Artist Needed for Game
Tim Hardy
I posted about this time last year saying we might need an artist sometime
soon for a game in development. Well, I let the game sit for most of last
year, but I've finally gotten a team together and we've been working heavily
for the last 5 months. It's time to seriously recruit a graphic artist.
The game is a post-apocalyptic strategy game written in C++ on Win95 with an
emphasis on multiplay (no Windows gui stuff - all graphics are from scratch).
It is a cross between MOO, MOM, and HOMM. Anyone who liked those should
enjoy this game (if you have no clue what those acronyms stand for, but you
can draw, don't worry). We need a talented artist who is willing to become
part of our team and is capable of drawing a large amount of bitmaps. Most of
the bitmaps will simply be different angles or animations of each army
represented in the game. This is a serious project requiring someone willing
to work with us (you will have a lot of say as to exactly what graphics go
into the game) and to finish what they start. Beyond that, we don't care
about your experience. We just have to like your art and be convinced you can
finish the job (we're shooting for Christmas). We aren't a company or
anything, just some guys who have always loved games and finally have the
skill to write the game we've always wanted.
We are willing to give up to 20% of all profit generated by the game plus cash
(yes CASH!!! - calm down) to our recruited artist. The exact percentage and
capital depend on the quality of the work of course. You will be the only
member of the team getting paid anything up front. We are willing to do this
because we realize the importance of the graphics in this game (and we can't
draw worth a flip).
If anyone out there has talent and time (notice the approaching end of the
Spring semester - good timing eh?) send me an email and we'll talk.
Noam Ben-Ami
Takamoto Miura <taka...@ucla.edu> writes:
>> We are willing to give up to 20% of all profit generated by the game plus cash
> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than programming?
>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think this is
>the case from my experience...)
> How much share do graphics artists actually get in general? Anyone knows?
Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of the
work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little about
neither games nor graphics.
--
Noam Ben-Ami is nbe...@ux4.cso.uiuc Solar Acoustics High Performance Speakers.
http://farside.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~nbenami ---- Disclaimer: I speak for myself ONLY.
Dealer employee:Dunlavy, B.A.T., Theta, Rowland, Von Schweikert, Hales, Paragon,
Golden Tube, Musical Design, Counterpoint, Linn, Fanfare, C.A.L, Nak, XLO, PS Audio...
Takamoto Miura
> We are willing to give up to 20% of all profit generated by the game plus cash
Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than programming?
(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think this is
the case from my experience...)
How much share do graphics artists actually get in general? Anyone knows?
-Takamoto Miura
SmkMirrors
>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most
of the
>work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
about
>neither games nor graphics.
Depends on the game. In these days of lame, windows mutli-media, mouse
based
drool and click games, the graphics person may well be doing much more
than half of the work --since those games are 90% flash anyway.
In that case, I guess they should get half of the share or mote.
Darren Hebden
True... The words 'Myst', '11th Hour' seem to come to mind.
Visit the Brain Soup Homepage for all you www background needs!
*NEW* Brain Soup Collection II is now ready for download! *NEW*
----- http://www.Dynamic-Web.com/Software/bsoup/index.htm -----
Henri Smulders
In general a graphics artist straight out of school will make money in the mid-twenties. That is a
guaranteed paycheck; not contract work. As such I think the offer is extremely generous. I am programmer and an
animator and I would never give a graphic artist that generous of an offer: 20% + CASH. NUTS in my opinion. Or
maybe they are very nice people, or maybe the game really sucks and they expect little profit. One note though:
Always try to get a small percentage of gross instead of a high percentage of profit: They can always up their
costs on their own salaries and thus screw you out of your "profit"part.
AS a programmer I must say this: If you think that animating in 3D is hard then consider that I've been
animating for 11 years (turbosilver; the reason I bought an Amiga) as a way to RELAX! Believe me looking for bugs
in 100k+ lines of code is a lot more exhausting than screwing around with channel parameters.
Hajo
John Paul D'India
: Depends on the game. In these days of lame, windows mutli-media, mouse
: based
: drool and click games, the graphics person may well be doing much more
: than half of the work --since those games are 90% flash anyway.
Yeah, but he's talking about a for fun, shareware project. There's no
way a person doing graphics in his spare time _could_ do anything like a
"multi-media, windows, drool and click game". I do believe 20% for such
a project is about normal (could be wrong, it always depends on the
game).
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John Paul D'India - D'India Software - Game Developer (programmer)
Projects: Aro (hi-res jump'n'run); 4gen (side scrolling shooter)
din...@netcom.com
If you're an artist/3d modeller who wants to work on some high
quality shareware projects for the fun of it, please contact me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Fabio Bizzetti
>> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
>>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
>>programming?
>>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think
>>this is the case from my experience...)
>> How much share do graphics artists actually get in general? Anyone knows?
>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of
>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
>about neither games nor graphics.
Just wanna show my personal example of programmer learning also how to draw
good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never heard of a
graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap engine..
This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
Betty Cunningham
I work for SEGA as an artist.
I'd like to point out that the programmer and artist that try to put each of their
individual work as being tougher/better/more important than the other's have no business
working on a team. This is a no-win scenario. You can't have a game without programming.
You can't have a game that's not pretty.
-Betty Cunningham
illustrator, animator, and likes to collect dead things
(Myst was way over-budget on what it's graphics SHOULD have been-in MY opinion.
A 60,000 polygon clock that shows up as an 8 pixel-high object on a table is a waste of
artist time))
TCM
In article <4lq803$k...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, nbe...@uiuc.edu (Noam Ben-Ami) writes:
> Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of the
> work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little about
> neither games nor graphics.
You don't often hear graphic artists go "oh no, some pixel (I have no idea
which one) has gone rabid and is killing the rest of them" :)
Art sort of progresses linearly, with programming you often have to
dump the method and start over, sanity bending bug-hunts are another neat
feature of programming.
No offense to graphic artists - I do the odd bit of artwork so it's not a them
vs us situation as far as I'm concerned, IMHO it's more boring than
programming, but far less boring than a bug hunt (this is the bit where
someone plugs Ada95 :)).
Ratio of art vs code does depend on the game, I'd guess a sierra game has more
work put into the art than the engine - since they wrote the engine in 1843 and
havn't changed it since.
--
The Cookie Monster (TCM)
- All Gods children are lost... but only a few can program.
David Dunham
> > We are willing to give up to 20% of all profit generated by the game
plus cash
>
> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics
artists should
> get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
programming?
> (This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think
this is
> the case from my experience...)
I have no idea what sort of game you're talking about, but (as a
programmer) I'm convinced that programming is more work. I can't imagine a
game would be held up by bugs in the art, the way they are if there are
lingering bugs in the code.
I would also be suspicious of any deal that gave any one person 50% of the
profits
David Dunham Pensee Corporation dun...@pensee.com
Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/
"I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
"What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams
Bryant Reif
TCM wrote:
>
> In article <4lq803$k...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, nbe...@uiuc.edu (Noam Ben-Ami) writes:
> > Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of the
> > work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little about
> > neither games nor graphics.
>
> You don't often hear graphic artists go "oh no, some pixel (I have no idea
> which one) has gone rabid and is killing the rest of them" :)
No, but you do see graphic artists, especially in 3D, tweak and rework their
animations, until it looks "just right" This is analagous to the debugging process for
programmers.
> Art sort of progresses linearly, with programming you often have to
> dump the method and start over, sanity bending bug-hunts are another neat
> feature of programming.
??? You don't think artists have to scrap ideas too? When you have hundreds of bones
in an object, and that one polygon is still deforming improperly, you start to go a bit
crazy. (I admit the ol' "." that looks exactly like a "," goof REALLY sucks.)
> No offense to graphic artists - I do the odd bit of artwork so it's not a them
> vs us situation as far as I'm concerned, IMHO it's more boring than
> programming, but far less boring than a bug hunt (this is the bit where
> someone plugs Ada95 :)).
I've done both, and although I enjoy the art side more, I still like programing side
too.
> Ratio of art vs code does depend on the game, I'd guess a sierra game has more
> work put into the art than the engine - since they wrote the engine in 1843 and
> havn't changed it since.
Absolutely. Think about all the DOOM clones out there (DOOM, DOOM2, Heretic, Hexan,
etc..), using pretty much the same engine. They would look pretty silly w/ the same
graphics.
> --
> The Cookie Monster (TCM)
> - All Gods children are lost... but only a few can program.
--
Bryant Reif
mailto:reif...@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.aiesec.org/~bryant
Alex Amsel
In article: <31809A...@ucla.edu> Takamoto Miura <taka...@ucla.edu>
writes:
>
> > We are willing to give up to 20% of all profit generated by the game
plus cash
>
> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics
artists should
> get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
programming?
> (This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I
think this is
> the case from my experience...)
Well, from my experience its just not true. Some artists are gloriously
quick, and some are very slow. Same with programmers, but in general I
find programming more time consuming with much longer hours and a lot
more hectic/problematic.
As for exact payment options.....in this case there is more than just
the two of you anyway. It also varies depending who had the idea,
experience, and so on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Alex Amsel : Silltunna Software Lead Programmer : Black Magic |
| XTremeRacing 1x1 TMapping and Stunning Gameplay on AGA Amigas |
| Al...@teeth.demon.co.uk | Steve Bull is Back | *PWEIPWEIPWEI* |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Amsel
In article: <3181C8...@flyinggoat.com> Betty Cunningham
>
> I work for SEGA as an artist.
> I'd like to point out that the programmer and artist that try to put
each of their
> individual work as being tougher/better/more important than the
other's have no business
> working on a team. This is a no-win scenario. You can't have a game
without programming.
> You can't have a game that's not pretty.
