Art subject choices: fictional vs existing
polycounter lvl 14
Let me try and frame this;
a few times already, i've ran across quotes from art-directors and other people who decide about recruiting, where a negative attitude towards non-fictional, exisiting art subjects comes forward. I can't find exact quotes right away, but there where things like "I'm so tired of seeing guns modeled in 3D, if you wanna model a gun, at least pick something crazy and non-existing", "Why model a car? It looks just like any other car, you should try to stand out with something unique instead".
This sorta stuff bothers me. As if the subject matter chosen makes you less of an artist. Sure crates and barrels are boring, but they're talking about objects that are a whole lot more difficult in shape, proportions and materials. I think as an average 3D artist you shouldn't aspire too much to become a concept artist (too) unless you completely focus on it. So why obsessively bother with creating your own fictional stuff?
Heck, one thing I remembered from a concept artist friend, is that good (mechanical) design should look like it will work, like it really is viable and conceived by an engineer and that to be able to do this, you have to extensively study existing (mechanical) objects.
If you follow that train of thought, it even makes sense to at least model some exisiting objects, so you get a feel for their proportions, design elements and details.
I get the impression that an accurate and well made model of a real life subject is considered lesser quality by some people, than an equally well made (in terms of mesh, unwrap...) fictional design with wonky proportions and strange details. I'd see it the other way around; getting good accuracy shows that the artist knows his stuff and has actually transcended beyond merely mastering the tools. He understands that the correct proportions and details set his work apart at a higher quality standard.
Anyway, this is speaking from my perspective. About half of my portfolio stuff is self-designed, yet they look just like existing subjects so some people might not even be able to tell. Reading that my art doesn't count as much as when I'd model a pink and yellow rocket launcher that shoots jelly-beans or something equally retarded, bothers me.
How do you guys feel about this? Btw, don't hold back if you really believe stuff like mine is inferior, I'd like to hear why.
a few times already, i've ran across quotes from art-directors and other people who decide about recruiting, where a negative attitude towards non-fictional, exisiting art subjects comes forward. I can't find exact quotes right away, but there where things like "I'm so tired of seeing guns modeled in 3D, if you wanna model a gun, at least pick something crazy and non-existing", "Why model a car? It looks just like any other car, you should try to stand out with something unique instead".
This sorta stuff bothers me. As if the subject matter chosen makes you less of an artist. Sure crates and barrels are boring, but they're talking about objects that are a whole lot more difficult in shape, proportions and materials. I think as an average 3D artist you shouldn't aspire too much to become a concept artist (too) unless you completely focus on it. So why obsessively bother with creating your own fictional stuff?
Heck, one thing I remembered from a concept artist friend, is that good (mechanical) design should look like it will work, like it really is viable and conceived by an engineer and that to be able to do this, you have to extensively study existing (mechanical) objects.
If you follow that train of thought, it even makes sense to at least model some exisiting objects, so you get a feel for their proportions, design elements and details.
I get the impression that an accurate and well made model of a real life subject is considered lesser quality by some people, than an equally well made (in terms of mesh, unwrap...) fictional design with wonky proportions and strange details. I'd see it the other way around; getting good accuracy shows that the artist knows his stuff and has actually transcended beyond merely mastering the tools. He understands that the correct proportions and details set his work apart at a higher quality standard.
Anyway, this is speaking from my perspective. About half of my portfolio stuff is self-designed, yet they look just like existing subjects so some people might not even be able to tell. Reading that my art doesn't count as much as when I'd model a pink and yellow rocket launcher that shoots jelly-beans or something equally retarded, bothers me.
How do you guys feel about this? Btw, don't hold back if you really believe stuff like mine is inferior, I'd like to hear why.
Replies
If however you were going for a job as a modeller or a 2d artists in which all you needed to show off were technical skills, then i guess you can model as many M4 carbines as you can until your mouse laser drills a whole through your desk.
Although keep in mind since every guy, girl and their pet dog is going to be modelling an m4 then you might end up blending into the crowd a little which could again be detrimental to your chances.
