Been working on my low polly meme art, rate it from 1-fucking awesome.
This was a 2 hour render, made sure to turn up all the settings to make it look better. Did post in gimp
>couple of shapes and some shading
>meme art
>"MEME"
>fucking "art"
Fucking sucks. 0/10
>>521010
You'll like this one. Definitely NOT low polly, more pollies than you've probably ever dealt with. Added a reflection so you can cream yourself over how great it is. Took me 2 hours to render this one too.
Over 135million pollies on this one
>>521011
OP you inspire me.
>>521012
I'm glad. Once you get into high polly art, you'll hope to be as good as me.
Pic is how many pollys were in just one of my two objects. bet you haven't seen a smoother object than the one I made. Fuck I bet those retards at pixar have never seen anything that smooth before
>>521003
good work op, excellent balance & use of space.
your abstractions really speak to the human form vis-à-vis our condition as sense making beings inhabiting a world of light.
art/10
>>521018
Glad you see it like I do. Many people can interpret it different ways.
Some have said they see a human figure walking towards the right of the frame. In mid stride, the figure walks away from the light, as if to say "I'm turning my back to the light, and the way people say things should be".
Others have said they see a figure standing, with their arms and legs spread out, actually gazing towards the light. Gathering it's warmth, its serenity, or it's enlightenment of knowledge.
I leave the interpretation up to the viewer.
The second image is almost identical to the first, but it's more of a technical feat. It shows the extent of the human ability to create an organic abstract shape on something as cold and in-organic as a computer. The sheer number of polygons, reaching into the hundreds of millions, brings our era of Three Dimensional art, into a new beginning. One of unrivaled detail, and unrivaled resolution. Are all the polygons needed? Probably not. But art isn't about necessity, it's about pushing the boundaries, and that's what I've done here. Unmatched in its simplicity, and unmatched in its complexity all in one image.
This is true art.
>>521020
It's a joke, man, he sure got you.
>>521003
HOLY fuck that image size
>>521028
I purposefully chose that because I wanted you to be able to see every single detail of the low poly creation. Now you can see every crease and every fold of the abstract form I've created
That ploy count is ridiculous. You could get the same with only hundreds. Millions??? Why???!
>>521023
to be quite honest famanimal it was half joke, the series I could see actually in a gallery and people would eat it up probably, more points for being LGBTQFemaleMinority.
But OP actually unironically takes himself too seriously so sorry OP art-1/10
>>521011
that could work well as a log, it reminds me of one
>>521003
Out of curiosity, what sort of post work did you make?
Looks great man.
>>521129
The image was made with Vray on c4d.
For the post production, I used adobe camera raw. I adjusted the levels to bump the highlights and lights. Then I added a blue tint to the shadows and an orange tint to the highlights. Then I cranked up the clarity slider to add a bit of mid range contrast. I also put a slight film grain on it. Then finally added a simple vignette to create a better focus on the art piece.
Then I saved it as a jpeg on 12 quality, 12! That's even higher than 10, so you know the quality has been preserved from its original form.
Glad you like it
>>521131
>non free software
thanks for trying
>>521077
Oh true had I have been
OP is pro meta-memer, good job all around
art+meme/12
>>521132
What are you talking about? I spent good money on c4d, vray, and photoshop. Now I can creat ANYTHING my mind can think up. It's easy. Is free software better or something? If you don't believe me, the attached picture is a screenshot I just took
>>521135
weak effort. You will never be as good as me because you used paid 3d programs
>>521138
You fell for the free meme. Paid is where it's at. Your free programs will never be able to handle 130million polygons like mine can. Don't even bother replying.
I'm getting this printed and I'm going to start shopping it around art galleries. I'm going to keep the project file and jpeg on a flash drive that will be fused to the print, so the art collector will be buying an "Original".
>>521138
You are retarded if you think the tool makes the artist.
>>521225
only free 3d is viable
>>521225
You are retarded if you think the tool doesn't inhibit the artists ability.
>>521271
>Artistic expression is always a fight against limitations.
? you're defining what "ART" is again
>>521272
Dude, are you really that dense?
Everything in life is limited, name me one unlimited thing.
Also i am not defining art by merely saying there are limitations.
I hate math and programming, therefore i cannot/will not use the empowering usefulness of Phyton or Mel or whatever. Who is limiting me?
>>521299
>Everything in life is limited, name me one unlimited thing.
my semen
>>521299
Stupidity
>>521011
checked
>2 hours
dear god almighty.
why would you make this i dont understand why YOU WOULD MAKE THIS
>>521360
The high resolution was a big factor in it. And I turned the subdivisions up incredibly high to ensure only the best quality art. The second render took longer, because of the reflection, and I think it took a long time for the program to compile the 120,000,000 polygons
>>521361
It's low polly art. So I made it to push the artistic bounds.
>>521377
>So I made it to push the artistic bounds.
And yet all you did was push render. Even a retarded child with a crayon makes better art.
>>521378
No, believe it or not, I did all the modeling myself. I lit the scene myself, and even chose the camera angle myself. I also post-processed it myself. From the point where it was nothing but a thought in my head, to where it became reality, it was only touched by me. Not many people could make what I did
>>521380
>I lit the scene myself,
for every pixel, the computer ran an algorithmn and spit out the result. You did nothing on your own. You'r e a clown.
>>521381
In that case. There was no talent involved in any pixar movie, becuase it was just made on a computer.
What a sad world you live in. I bet you think the mona lisa or sistine chapel are good paintings too
>>521382
You're a pushbutton hack masquerading as something other.
>>521383
I didn't just "Push a button" I created the entire scene, and had to make some important decisions about the render settings. After a long process of modeling, it took hours for the computer to even be able to help in the creation of this art
>>521386
if you are such a great artist why don't you do something from real life
>>521388
What do you mean, "Do something from real life"? You mean do something in real life? This is real, I'm going to make prints of this and sell it at fine art places.
>>521389
Take away the computer, and you have nothing. You're a fake.
>>521389
we already blew your cover, the only reason this thread is going is because we are trying to figure if you are delusional or just trolling, in anycase you are not funny
>>521390
Take away painters canvas, and you have nothing
Take away sculpters block of marble, and you have nothing
Take away a musicians instrument, and you have nothing
Very poor argument, please go away. Stop being jealous of my art, because you obviously wish you had the same skill I do.
>>521392
>dat desperation
>>521391
Huh? I'm not trolling. I routinely buy prints and sell them for hundreds or thousands of dollars. Pic related is the last order I of prints I sold. Made $10,000 on one batch sale
>>521394
fake and gay.
>>521395
Well, it's not fake or gay. So you can just sit there and feel bad about your poor ass
>>521396
FAKE and GAY
>>521397
Whatever. I promise you won't find that on a reverse image search, because I just took that screenshot from my square account
>>521398
So the amount of money you make is the reason you can call this shit "art"?
>>521405
It's the perception to the consumer, and the value they give it