I agree 100%. Last year I was in a position where I could have argued
with my artist and he could have argued with me re: who did the most
work. The fact is, you do the work required for your job. Some games
require extreme amounts of artwork that is painstaking, others are much
simpler. In general the best way is an even split if you are on a
non-salary basis since you really ought to be both helping design + test
the game. This is an extra job in itself. It honestly varies so much
according to the job in hand.
And if someone did start getting silly (as a newbie artist did with
us....despite quite good sketchwork we didn`t hire him 100% because of
his crazy and greedy attitude)...sod them.....unless they are
exceptionally good (unlikely).
Gord Davison
bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>
>>> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
>>>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
>>>programming?
>>>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think
>>>this is the case from my experience...)
>
>>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
>>about neither games nor graphics.
>
>good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never heard of a
>graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap engine..
>This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
>Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
OK, how do I fit into this world?
Physics degree --> illustrator/3D animator --> frustrated software user?? -->
creator of interactive, real-time graphic utilities using MVC++, VB4, some assembler
[for optimization] ??
Just wondering.
==========================================================================
Gord Davison | 2D/3D Animator ¤ Multimedia Designer
Phoenix Interactive Design, Inc. |
graphics ¤ animation ¤ multimedia | "Complex problems have simple,
gdav...@interlog.com | easy-to-understand, wrong answers."
==========================================================================
Gord Davison
dun...@pensee.com (David Dunham) wrote:
[SNIP]
>I have no idea what sort of game you're talking about, but (as a
>programmer) I'm convinced that programming is more work. I can't imagine a
>game would be held up by bugs in the art, the way they are if there are
>lingering bugs in the code.
Just speaking from a real-time character-based perspective [both as a programmer
*and* an artist]...
Character animation with LW [in particular, with v4.0] is hard. There are a
number of imperceptible SNAFUs that can sneak by test renders. I'm talking
about folding/crumpling joints [anybody who has used bones with LW knows what
I mean], limbs that accidentally pass "through" other body parts and objects
[like the floor], strange-looking IK movements, shearing image maps, non-planar
polygons that cause rendering errors [i.e. disappearing polygons], etc.
I firmly believe that each [programming/art] has its challenges. I wouldn't
necessarily say that one is *harder* than the other. Just different. And really,
does it matter?
OLE2 is *hard*. Some days, I'd chuck that stupid Microsoft OLE2 book across the
room. Problem is, it's so heavy that I can hardly pick it up! ;-)
OTOH, setting up a functional hierarchy of bones and morph targets with IK goal
objects and more nulls than you can shake a stick at is *hard* also. Getting the
motions right can be more than a little trying sometimes :-)
Come to think of it, the _fun_ quotient can be pretty low for both coding *and*
graphic creation at times...
>David Dunham Pensee Corporation dun...@pensee.com
==========================================================================
Pin Fei Sun
bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>
>>> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
>>>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
>>>programming?
>>>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think
>>>this is the case from my experience...)
>>> How much share do graphics artists actually get in general? Anyone knows?
>
>>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of
>>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
>>about neither games nor graphics.
>
>Just wanna show my personal example of programmer learning also how to draw
>good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never heard of a
>graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap engine..
>This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
>Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
>
>
while dealing with 3d objects. Maybe later someday, programmers have to
sharp their chemistry skills too. A person just know how to write codes
in c/c++ doesn't make him a good programmer.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Pin Fei Sun
Darren Hebden
>I agree, plus programmers today have to be good in math or even physics
>while dealing with 3d objects. Maybe later someday, programmers have to
>sharp their chemistry skills too. A person just know how to write codes
>in c/c++ doesn't make him a good programmer.
This arguement has been going on ever since I entered the business (in
the days when all a project needed was 1 programmer and 1 artist). As
the different game genres have appeared and disapeared, that ratio has
swung from one side to the other in an endless cycle.
Projects that need a single programmer and a team of artists and
others where countless programmers argue about how to speed up key
routines and the sole artist has a few textures to work on.
Things are changing for artists though. We find ourselves having to
master various new skills from your basic 2d art and animation to
professional 3d packages, motion capture and fmv, video editing and
design.
In my experience, most jobs considered 'creative' have also fallen to
the artist to work on such as storyboard and game design. Personally
though, I'm quite happy for the programmer to think and be considered
as the most important element in the team as when the boss comes
ball-busting about the deadlines, I know who is going to get it in the
neck :)
Maybe this is what sets them apart.
Victor Putz
From an ontological perspective:
Without good art, you have an uninteresting, unattractive game.
Without programming, you have NO game.
...from a different perspective:
Art makes people try games; design keeps people playing games.
...but no one will try/buy a game that just plain looks bad.
Art and artists are necessary, and decent art takes a very long
time indeed.
-->VPutz
Paul Johnson
Is someone around here likening learning how to use soft or something to
learning how to write blistering routines on a new console or whatever.
Do me a favour.
Artists are as important as coders in these modern times, but please
don't try to tell me that their job is harder. I often laugh at a
colleague of mine who gets very frustrated when 3DS crashes or something.
I wonder what he'd feel like if he were charged with rewriting it as 3DS
MAX ?
And quite apart from that, it is the programmer that has the most stress
by a mile. All team members usually have to work hard/late towards the
end of a project, but where does the buck stop ? who gets the blame if
it's late ? who is made to look bad if there is a bug in the release
version ?
I am shitting myself as I sail towards Beta at the moment, that my game
will run on *every* PC out there. My artist friend is currently relaxing
in the pub and thinking about our next game. If *this* game doesn't run
correctly, my reputation is toast. How so the artist ?
I'm not trying to do artists down or anything, they have their own
skillset and problems, but to compare the life of an artist to that of a
programmer is shear lunacy (IMHO) ! I bloody well wish I could draw ;-)
Regards,
Paul Johnson (void);
Paul Johnson
I am a programmer and also a good team mixer. I would never dream of
'doing down' someones abilities/work ethic. The bottom line though is
that programmers work is more harrowing, and definitely carries all the
pressure.
A bad artist can affect sales of a game due to its looking bad. A bad
programmer can put a company out of business !
Regards,
Paul Johnson (void);
Paul Johnson
> (Myst was way over-budget on what it's graphics SHOULD have been-in MY
> opinion.
> A 60,000 polygon clock that shows up as an 8 pixel-high object on a
> table is a waste of artist time))
I am sending that to some of my colleagues. We have some guys here that
know things like that, and some that would render up a 500 frame flyby of
it just for the hell of it ! :-)
Regards,
Paul Johnson (void);
Tomer M. Falk
In article <905.6690...@mbox.vol.it>, bizz...@mbox.vol.it says...
>
>
>>> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics
artists should
>>>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
>>>programming?
>>>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I
think
>>>this is the case from my experience...)
>>> How much share do graphics artists actually get in general?
Anyone knows?
>
>>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most
of
>>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows
little
>>about neither games nor graphics.
>
>Just wanna show my personal example of programmer learning also how to
draw
>good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never
heard of a
>graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap
engine..
>This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
>Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
>
Anyone who uses a programmer as a graphician might as well use a
graphician as a programmer, because that is how his game will look...
graphicians... or artists (as most are) put alot of work into a product,
who puts in more? it matters on the project, there is no "in general"
answer...
-Tomer M. Falk
n...@actcom.co.il
lama...@lightside.com
On 4/28/96 5:37PM, in message <DqLLp...@actcom.co.il>, Tomer M. Falk
<n...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> Anyone who uses a programmer as a graphician might as well use a
> graphician as a programmer, because that is how his game will look...
>
> graphicians... or artists (as most are) put alot of work into a product,
> who puts in more? it matters on the project, there is no "in general"
> answer...
>
> -Tomer M. Falk
> n...@actcom.co.il
I'm starting to believe this. I'm doing all the programming and art for a game
of mine, and when showing the engine to a friend, his response was "Are those
supposed to be mountains? They look more like snow-covered piles of dog turd."
I think I'll list him in the credits as "art critic".
Chris La Mantia
lama...@lightside.com
--
(A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer (A/R/I)?
Dr. Cat
Betty Cunningham (bet...@flyinggoat.com) wrote:
: I work for SEGA as an artist.
: of their individual work as being tougher/better/more important than the
: other's have no business working on a team.
I couldn't agree more. My business partner (who is the finest artist I
know) and myself are too busy enjoying the opportunity to work together
to sit around thinking or talking about who's working harder or who
"deserves" more or anything silly like that.
Mostly when I see someone arguing vigorously about some point or other
relating to how games "should" be made, I just think to myself "Oh,
you're never going to actually finish making one, are you?" Kind of sad,
really.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
John Paul D'India
: I'm starting to believe this. I'm doing all the programming and art for a game
: supposed to be mountains? They look more like snow-covered piles of dog turd."
: I think I'll list him in the credits as "art critic".
<chuckle> You have that problem too, eh? In my credits I have an
entire section for "art critics".
Fabio Bizzetti
>I'm starting to believe this. I'm doing all the programming and art for a
>game of mine, and when showing the engine to a friend, his response was "Are
>those supposed to be mountains? They look more like snow-covered piles of
>dog turd."
>I think I'll list him in the credits as "art critic".
Well, my textures sucked, and I wrote a routine to generate (fractally) the
best texture patterns I've ever seen in a game.
My title screen sucked, and I bought some MultiMedia CDROM's, paying only 50$
to get the rights to use the material for my commercial productions, and I got
the best title screens I've ever seen in a game.
Now a graphician friend of mine got S.E.U.C.K. (the "games creator") and his
code still sucks bigtime, while I managed to get top-quality graphics.
Got the ~symbolic meaning of this story? ;)
Trevor Powell
In article <1996Apr27.223518@cantva>, TCM <misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> In article <4lq803$k...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, nbe...@uiuc.edu (Noam
Ben-Ami) writes:
> > Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do
most of the
> > work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows
little about
> > neither games nor graphics.
> Art sort of progresses linearly, with programming you often have to
> dump the method and start over, sanity bending bug-hunts are another neat
> feature of programming.
