Likes on artstation are important. Let's be honest.
polycounter lvl 5
Some people say its not about number of likes.
That's bullshit, it's all about likes, it is a matter of a quality. I've never seen a bad, non quality piece of art on artsation that has 200 likes.
It's like you're saying living it this world....you know....it's not all about money,
bullshit, it's all about money, and you know it god damn well.
That's bullshit, it's all about likes, it is a matter of a quality. I've never seen a bad, non quality piece of art on artsation that has 200 likes.
It's like you're saying living it this world....you know....it's not all about money,
bullshit, it's all about money, and you know it god damn well.
Replies
But not all of them are God like maybe they are there simply because they already had a following.
Like every social network out there, there are tons of great artworks that remain unnoticed due to the fact that there are tons of other artworks published every hour, they don't have an already established fan base and they didn't managed to go viral with one or more artworks.
In fact I'm following plenty of good artists that despite their good works are not famous.
WLOP is a great illustrator that gained a huge fan base on YouTube and he is living off his patreon while working on personal projects and on his book. That's why he has tons of likes.
However fans gained through YouTube and fans gained through artstation are usually different.
On ArtStation you find mostly pro artists or other fellow artists while on YouTube people that follows you are usually hobbyst, beginners, indies or normal people that enjoy your art.
Number of views, sure, but likes on an artpiece. I guess that makes sense.
I would think it depends on the artist and what they're after.
artstations algorithm isnt just the number of likes views and comments. I have seen pieces on the trending page with 6-10 likes hours after they were posted, because everyones account has different weight in the algorithm. someone with 10k followers and probably a bunch of other signals that their profile is a long time member and brings value to artstation is going to give a lot more of a boost with their 1 like than a bunch of other new accounts with zero-100 followers.
And this is a good thing/makes sense. instagram does this as well, as it helps combat spam and people trying to game the system. if you could put up a post and then use a bot to create 100 accounts and all like that post it would devolve artstation into a cess pool of people spamming affiliate links and trying to scam money with quick "make money online" trickery.
I am not saying make big titty art to gain followers and likes, there are plenty of people I follow with 10k+ followers posting totally outside the box stuff that does extremely well. not guns, tits, mechs etc. it's usually because they are making art they are passionate about and would make anyways without the thirst for likes and views, and at the same time have dedicated YEARS to honing their skills, with consistent output and have been on artstation for ages, hence the huge following, built over time. this means now when they post new work it easily gets pushed into trending because of their following they have brough value to over years of building their profile.
does this mean new accounts posting badass art can get overlooked? sure of course it does. but consistently build an audience by continuing to post good work over a couple years and the momentum will snowball over time. This is how everyone starts, everyone starts with 0 followers and an empty gallery. Its like a lot of the big youtubers talk about, they usually were making videos for years before they blew up, barely making money but they were still making videos because they loved it, not for views likes or money, and would still continue to make videos without those things.
It is incredibly naive to think that you can get by without having some form of social media presence to augment your portfolio. it's just a reality of how it is these days, so it is worth investing some time to build it. if 10k-30k people are eyeballing your art each year then chances are 1 or 2 of them will want to hire you if its good. and the quickest way to increase the number of eyes on your art is with social media. trying to be successful in 2020 without using social media is like sitting there fuming with your arms crossed denying the fact that gravity exists.
and the quickest way to build a following online is to do one thing: bring value. this could be in the form of awesome/entertaining art, educational tutorials, tips and tricks, useful tools and things to help people make art (*looks at jonas ronnegard...). I can tell up until about 1.5 years ago i had maybe 300-400 followers on artstation. ever since I started putting out what I think is valuable content, that shit has exploded over the last year to almost 6k followers. rewards follow a track record of consistency over long periods of time.
I just created useful stuff around what I was already passionate about, it resonated with people and they in turn followed me for more of it. this helps me in return by pushing my art to the front page which in turn has lead to a ton of job offers and a massive increase in demand for my services and salary. so even while i was making all that content "for free" ,in the long term it paid off in monetary value far more than if I had been doing it for some hourly rate. patience and perspective with a long term view are critical and knowing why you are doing things is so important.
