How well do traditional/digital art skills like anatomy, proportions, gesture etc. translate over to 3D modelling, bros? I think my drawing skills are fine and would like to learn modelling.

>>1009622 (OP)
Pretty well imo. Brushwork and colours and shading dont come up much outside of texture painting so they dont translate well and there are completely new skills for making a mesh, but in general the foundations are similar. The hard part is learning what buttons to press

3D modelling is codemonkey tier. Learn to sculpt!

>>1009626
Ah, noted. Thanks
>>1009627
Yeah, that! I meant 3d sculpting not modelling. I'm dumb af

>>1009627
Sculpt me a castle bro.

>>1009622 (OP)
>>1009628
they translate pretty well to sculpting, the main issue that beginners have is a lack of eyeballs
they're sculpting without looking, hopefully you learned how to observe when you learned to draw

>>1009627
This anon is retarded

>>1009622 (OP)
Whether you go from drawing to sculpting or modelling it translates as you're accessing the same foundational understanding of spatial relationships.

Visual art is about The dimensions and flow of shape their extent as well as the dimension of the dead space between them.
Visual art is art regardless of media so you know something in one place you will have a leg up elsewhere.

>>1009648
This person is not wrong. Modelling is actually better understood as a higher tier art than sculpting because in modelling you are sculpting shapes
while at the same thing doing additional things ontop of that.

As someone who can do all these things sculpting is way more monkey tier to me than modelling.
If I sculpt something my brain is in autopilot and I just create the shape I want.
If I'm modelling something I'm actively thinking about what I'm doing and how I will do it.

Sculpting also has hard limits on the sort of surfaces you can create.
Modelling allows you explore arbitrary complex shapes with precise compound curvature and machined precision in fitment.

In terms of a drawing analogy; sculpting is like sketching while modelling is like draftsmanship.

Both have their place but if you wanna look down your nose on one of them; it ain't modelling.

>>1009686
You're conflating a skill and a craft as art.

>>1009703
You're blind to what real art is. The artistry that goes into a finished production asset
makes the sculpting and concept phase of making that art into a parenthesis of what goes into it.

If you're just a concept artist or sculpt artists you prob think of your contribution as being the real art.
I did back in the day when that was me doing concepts and maquettes.
If you are someone that does all of these steps start to finish that view is quickly dispelled.

Even high level concept art is just like a quick sketch beside what goes into a finished asset.
The sculpting pass is just like this geometric texture pass, one component of a whole.
The real artistry transcends simplistic static sculpts and lies beyond as something you can only find by iteration.

What I do as a sculptor or as a concept artist is the easy part.
That meshing of artistry and engineering that goes into the other part is where the real artistic challenge lies.
You think the riggers and modellers are the monkies, but in reality you are the monkey.

It's like me drawing a car VS me building a car that starts up when you turn the key.

You do a few complete production assets on your own and your perception of what counts as art shifts.
Even tho it objectively is I no longer view any of my 2D works I've drawn or painted over the years as true art.
In my mind those are just static concepts for art I could set out to create to a true finished state.

>>1009710
Are you not reiterating, as I implied you were saying, that art is skill, craft, merit? What's the point of the word 'art', then? Aren't you of the opinion that everyone is an artist to some degree, then? Listen to yourself, you're talking subjectively about your 'perception of art shifting' and calling me blind.

>>1009703
>>1009710
>>1009712
Those who really think sketch is more of a "true art" compared to crafting it from there to finished product, are basically chasing the inspiration. Or maybe innovation. Playing the "who referenced who" or "who inspired who" game. And know what, if your sketch is a human - then you are a monkey too, because humans existed long before your sketch, you were merely imitating a familiar physical object from real world, so how is that any more artsy or innovative or inspirational than the next production step after your sketch?

mucho texto

>>1009703
In every language I speak, the word for 'art' derives either from a word meaning skill or from one meaning craft. These two are essential to the definition of art. You're mistaking an inclusion of for a reduction to. Skill and craft are the means to art, and thus are what art means.

>>1009712
>Are you not reiterating?

No that is your misread of what I said, why I reframed it in more detail. I can see it didn't do the trick tho.

>What's the point of the word 'art', then?

Art is in the eye of the beholder, but there are layers you can't even recognize for what they are unless you're reached
a level of refinement where you start to understand what it is you are looking at.
What appeals to a child and what appeals to an adult is different because the child lack the background to understand complexity.
The same is the case between expert and novice artisans.

