[Aboogwa]

I've been looking through 3d and 2d art galleries..

It seems that 3d art generally looks cleaner and more photorealistic
and 2d art looks more .. uh... "stylistic??"

What are the pro / cons of each?

This is probably the kind of topic that has come up a whole bunch of times before but would you believe that searching for "3d" and "2d vs 3d" returned 0 results?

[JesperGB]

I think it is a choice.. Sometimes 3d art is better and sometimes 2d art is better. I think 2d-art has more soul into it. 2d has that randomness that makes it living. 3d is very clean but also a bit borring. But then again 3d can give you better results. For example if you're going to do a non-living-object then it becomes more naturalistic. If you want to do art that you will want to look at for a longer time I think 2d art is better since there's more life in the random strokes that a 2d-piece often has - you can "taste" the artist more in 2d art.
_________________
/Jesper GB

Visit my gallery at: Click here to see it

[faB]

When 3d art will effectively be seen in 3 D, such as polygon models viewable like the Venus de Milo, then I'll call it 3d art, until then it shows on my 2d screen and I'll judge it by the same standards than 2d in terms of composition lighting texture etc etc

But for now, I think given the limitations in computing 3d art is often stale and personally I've always love 2d in videogames such as Icewind Dale or Diablo over 3d engines.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[crazybread]

In my opinion 3d art can only inhance a 2d artists work. Yes 3d images look cleaner but only if you want them to. Good 3d art (and I mean professional looking [no shining spheres here]) takes sooooooo much more time to produce than 2d. I know that from experience. Just painting textures for the 3d geometry is an art on its own. Actually to be able to tailor where certain kind of weathering, crack or incasistency goes on what object in ones scene is an art on its own (thats why there are texture artists). Modeling itself is also an art as one has to be spaciouly aware about the same things that sculpturers are. A big difference I know of is that the computer renders the image out (also set by the user). This is why some people would like to be GODS (create stuff). I know that 3d art sometimes makes me feel like that (cause I get to create reality). I'm not sure if I could do the same if I didn't have little bit of a drawing skill.

happy creating!
...even if people throw themselfs against wet canvases!
_________________
I want to breed!

[Sabre]

I would not seperate the two as seperate types of art, my oppinion is similar to FaB's, they are both 2D when displayed, though they have very different methods. That's how i'd class them, different method, same medium (computer screen).

As for the pros / cons, there many for each, and it would be a waste of time typing them all. It is difficult to be really expressive in 3d, I have tried and find myself just spending 5 minutes on a 3d version of a simple brush stroke that would have taken under a second. Though it is difficlt to get anywhere near the level of realism with paint/photoshop that you can with 3D.

As 3D calculates perspective, rendering of surfaces and shadows for you, theres a lot more emphasis put on composition, a skill that is vital in any medium.

If you are looking for realism, 3D is the way to go. If you want to quickly get images down and/or be expressive at all, you need to use 2D.
Though I have never created anything in 3D that I havn't needed to take into photoshop for some tweaking.

Oh, and once you've made something in 3D, in 30 seconds you can set the camera to move around it, showing off everything - something you can't do in 2D.

[Aboogwa]

Also does anyone have links to the more impressive galleries (both 2d and 3d)?

[eyewoo]

Is that you Light?
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[Lunatique]

It's a very strange comparison IMO. When you think of 3D, still images is but a tiny part of the 3D world. There's animation, effects..etc too, and to use 3D only to make still images would be like using a Swiss Army Knife to open cans only. 3D can accomplish so many things.

Well, I guess on the other hand, you can say the same thing about 2D animation, effects with compositing..etc.

Really good 3D art that has the same kind of emotion and soul as 2D is extremely rare. I think it's mostly because most 3D artists have a very different mentality when looking at 3D art. 3D guys would get off on some beautifully rendered GI/Final Gathering/Caustic/blah blah blah image of a couple of household items on a table, amazed by the lighting, the shaders, the rendering quality..etc. Those are VERY different criterias they judge by compared to how we judge 2D art. It's a completely different mentality, because what 3D guys marvel at in a beautiful piece of CG art is not only its artistic merit, but also its technological merit as well.

I think to truly master 3D(as in, doing everything from modelling, rigging, skinning, texturing, animation, rendernig, compositing, to editing), one needs to be not only an artist, but also an intelligent fella with a good grasp on technical problem solving. It demands the same kind of artistic sense that a good 2D artist must have, but it also it demands more beyond that.

With that said, I also believe that there's nothing in 3D that's impossible to learn, as long as you have the time and patience. With 2D, it's so much harder to learn and master anything.

[Ian Jones]

I pretty much agree with the gist of what Lunatique said.

It's true that the two mediums are judged differently, as Lunatique highlighted the fact that 3D artists can get really excited about good GI/lighting. the same goes for painting, where someones texture or brushstrokes or style can excite other painters.

That's because we are insiders, we understand the business and how its all made. The problem (and I think its more of a problem for 3D) is that the general public usually don't have a clue about art 2D or 3D and its technical, artistic or time efforts. So they judge it based on what they see, not what they know of it. That's an important lesson for both fields.

[Aboogwa]

[Ian Jones]

"Is it not possible for the general public to appreciate artwork?"

Sorry, it was a bit of a generalization and its not what I actually meant.

"Is it getting excited about brushwork, texture, etc?"

Yes. It's like design for designers. Like non-designers don't get it sometimes, but if your in the 'know' so to speak, then your appreciation of it is based on your knowledge and comfort of the art, due to constant exposure to it and understaing of it. Whereas a member of the general public may look at it and say 'wtf?'. <--just a generalization

"Surely how the artwork is percieved by the general public is an important factor?"

Yes, thats what I was saying! arg! read it again!

I'm highlighting the fact that artists can get caught up in a technical loophole instead of considering a more aesthetic destination. It tends to happen in 3D when you've just rendered the sweetest sub-surface-scattering and your getting orgasmic over the multi-adaptive image sampling. You can lose sight of the fact that you should be thinking about the aesthetic of the art rather than getting caught in the technical merits.

I said "That's an important lesson for both fields". I'm saying it is a good thing for 2D or 3D artists to be aware of.

I hope that clears it up.

[zak]

i dont think that one is better than the other. infact i refuse to compare both, because they are equal media, its like trying to compare oils and pencils both have advantages and disadvantages. i really get worked up when someone comes at me and starts bitching about 3d, because they dont know anything about it. i think that 2d and 3d art is very interrelated, and instead of of separating them and judging their differences, we should try to see how they complement eachother. that is what im trying to work towards anyway.

thats my opinion

[Aboogwa]

[zak]

well, theres alot. i dont nearly know all of them, but ill try and name a few:

3d:
if you want to lay down solid perspective quickly, you just use 3d.
models in 3d can be reused for other purposes at a later time
animating complex models and insanely textured scenes is much easier than in 2d (who ever tried to animate a proper painting?)

2d:
one can put down ideas much quicker, and sketch out concepts etc
you have the randomness in brushstrokes that brings the painting to life
one can be more adventerous with 2d, esp since 3d takes alot of planning

sorry, thats all that springs to mind at the moment. ill give you more when its not 3 in the morning

:yawns:

[Lunatique]

In 2D, you have to count on your drawing and painting skills, in addition to your observation/analytical skills. You are basically creating illusions of 3 dimension with contrast, and the application of colors can easily be incorrect. It takes great skills and experience to make 2D look good.

In 3D, WYSIWYG(What you see is what you get). Things already have volume, and you can easily rotate objects to see if the proportion is correct or not. Colors are consistent, since it's all mathematical algorithm. But what you do lack is the spontaneity of drawing and painting from instinct.