you see, there are some things that can make us think of art as an applied skill. most of us dont just start drawning well. it takes a long time. this is essentially training us to use the tools such as hand drawing or painting. we need to learn techniqe before we can really convert our vision to paper. 3d animation is the same but useing a different form of canvas. you learn the tools and you practice to become proficient in them. My tool has always been the pencil. only recently have I even started to respect the mouse as one. Lets just say that i have always had a great deal of respect for classicly animated movies.

I am not text, I am not organized pixels, I am not killed by turning off your monitor, I am not isolated by turning off your computer. I just am.

Conshape Electronic Arts

well.. yes.. that is true.. 3D does take skill.. but it takes all the skills you are slowly learning with a #2 pencil, and then some..

To be proficient at 3D art, you still have to be good with the important things like perspective, proportion, and composition.

after any 2D artist learns those things, everything else is just technique, be it stipple,cross-hatching, fancy brushes, spounges, watercolors, chalks or whatever.. He''s learned the basics of art, and now he is polishing this techniques by learning the tools better.

a 3D artist has to be good at those things.. but wait.. there is a whole other dimention to work with.. and hey.. that crazy shape i just drew on paper in 2D.. ah.. shoot.. modeling that in 3D will take hours.. 3D art is much more difficult then 2D art (for the same amount of output) and before you go flaming me, read what i put into the brackets one more time.. will you.. i said for the same amount of output...

Doing any GOOD work of art takes time, and TONS of practice, whether you are sporting an SGI Oxygen and Maye, or a G4 and Photshop, or a Jar Full of colored pencils and a nice drawing pad.

I guess my other question is.. is artistic ability learned? i mean.. you learn styles, and techniques.. but i don''t think i''ve ever seen a crappy artist become a good one..

Which is ironic.. because if you''re bad at math.. you can do lots of math and get better at it.. but if you are crappy with proportion and perspective, and you don''t have an eye for what looks good.. i don''t know what you can do to improve.. other then practice.

yeah. that is actully a good way to say it. but the real thing is always practice. you cant get past that. that and a good mentor.

I am not text, I am not organized pixels, I am not killed by turning off your monitor, I am not isolated by turning off your computer. I just am.

Conshape Electronic Arts

sunandshadow : you are probably think I am joking, but there is something really "picasso" (or is it Gaudi?) about your drawing. In the case of your style, the method I use would work PARTICULARLY well, giving your drawings a "hand painted" style. Of course, it''s all a matter of personal taste. I am trying to do a mini tutorial on all that.

youpla :-P

quote: Original post by ahw

sunandshadow : you are probably think I am joking, but there is something really "picasso" (or is it Gaudi?) about your drawing. In the case of your style, the method I use would work PARTICULARLY well, giving your drawings a "hand painted" style. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste. I am trying to do a mini tutorial on all that.

youpla :-P

Wow, Gaudi's really cool! I had never heard of him before. Ironically, the drawing I just finished really does look like some of his (at least I think so):



I'm not sure that my earlier drawings really look like his, but I think I can see them being Picasso-esque, with very bold outlines and some geometric simplification. Was that what you were thinking of?


(grumble, grumble HTML...)

Edited by - sunandshadow on December 11, 2000 11:58:39 PM

I find it strange that people think 2D & 3D(CG) art go hand in hand. Like all art somone can excel at one medium and be pretty bad at others. While it is very helpful to be a good artist in both, some(very good)3D artists can''t draw for thier life, and some 2D artists and sculpters can''t work in 3D, well they can, eventually, but not with any large amount of speed or skill.

~There''s always comfort in anonymity~

quote: Original post by LadyAnon

I find it strange that people think 2D & 3D(CG) art go hand in hand. (...) but not with any large amount of speed or skill.

That is exactly what I mean: Both have talent, but they
only had the time to improve their skills in one - 2D or 3D -
artistic sector by practicing a lot.
But there are blessed individuals who can do both perfectly.
We only can admire them...
...and of course: Try to achieve the same ^_^

Edited by - SoulmasteR on December 13, 2000 4:54:05 PM

okay, i really didn''t wanna have to reply to the 2d-3d issue, but it''s just bothering the hell outta me.

if you can visualize 3 dimensional objects, and put them on paper with pencil, paintbrush, whatever, you CAN move to 3d. If you want to move to 3d however, it''s a matter of learning the tools to create it, and also, learning the language. and that''s the only difference. the artist should already have the ability to capture the dimension of any object, and translate it to whatever medium he/she prefers. what i mean by "already have the ability" is, "already possess the preferred means as to which to convey his/her artwork." however, for those who work in 3d and have difficulty moving to 2d, the mind can''t make that conversion. here''s my take:

when you put 3d objects in the 2d form on paper, the human mind is automatically performing the rasterization. if that human mind can process that transition, that mind should have no problem creating the 3d image in his/her mind, because the rasterization step is not entered. what you process through your eyes, has to undergo the transformation from 2-space to 3-space, so that the brain can understand perspective, depth, etc. after this transformation, the hand can then receive messages from the mind as to how to regenerate that image. if, however, the person does not convert the visual input from 2 to 3 dimensions, and then outputs the visualized input in 2 dimensions, it''s considered straight copying. it''s considered taking a snapshot as opposed to actually thinking about what the object actually is, and conveying through one''s mind what the mind thinks it''s seeing. to jump between both requires understanding of objects for what they really are; what attributes they possess? is it plastic, metal, paper, round, square, smooth, rough, etc. these qualities should be "saved" in the artist''s memory so that when he/she encounters an object with similar qualities, he/she will know how that object should appear/behave/interact with everything else.

okay, so, how about 4 dimensions? that''d be animation. did i just open up a can of worms? it seems that on every dimension, there is a different art form. 2 and 3 dimensions can consist of the fourth dimension.


oh man, i think i just started a war.

a2k

I created this mecha model some time ago with 3D Studio MAX 2.5, now I've putted it into a little environment (planet and stars)... it isn't by far my best work, but I still like it (the textures aren't really good, I know )...



Thinking is already a material process

Edited by - kabale on December 15, 2000 12:14:29 PM

THat is a great image ''kabale'' I find the textures quiet good but the lins flare is a bit annoying to my eyes. Tell me what program did you do all this in was it all in 3d Studio Max or did you change to format of the file to a jpeg, bmp, targa, or whatever then imported it to a Photoshop like program?