>
> No offense to graphic artists - I do the odd bit of artwork so it's not a them
> vs us situation as far as I'm concerned, IMHO it's more boring than
> programming, but far less boring than a bug hunt (this is the bit where
> someone plugs Ada95 :)).
::sigh:: Okay. I program, I do artwork. I'm moderately good at both,
though I wouldn't consider myself to be a master of either.
First statement. Graphics and programming are different things. They
require totally different skills and talents. They require totally
different areas of study to excel in. I think we all know people who are
excellent at each, but have no skill at the other. Trying to rate one as
being 'harder' than the other is silly.
Second. Stating that one is more boring than the other is totally
subjective, of course. It's a matter of what you're good at and enjoy. I
get great satisfaction from tracking down and destroying those leaking
pointers (which I was getting in great numbers in my 3D engine, for a
while). I also get an incredible amount of satisfaction from getting an
image to look _just right_.
Third. Stating that art progresses linearly while programming might need
to be rewritten from scratch is ridiculous. The only time that art
progresses linearly is when you have the whole project planned out in
advance, and progress along the image from start to finish. This, in
practice, never happens. You go back and fix things. You discover that
your use of perspective didn't work, and you'll have to go back and redraw
a large portion of the image. Interestingly enough, programming proceeds
linearly if you have the whole project planned out in advance, and
progress along the project from start to finish. That is, of course
unless you find bugs and have to go back and fix things, or discover that
your use of pointers didn't work and you have to go back and rewrite a
large portion of your code. In fact, any creative work (yes, programming
is a creative work) works in precisely this manner.
Finally.. In regards to the original point (how much of the money is the
artist entitled to), it depends on the game. In a game like Myst, in
which the graphics are the focal point, the graphics are what the consumer
is purchasing, and the artist is the important figure in the game. Myst,
if you'll recall, was created by a bunch of graphics people huddling
around a computer and trying to piece their images together into a
contiguous whole. On the other hand, in a strategy game (as was stated in
the original message) the graphics are of trivial importance. What
matters is the coding skill and the game balance infused by the
programmer.
I will qualify all of the above by stating this: Anywhere I said
"graphics" in the above message, I was referring to quality artwork.
Anyone can render a few mirror-balls in a 3D program, can composite layers
of text and graphics in Photoshop, can make fractals and textures with
Kai's Power Tools, can render landscapes with BRYCE, can create
humanish-figures with Poser, and can generate billions of lens flares with
the lens flare filter. And _none_ of it is art by itself. It's mere
eye-candy. Just as no one would call a slideshow created in Macromind
Director a 'program', no one would call this 'no-brainer,
no-skill-required' eye-candy to be true artwork.
Trevor Powell
Darren Hebden
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:48:33 +1000, vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell)
wrote:
>I will qualify all of the above by stating this: Anywhere I said
>"graphics" in the above message, I was referring to quality artwork.
>Anyone can render a few mirror-balls in a 3D program, can composite layers
>of text and graphics in Photoshop, can make fractals and textures with
>Kai's Power Tools, can render landscapes with BRYCE, can create
>humanish-figures with Poser, and can generate billions of lens flares with
>the lens flare filter. And _none_ of it is art by itself. It's mere
>eye-candy. Just as no one would call a slideshow created in Macromind
>Director a 'program', no one would call this 'no-brainer,
>no-skill-required' eye-candy to be true artwork.
I agree totally with all the points you made in your message but this
final message.... hythhh... (cartoon-like attempt to signify a sharp
intake of breath) I can almost here the rabble stirring. The 'What
counts as Art' thread is great fun. Usually guarantees at least 5 new
messages to the thread a day :)
TCM
> Anyone who uses a programmer as a graphician might as well use a
> graphician as a programmer, because that is how his game will look...
I would like to think that my hand drawn art in the game is indistinguishable
(quality wise) from the artists and it's certainly better than a lot of
commercial games I have seen. His rendered artwork does look much better than
the hand drawn stuff tho (mine or his).
I believe that both 'professions' take a bit of natural born talent (ie
some people will _never_ be able to draw well, no matter how much they try and
the same goes for programming), but it takes less time to develop drawing
skills that programming skills (Note, I am not saying in this sentence that
drawing is easyier) because we draw as we grow up.
Drawing is often developed naturally because you do it all the time, I've seen
people in high school with no intention of becoming artists that can draw damn
well (and wouldn't consider drawing a hobby either). If you happen to be able
to draw then you might one day switch to it (ala the programmer becomming an
artist). Programming on the other hand has to be learn't, whether as a hobby
or a class or whatever - you have to have the intention of learning to program.
Since the artist wasn't learning to program doodling in their book during
English class or playing with paint at kindy, they have years of catching up
to do compared to a programmer who was (subconciously) learning to draw during
those boring classes etc and spent time learning to program as well. Obviously
not everyone draws in class, but someone who is neither an artist or
a programmer will have done much more drawing than programming.
It might be the case that for some strange Fraudian reason, programmers have an
unusually high percentance of members that fall into the class of 'will never
be able to draw', but the ones that can draw will have a much easyier time
becomming artists than artists who want to become programmers - assuming the
artists have got what it takes talent wise, they just need to learn all the
algorithms and languages etc.
hmm, well that was a bit more verbal than I meant it to be. Its an opinion of
course, based on my experiences, I'm not presenting it as fact.
TCM
In article <318277...@pilot.msu.edu>, Bryant Reif <reif...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>> You don't often hear graphic artists go "oh no, some pixel (I have no idea
>> which one) has gone rabid and is killing the rest of them" :)
>
> No, but you do see graphic artists, especially in 3D, tweak and rework their
> animations, until it looks "just right" This is analagous to the debugging process for
> programmers.
Its probably closer to tuning and optimizing your code, if the code has a bug
in it (depending of the seriousness), then it doesn't go and there isn't really
an artist analogue I can think of. Animation can have a lot of bugs that are
similar to programming bugs. I know what you're saying tho.
I dont't this guy's ever going to find an artist for his game :)
(the guy who started the thread)
Trevor Powell
In article <1996May1.143044@cantva>, TCM <misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Drawing is often developed naturally because you do it all the time, I've seen
> people in high school with no intention of becoming artists that can draw damn
> well (and wouldn't consider drawing a hobby either). If you happen to be able
> to draw then you might one day switch to it (ala the programmer becomming an
> artist). Programming on the other hand has to be learn't, whether as a hobby
> or a class or whatever - you have to have the intention of learning to
program.
I don't get it. Drawing is developed naturally because you do it all the
time? Why doesn't programming work the same way? Sure the initial
expense of starting to program is higher than of starting to draw, but
it's silly to say that you don't sit around and 'doodle' in programming.
Heck, I've got several megabytes of software 'doodles' sitting around on
my hard disk.. doodles that I did and which helped me to see what did and
didn't work properly in a program. Just like my pen and pencil doodles
helped me to see what did and didn't work properly in artwork. (Mostly
what didn't work. I've yet to become even passingly adept at line
artwork.. I need paint or an airbrush...)
Programming consists of far more than just coding. The important skill in
programming is _not_ learning how to perform a Radix sort, or figuring out
the proper way to tesselate a sphere, or even in learning the intricacies
of printf and scanf. Programming, at its core, relies on a mindset. A
methodology. Total logic. Mathematic skills. Abstract thought. And
more, the ability to see a project simultaneously on the very large,
overall scale, as well as the minutae of indiidual details. These things
are learned in everyday life, and are not at all unique to programming.
Once you've learned these things, coding itself can be learned with little
difficulty. In this way, learning these skills can be compared to
'doodling inside the cover of a textbook'.. and many of them can be
learned by doing precisely that.
In article <318680f5.2932720@news>, d...@skoardy.demon.co.uk (Darren
Hebden) wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:48:33 +1000, vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell)
> wrote:
>
> >I will qualify all of the above by stating this: Anywhere I said
> >"graphics" in the above message, I was referring to quality artwork.
> >Anyone can render a few mirror-balls in a 3D program, can composite layers
> >of text and graphics in Photoshop, can make fractals and textures with
> >Kai's Power Tools, can render landscapes with BRYCE, can create
> >humanish-figures with Poser, and can generate billions of lens flares with
> >the lens flare filter. And _none_ of it is art by itself. It's mere
> >eye-candy. Just as no one would call a slideshow created in Macromind
> >Director a 'program', no one would call this 'no-brainer,
> >no-skill-required' eye-candy to be true artwork.
>
> I can almost here the rabble stirring. The 'What
> counts as Art' thread is great fun. Usually guarantees at least 5 new
> messages to the thread a day :)
::laugh:: On the topic of "what counts as art"..
Everyone wants to be an artist, and along comes Kai Krause saying, "Hey
look at this! You too can be an artist, and all you have to do is pick
one of my presets and click this 'OK' button!"
That's the problem. I don't think that anyone would argue that 'shove in
a random number, crank the gears, see what comes out' images are really
true art by themselves. I won't say that nothing generated by a 3D
program or KPT is artwork, but artwork requires more than simply "Hey,
that's a cool looking texture. 'Apply' it."
The purpose of the statement you quoted was to qualify my earlier
assertion that 'the creation of the graphics is not a linear progression,
as a prior poster had stated, but the same sort of progression as is seen
in programming, where problems are noticed, searched out, and corrected'.
I wanted to make it obvious that this is _not_ the case when 'push-button'
artwork is the sort being created, as in the cases I brought forth.
On a side-note.. on the "everyone wants to be an artist" note. Artistic
ability is not a "you're born with it or you're not" ability. Some people
are inclined towards it, and others have to work harder, just like with
every other skill.
I have met _no one_ who was truly unable to draw, once given proper
instructions and an hour or two of practice.
