Does a good 3D Artist need to be a good 2D Artist?
admin
Let me clarify that thread title before I ask this;
From an industry point of view, does it matter if an Env Artist is terrible at painting/drawing Environments, or if a Character Artist is terrible at drawing/painting characters?
The reason I ask is that I am pretty terrible at painting environments, but I'm pretty happy with my 3D skills. I'm ok with painting textures, and 'painting technique' in general. I studied traditional art at school, and learned a lot about colour/lighting theory in my degree, but when it comes to actually painting what you might call a 'finished piece' of a landscape, or environment, I'm terrible. And quite frankly, I don't really enjoy it either.
I see so many great Env Artists, one example, who are wonderful painters too. Likewise with character guys, another example.
I'm getting kinda hung up on it to be honest... it feels like something I 'should' be able to do, and it's making me feel inadequate as an artist, despite the fact I'm happy with how my other skills are going.
Let me also say that I can understand the importance in distinction between art theory, and traditional fundamentals, as well as things like anatomy and form knowledge for character guys, and actual skills to paint 'pretty pictures'. I think it's obvious that any artist needs the fundamentals down, but I see so many artists who are great at both, that I wonder whether those skills are necessary also.
Feel free to offer some comfort in the form of your fantastic 3D work next to you sucking at 2D.
From an industry point of view, does it matter if an Env Artist is terrible at painting/drawing Environments, or if a Character Artist is terrible at drawing/painting characters?
The reason I ask is that I am pretty terrible at painting environments, but I'm pretty happy with my 3D skills. I'm ok with painting textures, and 'painting technique' in general. I studied traditional art at school, and learned a lot about colour/lighting theory in my degree, but when it comes to actually painting what you might call a 'finished piece' of a landscape, or environment, I'm terrible. And quite frankly, I don't really enjoy it either.
I see so many great Env Artists, one example, who are wonderful painters too. Likewise with character guys, another example.
I'm getting kinda hung up on it to be honest... it feels like something I 'should' be able to do, and it's making me feel inadequate as an artist, despite the fact I'm happy with how my other skills are going.
Let me also say that I can understand the importance in distinction between art theory, and traditional fundamentals, as well as things like anatomy and form knowledge for character guys, and actual skills to paint 'pretty pictures'. I think it's obvious that any artist needs the fundamentals down, but I see so many artists who are great at both, that I wonder whether those skills are necessary also.
Feel free to offer some comfort in the form of your fantastic 3D work next to you sucking at 2D.
Replies
If you're good at sculpting, you're good at sculpting. You can't be good+1 by being able to paint pretty pictures.
I don't really understand the whole "work on your 2d to improve your 3d". It's like if someone is trying to learn to play the guitar, and you'd tell him "work on your piano, it'll improve your guitar skills". Sure, maybe? Or you could just learn the guitar...
You know, I'm glad you said that. As well as making me smile, it's exactly how I have felt when I see so many people be like 'trad art, TRAD ART!'. The fundamentals are so clearly important as I said in the original post, but sometimes I think it can be misleading the way 2D is promoted so heavily in the path to becoming a better 3D artist.
From experience, when I finish a 3D project, I've learned a lot, I've made mistakes, and I've improved.
When I finish a 2D piece I just want to throw my Wacom in the bin.
People say to learn to play piano not because it makes you a better guitarist, but a better musician. Music theory is a lot easier to learn and understand on a piano, since the notes just go in order from the lower octaves up to the higher ones...but a guitar has 6 strings, and each fret goes up a half step, and the next highest string goes up 5 half steps, with the exception of the B string, which only goes up 4 half steps..which is way more complicated and makes it more difficult to understand different relationships with scales, chord construction, etc...
My point?
You don't have to be a good 2d artist to make cool stuff in 3d, but practicing traditional art/2d art helps you learn fundamentals that carry over and give you a noticeable advantage. People with strong foundation in traditional art can see compositional errors in a 3d scene, notice that your colors in your texture don't fit together, that your material properties are off, etc.. You can be awesome at making models, but lacking a solid foundation in color theory, composition, etc...can completely ruin an environment, character, or whatever.
