Computer Graphics: A Dying Artform?

I was just thinking about something for a minute. Obviously, the way graphics in computers and technology are going now, you will see actual photo-realistic graphics in about 20-30 years (what I mean is, you can hardly tell the discrepancies in fake world).

So what's going to happen? Sure, you can always expand the finite boundaries of an artificial world, but after a while, you're motivation for advancement is lost. You could possibly make a real-life role playing game, (that would probably get motonous, and probably wouldn't be a game as much as a pyschological learning tool) but what's going to happen after that?

Are the computer graphical arts actually a dying artform? I mean, we have been drawing on and with various mediums for thousands of years (from simple figures on stones, to high-quality, super-rich paper), but can this artform really become less of an artform (and even die?), because of what it is becoming? If everything looks real, would some people really care to look at it? Everyone that does computer graphics would be using roughly similar engines to create these pictures and worlds, so I believe it would get very....well, you might get sick of it after a while.

I can't really say if it will dissapear, but many people like to look at art because of the artist's interpretations of humans, and figures, and the many different lines and strokes he uses.

Opinions?

Are you a cg artist? I have been doing cg art for the last 2 years, and it I do agree that it is getting more and more realistic with every new rendering system. Creating the models is definately no easy task, it is just as much an art as painting, sketching, and sculpting. And it's not just modeling that's an art form, it's animating, texturing, lighting, and concept/design. CG art will never die because it can do things that other art forms have trouble with.

I don't think everything looks better if it is draw to look like real life. Mostly things that are not in real life might look better heh.

people often think the art that is the most life-like is the prettiest, but its not like that..... composition, colour, etc......

Yes, some people prefer to think that what they're viewing has been made by hand directly, not simulated. Sure, being a computer graphics artist is hard work, even harder sometimes than "Real" art, but at the core it's just commands. Hand drawn to paper art takes a certain skill that is...different than CG art. I dunno, just my opinion.

I don't think it is.

To say that Computer Graphics Art is dying due to the improvement of realism as absurd as saying that art in 2 dimensions (paintings/photographs) is dying. That's just silly.

Today we can create photo-perfect images, but we still regard the greatest art often to be the most abstract. I don't see why this can't be extended to the 3D comptuer world. In fact, I think Computers have an amazing potential to create bizarre things using mathematical formulae and what-not (just think of fractals and so on).

You are talking about computer Graphics becoming a dying artform. Wow. What of good old fine arts. Oil on canvas, watercolor, or a pencil. I feel outdated to say the least.
I guess you have to change with the times :cry:

Ok... CG art is not just commands, most people think that, but it's bullsh*t. The process of creating CG art is very complex and is similar to sketching or painting. I can't describe it, you have to try it for yourself :-P . Creating photo-realistic images isn't just the technology, it's the talent of the people creating it.

look, you cant make any sort of 'art' unless you have knowledge of compostition, colour, the message/idea behind it etc like a photographer... Its not commands, its making it look right..

KH Studios

I love their stuff..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Death-Wuad
Ok... CG art is not just commands, most people think that, but it's bullsh*t. The process of creating CG art is very complex and is similar to sketching or painting. I can't describe it, you have to try it for yourself :-P . Creating photo-realistic images isn't just the technology, it's the talent of the people creating it.

---

I feel the same way. Just because computers get better, doesnt mean that the people are getting better too. For instance: I am not very good at at making people, but theres a lot of people out there who use the same programs as me and are good.

Also, when designing something in CG, it doesnt have to be a replica of a real-life object, it maybe can be of something that isnt real, like flying cars or something.

As with any art you still need to know the basic princeles of design and of coarse, composition for somthing to go from sub par to good.

Yes, but if you can be clear, does CG art take any skill of hand (moving the mouse does not count)? I am sure it takes years to develop the experience required to create game levels in just a few weeks and make them near-flawless and look good too, but is there any "stroke" involved? I need clarification here. Otherwise, it's just learning composition, color, shading, etc. over the years.

Believe me, I love the artform as much as any person...in fact, I am willing to look into it and learn it a little, but I'm just making some arguments here. So far it seems a little one-sided (you guys), which is why I wanted to post this in the philosophy board instead of here (it's like asking if ice cream or donouts are better at an Ice Cream place, or if guns should have less laws to them at an NRA metting). Still, you have good opinions on the subject, and please don't think I'm close minded or anything. I'm open to most things; I'm not some ignorant person who take everything he sees on TV as the truth.

Quote:

---

Otherwise, it's just learning composition, color, shading, etc. over the years.[/b]

---

I believe you are forgetting that the learning of composition, color, shading, and all other aspects of the arts is not a simple process. Not everyone can learn how to make something beautiful - and what may be pure and interesting and attractive to one person may also be hideous to another. I could think that a decaying and dilapidated farmhouse is the most beautiful work of art ever; while you consider it to be just a run down structure.

Quote:

---

Obviously, the way graphics in computers and technology are going now, you will see actual photo-realistic graphics in about 20-30 years (what I mean is, you can hardly tell the discrepancies in fake world). *

So what's going to happen? Sure, you can always expand the finite boundaries of an artificial world, but after a while, you're motivation for advancement is lost. You could possibly make a real-life role playing game, (that would probably get motonous, and probably wouldn't be a game as much as a pyschological learning tool) but what's going to happen after that?[/b]

---

Perhaps the most beautiful work of art is life itself and a realism is art?

Quote:

---

If everything looks real, would some people really care to look at it? [/b]

---

Is a photograph not art? I remember that photography was considered to be a tool at it's inception and that it would never become anything more then an image capturing process; a way to hold a record of an event or person. Some considered this to be false and used a camera to capture the most intense and intricate moments of their lives and experiences.

You can see the similarities between the two mediums. The line may soon shift from computer graphics being a tool to becoming a respected art form. It only takes a pioneer and a change in a mindset.

All in all here I think that it is all art in one form or another, while some may think that one medium is more dificult than another they all take pratice and effort. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would never find a photogragh as beautiful as a painting, but I realize that photograghy is its own art form as is with computer art.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
Yes, but if you can be clear, does CG art take any skill of hand (moving the mouse does not count)? I am sure it takes years to develop the experience required to create game levels in just a few weeks and make them near-flawless and look good too, but is there any \"stroke\" involved? I need clarification here. Otherwise, it's just learning composition, color, shading, etc. over the years.

Believe me, I love the artform as much as any person...in fact, I am willing to look into it and learn it a little, but I'm just making some arguments here. So far it seems a little one-sided (you guys), which is why I wanted to post this in the philosophy board instead of here (it's like asking if ice cream or donouts are better at an Ice Cream place, or if guns should have less laws to them at an NRA metting). Still, you have good opinions on the subject, and please don't think I'm close minded or anything. I'm open to most things; I'm not some ignorant person who take everything he sees on TV as the truth.

---

I guess you could say that there is a "stroke", but its mostly like the same type of modeling as you would with mesh and paper mache, although you have alot more options, as to applying different settings for the materials. For instance: If you wanna make a car, you gotta model a car (which can take anywhere from an hour to a month), then you gotta apply a shader (material, w/e your program calls it), in which there are like sliders where you can adjust color, specularity, transparency, reflectivity (for those who care, a car would have like a .4 reflectivity) , and whatnot. Also, custom lighting is not essential, but it actually leads to a better picture in the end.

If you are willing to look into CG art, thats wonderful! But youve gotta be patient: Ive had maya for exactly one year today, and i still suck (my sig, for instance) :lol:

Hey, thanks :D Your sig is still alright, at least you got the lighting pretty good. LOL "It's a dog!!!"