If you consider yourself 'inartistic', do yourself a favour and read
"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", by Betty Edwards (I believe
that's her name.. I haven't read the book in years).. and faithfully
follow the exercises. Edition 1 had slightly better samples for the
exercises, Edition 2 has supplementary information on the use of colour.
Both are excellent... unfortunately, my copies of each edition are
currently about 80,000 miles away, as the mole burrows. ;)
Extra side-note, on the 'Kai Krause' note. Please don't take this as an
attack on Kai. In every discussion I've ever seen on the issue, Kai has
taken the stance of "These are tools for an artist's use. They are the
equivalent of brushes and pencils, and must be weilded with as much skill
and emotion". While Kai and I have had some major and intensely vocal
arguments over user interface design, he does have the proper attitude
towards the use of his tools. It's just the toolsets which bear his name
and which are advertised as "now you too can produce incredible artwork,
no skill required" packages with which I disagree.
Trevor Powell
Cam Wilson
vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>I don't get it. Drawing is developed naturally because you do it all the
>time? Why doesn't programming work the same way?
because... a person can teach him or herself to draw with no prior training,
just lots of practise. one must have at least _some_ background knowledge/
training in order to begin programming. you can't just tell some
uneducated shmoe to program something, but you could tell that same guy to
draw a picture of a house - and depending on his natural ability, he'll
draw a house that's either crap or great (or somewhere in between). at least
he can make an attempt. not so with programming. how could someone without
a clue write even a poor program?
--
Cam Wilson * ca...@nortel.ca
La Villa... Tempus Fugit... Warm Wet Circles
(you figure it out - and get back to me, man)
Betty Cunningham
Cam Wilson wrote:
> because... a person can teach him or herself to draw with no prior training,
> just lots of practise. one must have at least _some_ background knowledge/
> training in order to begin programming. you can't just tell some
> uneducated shmoe to program something, but you could tell that same guy to
> draw a picture of a house - and depending on his natural ability, he'll
> draw a house that's either crap or great (or somewhere in between). at least
> he can make an attempt. not so with programming. how could someone without
> a clue write even a poor program?
Silly, how can anyone draw a picture of a house and get it into a video game without some
exposure to art tools other than a pencil and paper? And if it's for a 3d game, I'd like to see
you ask, say, your mom, or your grocery sore clerk, to 'draw'/make a house for the game in 3d.
What, no training? But you don't need training to be an artist, right?
You need training to do programming, and some people have an inherent ability to do math and
logic, only it takes training do DO the programming. It's the same for ART for games. Some
people have an inherent skill to DRAW what they visualize, but that does not nessessarily make
them an acceptable game artist. Suppose they could only draw pictures of houses?
(sheesh)
Bryan Reynolds
>If you consider yourself 'inartistic', do yourself a favour and read
>"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", by Betty Edwards (I believe
>that's her name.. I haven't read the book in years).. and faithfully
>follow the exercises. Edition 1 had slightly better samples for the
>exercises, Edition 2 has supplementary information on the use of colour.
>Both are excellent... unfortunately, my copies of each edition are
>currently about 80,000 miles away, as the mole burrows. ;)
>
The book was a revalation to me. Anyone who enjoys drawing or
graphics should read it. You will not be able to put it down. I even got my
mother to have a go. All these books that tell you "be a monet in 5 easy
steps" are being a bit OTT but If you read this book you will improve your
skills 10 fold in a couple of hours (unless your already an expert). Even
for a good read it takes some beating. The discussions about the sides of
the brain are fascinating. I wish I could find Bettys E-mail address, she'll
probably be about 120 now though :(
--
Bryan Reynolds
br...@breynold.demon.co.uk
#I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous#
Bryant Reif
Trevor Powell wrote:
> If you consider yourself 'inartistic', do yourself a favour and read
> "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", by Betty Edwards (I believe
> that's her name.. I haven't read the book in years).. and faithfully
> follow the exercises. Edition 1 had slightly better samples for the
> exercises, Edition 2 has supplementary information on the use of colour.
> Both are excellent... unfortunately, my copies of each edition are
> currently about 80,000 miles away, as the mole burrows. ;)
This is a great book! I have been artistically inclined all my life, drawing
just came natural to me, but there is a lot of great info in that book that
anyone can use.
> Trevor Powell
Bryant Reif
Cam Wilson wrote:
>
> vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>
> >I don't get it. Drawing is developed naturally because you do it all the
> >time? Why doesn't programming work the same way?
>
> just lots of practise. one must have at least _some_ background knowledge/
> training in order to begin programming. you can't just tell some
> uneducated shmoe to program something, but you could tell that same guy to
> draw a picture of a house - and depending on his natural ability, he'll
> draw a house that's either crap or great (or somewhere in between). at least
> he can make an attempt. not so with programming. how could someone without
> a clue write even a poor program?
This is ridiculous. Here is an example of your logic with the roles reversed...
Ask an person to draw a house.
Tell this person to draw a house, but
1. This person has never seen a house.
2. This person has never used a pencil or paper.
Now let's see how well the house is drawn.
Now take another person who...
1. has used computers all their life
2. has seen many examples of programming code.
3. understands the basics of programming (i.e. loops, calls, variables)
This person could probably write a primitive program. (compare to stick figure)
Artists train themselves 24 hrs a day, by noticing little details that most
people miss.
> --
> Cam Wilson * ca...@nortel.ca
> La Villa... Tempus Fugit... Warm Wet Circles
> (you figure it out - and get back to me, man)
--
Beverly Garland
I think a better programming parallel to "sitting down and drawing a
house" would be sitting down and making a flow-chart. Doing cel
animation would be a closer comparison to writing code.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beverly Garland Austin, TX USA
email b...@titanic.com
http://www.titanic.com/bgarland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part
of your life."
-- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson
for a federal anti-smoking campaign
Rafe Purnell
Drawing, sculpting, mathematics, programing etc etc.
All are forms of art in their own way. If people find they have a flair
or artistic ability in certain areas, and they chose not to use it then
fair enough. If they do use it great.
People have gifts, everyone has them. If you find out what they are
your lucky.
I have been programing since I was 10, I am now 28 and I feel that
programing has definately got that artistic feel to it, with all the
metal blocks and inspiration that comes with art.
Sure I can write a program if you ask me to, I can draw a tree if you
ask me to. But it's the inspiration and the feel that makes the
difference between a crap drawing of a tree and an outstanding one.
> of printf and scanf. Programming, at its core, relies on a mindset.
A
> methodology. Total logic. Mathematic skills. Abstract thought.
And
> more, the ability to see a project simultaneously on the very large,
> overall scale, as well as the minutae of indiidual details. These
things
> are learned in everyday life, and are not at all unique to
programming.
> Once you've learned these things, coding itself can be learned with
little
> difficulty. In this way, learning these skills can be compared to
> 'doodling inside the cover of a textbook'.. and many of them can be
> learned by doing precisely that.
Here here. Is this not the same a sculpting, sketching etc. Programing
can be and artform. They are all closely connected.
Regards
Darkeye
Frank Sander
Here's my opinion on this topic:
Sure everyone can take pen and paper and produce something that
looks like a tree, a house or an animal.
If You've less experience, it will at least do for Your eyes, even
if nobody else recognizes it. But is this the thing called "art" ?
No.
If this object is placed in the right way to the background, if the
perspective and the reflection and things are right it is no art as
well.
A picture becomes art, when the "artist" has a special intention to
it expresses it. For example the picture could look horrorfying or
funny. Actually the artist can draw the image like a non-experienced
would in purpose to create a particular effect.
What I want to say is, that "being able to do something" doesn't makes
You an artist.
Thousands of people are able to program,
thousands of people are able to draw and
thousands of people are able to cook.
(It is always done with at least a few tools)
But noone would ever create such a "Sauerkraut" like my mom does
and noone would ever draw like Giger doese
and noone would ever program like Braybrook does.
That doesn't mean, that they are the best in there skills. In art
(and that's what this discussion is about) there's never a best
preson. You can be bad, average, good, or even GREAT. And nobody
will ever be able to decide who IS and who NOT.
BTW: Could anyone give me a little more information on the book
"Drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwadrs ?
It seems to be very interesting, but i think I should search
for a German translation ... if there is one.
Ciao,
Frank.
--
+-------------+
Frank Sander,
sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
,--.--. ,--.--. ,--. . ,--. . ,--.--. ,--.--.
| | | | | | |`. | | |\ /| | | | |
| | | | | | | `| | | \/ | | | | | ______
| | | | | | | | | | | | |-- | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | `------'
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
`--'--' `--'--' `--' ' `--' ' `--'--' `--'-----'
--== CONMEG*PLEASUREWARE famouse since 1994 ==--
Rafe Purnell
Here here !!!!!!
Cam Wilson
Betty Cunningham <Betty.Cu...@segaoa.com> wrote:
> Silly, how can anyone draw a picture of a house and get it into a video game without some
>exposure to art tools other than a pencil and paper? And if it's for a 3d game, I'd like to see
>you ask, say, your mom, or your grocery sore clerk, to 'draw'/make a house for the game in 3d.
SILLY, i was speaking in basic drawing terms, just as the poster who i
responded to did. i gathered that that person was talking about drawing
vs programming - not drawing vs programming in a game environment with
electronic tools. this wasn't stated, and if it was implied, well then,
my apologies for missing it. i did not say: hand over the electronic drawing
tools to a 'grocery store clerk' and ask him/her to "draw a house for the game
in 3d". i said it so simply that i didn't think so many assumptions or
misconceptions would be made. i _meant_ that such a person, given a pencil
and paper, could at very least make an attempt at drawing a house, no
matter how poor.
> What, no training? But you don't need training to be an artist, right?
you don't NEED artistic training... but it can sure help. i got it.
