Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Artur RosaMale/Portugal Groups :iconall-about-abstract: All-About-Abstract
All Abstract for the Group
Recent Activity
Deviant for 8 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 289 Deviations 3,056 Comments 238,742 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Colony 7 by ArthurBlue Colony 7 :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 446 56 Lucid Dreaming (III) by ArthurBlue Lucid Dreaming (III) :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 74 6 The Book of the World Builder by ArthurBlue The Book of the World Builder :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 355 40 The Red Balloon by ArthurBlue The Red Balloon :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 245 15 The Living Hills of the Second Moon by ArthurBlue The Living Hills of the Second Moon :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 158 31 The Book of Loneliness by ArthurBlue The Book of Loneliness :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 142 13 The Book of the Nebulae Collector by ArthurBlue The Book of the Nebulae Collector :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 341 44 The Book of Bridges to Self by ArthurBlue The Book of Bridges to Self :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 226 49 Snake Ridge of the Second Moon by ArthurBlue Snake Ridge of the Second Moon :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 182 23 The Book of Midnight by ArthurBlue The Book of Midnight :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 516 48 The Hub of the Five Worlds by ArthurBlue The Hub of the Five Worlds :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 130 10 The Birth of the Third by ArthurBlue The Birth of the Third :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 421 28 The Cocoons of the Seventh Moon by ArthurBlue The Cocoons of the Seventh Moon :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 292 69 Layers of Impossibility by ArthurBlue Layers of Impossibility :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 659 75 My City by the Sea by ArthurBlue My City by the Sea :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 472 47 The Three of the Three Million islands by ArthurBlue The Three of the Three Million islands :iconarthurblue:ArthurBlue 900 103


Artur Rosa
I don't consider myself an artist. I don't know exactly what art is but I have a feeling it's more than what I do.

Computer graphics is just a hobby for me. I started working in CG in September 2006 and my first "half-decent" image was produced in December 2006.

Thanks for your interest in my images. I hope you have a good time browsing my gallery! :-)


Add a Comment:
yereverluvinuncleber Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2017  Professional Interface Designer
If you have anything steampunk in your collection then please consider joining steampunk-artists too. We are a newly reformed group with 2000+ members, quite vital at the moment and expanding. Do join if you feel you have anything to contribute.
ArthurBlue Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2017
Thanks for the invite, I'm honored, but steampunk is really not my cup of tea... :-)
yereverluvinuncleber Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2017  Professional Interface Designer
I didn't think so but your gallery was so extensive I thought there might be something that might just fit.
yereverluvinuncleber Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2017  Professional Interface Designer
Welcome to the design-addicts group, your design work welcome, please read the rules and familarise yourself with the folders, we are strict with submissions going the right place - and enjoy submitting - in fact keep submitting!
eelstork Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I wonder about your comment "don't consider myself an artist" - is it because stock models make up a lot of your scenes? Do you create models yourself?
Regardless, creating beautiful renders and scenes is a lot of work, not to mention lighting and photography.

Your art is inspiring.
ArthurBlue Featured By Owner Edited Feb 25, 2017
Thank you for your comment and questions.

Most of the models in my scenes are made by myself: the glowing white city in several images, the spiraling towers, the mountains and all other terrains, caves, worlds, the giant statues in "the three" series, the giant flower in several images, the pods of the "cocoons", the alien trees in several images, the floating roads, that strange hanging pool, the room where "she" woke up, the buildings in "sigma draconis" and in the series of the "white-orange world" and other images, etc, etc. I normally only use stock models for secondary elements, like grass, background forests and similar stuff, with very few exceptions. My "humans" are based on stock models but always configured and posed manually. The atmospheres in my images are always configured manually too, starting from a basic, default atmosphere.

Anyway, even if I did use stock elements for everything, that would never be a reason to not call myself an artist. Stock elements in 3D images are like different brush or paint types in a traditional artist. Those artists also didn't make their brushes or their paints or their canvas but that doesn't make their art any less "valuable". These are just tools, nothing more and nothing less. It's in putting it all together that lies the value of whatever we're seeing.

