sorry to advertise it but if you search 3d games, im (and 15 other itch io developers) currently running a rather cheap 3d games ONLY bundle including 44 games for 4,65 bugs if you wont buy you can even though dl most of the games as some are free so its kinds of selection of curated 3d games of all kinds but if you want to support 3d developers this is the way to fo ;) https://itch.io/b/2311/3d-developer-support-bundle-i
If it does not exist yet, we could introduce a concept of "depth" for any field of skill. Like creating art in a certain medium. To explain by analogy, sculpting marble or carving wood vs painting on canvas vs story writing.
Let us assume that each field has the same possible depth. Or maybe level of artisanship that can be achieved.
The point I am getting at is now this: how easy or hard is it for a non expert to judge and appreciate at which level any given piece of art is.
Are there maybe art styles where it is harder to evaluate the skill involved, beyond the mere impression of: I like what I see. For that matter, even with skill, it could still be ugly, yet you might appreciate the skill.
The "problem" with 3d is, that we live in a 3d world. We are used to seeing that stuff irl. So for 3d a assume it is harder to get good results. For pixel art it is so much removed from reality, that it is easier to get to a level where people say, oh, look, it's pixel art. Where they would say, oh, look, it is cheap looking 3d textures. Even though both artists might have the same level on that depth scale of artisanship in their respective field.
Of course it might just as well be, that different fields have different depths of achieveable skill - till a virtuoso comes along and demonstrates that there is yet another level.
id say it completely depends on your personal skills (god) blessed you with, and saying pixel art would be easier then 3d may be true for a certain amount of people but not all always depending on skill you can easily addopt which is also only about you so imo this whole discussion is kinda sensless as you all give values to art which cant be compared with each other in not a single way you wouldnt coutn a peach to some apples or?
also to call somthing easier to learn then something else is absolutely not comparable depending on individual and luck the biggest factor you all forget or better
synchronicity
:D
I wasn't arguing that pixel art is easier to learn, but that people cannot tell as easy, if you are good at it.
A better example might be abstract expressionism. Regular people cannot tell actual garbage from art in that style. Of course we could argue, if it even is art or just pretend art, just as we could argue, if a photographer creates art. But let us assume that it is art and you can be good or bad at it. My point is, that casual observers will not be able to tell the difference, while they could for something more life-like.
So in a way, it is easier to produce results that look adequate at first glance.
doesnt the passion of the artist and the effort make it art? but i understand your point sure :) but if you dont rate art then it would be okay if someone loves an "ugly" pic its okay imo if the artist felt something while he created it which you at least can recognize a bit....but its and endless complex topic. also i didnt ment to personally react to you i ment it more of other posts ive red about what may be easier to learn....soerry for that
You replied to me, instead of replying to the topic ;-)
doesnt the passion of the artist and the effort make it art?
Not really, no. Just because someone is an artist (called so by whom?), work created by them is not art. It is human made, artificial instead of natural. But the art in artificial is not the type of art we are talking about. Art is a display of skill. There can be passion put into it, and it usually makes art even better, as it engages the viewer. Even if that passion is accidentally attributed by the viewer.
Oh, I read softer definitions about art, that even lack the skill attribute. And it has long tradition to argue about what is art and what is not. There are like 5-7, maybe more defintions in dictionaries for "art".
But if you use the softest defintions, literally everything would be art. And art is supposed to be special. If everything is art, none is.
Or what about masterfully painting a portrait on canvas, catching the moment and the light with your brush - but putting no emotion into it, since it is your paid work and you just do your job. Is it art or is it not?
So maybe the heat in such discussions comes from one person using defintion A of art and the other person using definition B of art. And one of the defintions of "art" is: stuff that an artist made. But that lacks the definition of what constitutes an artist. It is circular, if you say, someone that creates art. It no longer gives information about the merit of a work and reduces art to human made. Think about it. Even without skill, anything I make is either art because I put emotion into it, or art because it was not made accidentally. Oh, and even for this, there are "artists" literally doing random stuff and call it art.
makes sense i agree sure just wanted to give a new point of view to the discussion :)
maybe its about havein a skill and always try to get better in it well as you said we wont find the perect solution to this
so the attitude of the artists is also an imporatn part well im off for now trying to create some art, see you man