I'm not going to do much hyperreal stuff, i highly doubt it, it bores me to death and its ok that there are others who like those things, so i don't have to do it.
Don't hire me if you want me to do cars or realistic guns, there are others who like that crap and do it better, i don't see much sense in doing something like that.
Well, if the point of your portfolio is to get a job, and you like making realistic guns but the only games studio near you is hiring an artist to do cartoony animals, then your portfolio is not going to get you that job providing you only just "make what you like making".
IMHO you should have a well-rounded portfolio as a job-seeker, since you never know what opportunities might be available if you don't.
Obviously if you're totally incapable of making cartoony animals, then you're not right for that role anyway, but if you had a portfolio showing your capabilities of handling a wide range of subject matter and styles, then you can fill pretty much any role. Anything else is just limiting yourself artificially.
Not that I have any experience to speak of, but I'd hardly let ZacD's opinion refrain me from making an AK-47.
I find it highly unlikely that any decent Art Director, upon seeing a varied and quality portfolio, will complain if there are a few real-world weapons/vehicles/items or whatever in there.
Also if you modeled the same gun as another applicant, It'd be easier for them to compare which on is "better"
Not saying that it matters a whole lot, I just like seeing semi original stuff in portfolios. But I'm not your next boss.
If we're talking about art in general - then yes, subject matter and being creative is important. In traditional world, if you take mundane subject and render it realistically to death without any kind of personal touch it will hardly qualify as anything more than practice piece to sharpen skills.
At the end of the day, it would seam to me, that these opinions are going to be just as diverse as the projects and individuals you will find at the various studios around the world.
What this underscores is that you need to understand the mentality, and creative mindset, that any given studio employs to produce their project and then either modify your existing portfolio, or build one from scratch, that shows you understand this mindset.
ArenaNet, for example, is defiantly of the mindset that your concept has to be creative, they are a fantasy studio. Its a way of thinking that shuns the ordinary and embraces the extraordinary. They make fantasy games, they aren't going to appreciate non-fantasy work nearly as much.
Zipper, or Infinity Ward, on the other hand, produce a game set in the present day. I'm sure you will find the mindset there leans toward accurate, yet fun and believable, interpretations of the real world.
Ultimately, being creative is a desired skill, faithful replication and understanding a subject such as guns, is also a desired skill. Knowing which is more appreciated and in demand at a potential studio is very important when applying for a job.
If i build a character, it takes way more skill to make a human look realistic, while if id just pull it out of proportion, you would have nothing to comment about because it is fiction.
Building realistic things means limiting yourself to the amount of mistakes you can get away with.
This also counts for style and the technical aspect of making it look good. I cannot just put fun strokes and stripes on it, or maybe dirt it up because its cool, it will make it look unrealistic.
Realistic also means comparing, alot.. because getting things dead on is bloody hard to do.
I actualy like realistic because it gives me a massive challenge.
Someone else might prefer fictional over realistic because it gives freedom and room for more creativity.
They are two different set of skills, and if someone would weigh my skills of comparing and making perfect vs creativity and making it look cool and say im wrong.. id walk away.
An art director needs to be able to see skill in both areas, and not just ramble away on preference.
//
Also, if i would make something fictional that does not excist, but i want to make you believe it does by adding the realistic touches, i need a base of skills in both areas, and you need to build things that come from reference.
Only problem is, those skills come with experience,
If i would try and do it right away because i think fiction is cool, i would fail.
So busting on some because hes learning or doing things from reference is pointless.
Study first, then mix everything together.
If they are looking for someone who does part of the concepting and modeling on a game that contains a lot of fictional elements then not showing any concepting work in a portfolio is a bad thing.
If they have good conceptartists that give you all of the reference ready to go and you have a portfolio that shows great skills in modeling realistic things then i don't see anything that would make an AD not consider you for work.
But if a guy that has the same skillset as you do walks in and also has some fictional stuff in his portfolio then you become a less preferable choice.
If you can put it in there as well (even if it's just one fictional piece) why wouldn't you?
And yeah the question of applying to a company does make sense here, I didn't mention it specifically but I was thinking about it. But that doesn't mean applying when it doesn't make sense. Someone like me wouldn't really apply at a place like Blizzard or Arenanet, rather at IW or any other place that suits one's "style" more.
