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 can understand that here too.
All I can say is Nobody Is Perfect, just be the Animator who you want to be.
Haha cool. Of course I am a real artist, because it feels right to say, no matter, what others think.
I am a traditional artist/sculptor/illustrator myself, so while you do have an extremely valid point; the fact is, that the first and most important distinguishing characteristic of a true artist comes from within the artist themselves, as in, they must possess an artistic eye, otherwise it's simply automated technique...
It doesn't matter just how much technique/mastery of their tools an artist may possess, if they're schight with composition/no artistic vision, then it really does not matter, as there are scores of schight photographers, modelers, and sculptors to fill twelve earths, what matters is not the tools as much as it is the artistic eye that the artist possesses which defines them as a true artist.
Just because someone isn't an "art authority", or if they can't produce "great" art, doesn't mean that they don't have some legitimate views and input on what others produce.
Art is about affecting others, either by affecting their emotions or telling a story or somehow transferring something special to the viewer. And in order to do that you have to understand some things about people and how they perceive and accept things. I'm an artistic moron, but I do know there are some basics that should/must be followed if you want to affect others.
For example, people respond to colors in very strong and complex ways. Color have meanings. And lighting and shadows are extremely complex and have different feelings and emotions. And things like characters' expressions are extremely complex, and slight differences can have huge differences in how people react. And people expect things in images based on many years of seeing the world.
Now somebody can know and understand those things in great detail (which I don't at all), but not have the skills and talent to produce something that reflects those things. But they may look at what I produce and say "dude, that's junk", and I'd respect their view because, well, they're right. I didn't consider the colors I used and how they'd affect the viewer, and so on. And whether they can produce something that is world class is irrelevant.
Personally, I think the vast majority of "artists" don't understand those things whatsoever, nor do they have the skills/talents to produce work that reflects those things. Which is why I respect those who go to school to learn some of those things. They're very important, and not something most of us can pick up on our own.
Can someone be an artist if they use LEGO blocks to create their amazing sculpture? Does it depend why they are making it? Because that person is a seven year old boy having fun? Or a 37 year old man trying to make something neat and cool to put in his son’s room?
Just things to think about? My favorite artist I call Mum does not make all her art supplies from “scratch”? I try to write but am I not a real writer if I use Word (which I did not program myself) or my ideas are not 100% original. My Mewians are cat people, but cat people are not original ideas. Most of my work is inspired by something else. I do a lot of research into mythology and fairy tales for my stories.
am I not a real fish breeder just because I do not force them to breed specific breeds of guppies. Actually I do not force them to breed but they like to do so on their own.
Very true! Art is a spectator sport. It begs to be examined and dissected by others. If the artist has willingly displayed his works for public viewing, everyone has a right to a personal opinion about it.
I think here you are missing the point of art and the way an artist approaches his work. Of course, this depends on what type of art we are talking about. This discussion seems to be focusing on fine art. If we were talking about commercial art (as in advertising, architecture or design) then there is definite criteria and standard for what is good. The customer. The customer has the final say on what is acceptable or not and it is their line that is drawn in the sand. But since we are discussing fine art, this line is drawn within the artist. At the turn of the 20th century, Picasso broke all the "rules" concerning color, composition and all those things you say should not be broken. Later, Jackson Pollock would go on to decompose those old traditions even further. These are two legendary artists who understood that using art to express their inner feelings didn't involve any false, preconceived rules about how it should be done. It should be done the way the artist wants to do it!
"Can someone be an artist if they use LEGO blocks to create their amazing sculpture? Does it depend why they are making it? Because that person is a seven year old boy having fun? Or a 37 year old man trying to make something neat and cool to put in his son’s room? "
Absolutely, because one of the logical prerequisites for being an artist is intent. Can a monkey throwing paint at a wall be considered an artist? Is it expressing a heartfelt emotion with color? Is it demonstrating a resistance to a political or social movement? Showing its feelings of hate, joy or love? Or was the monkey just playing and being mischievous? Sure, it may "create" some incidental sort of art, but in no way does that reach the definition of being an artist. Art is a language of expression. If the expression is successful in some way of connecting to others and that was the intent of the originator, then it is art and he or she can be deemed an artist.
Yup, Yup and more yup....if by "true artist", you mean successful artist. In my opinion, a "true" artist is merely someone who is trying to express what is on the inside by manipulating an outside medium. They don't need to be very skilled at it, in my opinion, to be considered an artist. We are all a work in progress. In all professions, there are people at various skill levels. Whether we are traditional artists, digital artists, writers, filmmakers, or artists of another kind, the one thing that differentiates us from other fields of endeavor is the need and the willingness to expose our inner workings and display them for others to see and to let others opinionate on what they observe and add their insight to the story. A true artist's work is never finished as it is appended on by everyone who experiences it. A language is meant for communicating and art is the most widespread language available to us.
