Is Second Life still a place for creatives?

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

36 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

So yes, it's still a place FOR creatives just not a place to be creative and create.

I still make things inworld, for some things I then use a tool to mesh or sculpt sub-assemblies of prims rather than go out to Sketchup, but I suppose this means I am a  builder, not a creator? whatever, I'm happy doing it that way, I like a wide open space around me when I'm building, I like to see how things fit with other things, the most I could wish for is for LL to release their own inworld prim-to-mesh/sculpt method.

[Luna Bliss]

40 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

There's a difference in being creative IN Second Life and bring your creations INTO Second Life.  All the creators who used to spend their time creating inworld are now creating out of world then just bring their creation in.  So yes, it's still a place FOR creatives just not a place to be creative and create.

I consider you a creator, judging from how well you've put together your avatar. If so inclined you could even open up a business helping others create their look -- in fact I think I saw someone advertising such a business.

Likewise, those who decorate their homes are creators. I remember hiring someone especially talented in that area (interior design) for a big job I had a few years back, and she really made the house sing with her special arrangements.

Many too, do landscaping using others creations, including their own terraforming, and function much like a landscape architect does in RL.

[Rowan Amore]

On 12/3/2021 at 4:52 PM, Tama Suki said:

When it comes to searching for resources to create avatars, clothes, shapes and animations, there is nothing but the Avastar inflation.

I was addressing the OP's question on creating.  Being creative in SL is different than creating in SL, IMO.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Rowan Amore

[StarlanderGoods]

I think we are confusing technical prowess with artistic intent.  The art is not in the technology that you use, its in the concept and the expression.  Even the most beautiful and perfectly meshed utilitarian object is not art, because there is no artistic intent.

And even the most convoluted and wacky installation that you import from blender might not be art, if its not expressing something sincere about the creator.

@Tama Sukigo check Bryn Oh simwide installations if you havent, and you will see how SL is definitely a place for creative people.

[Tama Suki]

2 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

go check Bryn Oh simwide installations if you havent, and you will see how SL is definitely a place for creative people.

Bryn's works are well known, unmistakable style. Very enjoyable although I wouldn't give it 5 stars. Let's say it gets along with 3 stars.

I also think that for the times we live in, those who practice art in the metaverse cannot expect every single user to profitably enjoy their work using a 5k$ monster computer. Art should be usable by everyone and not just by a small elite who can afford it.

[Maryanne Solo]

It only costs $4850 less than that computer to enjoy my art in RL lol.
My 3d mesh comp $? Don't ask. 🤑🙄   

[Tama Suki]

3 hours ago, Maryanne Solo said:

It only costs $4850 less than that computer to enjoy my art in RL lol.
My 3d mesh comp $? Don't ask. 🤑🙄   

I don't understand well your sentence...🤔

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 12/4/2021 at 6:30 PM, Quistess Alpha said:

for pedantry, Activeworlds and worlds chat still exist (I think)

Yes, Active Worlds is still going 26 years later.

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 12/4/2021 at 9:03 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

The complete absence of an active userbase precludes them. There.com probably has more people online right now.

Active Worlds has had a loyal, active user base for well over 20 years. Small though it may be. Enough to keep the doors open anyway.

[Silent Mistwalker]

On 12/6/2021 at 3:40 PM, Orwar said:

 .. Sisters can be cruel creatures. 

Try having 2 older brothers, the eldest being a bully.

[Rolig Loon]

5 hours ago, StarlanderGoods said:

Even the most beautiful and perfectly meshed utilitarian object is not art, because there is no artistic intent.

I suspect that those who design many utilitarian products in RL would disagree with you.

Like so many other facets of human experience, "artistic intent" is not a binary concept but a continuum, as is artistic talent. Meshed and textured articles like these in SL may indeed be art.

[Orwar]

34 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Try having 2 older brothers, the eldest being a bully.

   Well I do have two brothers .. But then, I'm the eldest ..

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   Well I do have two brothers .. But then, I'm the eldest ..

If your real name is David...

[Orwar]

42 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

If your real name is David...

   Nope!

[ChinRey]

5 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

I suspect that those who design many utilitarian products in RL would disagree with you.

Like so many other facets of human experience, "artistic intent" is not a binary concept but a continuum, as is artistic talent.

Art for art's sake is actually a fairly modern concept. That is, the old masters certainly did appreciate that art can have a value in itself and they did endulge themselves in "pure" art every now and then. But most of their works had a specific meaning and purpose beyond looking good and they certainly didn't see anything wrong about it.

[StarlanderGoods]

6 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

I suspect that those who design many utilitarian products in RL would disagree with you.

Like so many other facets of human experience, "artistic intent" is not a binary concept but a continuum, as is artistic talent. Meshed and textured articles like these in SL may indeed be art.

looking good, being aesthetically pleasing is not what I think that defines art, like I said in the first post, art has a personal sincere message.

A lot of the arguments about art have this underlaying concept that considering something art means its "good" and saying that it isnt art means its "bad", but I disagree with that concept, there is a pride and incredible value in well made crafts, it is not skill that diferntiates craftsmen from artists, and its not the medium used either, its the message and the intent.  As beautiful as that kettle is, it is not telling me anything about the creator, other than it is a talented person.

But I want to stress this point, it is not a diss on craftsmen, its like the difference between civil engineers and architects, a lot of their knowledge intersects but they have a different focus.