"likes" are just another tool to help you get to where you want to be not the end goal.
I am actually thinking about making a yt video on how to grow your artstation following, would you guys be interested in something like that?
likes =/= quality, they can be one of the indicators and a good idea if your work is resonating with the overall market, but using that as a measure of actual quality is not ideal. Like i said, its just a tool to pump the algorithm and get you more organic traffic to your work.
not once when being a part of the hiring process have i ever considered or even really looked at the number of likes somones post got. or their follower count. I look to see if the work in their gallery is making my eyes pop in awesomeness. Now their follower count and the likes they got might have gotten me organically to their page due to most of my time spent browsing the trending tab, but the overall impact of their work is not determined by the number. I would also say people need to spend way more time on their thumbnails, that will have a bigger impact as well. but when it is an applicant sending in a link through a job application page, i never really look at their follower count or likes numbers, just their work.
the difference is one way you have to send out hundreds of links/job applications, while the other brings people to your page while you sleep and has them hitting you up if your work is good. it's like passive job offers and you have way more leverage when they want you, vs you applying.
I agree with everything you say, though i believe that in order to reach the point of having hundreds of likes at your post, it probably means that your work can already get you hired in quite a few studios, if not hired already. I guess those "likes" can be utilized to achieve a better job or salary, and that's about it.
I believe most of us fell at some point in this trap of "my work is better, why does mine have 10 likes and theirs 300?" Those are mostly people who fail to see the difference in styles,art,how it is put together or even the quality bar.Blaming it on artstation's algorithms or the fact that you probably need tits to be seen , or even the "random" factor is also another an excuse to avoid telling yourself that you are not good enough yet. I'm quite certain that most of the people who do 3d think their work is good enough to get them hired(even if they just learned how to bake normal maps),and they just need this chance to show it to the employer. You have to crack some eggs before you make the omelette.
Been there, done that. And the omelette
Motivation lies in defeat,at least for me though.I had less than 20 followers on artstation and 2 on Twitter. That's basically non-existent social media.My facebook consists of people non related to 3d. My latest artwork (basically just an empty subway hall, no props, no tits), got me 100 likes and more than tripled my artstation followers. It got 1000 views. I have no idea how these people reached me.
From my point of view and i mean no offence to anyone, if you get frustrated for not having enough likes, suck it up and tell yourself you need to get better. Being humble is the number one thing you need in life. You can achieve a very good fan base if you spend time on socializing and connecting, but then you should be working in public relations or marketing, and not the art industry.
as for only people already in the industry getting likes and attention, this awesome environment by Ivanna Liittschwager hit trending shortly after she posted it, she was a student at the time with not a huge following, and boom, next thing you know hired by sony santa monica. her work was clearly at an industry level quality, she posted it and some good shit happened. it was just another at bat and she came swingin' hard.
Similarly, it's not "likes" that will get you the job. You will get tons of "likes" and followers at the exact same time that you'll start getting job offers in your inbox.
It's almost as if quality and dedication mattered !
Others with a LOT more likes and followers often have trouble finding jobs.
It's really about knowing your audience.
I guess in the end it really comes down to what you want out of the experience. Rather ask yourself that once you have the job what more do you want going forward?
In that sense, your "likes" probably won't matter too much to you, though it gives validation to your audience.
And @Al@"Alex Javor" is spot on with his comparison, all the same it really does matter what audience your art/the way you've presented it caters too.
For instance there was this model of Cammy from a very well known and experienced artist with thousands of followers, which got an incredible amount of positive commendation on artstation, but was brutally butchered on kotaku with the top comment being
"Well guess who's not sleeping tonight."
Mind you the top trending picture on artstation was a shot of her underboob with nipple bandages, not the face and proportions that freaked out a large majority of people on reddit and kotaku.
Using the polycount logic of "you are only as good as your worst piece" this artwork with over 1900 likes should likely get this artist fired no?
Kinda depends on who's perspective you're looking from, and if the people behind that perspective have any influence on the artists future career.
So in reality it depends more on who's assessing what.
