"Real" Art or "Fake?"

Richard


I've used Poser as an adjunct to standard paint programs. Like an artist's mannequin, it is a useful tool for getting a basic pose, but it takes a lot of additional work in order to make it look natural. For example, in the Pictorial Key Tarot, some of the figures look more fake than clothing store mannequins. Some of the poses are almost painful to look at.
 

Barleywine

Oh, this is called the "uncanny valley"!

As I understand it, it was discovered by people in the field of robotics, and applies also to puppets, dolls, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Thanks for this, it answers my question. I was immediately reminded of two literary reference points: the "replicants" in Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", later the inspiration for the Blade Runner movie (which may have been biological, not robotic, but the principle of disquieting, artificially-created superiority seems to apply), and the "vol-amps" in Bernard Wolfe's "Limbo" (originally pacifists who had themselves voluntarily amputated as a way to end war, but the idea was co-opted by fascist extremists who were fitted with super-human prosthetics so they could make even more destructive war. I'm still trying to find another copy of that book.


Truly scary, eh?
 

cirom

With all due respect Debra the links you provide show the poorest and simplest versions of the medium in order to make a point. The kind of images that people produce at the early stages of their learning curve, and with the cheaper end of the available software. Such examples merely reinforce my suspicions of why people have the opinions they do about CGI. Its a pity really.....

Ive attached an image that like your link, shows a sword wielding man and a face, to make the comparison easier. But unlike your sample, these are well done. One super real and the other stylized.You may not like them anyway, but don't tell me that either are so obviously CGI and therefore because of that you (or anyone) won't like it. I don't feel the plastic coldness, that you are trying to find words for are evident in these examples. In fact I believe that had these image been shown in some other topic or thread, no one would even have realized or given it a second thought let alone disliked them because of any tell tale CGI look.

If you agree with that at least, then that is the point I was trying to make, if on the other hand you claim that you can still tell and so much so that you would still reject such a style because of it.... well then there is nothing more I can add. I could provide infinite other examples with different styles but I feel it would be flogging a dead horse and ultimately I'm not trying to persuade anyone to "like" anything, just trying to suggest that they shouldn't close their mind to everything done with this medium. And that they should not make sweeping opinions based on Tarot decks using images similar to examples you've provided, thats like rejecting say all American cuisine because of a hot dog....
 

Attachments

  • sword man.jpg
    sword man.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 79
  • digital-portrait-10.jpg
    digital-portrait-10.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 75

Barleywine

Ive attached an image that like your link, shows a sword wielding man and a face, to make the comparison easier. But unlike your sample, these are well done. One super real and the other stylized.You may not like them anyway, but don't tell me that either are so obviously CGI and therefore because of that you (or anyone) won't like it. I don't feel the plastic coldness, that you are trying to find words for are evident in these examples. In fact I believe that had these image been shown in some other topic or thread, no one would even have realized or given it a second thought let alone disliked them because of any tell tale CGI look.

The "sword-wielding man" is certainly beyond reproach, and would, I think, stand up to any level of scrutiny for its artistry. Is the fact that we seldom see this level of exquisite, atmospheric detail in digital tarot art due simply to the "really good" digital artists - as you have described them - not yet turning their attention to what must be for them a very small niche market? There is probably much more money and a bigger reputation to be made in movies (think "300"), computer games, TV advertising and book jacket art. Or is it more likely that producing 78 images at this level of excellence is too much work and too time-consuming to provide a reasonable return?
 

Chiriku

Oh, this is called the "uncanny valley"!

As I understand it, it was discovered by people in the field of robotics, and applies also to puppets, dolls, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

A-ha. So there is an observable phenomenon/thesis on this subject. Thanks for sharing that.


The "sword-wielding man" is certainly beyond reproach, and would, I think, stand up to any level of scrutiny for its artistry.