Neox: i think you're an interesting example here, but don't you agree that before you go towards your kind of stylized designs, you need to understand realism? Also, you've made some realistic characters, right? i remember some babes and some chars for an RPG, do you see that as different? I know I'm going more towards guns and cars, but realistic is realistic. Although I know characters are kinda seen in a different light (subject doesn't really matter), hence why those quotes I gave don't really seem to pertain to them.
MoP: how do you feel this would go for a studio like Splash Damage, working on a game like Brink that is realistic (save for some freedom in characters proportions), yet has fictional designs? Would an art-director feel that an artist with well-executed, existing objects doesn't have enough to offer to the studio ?
This is something I think happens a lot in game art production anyway, where you might get some focused concept art and photo reference for key areas, a lot of environment/weapon/character modelling and texturing work will consist of actually being creative and coming up with stuff that fits the design and isn't necessarily based off any real-world stuff.
So you can see that if someone only demonstrates that they can accurately re-build something that already existed (usually meaning they dug up tons of specific photo references and / or blueprints, and the modelled exactly what they saw and nothing else), then you can't really judge their "artistic" ability, you can only judge how good they are at reproducing things that already exist when handed perfect reference images from all angles.
Now, I'm not saying that this is what you're doing (since you do have some "made up stuff" in your portfolio), but you can see why a better balance of more original / inventive and realistic stuff is probably the best way to go.
That's what I did when i was told to model something vague without even a concept. Granted, they were al exisiting objects (containership, a bridge, that sort of enviro stuff), but I couldn't model one specificly, it had to stay generic yet recognisable. If it were something really crazy out of this world (I dunno, some crazy techno contraption or even some sort of alien object), I'd expect a (better) concept and would then go filling in the smaller blanks with applicable reference.
I'm realising it's getting down to reference usage here; we all agree reference is ever so important when doing our art, right? I'd think it's not such a big step anymore to go from using reference to recreate something exact, to mixing and matching the best parts out of similar reference?
and fucking hell.. its hard, and an extremely slow process.
but once you've trudged through all the realistic stuff, and let yourself free again, you'll have a lot larger creative toolset to work with, which will lend a whole new dimension to your work.
Recreating existing things shows that you're a proficient 3d artist, though, and there is nothing wrong with that. And it can certainly be argued that a lot of fictional things are just mindless copies of other fictional things.
On the other hand, I think a lot of people on here would agree that that's far removed from the creative process.
And these are sometimes overlooked or underapreciated.
Fictional also asks for one to apply other skills aswell.
Here you challenge yourself to be creative at a whole other level.
Then there is Fictional realistic wich asks for both areas.
Now i can instantly start doing this but it might be good to know something about lighting, shapes, or structure. If you do not take the time to figure that out you will get stuck at some point, you will think things look a sertain way and need more time to unlearn afterwards. To learn this, you might need excisting things.. On the other hand, you might limit yourself with the creative process and you need some more time to develop those skills.
The way i go around doing things. Is to first learn all basic elements and technical aspects by building alot of excisting. There are tons of info i learn from it everyday. With that knowledge i start applying those at fictional concepts and make them look realistic.
Now i know from previous posts that you are way against whatever, and deliver me a nice laugh now and then. So i wont even bother going into an arguement here with you.
They both ask for different trades, they both let someone develop themselfs in other ways and areas, and its silly to try and weighthat with eachother and say one is better then the other.
concept -> model/texture
imo it is NOW unimportant what the concept is (real object or fantasy scifi whatever)
if you're able to recreate a concept you have indeed a very useful skill
but if your ALSO able to come up with some interesting concept stuff by your own (not the boring gun xy again), this is another very useful skill too
and imo that's it about this topic...
if you study real objects and real objects mechanics and through this you get better in one ore the other discipline described above this is great,
but this isn't something you can see out of a portfolio quite easy EXCEPT the artist has some great self invented stuff there that does look perfectly functional AND fresh and cool.
just to quote mop here who is saying basically the same