[Rolig Loon]

51 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

A lot of the arguments about art have this underlaying concept that considering something art means its "good" and saying that it isn't art means its "bad", but I disagree with that concept, there is a pride and incredible value in well made crafts, it is not skill that differentiates craftsmen from artists, and its not the medium used either, its the message and the intent.  As beautiful as that kettle is, it is not telling me anything about the creator, other than it is a talented person.

But I want to stress this point, it is not a diss on craftsmen, its like the difference between civil engineers and architects, a lot of their knowledge intersects but they have a different focus.

I doubt that most of us can tell much about the creator of most artwork without either seeing it as part of a larger body of work or viewing it in a context that tells you how the artist relates the work to the world it is in.  Without those cues, any conclusions we draw about an artist's motivations or "message" are suppositions, projections of our own interpretations and receptivity to "message".  And, yes, it is a diss on artisans as a group to imply that their work is any less inspired or artistically meaningful than the work of "real artists".  An artisan's sense of line, form, color, and cultural meaning can be just as well-developed and artistic as that of a person who creates art for art's sake.  In my opinion, drawing a black-and-white distinction between the decorative arts and fine art is a form of intellectual snobbery.  It disregards the broad continuum of personal sensitivity to message and medium that exists across the creative world.

Pottery by Camilio Tafoya, Santa Clara Pueblo (1902-1995)

Edited December 9, 2021 by Rolig Loon
typos, of course

[ChinRey]

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

 

Pottery by Camilio Tafoya, Santa Clara Pueblo (1902-1995)

 

Pottery by ChinRey Resident, Second Life (2013-)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to compare my little vase to the one Rolig posted a picture of. It's not anywhere near as good of course.

But that's exactly my point. Yes, I'm an expert mesh maker but I'm not a great designer, this is far away from the kind of works I usually make and even though I'm an artist in RL, I work with sounds not visuals there. It's also very simple. Any half decent mesh maker should be able to make something similar and probably do it much better than me.

If you're not a half decent mesh maker, take a look at this:

It's a prim, just a single prim, with a standard texture from Linden Lab's Nautilus content package.

So to answer the question in the thread's title: yes, there is still a place for creatives in Second Life. Just don't try to copy the works of the commercially succesful and highly visible SL content creators. (So much of what they produce isn't creative anyway, just cheap copies of whatever happens to be trendy in RL or - for avatars - the heavily photoshopped fantasy world of Instagram.). Try to see what you can do within your limits!

And there are always limits, not only in Second Life but everywhere. That's fine. Without limits there are no challenges and without challenges there is no creativity.

Maybe a little bit off topic but not completely, here's a pro tip for all artists and wannabe artists of all kind: Do not let your preconceptions become a straitjacket. Be flexible and go with the flow. Creativity is a process and you need to let your work evolve as you are working on it.

I once read an interview with a well known author. It was years ago and I have to quote from memory so I probably don't get it right but it sums up one of the most important aspects of all creative art:

"Do you know exactly what you are going to write when you start?"

"Yes."

"Does the book end up the way you thought?"

"No."

"Are you surprised?"

"No."

Edited December 9, 2021 by ChinRey

[Rowan Amore]

[Tama Suki]

@ChinRey 

Haem ... there is a reason for which we are ecstatic in front of the David di Donatello right? Well I think in the virtual world to express yourself as an artist you must also and above all be a refined craftsman, even if you want to produce the abstract or the grotesque. There are no escape routes. with a prim you can make a nice vase or a twisted torus but nothing more. Let's take the mesh sculpts of a very famous SL artist wich Is been mentioned before somewere in the thread. I mean She have style but my god! Her meshes are technically orribile. No friend, the first thing I would recommend to a newbie who wants to express himself as a virtual artist would be to forget about art for a while and study very hard on a 3D program.

[Tama Suki]

I would like to add, art is research. Can you imagine where someone who discovers it only on SL can go by using only the SL tools? In my opinion he remains nailed in here to life producing mediocrity. So please let us make a cut with the nonsense.

[Orwar]

   Art. 

[Rowan Amore]

15 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Art. 

Although a bit more ART than your post, is this one worth $86,882,500?  Is it art or just paint on a canvas?  One person's art is another person's WTH?  Is one supposed to appreciate what the artist is saying in either of the images?   The second image sold for $69.9 million.  Crazy.

 

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Although a bit more ART than your post, is this one worth $86,882,500?

   'Art' can be just a form of tax evasion for the very rich. It's not an issue of whether it's 'artistic' or 'pretty', but whether buying it for an absurd amount of money A) makes it more prestigious because it now has a fabricated 'value' and B) because by loaning out the painting to museums on occasion, you may get income tax deductions until your purchase magically turns into profit.

   But it's also one of those things that people are passionately opinionated about. The definition is too vague and the word gets thrown around to the point that it becomes ridiculous trying to fit any given definition into the word, and a quick way for anyone to feel a little culturally superior because they think they 'understand art' and that people who don't appreciate literate piles of junk as an expression of beauty, or an intellectually pretentious allegory for the state of the world, are basically Neanderthals.

   Fair enough. I might be a Neanderthal then. But whoever thinks a banana duct taped to a wall is somehow artistic must then surely be a monkey. 

   People have, on occasion (.. or 'every other day'), referred to things I've made as 'art'. Unfortunately it isn't financially viable for me to defenestrate potential customers from my workshop. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.