In my opinion, all of the stuff he's posted in this thread is beyond reproach. Was that second attachment just above a photograph that had later been altered in some way or did the entire thing originate using digital means? Either way, the untrained eye can't tell.
 

cirom

Every hair and eyelash is created, no photography
 

Chiriku

Well, it's jolly good. From now on, I'll be saying "my brain cannot accept bad digital art [which is unfortunately what we see in most tarot decks]."
 

cirom

Well, it's jolly good. From now on, I'll be saying "my brain cannot accept bad digital art [which is unfortunately what we see in most tarot decks]."

Yes it is very good. The clichéd association of CGI with a plastic robotic look is somewhat out of date now. Unfortunately I have to agree that most Tarot decks using this medium do not represent it in its best light. (and you are free to include me in that list) This is due to two reasons, one because in the historic scheme of things CGI of any decent note has only been around for just over a decade. A period of constant learning on the artists part, adapting to rapid change and improvement in the tools themselves. Thats why I redid the entire Gilded Tarot, because I cringed at the look of the first version. But thats like comparing the sophistication of the Star Wars movies that wowed the audiences of the time with their special effect but look crude and cheesy compared to say Avatar today....So equally recent decks can look crude and unsophisticated, and hence the bad rap but they are still in the early days of the medium. The other point is an economical one, as Barleywine suggested, the really good artists might be aware of and intrigued by the challenge of a Tarot deck but the economic reality for most simply doesn't make sense. I can't speak for everyone else, but in my case the decks took thousands of hours to produce. If creating a deck is your personal hobby or devotion that you dedicate your time to at the weekends when you come home from your 'real" job that great, good for you. But if you are a professional in the sense that producing art/illustrations/designs is how you make your living, you can't just devote that for the love of Tarot, or with the hope and expectation it might be published, and it might sell enough. That is simply unrealistic for most artists and certainly the top tier ones who have other commissions of options. But I do believe that the quality of CGI produced decks will improve. Just be a little open minded and give it time... you don't have to buy them, in most cases today there are ample samples and reference on line of the cards, so buyers remorse can be minimized.


So Chiriku, you are perfectly correct to say you can't accept "bad" digital art. Rather than I can't accept it "because" its digital art. So going the full circle to the original point of the opening post. Digital art is in my mind quite legitimate not fake, but it can certainly be bad....
 

Chiska

Every hair and eyelash is created, no photography

Well, it's jolly good. From now on, I'll be saying "my brain cannot accept bad digital art [which is unfortunately what we see in most tarot decks]."

So Chiriku, you are perfectly correct to say you can't accept "bad" digital art. Rather than I can't accept it "because" its digital art. So going the full circle to the original point of the opening post. Digital art is in my mind quite legitimate not fake, but it can certainly be bad....

I appreciate the examples, Ciro! I, too, can now say that I can't accept "bad" digital art. I don't mind digital art. I like your decks, they are very good digital art.

So, yes - I agree - not fake, but can be bad.
 

Chiriku

The thing that remains a question mark to me is, how surprisingly (instinctively) closed my brain remains to less-adept digital art relative to the greater ease I experience when teaching myself to tolerate less-adept traditional-media art.

For instance, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone when I say that Major Tom's tarot deck, Shining Tribe tarot deck, and, let's say, the Granny Jones Tarot (all published in modern times, over the last 20 years) are not very 'polished' pieces of art. Yet, I don't feel the same instinctive dissonance with them as I do with the "less polished" digital art of the Witches' Tarot, Wizards' Tarot, and Steampunk tarots. I am able to even use such decks with fondness, knowing that they are not 'well-drawn' but not feeling instinctively put off by them.

I can only wonder if it has something to do with that "Uncanny Valley" theory--and that *is* something unique to digital art, because, at least for the sort of digital art used in tarot decks and book covers, it comes closer to human representation/photo-realism than the aforementioned crudely-painted tarot art.

Perhaps this is the unique burden of digital artists when compared to artists working in traditional media: that, by their medium's very capacity for "realism" (there's that word again), digital artists' "bad art" alienates people more consistently and instinctively than the 'bad art" of their traditional-media counterparts.

Anyway, thanks for engaging with us on this issue, Ciro. By the way, are you the artist behind the three examples you posted?