You mention that doing my scenes is a lot of work but that is also not a criteria for calling something "art". A real artist could spend 2 minutes and create a work of art. The amount of work has nothing to do with calling something art.

Art is not about the tools or about the work. Those are irrelevant for calling something art. That much I know. What art is about... that I don't know and maybe no one knows. Everyone's got an opinion, though. :-)

I don't call myself an artist simply because I can't compare myself with the real artists, like Michelangelo or Raphael or Leonardo da Vinci or Dali or Van Gogh of our world. Those are the real Artists. Using the same designation for their work and for mine seems like an abuse of the word. We are not even in the same "league".

People nowadays abuse of the word "artist". Everyone call themselves "artists". Even a singer is an artist, when he created absolutely nothing, he just emitted some words from his mouth with a varying tone over time. Same with a dancer, he just moved his body around. The real artist was the composer or the choreographer - they created something, if anyone can be called an artist, it's them, not the singer or the dancer.

There should be another word for what I do (and others do) but I don't know it. At least I don't know any. What I do know is that I cannot compare myself with the real Artists, that I mentioned before. For lack of a better word, I just make images, that is all. If you like them, that's wonderful. But is it art? I think it would be arrogant of me to call it that.
eelstork Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Though I think I understand fairly well what you're getting at, plainly: "high art" would well enough represent the geniuses you recognize as artists, and the word "art" forgivingly describes the 99.9% striving towards enlightenment.
Like the difference between Buddha, and a monk.

A small question I would have for you then might be: are you actually aiming at creating (what you call) art? Or is it a goal you simply do not pursue?

As to the distinction between creation and performance, all i can say is thinking about it may be productive. Music easily touches my soul. The arrow struck me, where the bow did not...
ArthurBlue Featured By Owner Edited Feb 26, 2017
Your first paragraph perfectly summarizes what I was trying to say.

As for the second paragraph, to answer your question: no, that is not a goal I actively pursue. I simply like to get the images out of my head, as simple as that. Any kind of labeling it is not important for me. I can tell you that the part of the submitting an image here in DeviantArt that I absolutely dislike is to be forced to label it as "fantasy" or "landscape" or whatever. Labeling an image is incredibly difficult for me because it's extremely reductive. An image is not "one thing", it's a combination of multiple things where the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts.

Not to compare with my images, but just to better put my point: imagine what if Michelangelo had to label his painting of the Sistine Chapel. Any one label would be absurd.

As for the third paragraph, I see your point. I can't call "art" to those paintings that simply faithfully depict whatever the "artist" is seeing, like those realistic paintings of still life or a mountain or whatever. That's just a good or excellent performance, it's not a work of art because there's no creation. Same applies to a nice singing of a song that someone else wrote. That was a good performance but it wasn't art (in my view). The art was in the creation itself.

One interesting topic to make my point: who is the artist behind of some of those wonderfully beautiful images of fractals? Those images are nothing more than a graphical representation of a mathematical formula. So, who is the artist there: the mathematician who made the formula, the programmer who translated the formula into colors, the maker of the computer, ...? All of the above or none of the above? Even a more interesting question: is it art? Sure, it's very beautiful and you can lose yourself looking at it, but is it art?

Maybe if you don't know how it was produced you call it "art" but once you know you then say "wait a minute, that's not art...". But it doesn't make sense that the label for something is changed by your knowledge of how that thing was made. If a label is dependent of your knowledge of the process, then art is like quantum physics and the famous Schrodinger's cat. :-)

I don't know if that's art and I think the answer is not important, like it's not important if the cat is dead or alive (it's not important because it can't be known, so it becomes irrelevant). The answer is only important for those people who need to label things in an attempt to better understand the world around them. Maybe an unlabeled world means chaos for them. For me, it's simply the world...
(2 Replies)
TimpanogosArt Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Your artwork is really excellent!! I love it!!
VialofFire Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Your work is fantastic and I absolutely love it. :heart:
Add a Comment: