potential per hour? How much free time do you have? Are your decisions sound? Are you spending too much money on your entertainment budget? Are you spending too much time on your artworks? Are you so hard on yourself you take no pride in your accomplishments and your hobby has turned into a second job that doesn't relax you or reward you? Not only should one consider the time involved to make a lesser software over-perform, but also what would inspire a person to work so hard at a pastime. My grandmother use to tell me to hit it a lick and move on. I erased holes in my papers and was the last to finish anything in class for years. Perectionism in the extreme is painful and will hold you back and steal your joy. You can budget for expensive things or you have the option of hitting it a lick and moving on with lesser and cheaper softwares. Perhaps one could be less hard on one's self in the hobby arena?
I know people with an art education involving traditional media like oils, etc. A few of these specific people had little experience with 3D modeling software or 3D rendering software, although each had extensive experience with 2D image editing software.
A few others like myself have modeled complex objects in Blender, Hexagon, and Carrara (yes, I can model complex objects in Carrara, and I can even paint across UV seams and across material zones), and rendered those models in Poser, Daz Studio, and Carrara. However, some of us have little to no traditional art education.
Akthough I agree with the OP that the results of any project are the result of both the artist and the tools, I disagree with the OP’s elevation of the role of particular software packages over the role of the artist’s experience, training, and talent. What, you think no such elevation occurred? Then how do explain the denigration of the phrase “it is not the tool, it is the artist,” without a corresponding denigration of references to alternative modeling apps? If someone produces a crappy model in Silo with crappy being defined as lack of beveled edges when the object is intended to be well worn, and other similar objective measures, it is not because Silo is a crappy modeling app. It was the artist, not the tool. Telling the person to spend thousands of dollars on a more sophisticated modeling app will still result in a crappy model, as defined above.
On the other hand, there are times when the issue of the tools is more significant than the artist. If a rendering program can’t calculate and interpret specific surface information contained in the model’s file, it would be totally inappropriate to say that it was the artist, not the tool.
For some of us, like me, the greatest marginal improvements come by spending an extra hour training to be a better artist, not from learning a 4th or 5th modeling app. For others, the greatest marginal improvement may come from learning their 1st modeling app so that they can express their own imagination with less constraint to the range of models and other content made available by others. If that app can uv map and 3D paint, all the better, or maybe learn a program dedicated to each function, but in any case the primary issue in this case is the tools, and only then the artist.
it is because I believe it is both the artist and the tools (and other factors also) in agreement with the OP, that I defend the phrase “it is the artist, not the tool,” when it is sometimes appropriate - which seems to be in disagreement with the OP.
Tool is a very generalised term and is being used all over the place. Software is often called a tool, despite it consisting of more tools that are only called that because someone named it so. Go to ZBrush and there you will find something that people would have more commonly called layers but it's called tools (of course soon you realise layers do exist too but do something completely different). Point being, you can call anything whatever you wanna call it. But tool is a pretty common and logical name for software.
A car is not actually a means of transportation because only the seat you're sitting on moves you. But the seat only moves because it's attached to the chassis and the chassis only moves because it has wheels attached that turn but they don't turn without... and so on and so forth. You can go on for pages picking stuff apart semantically but a car is still a means of transportation, just like software is a tool, no matter how many different components make up the whole. And yes, in the wonderful world of software it is easily possible that tools consist of tools consist of tools, and if someone had named it marmelade instead it would be marmelade consisting of marmelade consisting of marmelade.
It's more than reasonable to think of a tool as the piece of software that is being discussed So usually when it comes to 3d software wars, Maya vs 3dsmax vs C4D vs Modo etc., if something like "artist more important than the tool" comes up, it's pretty clear what was meant.
Software is often called a tool, despite it consisting of more tools that are only called that because someone named it so.
There's the first thing. Tools are so named because they are a call back to a TOOL in real life.
An Eraser (tool) is a real thing that has a purpose. Not arbitrary and named from its traditional media equivalent.
And they use these TERMS to make things easier for us to understand. So your Software is actually one-big analogy.
Photoshop has Brushes...
People still say Tape Record....Your phone's recorder icon is probably some kind of old microphone or recorder...etc....
when it comes to 3d software wars, Maya vs 3dsmax vs C4D vs Modo etc.
Which is actually a battle over several things being compared.
How the software looks (GUI)....
How the software works....
What tools and features that are included....
How easy is it to find the tool you need...or multi-tools, etc
How the tools work.....(usually precision) and workflow...etc...
The cost. etc
------------
But to honest, I've said all I care to say about this. And I don't klnow what else I can add on top of the stuff I've been saying.
EVERYONE agrees that the artist and the tools matter.
The nuance is diminishing returns for the MOST DELUXE TOOLSET/SOFTWARE EVER and asking for EXTREME expertise from an artist to compensate for generic tools.
The OP is saying that all things being equal, better tools give better results.
Which is not the same sentiment when an artist says put any tool in my hand and I will create art just fine.
Switching programs or tools can be a big hairy deal. Picking the right thing to switch to can be a big hairy deal. But no one can really help predict what will work the very best for you. I recommend deciding what areas a software seems to be failing you based on your own requirments and workflow etc. Then I recommend not spending a dime until you tried out all the free trials of software you are considering. The only way to know if a software is right for your needs is to get in there and use up that free trial. By the end of the trial times, you'll know if its a winner. If you still don't know at the end of the trial, well I am going to assume its time to try something else cause those are all too big of a pain in the tail.
...as long as you cook them in curry, otherwise they taste like....goat.
...well 3DL as it stands in Daz cannot produce the same level of ultra photo realistic results as Iray or Octane. It can come close, sort of, but due to constraints imposed by its integration in the Daz programme, and that it doesn't use "real world" physics/calculations for light, it will always fall short. On the other hand this is not to say one cannot still achieve extremely nice results with it.
...well there are two strand based solutions, however they require a bit more effort to use and only work well under one render engine.
...the difficulty with free trials is the fact often they are hamstrung versions of the full programme. Poser was one like that, so was Vue. I didn't get a good impression of either programme because some of the functions I wanted to try were locked out and (in the case of Vue) rendering was only a certain base quality and size with a watermark across it. Daz3D on the other hand offered the full basic version of their then "new" flagship programme and even included a kit of some basic content to experiment with. There also was no limitation on time, no locked out functions, no watermarks or constraints on render quality. That went very far to selling me on Daz over Poser and the much more expensive Vue Studio package when I first got into this. Considering I was also on a rather tight budget even then (crappy wage job), not having to pony up 250$ (Poser) or 500$ (Vue) up front (plus additional content expense for either) when I was ready to take this further was very welcome.
I know a few people who produce some really good images with these programs who profess that they couldn't do it using traditional media.
Yeah, but you can learn a lot from a free trial in most cases when it comes to workflow and features. For instance, I found Krita and was watching some free video tutorials on youtube on the new features and heard about Affinity Design and found Affinity Photo. I have an old copy of Elements and use it quite a lot as many of my needs are simple. I was glassyeyed about a $50 photoshop replacement and a $50 illustrator product. Needless to say I was disappointed to find the Photo version didn't have an equalize which Elements does and Gimp and I use all the time working with textures. My daughter had to open both to work on tracing her orginal art to make it vector because the Designer didn't have proper crop functions for her. Opening both slowed the programs and they were laggy. Krita let you use vectors as a vector layer right in the program and was free. Designer was easier to me for about an hour until I got use to the tools, then Krita's tools really seemed to work better with neater features. In the end I chose Krita but not because it was free, and to upgrade my copy of Elements so I could use brushes and things for photoshop and not to buy the the other software at all. Krita and Gimp can use the Photoshop brushes and plugins and Gimp is what I use if I am working a find a limit on Elements. Actions didn't seem to have the pull they did years ago, most of the effects seem to be stuff I'd just do. These are very basic simple programs compared to 3d programs. However, the process of using a trial to judge how the new software handles the way you work is still valid. Your opinion at 1 hour may not be the same as your opinion on hour 5 or hour 10 with that program as you learn but trials should help more than anyuone's opinions of different products. I had read all the reviews and disreguarded anything that pointed to the pay programs not being a dream come true. I must say I ended up looking over Zbrush and 3dcoat again as I know I don't really want to work with Blender and tried to figure out how to get time to test their trials. I have several big timesinks on my project list and want to master Krita before I jumping into 3d. The timing has got to be right, meaning I must have time to try out the software and be in position to buy it if I like it and none of that is true today. When I get time and money, I will take my own advice and give a few trials a spin.
