Okay, I very seldom make any kind of a peep during all of the "BLANK isn't really art" discussions, but I've decided to say something this time. This is MY OPINION, so you can take it or leave it--no need to flame or rant or send me any hate mail.

I just don't understand how anyone, least of all an "artist," can say that someting created in a different medium than what they use is not art.

A piece of art is not determined by the materials from which it is created. It is a representation of the artist's vision. If the artist chooses to share his or her vision using oil paints, or charcoal pencils, or colored pixels, or 3 dimensional meshes or koolaide-stained rags glued onto the backside of a garage door, then it is still the artist's vision, so it is still art.

I mean, come on...what is so offensive to "purist" traditional artists about a stunning image that had its beginnings in a 3D program? Is it because the 3D artist didn't have to learn to draw to create her image? Nope, because what about a sculpter? That would be saying that Michelangelo's "David" wasn't art until someone went and sat in front of it and drew it on paper. Is it because a 3D artist doesn't have to start from scratch, starting with a pre-made model? Well, how many artists do you know that plant their own trees to make the paper they use and grind their own minerals to get their gorgeous paints? Or maybe because the computer (sometimes, mind you) handles the application of light, shadow, focus, intensity... Um, sorry, but there is an artist sitting at the computer manipulating all of those factors, and more, combining them into something that is visably pleasing (or not) just as the traditional artist manipulates his medium on his surface of choice.

If you don't like a certain medium, then you don't care for that type of art, maybe, but don't just stand there and say it isn't art.

I guess that's all I really wanted to get off my chest. I'll quietly return to lurking and enjoying the beautiful ART on deviantArt.