Many people who have deep expertise in a narrow area fall victim to a sort of Dunning Kruger like effect in which they don't know what they don't know.
They make all these assumptions that let them feel grand. But now go try actually implementing/replicating something
and they'll rapidly discover how what they've talked big about will make them feel small.

>Aren't you of the opinion that everyone is an artist to some degree, then?

Being an artist exist on a spectrum, you incorrectly identified yourself as being of a higher tier than you are when dismissing modelling as 'monkey work'.
The inverse is true and as a mere sculptor you where being disrespectful towards something that extends into territory superior in tier that includes and out-scopes sculpting.

> Listen to yourself, you're talking subjectively about your 'perception of art shifting' and calling me blind.

You must've ascended the mountain yourself to know what makes the climb so challenging.
In declaring sculpting superior you are akin to someone who hasn't ventured past base-camp declaring how they've reached the peak.

Make a finished rigged and animated character as opposed to a static sculpt or concept drawing of a character.
Or build a playable/walkable level as opposed to some static concept of an environment you painted.

You won't look back at art the same.

>>1009720
I personally think "experiencing" is on an entirely different scale to "implementing". One can experience "complex art" without even understanding technical details behind its implementation.
Sure going through implementing it will make you appreciate the hard work behind it, but it's never really a prerequisite for "experiencing".

>>1009720

The skill is a given. Of course you should work to master your medium. It's obvious 3D modelling is more technically involved than sculpting digitally, you're still not saying anything new despite repeating yourself.

>Art is in the eye of the beholder, but there are layers you can't even recognize for what they are unless you're reached
>a level of refinement where you start to understand what it is you are looking at.
>They make all these assumptions that let them feel grand.
Art is not you being able to recognize skill, effort, technique, composition, beauty, etc. Art is producing beauty.

>The same is the case between expert and novice artisans.
>But now go try actually implementing/replicating something and they'll rapidly discover how what they've talked big about will make them feel small.
>Make a finished rigged and animated character as opposed to a static sculpt or concept drawing of a character.
>Or build a playable/walkable level as opposed to some static concept of an environment you painted.
Art is not solely reproduction, representation. Making an artwork move does not make it 'more art'.

>Being an artist exist on a spectrum, you incorrectly identified yourself as being of a higher tier than you are when dismissing modelling as 'monkey work'.
>The inverse is true and as a mere sculptor you where being disrespectful towards something that extends into territory superior in tier that includes and out-scopes sculpting.
Just because you have a breadth of skills that happen to produce art, doesn't mean you've reached the depth of making art. I used hyperbole to refer to modellers as 'code monkeys' because the vast majority are producing slop for entertainment, escapism, to make money, for a portfolio, for propaganda, solely to improve their 'skill'; most are not producing works for beauty. That's what higher art is. I don't claim sculpting is higher art than any other, again, it's not simply doing sculpting that produces art.

>>1009723
>Art is not you being able to recognize art.
If you can't recognize the art for what it is it isn't fully accessible to you. You can still marvel at it void of any understanding.
But there are appreciation for what is before you that's only availible with the richness of comprehending what it is you are looking at.

>Art is producing beauty.
What media is the most popular artform on the planet that has people spend thousands of hours immersed in it?
Is it watching renders of brilliant sculpts posted on ArtStation?
That beauty you are talking about is the real art, but it is not centered where you think it is.
it's centered at that synergy that happens when production assets comes alive.


>Making an artwork move does not make it 'more art'.

But it does. The artistry that goes into crafting a static scene from a fixed perspective is a subset
of the artistry that goes into presenting in the moving/interactive.

>I used hyperbole to refer to modellers as 'code monkeys' because the vast majority are producing popular content.

And I used hyperbole to point out you should know your place as a lowly sculptor and bow to your sempai: The Glorious Modeller.

>I don't claim sculpting is higher art than any other

You kind of did. And there def is a pecking order how much goes into each artform and how much is possible to explore within it.
Like how 3D eclipses 2D not because it is always superior, but because how any 2D is just a subset of 3D.
Or how film is a higher media than photography because any photography is a subset of film and could be presented as such, while the inverse isn't true.

>>1009724
I'm curious, what do you estimate your IQ is (not what a test tells you)? How many works last year did you create for yourself, that you didn't do for money, solely for a study, or put in a portfolio?

The posturing and appeals to popularity are boring. I'll offer an internal critique of your following statements, granting that there's a 'pecking order':
>there def is a pecking order how much goes into each artform and how much is possible to explore within it.
>Like how 3D eclipses 2D not because it is always superior, but because how any 2D is just a subset of 3D.
>Or how film is a higher media than photography because any photography is a subset of film and could be presented as such, while the inverse isn't true.