I tried Vue and loved it. I haven't tried Poser in many years. Vue just cost too much because I do like editing this and that and those features are most expensive ones always. Poser had features I'd never use at all. I was divorced and working at Burger King and Daz Studio was free and did everything I needed to do. Getting to put my money towards content was huge for me. Now, I don't really need anything else and the new features are cool. My money is different and I can think about designing a charater and having it printed. How cool would that be? I, unfortunatly, am not teaming with ideas for things I just have to make myself. I also don't care about photoreal very much. Iray is cool but sometimes I want the fantasy feel of the old stuff. I got into Daz and Poser stuff because a long break and bad attitude of, "I'll never be good enough to be a real artist, I quit." had left me with hands that couldn't perform at their old level and had not the time or heart to get them back in shape. Plus I use to collect dolls and Vicky is like one doll you can make endless dolls with and that so fantasticly cool to me. I still have to draw back from spending big on software. I have spent thousands on content but that money got spread around to people who are living my old dream of being a working artist. Only recently it occured to me the work I do with beads is art, the food I cook is art, the things I make with programs is art. I may not be the best artist but I am still an artist. Maybe one that doesn't profit from it directly. More importantly my art benefits those closest to me and enriches their lives in countless ways and that's totally cool even if I don't make bank.
Very interesting conversation, but it does make me wonder .... well not really ...... but I thought I'd trow this out there, because ..... well I'm not sure, but I'll do it anyway.
So while everyone is having this conversation, much of which seemingly goes back to semantics and "technical" definitions (some with what could be perceived as personal opinion biases), one does wonder (at least this "one", well actually, I don't wonder, but it's a good way to put something out there as food for thought) if such a conversation ever comes up in a professional setting (i.e. Dreamworks, ILM, Pixar, etc.)? My guess is ..... uuummmm .... no. Because they are involved in producing the best product they can, with the tools they have available (OK, some will say they aren't using "tools", but lets not quibble over silly semantics here, because hopefully everyone knows what I mean, besides, when the word "tool" was first used, software didn't exists, and language changes over time, so there needs to be some good familiar term to use, or I could use softool, or "computer program thingamajig that lets you do this and that, but then no one but me would have a clue what I was taking about, which might not be much different than reality, but I digress). Of course, if they run across something they need to do, and can't because the "tool(s)" they have don't do it, they (well actually more likely the director, and administration, and programmers) have a choice, do a reasonable facsimile of what they want, or have what they need made ..... but of course probably none of us have that option, so this really should never have entered the discussion .... or should it?
I guess I don't have any dog in this fight .... is there a dog fight?? ..... oh, sorry for the side track, I was evidently taking the expression/metaphor "I don't have a dog in this fight" literally, when, according to www.metaphordogs.org "don't have a dog in this fight." means: "An old Southern expression meaning, in essence, that you don't care about the outcome of a situation. Maureen Dowd named this as a common maxim in Washington. The usage is flexible and can be as easily understood in the inverse.". So, once again I digress, but since I'm not an artist, I probably have no real valid opinion here, or maybe I'm just chasing my tail???
