[R2 aka ROW]

I always want to know what you guys impress more, 2d or 3d images? In my oppinon 2d pics like dhabih's, its more like traditional art, you can teach everyone how to use 3d Max or kinda, but 2d thats it .
What u think?

[osk]

I like to think they are both art .. because advanced 3d modeling .. you cant just "teach" to anyone , you have to have a background of how everything looks in real life to be able to model in 3d "correctly" . one example "NURBS modeling" I think it is an art on its own . , I do love 2d art though .. I just think they go together rather . than not. For example when you have to "skin" a character .. you draw the skin in 2d ..and if that drawing is crappy no matter how detailed the 3d chracter is it'll look crappy .. so .. there ya go ..

[Nex]

Sorry R2 ...

Such post make me really

If you would have ever tried to make something more than a few spheres lying around on a reflecting surface you would know that you cannot just read a book or whatever and be able to make good 3d scenes.

3d is as much art as 2d is, just the process is different. Its more focused on composition than on drawing outlines. But you have to design the scene, make sketches of the characters props etc, and after all you have to paint your textures too..

[R2 aka ROW]

Sorry Nex that you are angry but I dont know why .
I just want to know what you prefer 2d or 3d pics. I love 3d picutre (maybe you know "the maxer" he is great) and respect them but I like 2d more, becaue in MY oppion its "more" art to paint in photoshop then playing around with shapes and polygons.

[Francis]

I think nex is "angry" because it sounds as if you don't think there is any "art" in modelling, composing, texturing and lighting a 3d scene. In reality, this is a very complicated, demanding task which requires a very good understanding of space, and form, and how light interacts with forms and textures.

It's easy to throw together a 3d scene if you have a basic knowledge of the software, but it's another matter entirely to create a realistic scene that doesn't look as if it were created on the computer.

------------------
TeamGT Studios

[SaltyDog]

LOL.. All I can say is "wow" R2, you need tor realize that the computer is but a tool in the grand art of imagemaking. Playing around with shapes and polygons is pretty much what traditional sculpting is all about. 3D modeling is simply an extension of that artform, as is 2D digital art an extension from traditional painting and linework. Although my passions lay in the 2D world, I give credit where credit is due.

People who work with complex 3D scenes and animation have my respect. 3DSMX isn't child's play. And even if you "could" teach it to anyone, the lack of conceptual and design elements would be glaringly obvious.
So...in conclusion, both 2D and 3D are resoundingly deemed "art", but have different strengths and weaknesses inherent to themselves.

*Amen*

[R2 aka ROW]

I guess I write somethink wrong, actually I only want to know if you prefer 2d or 3d. I work with 3d Max and Cinema4d for 2 years and I still use them. I know that its hard to create cool scenes but I decide to use Photoshop and other 2d progs for my art and that was the only thing i want to say .

[LoneDragoon]

Basically what you are saying is that anyone can make a movie like toy story or dinosaur.

I certainly don't buy that. 3D modeling and animation is most certainly an art, 2D is just more traditional.

I play around in 3D from time to time, but I really suck at it, however, I know several people who can do amazing things in 3D, that you'd have to be drunk / stoned to not consider art!

In the same way, programming can also be art, there are tons of gret programmers out there who make beautiful code that it is an honor to work with.

But anyways, I'm just rambling now..

[R2 aka ROW]

Ok guy sorry, please forgot what I write:
"..its more like traditional art, you can teach everyone how to use 3d Max or kinda, but 2d thats it." I just need a reason.

[Nex]

what made me was

"you can teach everyone how to use 3d Max or kinda, but 2d thats it"

that basically means that everyone who does 3d is no artist and I disagree stongly with that.

[geelimp]

To answer the question: In general 2d images impress me most. I very rearly see 3d images that is much more than technical impressive. I have worked with 3d (3dsmax) for 3 years, but it does not feel like I'm doing art when working with 3d. 2d is so much more personal

And one more thing; I know 3d professionals that I don't consider to be artists. They know the 3d program very well, but all they can really do is to create technical models from blueprints... Is that art? Personaly I dont think so

------------------
Even, http://www.3dluvr.com/glimp

[Nex]

geelimp: I know some 2d professionals that I don't (and they themselves don't) consider to be "classical" artists. They do technical construction drawings, the same thing you said with the 3d professionals.

However I don't say that someone HAS to do 3d. Its just a different tool like oil, crayon, clay, stone, pencil, photoshop, ...

I like both 2d and 3d.


[This message has been edited by Nex (edited May 21, 2000).]

[R2 aka ROW]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nex:
what made me was

"you can teach everyone how to use 3d Max or kinda, but 2d thats it"

that basically means that everyone who does 3d is no artist and I disagree stongly with that.

---

I also think that 3d is "art" but in my oppion is 2d more influenced by tradition painting.

[Sowler]

2d is painting...

3d is sculpting..

that is how I personaly see it, and both mediums amaze the hell out of me..

but I prefer 3d for most of its precision, and fine detail that can be done.

[A.Buttle]

Ahem.. porn... ahem

------------------
I'm wearing black French knickers under my suit. I've got stockings and suspenders on. I'm feeling rather loose.

Joe Dillingham
[email protected]