So you can do 3d without being a good 2d artist, and you can even develop a good eye for art doing 3d stuff, but I'm certain that its much easier to learn the foundations and to be able to know "what looks good" by studying and improving in other areas of art...especially 2d painting.
Edit: I should mention that I'm not a godly 2d artist or anything, but lately I've been spending some free time attempting to do some digital painting stuff, and I can literally see the difference it makes in my color choices, lighting, etc...
So you don't have to be an amazing 2d artist, but I recommend that you at least give it a shot and try to stick with it.
I always suggest traditional art courses for people dead set on getting a formal education because 3D courses are usually garbage that have to spend way too much time focusing on how to use software and not enough on learning what makes art good. A problem that is less intrusive with 2D courses. Short of "use the flat side of the pencil" and "use your elbow" there isn't a whole lot of "tool learning" in figurative drawing for example...
Furthermore learning art fundamentals in 3D is inherently slow and cumbersome, exploring ideas and testing theory takes much longer than doing it on paper. I can knock out a really loose thumbnail sketch in the time it takes for 3DS Max to launch. But for that your work doesn't necessarily need to be pretty, you just need to be able to understand what is going on in it and how you will translate it to something that *is* pretty in 3D. As long as YOU (and probably your art director) know what's going on, it could be the shittiest picture ever.
Finally, a painting can be weak for a lot of different reasons, not all of which effect your 3D work.
If your painting is weak because you have bad composition, poor sense of proportion, color theory, or lighting. Then you have a serious problem.
If your painting sucks because you're a shitty designer, have horrible painting technique, or a terrible grasp of perspective, and can't render for shit. Then it probably won't matter as long as you work off other peoples concepts because the engine will solve perspective and rendering for you.
The medium in which you practice doesn't particularly matter imo, 2d is just the traditional way, and as more and more people without traditional art backgrounds become successful in the industry, I think that perception will start to change. Case in point, I'm one of those people without a traditional art background at a very art focused studio, and I've managed to be successful by paying attention to artistic principles without doing much drawing at all.
The lack of 2d skills will hurt you if part of your job responsibilities include concepting, or if you will need to do a lot of handpainted textures that aren't baked down from a high poly. For example, I don't know how successful you would be working on a game like wow or torchlight, but if you are a good artist you'll fit in pretty much anywhere else. And if the pipeline includes baked down assets, 90% of the painted details are done in the sculpt anyway and baked to cavity maps, which is the case in my workflow, and that last 10% of learning how to paint good color isn't that difficult.
It's not a requirement, but it shows employers that you're more motivated and interested in art than people who don't have traditional skills. Not all companies care about that, but the good ones almost always do. If you just want to put in your 40 hours a week and get paid so you can support your family and other hobbies, it's probably not a big deal. But if you really want to grow and push yourself as an artist, learning tradition/2d skills is a must.
When you guys talk about 2d (I dislike calling it '2D' for some reason so from here on will just say 'drawing/painting') do you actually mean finished pieces or just using it as a medium for development.
I can 'draw' so to speak, and I enjoy exploring forms on paper, as you say, it's a lot quicker and certainly to me it feels more natural, but if I was tasked with creating 'presentable art' just through drawing or painting, I'd be stuck. Like, I can draw and paint, but I can't draw and paint pictures, if that makes sense.
Why would you want to limit your knowledge to just 3d when you could be doing 2d as well.
As Ferg already said the principles of one are carried over to the other. Also there are millions of books concerning 2d art that contain a lot of information that would help you as a 3d artist even if you wouldn't want to try and apply it in a 2d medium first. It's only by taking the time and reading/learning these things you'll progress as an artist in general.
I would hate being a one trick pony, and you know you might be good but there will be another artist that's probably as good or better that does know his/her 2d sh*t
Nobody says that you need to be able to paint women like bouguereau did but being able to develop a concept and doing quick sketches does help
Fast forward to now, where I work in 3d everyday as a proffession, and everyday I kick myself in the ass for not keeping my traditional skillset updated.