Seriously though (not really, but It's a common expression that sort of fits), much of the discussion seems to have morphed into what is art, and if an artist doesn't have the tools, they will do some other form of art??? Odd .... The title of the thread made me think of the famous Mark Twain quote, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size or the fight in the dog." (oh, that's why I had dogs on the brain). This expression, taken to literal extremes, is obviously not going to hold true (think of Pitbull vs Chihuahua, logic dictates that the Pitbull will almost always win, but there is room for a case where a very old and docile Pitbull might lose to a very aggressive and cunning Chihuahua). But, in the figurative sense, and quite possibly the literal sense too, it works for this discussion. If someone doesn't have the proper "tool" to do given operation, or provide a means to simulate said operation by performing a series of other operations (operation being used as some computing thing the computer performs, not the doctor), then they simply can't do it, or as Wolf alluded to, it becomes to cumbersome and kills the desire or realistic ability to complete. So, you could have someone with all of the skills in the world needed to make an award winning animated short, but if they don't have the tools to do it, they simply can't. But there are also those who can take a rudimentary set of tools, who have great talent and intestinal fortitude (or think of the somewhat smaller dog in the fight), they will be able to make something amazing (I submit into eveidence, Exibit A: Rosa an amazing short done with ...... wait for it ....... DAZ Studio).
One other note, then I'll go away for a looooong rest. It really isn't nice to call DAZ a tool. There seem to be some very nice people at DAZ, that provide some nice things for us to use and buy to make our art ..... well your art, I'll have to remove myself from that elite group, as I certainly am not artist, but I do have fun making "purty pictures" with DAZ Studio. I think calling DAZ a tool is a bit over the top ....................... OH, my bad again, I think that people calling DAZ a tool were actually calling DAZ Studio (or as it is often referred to DS) a tool, not the company. Guess I'm equally guilty of taking things literally, and not really understanding what is being said. OK, back to my nap, I'm too confused.
...Vue Poser and Daz were the three names given me on another unrelated forum back when I was looking into CG programmes. The thought of paying 250$ or 500$ (Vue "Studio") was daunting. to say the least (Photoshop at nearly 700$ was another as at the time I was working in 2D with Gimp, Inkscape, and PSP). Poser cost more than half my rent back then and then I needed to buy content on top of that to really do anything. Vue would have required several months of eating "mac & orange powder in a box" or MSG laden ramen, and been taxing on my 32 bit 4 GB notebook. That is how Daz won out even though it didn't have cloth and hair dynamics or could create sweeping 3D vistas along with the fact hat much of the content sold at Daz3D only had Poser materials. However with Daz, I could slowly build my "toolbox" through different plugins and extensions while actually being able to work on projects at the same time. Their marketing strategy worked with my meagre income.
Daz tried charging for the core programme but both times it was met with disdain. I actually purchased Ver 3.0 Advanced which offered 64 bit capability that opened up more memory for rendering (which meant fewer crashes), though it still wasn't as expensive (something like 69$) as Poser which was still 32 bit at the time (the Pro version of Poser went 64 bit but that cost around 500$). Vue meanwhile was still 32 bit and still primarily a scenery generation programme (back then you had to pre pose characters in another programme to import them in)
Looking back at all this for myself, Daz was the right decision. I now have a fairly extensive library/runtime, much of which I can also use in Carrara Pro (the other CG programme I have worked with over the years), and with with Hexagon in the process of getting a major update (also going 64 bit) I pretty much have the three bases covered: character creation, environmental development, and modelling. True, over the years I spent far more than what even Vue Complete costs and probably at least as much as Modo does today, but it was over an extended period of time instead of having to cough it all up at once which I never could have afforded (in addition to building a 64 bit system).
This thread went a long way from the first posting. Which wasn't about what hardware or software is better.
I do agree, you need both, the artist and good tools. In the same way as you need your brain AND your hands. One for the idea, the other for the execution. So if I have an idea, and I have learned how to use my tools, I can choose the best tool for execution to get the best piece of work/art.