For instance a lot of artists on artstation could look past the issues that ruined the childhood perversions of so many people on kotaku.
Many of these artists were focusing on render quality and breakdowns, and being supportive of the fact that this was an artwork from a very well know artist they have followed for years.
And also that maybe that saying what you really feel might come across as rude and be taken the wrong way which might affect future collaborations? Who knows right?
To be honest, personally regardless of how I felt about it, I think what matters the most to me is that he had fun doing the work and hopefully some of the audience took away something positive from the experience.
But let that sink in for a moment 1900+ likes on artstation and several hundred thousand million anonymous people on the internet will never f** again to Cammy.
And that this was the piece which got the artist featured on kotaku.
I've seen a mix of both situations, likes and going viral getting the attention of recruiters, and getting work having no likes simply because you were there at the right time.
In fact, it really came down to timing in several cases.
Though I can't say that recruiting because a person is popular/viral has a net positive effect on the end product released in every case, or on the team dynamic for that matter.
Probably not something the artist cared about since they just want the job in a competitive market, but it shows a serious lack of competency on the part of the recruiter if that is all they are looking at.
Personally while I understand the importance of social media and keeping up with trends, its probably more important to not take it all out on your portfolio particularly when something that depends on multiple factors (getting work) doesn't quite work out the way you've expected.
Its like getting stood up on a date and blaming it on your choice of deodorant, even though the date never arrived/cared to get a whiff of it.
Especially in Games, VFX.
Back when I used to teach, I noticed a LOT of my students would want to make creatures, and dragons, and robot monsters holding space swords.. or weird lion headed creatures.
I used to ask them a simple question:
Name all the fantasy games that came out in the past year (they might be able to name one Blizzard Game, or Bethesda game...).
Cool, name me all the "realistic" games:
All 30x EA sports games
CoD's
Battlefields,
Tom Clancy's/Assassins Creeds
Realistic FPS's
Super Hero games
Even if your awesome looking Manticore thingy with a demonic corruption nano-tech robot arm got 20,000 likes, there are so few studios that would hire you based on that.
I don't think it only has to do with boobs n butts.
This is a wonderful piece by a wonderful artist with over 28,000 followers, and way more likes than I would ever get on any piece I'd post.
Based on this piece alone, what game could you actually hire her for? (There aren't many).
And I'm definitely not diminishing her skills or artistry in any way, but just wanted to show the disconnect there is between showing fundamental skills, and creating a cool looking piece that's currently trending.
It is a niche and there are artists that do only that like: https://www.artstation.com/gaelkerchy
He is also a great teacher by the way.
For the the fact that if you make creative and artistic works you probably won't land a job you are right and it's the fact that bothers me the most in 3d.
If you take any illustrators out there they focus on making artistic and creative works and they get tons of jobs offers because they are good.
That's how an artistic field should be me IMHO.
3d is just a medium like traditional sculpting or painting.
One don't usually follow the path of becoming and artist to end up doing one thing in loop everyday. One person choose to become an artist to express himself and emotion other people.
Of course this is my opinion and I'm not saying that you shouldn't know the technical part of 3d like retopo, topology etc.
There are 3d artist like https://www.artstation.com/zomtech and https://www.artstation.com/michael_black that focus on the artistic aspect of cg but I don't know where they fit job wise.
Here's the thing : it isn't. Of course in a vacuum it sounds like threedee is just like traditional sculpting - merely yet another way to express oneself. Except that it is not the case *at all* in the professional field (by that I mean : art production in games and movies). It is of course fantastic for a modeler to also be a great designer/illustrator but on the day to day job that's just almost never how things go, at least at medium and large studios. You get handed a design that you likely had zero input on, and the job consists of putting all your care and expertise into "making it sing". That is to say, perfectly transcribing it and even making it better than the sum of its parts thanks to a great knowledge of the medium.
The magic happens with teams in which all members understand their place and are genuinely happy about it (and there is indeed a *tremendous* amount of satisfaction to be had by being able to create fantastic cg pieces out of provided designs). And inversely, when modelers act as mere button pushers and concept artists don't really care about how things get later translated into threedee ... then everything becomes meh and everyone underperforms.