> You need training to do programming, and some people have an inherent ability to do math and
>logic, only it takes training do DO the programming. It's the same for ART for games. Some
>people have an inherent skill to DRAW what they visualize, but that does not nessessarily make
>them an acceptable game artist. Suppose they could only draw pictures of houses?
wow, you really lost me there... are you saying i stated that programmers
DON'T need training? if so, well, i never said it. and i also never stated
that artists who can draw what they visualize are always acceptable game
artists. did you even READ my message?
>(sheesh)
SHEESH !!!
Cam Wilson
Bryant Reif <reif...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>Tell this person to draw a house, but
>1. This person has never seen a house.
>2. This person has never used a pencil or paper.
has the average person "never seen a house" and "never used a pencil
or paper"?
>Now let's see how well the house is drawn.
>
>Now take another person who...
>1. has used computers all their life
>2. has seen many examples of programming code.
>3. understands the basics of programming (i.e. loops, calls, variables)
>
>This person could probably write a primitive program. (compare to stick figure)
and to understand the basics of programming, they would have needed some
kind of training/instruction/background. i've used computers for years, have
seen examples of code, but have no clue about the basics of programming
(i'm an artist). i'd need to learn this. my whole example was based on the
fact that there's been no prior training - the point that someone else
brought up. your example falls flat.
Bob Rodgers
n...@actcom.co.il (Tomer M. Falk) wrote:
>Anyone who uses a programmer as a graphician might as well use a
>graphician as a programmer, because that is how his game will look...
And hey, why not use the programming and graphics staff as actors?
Throw a beret on a programmer, put a toy gun into the hands of
Graphics Artist #3 -- ought to be just as good as real actors!
Pay should be by content relevance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
rsro...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~rsrodger/home.htm (new & under construction)
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~rsrodger/project.htm (current project)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Rodgers
Dan Amato
On 2 May 1996 10:58:14 GMT, sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
(Frank Sander) wrote:
>BTW: Could anyone give me a little more information on the book
> "Drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwadrs ?
> It seems to be very interesting, but i think I should search
> for a German translation ... if there is one.
>
>Ciao,
>Frank.
>--
> +-------------+
> Frank Sander,
> sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
i have two things to say about this book:
1. it's good
2. drawing upside down, who would have thunk....
P.S. check your local library thats where i found it about 10 years
ago.
Dan Amato
ama...@vivanet.com
'I am the master of unfinished games'
t04D34T3R
>If anyone out there has talent and time (notice the approaching end of the
>Spring semester - good timing eh?) send me an email and we'll talk.
>
>Tim
>Tim_...@nt.com
Did you find anyone yet? If you still need someone, I can get
something done together with an artist I know. He's professional, but
has no computer skills, I'd be working with him to convert his paper
drawings into something useable. If you want science-fiction / horror
imagery, we're both very fluent in that type of work. If you want
graphics like icons, unit graphics, logos, etc, I can handle that
myself, but the full screen stuff I'd leave up to him.
How much would we get paid in advance? US currency?
reply to st...@escape.com if you're interested.
P,S, I know MOO & MOM, but what's HOMM???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Send $5 to st...@escape.com for complete signature +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
t04D34T3R
Pin Fei Sun <PF...@ARTSU2.Watstar.UWaterloo.CA> wrote:
>bizz...@mbox.vol.it (Fabio Bizzetti) wrote:
>>
>>>> Just curious again... anyone else here thinks that graphics artists should
>>>>get more than 50% of share since most of the time it is more work than
>>>>programming?
>>>>(This all depends on what kind of game you're talking about, but I think
>>>>this is the case from my experience...)
>>>> How much share do graphics artists actually get in general? Anyone knows?
>>
>>>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of
>>>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
>>>about neither games nor graphics.
>>
>>Just wanna show my personal example of programmer learning also how to draw
>>good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never heard of a
>>graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap engine..
>>This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
>>Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
>>
>>
>I agree, plus programmers today have to be good in math or even physics
>while dealing with 3d objects. Maybe later someday, programmers have to
>sharp their chemistry skills too. A person just know how to write codes
>in c/c++ doesn't make him a good programmer.
There's an art to programming and there's an art to graphics, that is
all. If you can truly master both, you're quite talented.
Steve
previously in comp.graphics.animation, TCM <misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> said:
>Its probably closer to tuning and optimizing your code, if the code has a bug
>in it (depending of the seriousness), then it doesn't go and there isn't really
>an artist analogue I can think of. Animation can have a lot of bugs that are
>similar to programming bugs. I know what you're saying tho.
I dunno, maybe when you find that you have a cube obscuring the camera, or
something that was meant to have gone off screen is still on. These are not
minor tweaks, these are things that make the animation wrong. Like a bug but
usually far easier to fix.
And I remember many times I've been told to redo an animation because the
pallete's wrong or it's too big to fit in it's box or whatever.
I like both, but I'm better at the art side, so I prefer that. Hmm, am I the
only person here who fires up animator and doodles on that instead of getting a
pen and paper?
-Steve
Victor Putz
>>"Drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwadrs ?
A most excellent book! It approaches art from several interesting
directions (including a really fascinating chapter on the evolution
of a child's art and why most people quit drawing).
Unfortunately for me, I had "discovered" many of the same methods
on my own (or had parts of them in art classes) and I'm still pretty
bad-- but the techniques are good, and in any case programmers should
know as much about art as they can, if only to know what to ask from
artists.
I am exceptionally fortunate in being able to work with an artist
who is willing to take suggestions very well and really listen to
what I'm trying to create visually; I respect that by giving him
free rein as much as I can. Art is a Good Thing, IMHO, although
I do feel that games these days rely too much on visual appeal
rather than relying on good, complex, interesting gameplay.
(anyone up for a game of NetHack?-- heh...)
(If you've never played NetHack or one of the other roguelike ascii
games, you should-- if only to appreciate the beauty of game design
over interface).
[programmers as actors]
True, but don't EVER deny a perfectly good performer because they
aren't a professional voice/acting talent! Some good friends back
home are outstanding, flexible voice talents that I will use in an
instant if I have a need for them; to pay more for a "professional"
would IN THIS CASE be foolish.
-->VPutz
TCM
In article <vulpine-3004...@wonderland.zikzak.net>, vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell) writes:
> excellent at each, but have no skill at the other. Trying to rate one as
> being 'harder' than the other is silly.
Agreed. (Are we allowed to do that?)
> Second. Stating that one is more boring than the other is totally
> subjective, of course. It's a matter of what you're good at and enjoy. I
> get great satisfaction from tracking down and destroying those leaking
> pointers (which I was getting in great numbers in my 3D engine, for a
> while). I also get an incredible amount of satisfaction from getting an
> image to look _just right_.
Yep, I never said _everyone_ found programming more interesting than drawing.
I get great satisfaction in destroying a bug, but if I've been tracking the
thing two days and am still no closer I get in mood that drawing has never yet
been able to induce :)
> Third. Stating that art progresses linearly while programming might need
> to be rewritten from scratch is ridiculous. The only time that art
> progresses linearly is when you have the whole project planned out in
> advance, and progress along the image from start to finish. This, in
> practice, never happens. You go back and fix things. You discover that
> your use of perspective didn't work, and you'll have to go back and redraw
> a large portion of the image. Interestingly enough, programming proceeds
Firstly I said almost linearly. I knew someone would disagree with that
statement, I guess it depends on your style. In my experience (and by that I do
not mean 'in my experience with my own art') it progresses reasonably linearly.
Most of the stuff that has perspective is done with a 3D modeler so changing it
is easy. (I realise the wrong use of perspective was just an example tho).
Almost complete art does often get scraped as a lost cause, I just think this
happens to code more often (maybe I'm just a bad coder).
> I will qualify all of the above by stating this: Anywhere I said
> "graphics" in the above message, I was referring to quality artwork.
> Anyone can render a few mirror-balls in a 3D program, can composite layers
> of text and graphics in Photoshop, can make fractals and textures with
> Kai's Power Tools, can render landscapes with BRYCE, can create
> humanish-figures with Poser, and can generate billions of lens flares with
> the lens flare filter. And _none_ of it is art by itself. It's mere
> eye-candy. Just as no one would call a slideshow created in Macromind
> Director a 'program', no one would call this 'no-brainer,
> no-skill-required' eye-candy to be true artwork.
This is another pet peeve of mine, slideshows made in Macromind _do_ get called
programs, DOOM level creators get called programmers. I saw a picture in a
computer art magazine of an [obviously vistapro] landscape, credited to an
artist, it said he created the landscape with vistapro, the lens flare was
later added in photoshop and vistapro did the fog effects. What did _he_ do?
PS how far is this being cross-posted, my reader wont tell me.
TCM
> I don't get it. Drawing is developed naturally because you do it all the
> time? Why doesn't programming work the same way? Sure the initial
> expense of starting to program is higher than of starting to draw, but
> it's silly to say that you don't sit around and 'doodle' in programming.
> Heck, I've got several megabytes of software 'doodles' sitting around on
> my hard disk.. doodles that I did and which helped me to see what did and
> didn't work properly in a program. Just like my pen and pencil doodles
> helped me to see what did and didn't work properly in artwork. (Mostly
> what didn't work. I've yet to become even passingly adept at line
> artwork.. I need paint or an airbrush...)
Take 100 babies, visit them 20 years later... lets say 20 have spent consious
effort learning to program and can do so quite well. 20 different ones spent
effort learning to draw and can do so quite well.
There are 60 people left who want to be neither programmers nor artists, sit
them down in front of a computer, give them a bit of training, IMHO none of
them would be as good as the people who spent several years learning to program.
Give the same people a pen and paper and I honestly believe there will be
people in that group of 60 who can draw _better_ than some of the 20 who spent
time learning to draw because they want to be artists. That was my point.
This opinion all stems from my opinion that you can't learn to draw... this is
the way I think of it:
Everyone has a sort of inner eye, an ability to visualise, they have no
consious control over this and can't improve it, this degree of
visualisation is the limit of all they will ever be art-wise. What they can
learn is hand to inner eye co-ordination (Have I posted this theory before, I
can't remember), techniques and media to put their inner visualisation on
paper. The better they get at this, the closer to their 'limit' they get but
they will never be able to draw better than they can visualise.