Claiming representational subsets isn't saying anything. A digital 3D product is subordinate to a painting by an old master because the painting requires both a mental model of nature (representation skill) and careful consideration of its depiction to make it beautiful. To use your argument about how easy sculpting is: To plot figures in space you import models and put them in the scene, you can move them as you please and iterate freely. To do so for a painting requires careful consideration and knowledge of perspective, composition, form, etc. and moving a figure requires a mental reprojection of the subject and how it affects and is affected by the environment.

>>1009725
>>1009724
To continue: some masters' paintings required dozens of sketches for a single figure of a multi-figure composition, even at the same angle, yet these are thrown away and only those overly concerned with representation fawn over them excessively (artists' artists). I don't disagree that someone who can do the whole pipeline of concepting to final, rigged moving, composed, lit, rendered, is more skilled than a 'mere sculptor'. My contention lies in that it isn't what constitutes art and that is why there's a point to having the word 'art' instead of skill/craft. The act of using high-barrier mediums is not doing more 'artistry' (calling it that is not saying anything), it's your application of skill, technique, mental model and so on.

With this point, I'm not trying to prove that I'm right, there's a lot I agree with you on. However, your view doesn't hold and you may be guilty of the Dunning-Kruger you accuse others of.

>>1009726
> that is why there's a point to having the word 'art' instead of skill/craft.
Another anon, I'd say, "art" is synonym of "skill/craft" but with more context.
And the context here is something made for fun/entertainment rather than applied matters.
Building furniture for people use at homes is skill/craft for application, drawing cool looking furniture is skill/craft for entertainment.
"Experiencing beauty" or whatever you talk about in the thread is also fun/entertainment.

>I'm curious, what do you estimate your IQ is (not what a test tells you)?

I've never taken their real test but my MENSA buddy doesn't stand out to me as a particularly deep thinker so by their metric it should be north of 130 I guess?
He sent me their pilot tests where I've been between 137 and 142.
I suspect MENSA is a bit of a scam tho and that way more than those claimed 'top 2% of the population' could actually join them.

But if that is true who really knows what IQ anyone really has as it'd then be unknown what the bell-curve actually looks like.

In my own estimate I'm quite a bit overclocked compared to an average person but I'm not smart enough that I'd stand out in a room full of smart people.
My closest friends include some engineers, physicists and legal professional and amongst them I don't stand out at all.

My own view on IQ is that it's more representative of ones bandwidth but what matters more is the quality of the instruction set you foster in yourself.
You have a fast brain that you run crap instructions on you'll just grow into a very elaborate retard, Chris Langan serves as living proof of this hypothesis.

>How many works last year did you create for yourself, that you didn't do for money, solely for a study, or put in a portfolio?

None, but last two years I've been hard at work for a specific project that I also care deeply about.
In an average year it'd likely number in the single digits of finished pieces but behind that are dozens of experimental and practice pieces used to explore new ideas.

>>1009725
>>1009726
I'm not gonna attempt to deconstruct this modified take, it is a lot more palatable than the original offer and I find it mostly agreeable.
I'm not really looking down on sculpting or drawing either cept how I'd rank it as a narrower aspect of what I've grown to consider as our
'state of the art' for what we're able to explore in art aided by the computer. Justice for modellers was the passion behind any harsh words.

>>1009732
> deep thinker
> fast thinker
Choose one. This is why IQ is bullshit.

>>1009729
>"Experiencing beauty" or whatever you talk about in the thread is also fun/entertainment.
It's worth taking more seriously than that but that's a matter for another day.

>>1009732
>I'm not really looking down on sculpting or drawing either cept how I'd rank it as a narrower aspect of what I've grown to consider as our 'state of the art' for what we're able to explore in art aided by the computer. Justice for modellers was the passion behind any harsh words.
Thank you for the charitable response. I apologize for my own harsh words. I wish you the best in your work, project, and hope with your skills you'll be free to create beautiful works for the world to see one day.

>>1009734
I think both don't matter and what actually matters is doing it. You can overthink 2+2=4 as much as you want but it won't change anything.
Just do it. This entire thread is so dumb.
Is this why professionals are hacks? They just say art terminology buzzwords with their social skills and get hired?
Well, it's not worth thinking about because it isn't related to what I DO everyday.