Now of course there are some niches in which a super-fast and efficient "3d guy" can have some input in art direction, but the reality of production mean that this is very rare for a whole bunch of practical reason (speed of iteration being the main one).
That's a bit of a side topic anyways, but something to keep in mind for everyone wanting to get into this field. If you want to design cool mecha robots for a living, shut down your computer for a year and focus on drawing them. You won't get "likes" as fast as if you were doing CG fanart of Evangelion (with tits !) ... but you might get that designer job at the end
So you don't necessarily needs to be a 2d artist ( illustrator, concept artists or whatever ) to work as a designer.
Also from what i see daily on the net 8 out of 10 2d artists are working freelance. It's hard to find them in a game/movie company unless it's a company focused on 2D stuff.
However my point was that with drawing in general, been an artistc field, to get clients to work with, you "just" need to be good, make good artworks that tell a story and brings up emotions and if you have your own unique style even better. It doesn't matter if you draw a pretty elf, a soldier or a complete fantasy scene with environment and characters. You will get clients from various industry, entertainment and non entertainment, simply because you are a good illustrator with a clear and distinctive style.
In 3D i don't see that. The majority of artworks out there are focused on techinical execution more than anything. Probably for the reasons that you mentioned regarding the work environment.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I mean, i enjoy producing model with good topology too. But this is just my opinion if i compare 3D as an artistic medium to another artistic medium like drawing, painting etc.
Yeah - these are extremely rare positions to secure. 99.99% of the aspiring "3d people" posting on AS will not get such positions - because not only are these spots rare, but it is also *extremely* rare to find a 3d guy with a design sense as developed as a dedicated concept artist - it simply is a matter of personal time investment, one just cannot get excellent at both (besides some exceptions of course). Also, at a game studio needing to get stuff done fast and efficiently I can assure you that "concepting in Fusion360" is not a thing. At all. That's why someone like Vitaly made the very clever choice of *not* doing game art, instead focusing on cinematic art/previz.
"The majority of artworks out there are focused on techinical execution more than anything."
Yup - and there's a very simple reason for that. To be hired at, say, a game studio working on a mainstream game production (that is to say : pbr rendering, bakes from highpoly, and so on) one needs to master all the technical facets of the job. It is extremely technical and does not leave any room for error. While extremely interesting topics in and of themselves, these do not leave any room for freeform exploration/editing on the fly. So naturally the folios of most if not all aspiring game artists will consist of highly technical execution, based mostly off existing concepts. Some may do their own, but then it makes the process even longer and one would argue it's not worth it - it can be downright exhausting. There lies the irony : the medium potentially allows to creating anything ... yet its most skilled experts naturally gravitate towards fan art and detailed machinery. There's nothing wrong with that of course, that's just pretty much the nature of it now.
I do believe it is an extremely important aspect of the job to keep in mind for anyone wanting to get into it now as it may lead to some frustration for those not prepared for it ...
Now on the other hand things are definitely different in the indie sphere. I am pretty sure that anyone who worked on 3d assets for, say, The Touryst, Untitled Goose Game, or Trove had an absolute blast doing so and were probably given quite a bit of artistic freedom.
I would go out on a limb, and say there are probably under 50 people in the world who do this.
My assumption was based by listening to other creature artists and reading job posting requirements for vfx studios.
It may easily fall under the character art category where you create both humans and animals.
It is certainly true that is a very specialized niche.
But hiring decisions especially in AAA are made by several people and requirements for jobs can change at any time.
I think it also has to do with employee retention.
From my experience, I did notice that when it came to hiring graduates, some companies prefer artists that aren't the conceptual sort, mainly because they don't have any work that could use their ability.
Add to this the financial incentive of hiring from a game dev school that has a game studios endorsement and you get an army of graduates with student portfolios to train as interns on the cheap.
Not to say they aren't good, but its easier to tell them that they have much to learn in order to retain them at a rate that makes business sense from a capitalist perspective.