That is contravertial, if you know of something that puts a bullet in it
I'd be glad to hear from you but don't bother replying 'I dont think it works
that way' as I'm aware there will be heaps of people with that opinion - and
I'll respect it.
> methodology. Total logic. Mathematic skills. Abstract thought. And
> more, the ability to see a project simultaneously on the very large,
> overall scale, as well as the minutae of indiidual details. These things
> are learned in everyday life, and are not at all unique to programming.
> Once you've learned these things, coding itself can be learned with little
> difficulty. In this way, learning these skills can be compared to
> 'doodling inside the cover of a textbook'.. and many of them can be
> learned by doing precisely that.
I'm not sure that total logic, mathematical skills and abstract thought are
learned in everyday life, I'm sure I know of people who have never thought
logically in their life ;)
The Paradoxes of Implication only exist because of people's natural inability
to think logically.
> That's the problem. I don't think that anyone would argue that 'shove in
> a random number, crank the gears, see what comes out' images are really
> true art by themselves. I won't say that nothing generated by a 3D
> program or KPT is artwork, but artwork requires more than simply "Hey,
> that's a cool looking texture. 'Apply' it."
Something generated by Vistapro or KPT _is_ artwork, it's the programmers
artwork ;)
> On a side-note.. on the "everyone wants to be an artist" note. Artistic
> ability is not a "you're born with it or you're not" ability. Some people
> are inclined towards it, and others have to work harder, just like with
> every other skill.
Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree then. I dont claim no-one can
draw, but I do think it's a born with it thing.
Frank Sander
On May the third 1996 TCM <misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Yep, I never said _everyone_ found programming more interesting than drawing.
> I get great satisfaction in destroying a bug, but if I've been tracking the
> thing two days and am still no closer I get in mood that drawing has never yet
> been able to induce :)
Ha.
Hunting a bug is satisfying for some people, I know. Even if I alway surrender,
when the second day of searching has also been fruitless (Guess that's why I
rather like beeing a pixel-artist).
But in drawing (or 'creating digital pictures') there are similar experiences.
Imagine the following:
The programmer gives You a square of 16x 6 pixels in a fixed palette with less
than 30 useable colors. And he needs some nice icons for actions like "save game",
"load game" or even worse.
I sometimes was thinking many nights about such tiny icons without any idea how
to realize them. Other day i painted one, thought it was great - but noone realized
its function. See, there are many problems in drawing (specially on computer projects),
which nobody will see in the final result - just as bugs for programmers.
This is where I get this satisfaction from, You were talking about.
Bye,
Frank.
--
+-------------+
Frank Sander,
sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
,--.--. ,--.--. ,--. . ,--. . ,--.--. ,--.--.
Rafe Purnell
> am I the only person here who fires up animator and
> doodles on that instead of getting a pen and paper?
No !
It's good for the flow !
Regards
Darkeye
Rafe Purnell
>
> I think a better programming parallel to "sitting down and drawing a
> house" would be sitting down and making a flow-chart. Doing cel
> animation would be a closer comparison to writing code.
>
Nah !
You see your comparing things that are not really technically that
physically similar, and yet you are trying to be to literal with your
comparisons. Try being a little more abstract with your thoughts, and
maybe you will see that they are the same.
Rafe Purnell
>
> has the average person "never seen a house" and "never used a pencil
> or paper"?
>
>
> and to understand the basics of programming, they would have
> needed some kind of training/instruction/background. i've
> used computers for years, have seen examples of code, but have
> no clue about the basics of programming (i'm an artist).
> I'd need to learn this. my whole example was based on the fact
> that there's been no prior training - the point that someone else
> brought up. your example falls flat.
Look this is 1996, when we were kid's computers were not the most
common things around. You show a 2 year old how to colour in a book,
when he gets older you show him how to colour within the lines. As they
develope they find there own skill's and way of expresion.
2 year old kids have no problem working the stereo, stuffing the timer
on the video, and as time goes by setting up the clock or other simple
thing.
My friends 3 year old can quite easily manipulate use use windows, he
has never had any instruction. He can use educational software and
picks up directory structures easily. The young man will be setting up
menus etc, writing scripts of some kind and mabye constructing
databases before we know it.
He has had no more training to use a PC than he has to colour in a
book.
Regards
Darkeye.
JBooth411
In article <4mabsf$c...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca>
writes:
>
>wow, you really lost me there... are you saying i stated that programmers
>DON'T need training? if so, well, i never said it. and i also never
stated
>that artists who can draw what they visualize are always acceptable game
>artists. did you even READ my message?
>
>
Well I'll say it - I've never had any visual art training (I have a
music degree) but I'm the head artist, in charge of about 10 people at a
game company. You don't need any official training to do anything in this
world - including programing and 3d, all you need is the desire to learn a
skill. I tought myself lightwave, I tought myself assembly in the apple
//c days, I tought myself everything that is making me successful today.
It's because I had a desire to learn what I've learned, not because of a
class that I can do what I do.. People who either think they can't do
something without training, or someone without training can't do something
every bit as well as someone with training are blatently wrong..
Jason Booth
Second Nature, Inc.
"I'm programing a raytracer that only outputs in ASCII art! I'LL BE
RICH!!!!"
The Glory Boys
>
>>Load of bullshit. Most often, the programmers are the ones that do most of
>>the work. Whoever thinks that the graphics are the hardest part knows little
>>about neither games nor graphics.
>
>Just wanna show my personal example of programmer learning also how to
draw
>good graphics, expecially using 3D RayTracing programs. But I never heard of a
>graphician learning assembly programming to code the latest 3D tmap engine..
>This says all about programmer vs graphician IMHO.
>Anyway no offence for any graphician, really.
What about Marketing! What about Financial planning! What the lonely truck
drivers delivering our products to the nice people who are willing to buy them!
What about the people who stand around looking at the ground for four months
where suddenly one day, a road appears! Or those who keep electricity flowing
through are shops!
Cant we all just get along!!
AAAAARRRGGGG!!
Bryan Reynolds
In article <3188dca...@news.vivanet.com>, Dan Amato
<ama...@vivanet.com> writes
>On 2 May 1996 10:58:14 GMT, sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
>(Frank Sander) wrote:
>
>
>>BTW: Could anyone give me a little more information on the book
>> for a German translation ... if there is one.
>>
>>Ciao,
>1. it's good
>2. drawing upside down, who would have thunk....
Perhaps a small explanation of this last item would be in order for the
poor soles that haven’t read the book, this also ties in with another post
about children’s development. Betty said that when children start to
draw they use simple "stand ins" for common objects, circles are a
start..then dots for eyes etc..When these kids get older, instead of
actually looking closely at the forms they substitute other "stand ins" for
eyes, ears. These new stand-ins are more accurate but are still not
"lifelike".
She said that most peoples efforts don’t improve beyond about 14yrs,
although I cant remember the exact figure. Try asking the average 40
year old to compete with the 14 year old at drawing a horse, I bet there
wont be much difference.
The switch from drawing stand ins and actually reproducing what one
sees is quite simple yet illusive without the correct techniques. So one of
the exercises in the book is to copy a line drawing from the page onto a
piece of paper, but by turning the book upside down your brain doesn't
perceive the objects that you would normally substitute for stand ins.
The only thing ones has to go on is the relationships of the lines and
form and space to each other.
When I was browsing the book for the first time I noticed some of the
"before and after" pictures that her students had completed and was
astonished at the improvements made from 1 month to the next however
when I started using the techniques I was left wondering why it took
them so long.
When will it be out of copyright? maybe it'll appear on the Guttenberg
archive?
Kent....@symbios.com
>>>>> "Cam" == Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca> writes:
Cam> and to understand the basics of programming, they would have needed some
Cam> kind of training/instruction/background. i've used computers for years,
Cam> have seen examples of code, but have no clue about the basics of
Cam> programming (i'm an artist). i'd need to learn this. my whole example was
Cam> based on the fact that there's been no prior training - the point that
Cam> someone else brought up. your example falls flat.
Haven't you guys *ever* given anybody directions on how to do something they'd
never done before? Have you ever read or written a recipe? Have you ever
told somebody how to get to your house or the nearest gas station?
If so, you've programmed. I've been training for programming all of my
life.. there is a certain amount of learning associated with the process of
getting the instructions into the computer and formatted properly, but that's
not the essence of programming.
Around here, nobody values _programmers_ because it's so damn easy
to be good at programming.
Szu-Wen Huang
Kent....@symbios.com wrote:
[snip]
: If so, you've programmed. I've been training for programming all of my
: life.. there is a certain amount of learning associated with the process of
: getting the instructions into the computer and formatted properly, but that's
: not the essence of programming.
: Around here, nobody values _programmers_ because it's so damn easy
: to be good at programming.
I most violently disagree. ;) It's easy to learn to program, but it's
no trivial task to be "good at programming" if your idea of "good" is
like mine. Anybody can learn to read and write English, but how many
great writers are there?
Dr. Cat
TCM (misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
: I dont't this guy's ever going to find an artist for his game :)
: (the guy who started the thread)
Maybe not. But I bet he could find so many people willing to give him
advice on how exactly to program it... That if he spent enough time to
listen to them all, he'd never have enough time left over to finish it!
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
Bryant Reif
Szu-Wen Huang wrote:
>
> Kent....@symbios.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> : If so, you've programmed. I've been training for programming all of my
> : life.. there is a certain amount of learning associated with the process of
> : getting the instructions into the computer and formatted properly, but that's
> : not the essence of programming.
>
> : Around here, nobody values _programmers_ because it's so damn easy
> : to be good at programming.