I find that by not having the ability to illustrate (effectively) ideas from your head onto paper, you lose the ability to both communicate your ideas to others, as well as limiting yourself when it comes to creating things out of "thin air". Basically, filling in details that make sense.
Now this is just my personal opinion, but I can say with confidence that I'm hitting this wall right now that will (in the end) force myself to work on my traditional skillset, and hopefully get it to a point where I can convey my ideas onto paper without struggling just to lay down the first stroke... if that makes sense.
I honestly had no interest in art growing up. I didn't even know I wanted to do game art until right after graduating from high school. I guess I kind of lucked out that a slight interest in it turned into a passion once I started going to school for it.
That's not saying that I'll never try to better myself at traditional art. I'd love to be able to draw well, I just get too frustrated currently after putting down a few lines. I just think that I'm currently better off devoting all my time to increasing my 3d skills till I land a steady job, and then I can start developing my traditional skills more.
So then their stuff was/is better than everyone else's. The conclusion a lot of people reached is that it's their "traditional skills" that gave them an edge. And they're right. But I don't think that it's the fact that it's traditional that's important, but the fact that they have years of experience, albeit in another medium, that counts. So I don't even see what "traditional skills" is supposed to mean in the context of 3d art, or art in general. Art skills are art skills, are they not? Knowledge is knowledge.
But at the end of it, if your goal is to study something, say anatomy, I don't see how an hour spent studying anatomy in zBrush is somehow lesser than an hour spent with paper and pencil. And if an hour spent practicing is the same regardless of the medium, which I believe it is, then how can the advice be given that it's better to learn traditional skills than 3D skills?
That's at least my theory as to how this myth came about.
Bottom line though, as with anything in life, if you love doing it then do it. If you don't, then don't.
There's nothing worse than forcing yourself to do something you don't like, just because you heard some advice that it'll make you better. You won't approach it with the same passion, and won't learn from it.
I completely agree.
I see 3d modellng/texturing as a separate discipline and don't feel the need to keep my 2d sklls up to date.
I know for a fact that I could never be a concept artist, so i'ts kind of a waste of time for me. It would be much better to study real sculptng in clay for me.
I was always better at observational drawing then making up wacky designs.
You really have to play to your srengths, no point adding some half assed concepts to your folio if they don't serve any real purpose.
I think if I could bridge the cap between 3d and 2d, that may fix the issue. Any helpful tips / tricks / opinions on something that could help this?
I'm in the same boat with you when it comes to that. I can struggle to convey ideas because I'm not able to put them down on paper, however, I'm USUALLY able to convey it at the lowest level in 3d. Of course, that's not always possible, which is where I hit that wall. But so far that happens to me so rarely that I haven't been too concerned. I can see it becoming a bigger issue once I'm a little further in the industry.
You don't see how it could be different or lesser ... but did you ever try comparing the two by actually trying them ? There is a difference between guessing what's best, and actually trying it out by oneself.
And yes, an hour spent studying anatomy on paper is, indeed, better than the same time in Zbrush
Basically no interest in drawing or painting while growing up, and quite happy to forego them because hey, i can draw those boxes correctly and quicker in 3ds max. At some point it dawned on me that at least some skill in the traditional arts will make me a better 3d artist (being able to sketch out quick concepts, overcoming my struggles with color choices etc.).. so that's what i need to work on in the future.
short answer to the original poster: i think it can help a lot, but it is not a necessity really.
Short answer: Not for everything but it will help.
Slightly longer answer: If not, it will hold you back to some degree but being creative and artistic isn't always about raw 2D drawing/painting skill. Personally I think the persons powers of observation trump raw 2D skill when doing things like environment art or animation. It just happens that 2D artists tend to be really good at observing the world around them, mostly because of practice.
There are tons of benefits, but ultimately, no.