Personally I feel that this is a narrow minded viewpoint since if you are indeed hiriing for the long term it makes a lot of sense to take someone who looks at art as more than just what is needed for production.
The creative types eventually left either because they were not given enough responsibility or rather the company just didn't value their ability enough to make it worth for them to stay on.
If the company did encourage their creativity, you may see an environment similar to what some IT companies foster.
They value innovation and provide the perks necessary to cultivate it.
https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/feb/11/is-googles-model-of-the-creative-workplace-the-future-of-the-office
Its like if the director of deadpool (the first movie) Tim Miller, who first and foremost is an artist, had applied at one of our run of the mill "hire a tool" game companies today, he'd probably have been rejected because he wasn't "Specialising".
But that wouldn't have stopped him from creating Blur Studio, and eventually directing Deadpool. Artists who know their worth always find a way to reach their potential provided they are willing to put in the work.
Is getting an industry job the best indicator of an artists success? Certainly not for an artist like Tim Miller, for them there is no ceiling to what is possible and most companies just do not provide the right environment to grow ones creativity.
The fact is that in the corporate world you need tools, basically people who are willing to stay after hours to please you and do exactly what you want. Some do find a way to balance their job and personal work, and for others its better to move on after being a while doing the same thing over and over.
And for the ones that remain, sometimes it really is all they need for the lifestyle they are satisfied with. It does not devalue them, but they are certainly a whole lot easier to retain.
There is also only so much 3D to go around, its not incorrect to assume that many seniors likely take too much on their plate because they just can't pass the torch either because of ego or a genuine lack of trust.
That an having to hold on to a position that would be the first to liquidate in a restructuring.
Its why the most prolific artists take to freelance, and if they have better business sense you get something like Blur studio or Keos Masons.
Not certain if the whole industry (especially companies which caters to shareholders more than artists) will adapt to this long term perspective, but there are studios that prioritise originality and creativity and need to raise the bar when it comes to their product and process.
"most companies just do not provide the right environment to grow ones creativity."
This is an interesting topic. Some studios genuinely try to do so and it really is great : having access to a free after hours life drawing class is amazing and I wish for everyone in this field to have the opportunity to experience that. That said at the end of the day and especially when times are rough, people will still be let go for a reason or another (could be for economic reasons, in which case the most juniors are let go ; or simply because someone is straight up underperforming. And in this case, being the most enthusiastic attendee to the free art classes isn't going to help one bit).
First and foremost the main thing to always keep in mind is that any paid job can be summed up as : "being paid to do something that someone either doesn't know how to do, or doesn't have the time to do". Once framed that way everything makes sense - all the way from studio execs, to movie directors, to game art grunts in the trenches. The question is just whether or not one enjoys doing so. If not, it's imho not up to the studio to provide more "opportunities", but rather up to the individual to steer ones career where one wants it to go. Now of course some studios do genuinely care for their workers - but it's just a bonus and not something to be taken from granted. It also doesn't take much to drastically change a studio culture. Some new person in charge, some new hot trend, and so on.
As for creativity :
"but there are studios that prioritise originality and creativity and need to raise the bar when it comes to their product and process."
I would argue the opposite : these studios do need to *lower* the bar in very clever and proactive ways. For instance by picking an art style that allows for editing on the fly and doesn't get assets stuck in a hundreds hours pipeline with no way to adjust things along the way "because it's been greenlit, can't change it now".
To add to the bit of
"most companies just do not provide the right environment to grow ones creativity.""
I must say that many employee's don't take advantage of the right environment, but I'm not sure if this is because of how busy everyone gets or that many employees simply lack the social skills and business savvy to be aware of opportunity.
Like not to say that everyone is like that, but I've seen cases where some are so convinced that the game they worked on belongs to them in some way and that is enough to satisfy the majority of their needs.
Even their friend circles are much the same personality type.
Again not that there's anything wrong with that but its the easiest persona to take advantage of.
About "lowering the bar", I would say its more along the lines of working smarter, in the sense that the company encourages resourcefulness and not every game they pump out year after year has to beholden to its brand value.
Then again, AAA game companies are in reality Marketing firms masquerading as technology firms.