>
Watch out!! He might be rabid! ;)
> no trivial task to be "good at programming" if your idea of "good" is
> like mine. Anybody can learn to read and write English, but how many
> great writers are there?
I agree with this totally! The same can be said for artists however.
--
Bryant Reif
mailto:reif...@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.aiesec.org/~bryant
Kent....@symbios.com
>>>>> "Szu-Wen" == Szu-Wen Huang <hu...@mnsinc.com> writes:
Szu-Wen> : Around here, nobody values _programmers_ because it's so damn easy
Szu-Wen> : to be good at programming.
Szu-Wen> I most violently disagree. ;) It's easy to learn to program, but
Szu-Wen> it's no trivial task to be "good at programming" if your idea of
Szu-Wen> "good" is like mine. Anybody can learn to read and write English,
Szu-Wen> but how many great writers are there?
Software Design/Engineering are not programming. That was one of the
main points. So we are in agreement.
Thomas A A
Dan Amato (ama...@vivanet.com) wrote:
: Dan Amato
I beg to differ.
I am the master of unfinished games! ;)
Alec
--
"Groovy!" - Army of Darkness
"I feel all funny inside. I'm in love. No, wait, it's a stroke"
- Grandpa Simpson
Frank Sander
> >'Art' is the act of provoking an emotional response from the viewer.
>
> Sorry. That is a bogus definition. If I flip someone off in traffic it will
> generally provoke an emotional response. That doesn't quite elevate such an
> act to art. Neither does writing "Hitler Rules" on a fence in red spray
> paint. Evoking an emotional response may be part of the definition of art,
> but it isn't the whole thing.
>
> >That's it. That's why "mirror-balls" are not artwork and never will be.
> >That's why fractals and free-view stereograms are not artwork. And that's
> >why classic paintings (the Mona Lisa, for example) have never ceased to>
> >inspire us, to mystify us, to beguile us, and to intrigue us.
>
>
> By your definition, anything that anyone does is art. It will surely evoke an
> emotional response of some type from someone.
>
> A further problem is that you define art as "the act of provoking".
> Strictly speaking, this means the actual final canvase, film, statue etc.
> isn't art. Only the act of creating or viewing it would be. You have defined
> art in such a way that it is now a completely different part of speech. You
> have it as a verb when it is generally accepted to be a noun.
>
> You have either stated this poorly or your definition needs a serious
> re-think.
IMO art is such an abstract construct of our language, that it cannot be defined.
Who should have the ability to define what art is, what medium art should use,
or who has the right to call himself artist ?
I think that only the artist can call his (or her) work "ART". And that takes
me to the one and only definition for art wich catches all facettes:
ART is, what is meant (or produced with the focus on beeing) art.
(So it can only be defined by using itself ...)
Frank
--
+-------------+
Frank Sander,
sand...@marvin.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
,--.--. ,--.--. ,--. . ,--. . ,--.--. ,--.--.
Cam Wilson
Ste...@Thurgood.demon.co.uk (Steve):
> I think the main difference is that programming is pretty exact. You get it
> wrong and nothing happens. With art you can get it slightly wrong. Colour
> outside the lines and that. This will discourage most people early. As a
ah, the whole thing about art is that there is no "wrong". if it feels RIGHT
to the artist, then it is right, and what anyone else thinks or feels is
simply another interpretation of the ART. unless, of course, the artist is
to work within some guidelines - and if he/she does not adhere to them, well
then, _that_ would wrong.
Cam Wilson
vul...@zikzak.net (Trevor Powell) wrote:
>People are misunderstanding my statements.. You can certainly get artwork
>out of programs like 3d Studio and VistaPro. It's a case of "Garbage in,
>garbage out". It's simply that VistaPro has raised the "mirror-ball"
>level, so that a prettier grade of garbage can be generated with no human
>thought, skill, dedication, or insight.
sure, but the pretty garbage will still be blown out of the water by the
good art and design by the true artists (good ones, that is).
Cam Wilson
wtu...@primenet.com (Walter (Jay) Turberville (III)) wrote:
>Realism is not a good measure of art.
Yes!
>If you want to see good art, pick up almost any periodical. Browse the record
>stores (LP albums used to be wonderful). Art is all around you. You needn't
>go to a museum.
Nnnnnno... i'd say the majority of stuff in the media today is not good art.
mostly poorly or overdesigned, way too slick stuff that people are trying to
pass off as superior due to the fact that they used the most popular and
expensive computer software around. there are a few good examples of art on
albums and magazines, but in general, i'd say the future of art (at least in
the media) ain't good. oh, it'll always be there - good or bad, but it's
becoming too easy for underqualified, untrained folks to just start punching
buttons in order to come up with slick eye candy for the masses.
please go to a gallery or a museum... that's where it all began.
Walter (Jay) Turberville (III)
In article <4msumj$o...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca> writes:
>From: Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca>
>Subject: Re: Artist Needed for Game
>Date: 9 May 1996 14:15:47 GMT
>Yes!
My intention was not to suggest that museums aren't useful. Neither was it
to suggest that every or even most of what you see is "good" art. There
is a lot of crap in museums as well (a U.S. flag draped in a toilet bowl is
trying to pass as art right now here in Phoenix) and we could go to great
lengths and never agree about which pieces are good works of art. Of course
there are certain types of work that need to be seen first hand due to issues
of size etc. and museums and galleries do make that possible. For instance
Ansel Adams posters are nice, but they suddenly seem so-so once you have seen
an original print.
I don't think art really began in museums. That is merely where some of it
ends up. My understanding is that most older work was commercial and
decorative in nature. Hence the connection with modern media. Most of the
"old" stuff did not stand the test of time. Most modern stuff won't either.
But some will.
Walter (Jay) Turberville |wtu...@primenet.com wtu...@aol.com
Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
http://www.studio522.com |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
Walter (Jay) Turberville (III)
In article <4msrjm$l...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca> writes:
>From: Cam Wilson <ca...@nortel.ca>
>Subject: Re: Artist Needed for Game
>Ste...@Thurgood.demon.co.uk (Steve):
>> I think the main difference is that programming is pretty exact. You get it
>> wrong and nothing happens. With art you can get it slightly wrong. Colour
>> outside the lines and that. This will discourage most people early. As a
>ah, the whole thing about art is that there is no "wrong". if it feels RIGHT
>to the artist, then it is right, and what anyone else thinks or feels is
>simply another interpretation of the ART. unless, of course, the artist is
>to work within some guidelines - and if he/she does not adhere to them, well
>then, _that_ would wrong.
>--
>Cam Wilson * ca...@nortel.ca
Which is why the art world is such a mess. Where there is no "right" or
"wrong", how can there be a "good" or "bad". It comes down to opinions of the
"annointed" who do not necessarily have a superior point of view.
So given your above opinions, I wonder how you determine that most "art" in
commercial publication is not good. Note: I tend to agree with you, but I am
curious about what your criteria are.
Rafe Purnell
Here Here !
Shadowbird
On Thu, 9 May 1996, Steve wrote:
> Maybe it's just a personal thing, but how come there doesn't seem to be any
> really good artists nowadays. Or at least in galleries and such. Half the crap
> the have is not art. Whatever anybody says about 'expressing their inner
> feelings'. IMHO art is skill in portraying realism. To strive for photorealism.
> There are branch-offs like cartoons, which strive for character, and also
> require skill, but not as much. I was at an art place and I saw some of L.S
> lowry's paintings. A rough pencil drawing of a hand in the water. I mean rough.
> The hand was a stick, and the water was a few squiggles. The person has no
> artistic talent, but he has art gallery halls dedicated to his work.
Wow, your opinions are going to totally shake up the art community as
we know it. I understand you completely. I mean, those stupid
impressionists just suck, Monet and the whole lot. I can't believe
anybody such as Van Gogh could be so untalented as to not paint
photorealistic stuff. And don't even get me started on Picasso. I mean,
the guy couldn't even get the iris settings on his palette to work---blue
period! Pah!
So, if one doesn't paint 'photorealism,' then one is not an artist.
If one writes anything other than essays, one is not a writer.
I can see where photorealism might be something that certain artists
(especially those involved in computer graphics) might strive for. And
that might be your personal preference. But please don't dismiss
everything else as trash.
-=-Nighthawk-=-
Juancarlos Camargo
I have to agree that photorealism isn't an absolute
requirement for something to be art. It does take great
skill (especially in traditional media) and is to be admired
if done well. In CGI, photorealism can be desirable, but
its not always very creative and isn't a must.
To use a popular example...
A great deal of the animation in The Mind's Eye series is
not anywhere near photorealistic, yet it is enjoyed by a
wide audience and is generally considered a good example of
computer art.
What about people like Dali, or even Magritte, who took
photorealistic images arranged them in impossible
relationships.
Of course, photorealism seems to attract clients.
JC
Rafe Purnell
Well said that man !!!!!!!!!11!!
<Applause> <Cheers> <Applause>
Here Here !!!
Cam Wilson
wtu...@primenet.com (Walter (Jay) Turberville (III)) wrote:
>>ah, the whole thing about art is that there is no "wrong". if it feels RIGHT
>>to the artist, then it is right, and what anyone else thinks or feels is
>>simply another interpretation of the ART. unless, of course, the artist is
>>to work within some guidelines - and if he/she does not adhere to them, well
>>then, _that_ would wrong.
>Which is why the art world is such a mess. Where there is no "right" or
>"wrong", how can there be a "good" or "bad". It comes down to opinions of the
>"annointed" who do not necessarily have a superior point of view.
i'd venture to say the "right or wrong" thing applies much more to commercial
art. i'd say that in graphic design, etc., right or wrong can more easily be
distingished - esp. by someone who's done their homework and/or has an
eye for such things. a poorly designed ad, for example, would not achieve
the same goal or success as a better one in communicating a message.
it doesn't succeed as good, well-designed art.
then, in fine art we sometimes see a piece with really screwed up perspective
or the cast shadows are way off - but maybe it was intentional by
the artist. but then, if that art simply causes visual discomfort, and
nothing more, to the viewer, that would likely be "wrong".