It seems mysterious until you think about the more technical/mathematical side to 3d art. I image some people, especially hard-surface modelers or people interested in replicating real-world objects, enjoy finding how things are put together and accuracy. Of course that's just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
Of course... come'on now
This wasn't an argument against 2d... that's just ridiculous. You should give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm not just guessing what's best, but I tried it and I know.
And mind you, I'm not making a global claim that 3d>2d or some shit like that. Obviously that's ridiculous as well. Just that what works for one person may not work for another. The original question was if 2D is required for 3D work. And the answer is no. It's not required. But if you enjoy it, then it will help you, of course.
That's a matter of personal preference. I could make arguments why an hour of zBrush is superior in studying anatomy than an hour with paper and pencils. But it's kindof a dumb argument for me to make. Or anyone for that matter.
The point is about what's better for the individual. If for you, you benefit more from using pen&paper, then hey! All power to you! But that doesn't make it an absolute point. To someone else it may not apply...
By the way, an interesting thing I've been noticing lately is that my "2d skills", meaning drawing and sculpting (non-digital), are greatly improving in spite of the fact that I don't really practice them all that much. I do draw all the time, but in bouts of a few minutes here and there when I have time. Or in the weekends I'll sit every once in a while and spend a couple of hours on a sculpt. But not nearly enough to get better at those things. And yet, I am getting better. Why? Because I spend most of my time at work doing characters with zBrush, and so my 3D skills are translating into my 2D skills.
So yeah... it works backwards too.
By far, the biggest benefit per hour that I've seen personally, is from time I spend not doing art. Time spent studying without drawing, without sculpting, without any of that.
I've learned more from pausing for a few hours during a sculpt, and opening an anatomy book, or an autopsy book, than I ever did learn actually doing things. Then I take that knowledge and implement it. The one autopsy book I found a while ago is priceless. I learned more looking at the pictures there of what the human body actually looks like, not through some other artist's interpretation in an anatomy book, than any other resource out there. If I could attend an actual cadaver lab, I would do it on the spot. Nothing beats reality.
I now believe that growth comes from implementing theory. And you have to get that theory somehow, which you can't do by drawing or sculpting.
For example doing traditional life drawing forces you to test your observational skills and trains your mind's eye in articulating what you see and translating that into a medium. It also forces you to constantly assess how accurate your marks are. In the case of 3D for example, modelling from concept art you're looking at this ref and translating this into mesh. It's the same key skills.
It's a quicker turnaround using pencil and paper hence you're able to practice more quickly.
I tried a concept a few years back and it took me longer to paint this than to actually model it( considering I have a female base mesh to start from)
Most places I worked had a concept to work from, but rarely a dedicated concept guy.
That is exactly how I feel. I used to draw alot back in high school but once I started learning 3d I just kinda stopped 2d. Fast forward to now whenever I try to draw something it looks worse now than when I was a senior in high school. I am trying to fix it though by drawing something every day.
I'm not so sure about that. I used to spend a lot of time working on my observational drawing skills, but it wasn't until I actually sculpted out the form that I really got a feel for the anatomy. Practicing in Sculptris, starting from a sphere and working it into a form, was so much more effective for getting me to really understand anatomy. There's no cheating, no perspective or shading tricks, you need to know how everything looks on every axis.
When you draw a face you pick one view and you go through the process of making lines to suggest things, and a lot of the time you don't even have to think of the 3d form, you just get a feel for making the lines. In 3d there are no assumptions, everything is based on the 3d form, and everything has to be right from every axis. You work on the front of the face the depth of the face is just as important and can't just be implied.
I think for getting ideas down 2d is generally better because you can imply so much and work quickly, but for the technical fundamentals (like anatomy) I'd actually argue that it's more effective to have someone 'sketch' using something like Scultris (but then again this all depends on the individual).
I suppose some people might pass me over because of that, and it is a hole in my skillset I'm actively working on, but... well, their loss.
2d inherently works on more artistic foundations and uses so many elements to make a piece an artwork as opposed to 3d which can quickly become sterile representations of reality.
When I think of the ideal 3d artist, I don't just picture someone who can make great sculpts. A great 3d artist should be able to take it all the way through to the end to create a compelling image, and that can be difficult without foundations most easily practiced in 2d.
