This is just not true and honestly, this comment is quite insulting to artists who specialise in using 3D. Using 3D tools and 'photobashing' in illustration is not only completely valid, it is SMART. If someone has to skills to utilise 3D in art, why wouldn't you use the skill you are most proficient in?
3D illustration still requires the artist to create the mood, the setting, the style, the atmosphere. You don't just open up a 3D program and voila, a perfectly rendered artwork is made for you.
It seriously annoys me when people write off artworks because of the tools used to create them. It reminds me of the people who thought using photos in digital art was 'cheating' ten years ago. Yet now, using photos and 3D is industry standard especially in concept art. 3D renders and photos are simply tools.
Nowhere in Cyberpunk's competition did they state professional illustrators were not allowed to enter. Personally I feel like the first place winner was very well deserved. It has a mood that is very aligned with the game's aesthetic and the artist clearly thought outside the box.
Before anything else, I just liked to state how I favor facts vs. facts rather to opinions vs. opinions.
Valid? What do you mean? Why would anything be valid or invalid in digital illustration? It seems like you are confused about something yourself.
It is a vague way to approach things by questioning if it is "valid" or not. Who decides?
Nobody is writing off the artwork, have you not read how actually everybody (including me) likes it?
He is obviously a great artist.
You are misleading and pushing it.
Methods are not skills.
Nobody was talking about skills. You brought that up and introduced a little confusion here. Let's talk about it then.
My statement is true, see:
Actual fine arts have nothing to do with computers.
Yet, to elaborate on your opinion regarding the use of 3D in illustration, since skills are now introduced into the conversation:
Drawing on a graphics tablet has way more to do with fine arts than clicking around and making the machine generate shapes and effects.
Having programs generate already shaded objects and shapes and having them arranged via assistance of the machine does not, i repeat, does not involve actual artistic skills, anybody can do that, I assure you.
Yes, we know these are tools, thank you. Yes, the synthesizer is just an instrument. It's okay.
What one has to understand is how the use of 3D modelling and various digital effects and tricks affect the actual need of real artistic skills - likely, just remove the need of them.
Here's some help to wrap it around your head: Try to recreate all these pictures on paper or on a similar traditional medium, canvas, wood etc.
The task becomes much, much more difficult. Now compare these pictures keeping that in mind.
What you are right about is what a 3D artist does is creating mood (via various machine guided tools).
(Are we also talking about 3D sculpting? That should have its separate topic as that, does indeed require high artistic skills. Digital sculpting though is not represent on these images.)
There is nothing
wrong or
invalid about any method. I find all of them wonderful.
Considering one more graceful to the other is up to whoever is viewing.
You see, mixing up methods (the technicalities) and the individual reception of images, reflecting on them in general does not make any sense.
They, these approaches and methods (fine arts, drawing by hand, drawing by hand on a tablet, 3D) are just not the same category.
They are altogether different methods. (Mixing them is also something else.)
They should be treated accordingly, each in its own category.
Like senior artists not mixed with beginners at a large scale competition.
"Nowhere in Cyberpunk's competition did they state professional illustrators were not allowed to enter."
Yes, you are right, sadly.
That is what the discussion was about.
Source: Am artist, using traditional and digital methods, 3D modelling, sculpting and photobashing too. Love all of them.