>So given your above opinions, I wonder how you determine that most "art" in
>commercial publication is not good. Note: I tend to agree with you, but I am
>curious about what your criteria are.
well, based on my formal training in design, illustration, typography,
painting, etc, etc, i've developed at least a personal sense of what feels
right. a certain amount of it is always personal taste, but most designers
'ought to agree that a particular piece is _really poorly designed_. there
are rules/guidelines in the biz - it's not all wishy washy, touchy feely...
the proliferation of bad design around us has fooled the masses, including
many in the graphics industry into thinking that just because it's "out
there", it's good.
--
Cam Wilson * ca...@nortel.ca
Cam Wilson
wtu...@primenet.com (Walter (Jay) Turberville (III)) wrote:
>I don't think art really began in museums. That is merely where some of it
>ends up. My understanding is that most older work was commercial and
>decorative in nature. Hence the connection with modern media. Most of the
>"old" stuff did not stand the test of time. Most modern stuff won't either.
>But some will.
no, sorry, that's not what i was meaning. i meant that the stuff you'll find
in the galleries and museums is an example of "where it all began".
what do you mean by "old stuff"? the Da Vinci's and Rembrandts and so on of
centuries gone by? i believe they HAVE stood the test of time... and that's
why they're in galleries to this day and still get lots of attention. and
that's why we study them in art school still. you're right about much of the
modern stuff tho'.
good conversation here...
Derek Sorensen
In article <4mvgvp$e...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> ca...@nortel.ca "Cam Wilson" writes:
> good conversation here...
Just a pity it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with games design. Perhaps
you guys could take it to another more suitable newsgroup?
(Well, someone had to say it!)
Derek Sorensen
--
: Bumblebee : Board, Tabletop and Play-By-Mail and eMail Games
: Games : http://www.tightbeam.com/bumblebee <- Free PBM rules
: : mailto://in...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk <- Automated Info
Steve
previously in rec.games.design, Shadowbird <dar...@iasmh.bsu.edu> said:
> Wow, your opinions are going to totally shake up the art community as
>we know it. I understand you completely. I mean, those stupid
>impressionists just suck, Monet and the whole lot. I can't believe
>anybody such as Van Gogh could be so untalented as to not paint
>photorealistic stuff. And don't even get me started on Picasso. I mean,
>the guy couldn't even get the iris settings on his palette to work---blue
>period! Pah!
>
> So, if one doesn't paint 'photorealism,' then one is not an artist.
>If one writes anything other than essays, one is not a writer.
>
> I can see where photorealism might be something that certain artists
>(especially those involved in computer graphics) might strive for. And
>that might be your personal preference. But please don't dismiss
>everything else as trash.
Well, maybe that was too much of a generalisation (all art must be
photorealistic). But I much prefer something that bears some relation to reality
to something like picasso which I simply cannot stand. And what realy pisses me
off is people with NO talent at all sticking a load of bits together, passing it
off as art and getting rich from it. Some people just dumped a load of boots in
a glass case once, as a test. The art critics who saw it remarked upon how well
it was aranged and the quality of the lighting etc.
-Steve
Bryant Reif
Steve wrote:
> Well, maybe that was too much of a generalisation (all art must be
> photorealistic). But I much prefer something that bears some relation to reality
> to something like picasso which I simply cannot stand. And what realy pisses me
> off is people with NO talent at all sticking a load of bits together, passing it
> off as art and getting rich from it. Some people just dumped a load of boots in
How often does THAT happen?
> a glass case once, as a test. The art critics who saw it remarked upon how well
> it was aranged and the quality of the lighting etc.
And revealed their stupidity. Good for them! :)
> -Steve
Betty Cunningham
> And what realy pisses me
> off is people with NO talent at all sticking a load of bits together, passing it
> off as art and getting rich from it. Some people just dumped a load of boots in
> it was aranged and the quality of the lighting etc.
perhaps you should be blasting art critics rather than artists that work on computers.
-Betty Cunningham <-does 'art' for a living
TCM
In article <Pine.LNX.3.92.960509...@iasmh.bsu.edu>, Shadowbird <dar...@iasmh.bsu.edu> writes:
>> Maybe it's just a personal thing, but how come there doesn't seem to be any
>> really good artists nowadays. Or at least in galleries and such. Half the crap
>> the have is not art. Whatever anybody says about 'expressing their inner
>> feelings'. IMHO art is skill in portraying realism. To strive for photorealism.
>> There are branch-offs like cartoons, which strive for character, and also
>> require skill, but not as much. I was at an art place and I saw some of L.S
>> lowry's paintings. A rough pencil drawing of a hand in the water. I mean rough.
>> The hand was a stick, and the water was a few squiggles. The person has no
>> artistic talent, but he has art gallery halls dedicated to his work.
>
> we know it. I understand you completely. I mean, those stupid
The art community has a vested interest in not getting shaken up, it's so full
of frauds they would all lose their jobs ;)
> impressionists just suck, Monet and the whole lot. I can't believe
> anybody such as Van Gogh could be so untalented as to not paint
> photorealistic stuff. And don't even get me started on Picasso. I mean,
Yes, lets start on Van Gogh, I've just looked up a whole lot of his work to see
if he's the guy I thought he was (he was).
For something to be art (in my eyes) it must have required talent to create.
I see no talent in Van Goghs work - I'm not very tolerant of abstract art (I
tend to think its bollocks) but I will admit that even though there is little
or no talent required in the painting part of abstract art there is talent
required in the composition and so I can concieve of it requireing talent. Van
Gogh also shows a complete lack of effort in the composition dept. his
paintings have the compositional feel of holiday snaps. There is nothing
wrong with this sort of composition, I'm just pointing out that anybody can
do it.
His painting skills... well can someone who knows why this guy wasn't forgotten
when he shot himself please tell me why his paintings are considered better
than the hundreds of high school folio works produced each year? The painting
technique itself certainly seems to require little skill.
Look at "sunflowers", composition you would find in a gardening book, and a
painting style that joe public is capable of although I have no idea why joe
public would want to paint that way.
Someone tell me what I am missing.
Is it his slightly warped sense of colour that arty people love so much (my
monitor does that when people bump the cable)?
I guess what I'm asking for is an imformed answer as to why?
I doubt anyone will able to convince me that Van Gogh was talented, but my mind
_is_ open to the possibility and I would like someone to try.
> So, if one doesn't paint 'photorealism,' then one is not an artist.
> If one writes anything other than essays, one is not a writer.
Photorealisim is something that we know takes talent, high school art classes
discourage this heavily - I have a sneaky suspicion it's a PC conspiracy
to make sure people who can't draw arn't disadvantaged ;)
--
The Cookie Monster (TCM)
- Nobody ever went out of business because they underestimated the
intelligence of the public.
Steve Verity
[re: definition of art]
> Sorry. That is a bogus definition. If I flip someone off in traffic it will
> generally provoke an emotional response. That doesn't quite elevate such an
Oh ho- you must know the "artists" I meet every morning on my commute :-)
--
.........>.........>........>......>...>...>..>..>..>..>.>.>.>>>>>>>>+ .
Steve Verity + + ...Maxed on MIDI + .
+ ste...@emu.com + .. +
Derek Sorensen
In article <1996May15.181229@cantva>
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
"The Cookie Monster [Glenn Fisher]" writes:
>
> Yes, lets start on Van Gogh,
Umm, no, let's not. Let's take this discussion to an arts oriented news
group, eg: rec.arts.fine, ok?
Follow-up set.
Regards,
Chris Golchert
Juancarlos Camargo (jc...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: I have to agree that photorealism isn't an absolute
TCM
In article <4nm0kv$4...@airdmhor.gen.nz>, gum...@airdmhor.gen.nz (Simon Hosie) writes:
> TCM (The Cookie Monster [Glenn Fisher])?:
>> Maybe it's just a personal thing, but how come there don't seem to be any
>> really good artists nowadays. Or at least in galleries and such. Half the
>> crap the have is not art. Whatever anybody says about 'expressing their
>> inner feelings'. IMHO art is skill in portraying realism. To strive for
>> photorealism. There are branch-offs like cartoons, which strive for
>> character, and also require skill, but not as much.
>
> but didn't put your name directly to it.
No I didn't say it, infact I must have missed this post because I dont recall
reading that comment before.
> Anyway, assuming you did; if I didn't know you then I'd say you were
> trolling. People call poetry art (though I call it crap) - how do you work
> photorealism into that?
Me??? Troll??? (Actually the only time I've trolled that I can remember was
when I was trying to figure out if my posts were getting through) :)
Well, for something to be art IMHO it requires talent (hense I could
concievably call poetry art, that ozymandias poem was kinda cool).
> PS. There's an Elvis impersonator on TV right now.. [to the TV] GET A
> LIFE!! I think I'll add that to the list of qualities in my dream-flyspray
> - must work on small children _and_ Elvis impersonators.
:) Ever tried Mace?
Simon Hosie
TCM (The Cookie Monster [Glenn Fisher])?:
> Maybe it's just a personal thing, but how come there don't seem to be any
> really good artists nowadays. Or at least in galleries and such. Half the
> crap the have is not art. Whatever anybody says about 'expressing their
> inner feelings'. IMHO art is skill in portraying realism. To strive for
> photorealism. There are branch-offs like cartoons, which strive for
> character, and also require skill, but not as much.
Did you say that, Glenn? The form I found it in suggested that you did,
but didn't put your name directly to it.
Anyway, assuming you did; if I didn't know you then I'd say you were
trolling. People call poetry art (though I call it crap) - how do you work
photorealism into that?
Dr. Cat
So the fellow that started this thread still hasn't gotten an artist to
work on his game with him out of all this, right?
Just checking.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************