To me the 2d side is invaluable, sitting down and drawing something is the fastest and most effective way of knocking out designs and seeing if something will work or not. Otherwise you could waste Days working on a design in 3d that fundamentally just doesn't work. On personal projects I couldn't live without it, but professionally I mostly work from high end concept art and chime in now and then with suggestions so the 2d side isn't needed so much.
They feed each other though, I find that after sculpting loads of faces I find it easier to put stuff down on paper but also vice versa, both are artistic disciplines to me and I find the best artists out there are a dab hand at both where art takes presidence over the final medium.
A LOT of guys in our industry have high end skills. But the ones with high end DESIGN skills are the ones that get noticed a lot more.
Put it this way:
Malcolm Gladwell hypothesizes that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill.
You could view it as 10,000 hours making art.
Or you could view it as 10,000 hours on getting better 3D Skills.
Vs
10,000 spent getting better at 'designing' characters.
10,000 hours mastering human physionomy.
Interestingly in one of Ryan Church's DVD's he advocates learning traditional painting before moving onto 2D painting. Which is the same point, learning the foundations, fundamentals of art will better serve you when you move into the digital field.
I had this stuff called clay growing up, I always prefered sculpture to drawing....doesn't mean that I had no interest in art
I cant really draw to the level that I can sculpt....with clay I can make the shape thats in my head, which I cant do with a pencil. I stick with three dimensional materials most of the time, and will only turn to a pencil under time constraints...sure its quicker, but for me that doesn't make it better.
As a side note I hate that when the words "traditional art skills" are mentioned people will jump on the y u no draw? wagon and forget sculpture....makes me sad it does.
Please refrain from attacking people like this. If you're gonna contribute to the thread then do so constructively, not by just insulting people who don't agree with you. I've met a lot of artists in the film/commercial industry who had no knowledge of traditional art at all, yet they were able to make some fantastic art! 2d may not be necessary but it's quite possible to do amazing art without any knowledge in it. It limits you in certain aspects, yes, but not impossible.
I think 2d benefits 3d though and vice versa. Most of the points I was gonna bring up have already been taken up in this thread so I won't go any further into it. I've had good use of my 2d skills when doing 3d and 3d helped me understand perspective and lighting(among other things) better.
I personally find it a good -and sometimes required- skill to have. Especially in the current climate with loads of small studios popping out from the ground, each requiring that the artists can also design, concept and create props, characters, environments, and what not.
Just drawing for at least an hour daily will get you far! I used to draw a lot myself, stopped doing it, and now I've picked it up again like a maniac. Focussing strongly on technique, structure and composition.
Also, I find that drawing with pens forces you to become better! As you are unable to erase so you can analyze your mistakes and do better. This is just a psychological thing, but you know.
Also something I've noticed about folks who launch straight into 3D is they rarely actually have a final design nailed down and they waste 10's of hours creating features and removing them until they achieve a balance.
True its possible to survive without but why would you when it can make your life easier.
Necessary? Nope.
Is it a bonus for a Fireman to have chunky arms to juggle babies? Yes.
Necessary? Nope.
Is it a bonus for a soldier to be a selfless person who is willing to use his body on a grenade to cover his friends? Yes.
Necessary? Nope.
My point is, we can spend all day being philosophical about needing 2D skills to boost your 3D skills, but no, you don't need them, they're a bonus, but last I checked, no one ever saw someone with 2D skills and 3D skills and thought to themselves "OOH, what a catch, gotta hire this guys ASAP".
Also, everyone saying you need 2D skills for design, concept, etc... That is only true if you don't want to learn ZB or 3DC.
Ace are you saying this through experience or through opinion? becuase it sounds like the latter.
I don't disagree with the larger sweep of your point but the last bit is just silly.
Look. It's not an attack, its a statement. I'm free to say what I see, and I personally see that the ones defending the '2d isn't as important as people are making out' argument just don't have a certain richness to their work.
I'm free to say that if I find it to be true.