While I agree with what you are saying, I think you are speaking on a different question: What is good art? or Are they good artists? But even the "schight" artists, as you call them, shouldn't be denied the right to self-expression and calling themselves artists. In short, a true artist is someone who is expressing themselves through some sort of media in a creative fashion. Picasso once wrote about his cubist paintings, that he didn't need to fill in the details or comment on the meaning of his work. His viewers did that for him. Everyone provides their own story and fills in the blanks depending on their own experience, so fine art has no single meaning or purpose. That's the beauty of it.
Do you enjoy your art/hobby/pastime? Of course you do, we all do, so just let 'em go get stuffed.
With cold baloney?
I know that this is a bit of an old discussion, but what if one looks not at the process, but the end product? Who cares how it is made? In good art, shouldn’t the process be transparent to the viewer of the art?
unfortunately, it becomes not so because for example, an artist might not draw a hand holding an object in a glaringly unnatural way because the artist understands anatomy and motion and how people hold things naturally. Daz Studio however allows a user to lazily pose a figure in all manner of ways that may immediately stand out to even the untrained eye as unnatural. That is one example.
Others include how an artist with hand drawn or painted media may draw hair or a scarf blowing in the wind one way, but the Das Studio artist may take a hair pose out of the box with little alteration and render an image of hair that goes against gravity and looks wacky. An artist in other media may not be constrained in their representations by such software limitations or presets. Instead they may use their intuition and experience that may be more organic than an array of software configurations.
the added summation of various software and subject limitations can come out in the end-image and make the software an obvious signature on the work.
what is the path to ideation of a concept with DS? Is there a general concept, rough drafts, decision how to create a desired image from resources, or is the process turned on its end to the point that the user has a bunch of resources and no preconceived driving idea and simply asks themselves: what can I make from this vast array of jarringly incongruous or stylistically non-unified assets. If so, that comes out in the work in ways that it never effects other art forms.
When drawing for example, the artist has their own style and that becomes the unifier on the fly that adjusts shapes, scale and composition. This is responsive and in real time. The only limitation is the artists experience and ability to both observe and imagine, There is no, ‘you must use this asset because it is among the styles of hair that exist in your library,’
Easy-bake metaphor
it may be like wanting to consider yourself a Michelin award winning chef, but deciding you were going to limit yourself to using an easy-bake oven and the kind of ingredients that could be bought in those little packets in powdered form instead of fresh ingredients.
believe me, that is going to come out in the taste of the cuisine. And are you going to whine about the elitist five star cooking judges who won’t look seriously at your easy bake concoctions cooked with the heat of a light bulb?
In similar fashion, many don’t want to regard DS art in the same way as traditional stuff because of it’s visibly aparrent manifestations in the resulting image.
it can certainly be overcome, but that takes a lot of hard work and effort to avoid the easy-bake process, and that sort of craftsmanship is what makes real art.
I smile when I see these threads.
... Art should invoke a response in the viewer, preferably emotional in some way and to a greater or lesser extent. It doesn't have to be a good response.
Art created using Studio definitely creates said response, so those trying to deny its validity have given it said validity by responding. This is what makes me smile, laugh even!
The art created will be of various standards, and different people will have different opinions on any given piece, which doesn't matter; there is good art... And bad art, it is still art.
True, and yet one ought not make the mistake of labeling one snobbish or snotty because they do not want to put a particular piece of art on a book cover or magazine cover compared to traditional art necessarily,. The attitude denies the creator of the art proper perspective that allows them to self-critique or improve. It puts the onus on the viewer to “improve” their taste. Which is perhaps not in touch with reality.
i for one struggle with meaning in my own art. Any artist who s striving for something might try that so they can speak to a broader audience if that is their goal.. Others have a goal that is not concerned with all that and they are ok having their art speak to a very narrow audience, or even perhaps their art just speaks to themselves and that is all. That is ok too.
the big thing is not to say to people “ You don’t like my art because you are a bit snobby”. Unless that kind of relationship to the audience is a sort of performance art one is on about.
X-D
Shudu (@shudu.gram): The World’s First Digital Supermodel,179K followers, https://www.instagram.com/shudu.gram/ ( She was probably created with G8F)
Many may criticize and say that she is not a real model, that she is not a real human...this will lead to a discussion about beauty standards.
And finally, we will see the fashion and beauty industry, ironically, victim of its own set standards.
The virtual model Shudu has already been invited to wear designer clothes and pose for magazines.
Kratos has appeared on the front cover of Men's Health Singapore to show men around the world how to achieve the ‘ultimate dad bod’:
"He is not real! No one can get a body like his."
So I ask: How many men got a body similar to the "real models"(always adjusted in photoshop) that appear in these magazines?
I know it has nothing to do with the main discussion about what art is.
But it helps us reflect on how things change and evolve.
Just remember that in the past Rock & Roll was not considered music...
The tool and the medium mean nothing, the end result is what matters.
The people that say stuff like this are effete snobs that see anyone that doesn't do things their way as inferior.
If they aren't critiquing the work, then their opinion is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if a person creates "Art" with a pen, brush, camera, photoshop, 3dsmax, saw, top sirloin, their body, or freaking match sticks, it's all art.
Daz studio is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It does not create art, the person using it creates art. Whether that result is good, bad or just meh, doesn't matter, it is still art.