Art test
Need advice:
I applied for a job a couple days ago. The next day I got an email saying other candidates fit the position better. Do you think it would be ok to ask for an art test anyway?
I applied for a job a couple days ago. The next day I got an email saying other candidates fit the position better. Do you think it would be ok to ask for an art test anyway?
Replies
Yup. They gave you a polite "no."
yea, what he said
If you're sure you're not, then you should probably just practice on something else for a while.
Even if you did an art test I don't know that they would openly critique your work outside of an interview. The best advice you'll get is just to make something and show it off in pimping and previewing anyways, right?
At best you could perhaps reply and ask for any specific feedback regarding you folio, but they're under no obligation to provide that.
Personally I'm surprised that studios still make applicants do art tests, as frankly they're not really an accurate way of determining a good or bad applicant. Applicants should be able to present proper and structured showreels and/or folios, and studios should provide submission guidelines.
In film/tv, they don't bother with tests, you can either do the job, or you can't. Very often, other than actual ability, people will look for other skills and attributes to see if applicants will be a 'good fit'.
And if you wanted an art test for practice? Just find a friend who can shoot you random themes and then you'll have ongoing mini tests from here on out lol.
And in response to Bellsey, art tests can be extremely useful. They're not really specifically for seeing if the person is a good artist, (at least that isn't the first thing I'm looking for) they're more for gauging how quickly they return the test, how well they follow guidelines, and seeing more into their workflow. The product at the end is just an added bonus.
I'm not so sure about tests and I personally believe that some studios put too much focus on them. The points you make are perfectly valid, but they should already be a prerequisite for the role anyway, and anyone applying should understand that as well. If someone can do the job, they can do the job. For fulltime roles, many studios would have a probation period anyway for anyone new, to allow people to get up to speed with pipelines as many studios can be different and also to help people get settled into the company and culture.
Also if someone is an experienced artist with a proven track record, it's kinda insulting to make then sit an art test.
If a studio has a proper well organised and structured recruitment process, then having and using tests, becomes redundant especially for art roles. They're also very time consuming as well, which makes it hard for people to actually sort through various submissions.
From my experience art tests are generally only given to unproven artists (apart from their personal portfolios), which is the group I assumed we were talking about.
You can't really judge from just someone's portfolio and word that they can follow instruction and complete a job in a time efficient manner, thus the art test. Lots of companies don't do them, or at least only do them for artists with no industry experience, which makes sense.
To many folios filled "bullshots" and work that isnt a proper representation of what that individual can actually do when following your studios guidelines and limits. Personal folio pieces are generally art done at the best quality the artist can make it so things like frame rate, texture limits, collision, memory, time limits are not taken into consideration when in fact those things are so important to your actual job.
Having applicants take an art will actually show you how well that applicant actually will be. They cant take years and years on the test to make it look awesome like they can with a personal piece, they will have to create EVERYTHING themselves instead of the very common, "I worked on this area with another artist, so thats actually why it looks so good" folio shots.
At least at ND we give EVERYONE an art test, even people who worked here before have to take a test again. And from what I have been told, many "talented" and "senior" people bomb the test when compared to their "experience" and "portfolio". An art test erases any doubt a studio will have with how talented an applicant will actually be. Its extreamly expensive to go through the whole process of finding people, hire someone, find out they dont work and then have to go through the whole process again when it can be avoided by giving everyone an art test.
Our art test is what will or will not get you a job. It is a test to see if you can do exactly what you will be doing everyday. If you cant do an amazing art test, how are you going to do amazing work everyday? Simple answer, you cant. Thats why they are that important.
So, they nail the art test, it's good but hardly a decent benchmark. Also, some people do flunk the test. Does this make them bad at their job or a bad hire, I'm not so sure. Some people perhaps aren't good at that particular type of pressure, even though they could probably do the job anyway.
Very often in my experience, finding people with the right ability was never the problem. It was finding the right 'person' to fit the team, studio culture, and the what were trying to do, that always proved the problem.
Still, I guess if a studio feels that by having an art test, that in itself could fit their type of culture, then that's their prerogative. I just think it's an outdated process and as I say guys like Pixar, Dreamworks, Weta etc, don't follow that process. Though they do have solid guidelines for applying and submitting reels and what they will look for.