>>1009622 (OP)
not reading all the shit the autists are arguing about, but they translate nicely
the biggest roadblock for me right now is not being able to texture paint, and also not being able to create turnarounds for characters and such [front and side view]. the latter requires that you can deconstruct people or animals or whatever in perspective and then construct them in a different perspective with the correct proportions, and possibly exaggerate certain features if you're stylizing them
if you want to do low poly, being able to texture is especially important

>>1009627
Both have their pros. I like to model because it's easier to tweak a shape with a few verts, than to try pulling shit around with a move brush, and sometimes the sculpt-to-retopology process is so tedious, you feel you could have just modelled the thing in the first place.

>>1009887
For me as a person without top notch motor skills of a 2d artist, sculpting works nice for things with big margin of error: mostly organic things like trees, their bark detail, landscapes, rocks and their details, etc.
I mean, it's almost like you can't go wrong, the only real wrong here is high level proportions and overwhelming the thing with details, but that only requires an eye for what you trying to achieve and not well-trained painter's hand.

>>1009627
Sculpting will be rendered obsolete by AI in years, if not months. Current workflows require you to sculpt and then retopo, but today you can already generate AI meshes that still need retopo. So, as of today the two options are:
>spend hours/days sculpting -> spend a day or two retopologizing
>spend minutes generating with AI -> spend a day or two retopologizing
But what if you want more control over your stuff? Then you could:
>spend minutes generating with AI -> spend and hour or two sculpting to tweak the stuff -> spend a day or two retopologizing
This is a workflow that we already have today, and it only requires basic sculpting skills. In the future you won't even need to do that, because AI tools are getting better and better at 3D.

Modelling will still have case uses for things that need to satisfy specific parameters, such as 3D printing parts of a mechanism, or rendering a visualization of an actual IRL space with accurate proportions. Sculpting, however, will go the way of the dodo in the next months or years.

>>1009975
>Modelling will still have case uses for things that need to satisfy specific parameters, such as 3D printing parts of a mechanism, or rendering a visualization of an actual IRL space with accurate proportions.
You have a fair point, overall, but I would wager to say when sculpting is 'figured out' by AI that modelling is not far off. Who's to say bespoke modelling doesn't go the same way, generated then tweaked to meet specific parameters?

Actually, intuitively, the repoto stage seems like it's more suited to AI reduction since it's a translation and resampling problem. It should be an easier problem; and there's already auto retopo algorithms out there. Given both sculpting and retopo were automated, pending revisions, the pipeline is surely down to less than a day.

With that, I'd like to call back to the point that OP asked about art, and what we're talking about now is not using these processes for art. What an artist does with sculpting is different to what an employee in a pipeline making an asset beholden to an art director's vision is doing; and we need not mention to who/what the director is beholden to (see previous discussion).

>>1009980
>art
Art is for AI. Humans produce.

>>1009995
>AI
AI is primitive technology. Humans go forth and multiply.

>>1009718
so?
essential definition of art is artificiality skill mastery whatever is not involved.

>>1009626
Sculpt me a car engine. Seriously though why is there no nice way to make hard surface shit is plasticity the best we will get?

>>1012775
>Seriously though why is there no nice way to make hard surface shit
sdf, cad

>>1009622 (OP)
All artistic forms, whether generated from algorithms or hand sculpted or drawn with a pencil, revolve around fundamental principles of visual design.

An image, still or moving, communicates to the viewer. The shape of the characters, the lighting of the environment, the composition of the objects in the scene, are all part of an ancient collection of human knowledge regarding how we express the imaginary to other people.

Learning the fundamentals of art isn't optional, it's required to ever produce anything interesting whether you're using a pencil or Blender or a piece of clay. The good news is that everyone who has ever tried to create anything is already learning and practicing these elements, but purposeful study can help boost your skills.

I highly recommend more people learn about composition, because while models continue to get more realistic, and sculptors are getting very good at their forms, I see a general lack in the quality of composition in 3D work. The image I have here is a great example of excellent composition in 3D work.

>>1012804
> random shit all over the place
Okay I like it, but it doesn't look as a great le science-grade example of composition.
I would imagine something like that should be more focused, with objects grouped in visually recognizable groups, with clear focus, with obvious visual rhythm.

>>1012810
It espouses all of the elements of good composition, it mixes clean geometric patterns with visual noise. It draws your eye across the image in elegant and geometric ways. It avoids bad intersections (like if the tip of the finger landed on the edge of a wall). It has elements of symmetry as well as counter balance. It has great values and strong color contrast.

>>1012814
> clean geometric patterns
> draws your eye across the image in elegant and geometric ways
> symmetry as well as counter balance
This is exactly what I struggle to see here. To me it looks like the opposite. Might actually work as a textbook example of bad composition. Hey, maybe it actually is and you're trying to troll us?

>>1009622 (OP)
>translate
It's a prerequisite actually.