Consider the budget for marketing, it overshadows development completely.
What I've never been able to understand is that if the majority of their revenue is from existing players (which more often then not is the case) why do they inflate their market budgets to attract new players that simply do not care?
Like I was at this one event where the art director of the studio was hyping about how great the company was (ironically he quit in like a week after), and every one in the room was like yeah we know that.
But when it comes to budgeting for the event, you realise the value of tax credits and the grant the company receives to "promote" hiring, and there is no transparency in that.
Its a practice often used in sales and insurance firms.
So while I'm not saying that people are bullshitting about just how good an artist they are, when you realise that mostly everyone has the skill to do the job, or can learn the skill on the job, or works on a very small part of the pipeline, when people obsess about portfolios being the only deciding factor its just downright absurd.
Like definitely push the art since the opportunities that arise go beyond what a job can give you, but it would be great if companies adjusted their development cycles to prioritise the lives of the employees rather than catering to the audiences overhyped whims to satisfy shareholders.
Some of these companies have 5+ games being worked yearly, with a sequel being developed the same time as its predecessor.
But all that revenue isn't translating to better compensation starting out or over the long term. The industry needs reform.
Its said that the industry is in need of seniors, but if you read the job description, I'm dead certain that there are available candidates at junior and mid level that can add value to the company,
And this should prevent these postings from being up for too long.
But when you hear from colleagues working internally that many of these postings are frivolous or rather they just don't have the inclination to take them down to make it appear that they are always hiring, it a shoddy way of operating and makes a company seem really unprofessional.
But why would game artists that have made it their life goal to get into XYZ company care about that?
Its such a thrill to get into a company, be abused and be unable to speak out because of your NDA.
Though ultimately as an artist up to you to find the best way to express yourself beyond what a job offers.
One Dragon (duplicated twice)
One Knight King
A crowd system for the wights (using a lot of practical FX)
One Giant.
At first glance, the entire series of 'Game of Thrones' had about 1 year worth of work for a single "Creature Artist" in a series that spanned about 8 years (I'm sure it was broken up a lot more than that).
Despite there being tens of thousands of portfolios for "Creature Artists", there really isn't much work for it.
Connections only matter once the quality bar is reached. No one recommends someone unless they think they can hit the quality bar. The most common way of making connections is by working with someone and at that point they've passed the quality bar for that particular place.
Thinking that connections are the most important factor is like thinking protein powder is what wins Olympic medals, not the years and years of training.
Not saying this is wrong, it just worked for that time and more from a marketing perspective than what could possibly have been great for the company in the long term.
In many cases this aspect is because their apparently top tier hire didn't have any incentive to stay on because there just wasn't work that matched their portfolio/ they weren't given the responsibility they ought to have had for several mostly business reasons.
Or even if their portfolio was "good" they lacked several skills that involved working with people.
From the marketing perspective it made sense at the time to ignore all this (soft skills + life experience).
Its comes with the corporate nature of the entertainment business.
In toronto for example, one major reason for this was the grant system that despite its total lack of transparency gave incentive to hiring from some groups, even if a quality level wasn't yet met.
Not to say there wasn't years of training after they were hired, but they certainly had a positive recommendation bolstered by the conditions of the grant.
Still from a marketing/branding perspective you have to say out loud "we hired the best because we are XYZ company!"
And its totally fair for many artists to assume that it really all came down to years and years of training, I mean why not you've put the work might as well promote that aspect of it, its good marketing for your own brand.
In my experience, most artists have been honest about the circumstances of their hiring, but strictly in private.
Now when it comes to hitting a quality bar, as an artist you should keep pushing your art, even if you don't get a job out of it. This is how truly passionate artists work and they are eventually known for it.
But several "artists" in games are just gamers, motivated not by art or techinical skill, but because its a big deal for them to be part of XYZ brand company who's games they and their friends play.
This also comes with the issues of social anxiety, awkwardness, lack of real world experience and business sense that comes with the territory, it is why its so easy to abuse.
But they are satisfied for the most part and honestly likely wouldn't be a better fit anywhere else.
Here's an application for ubisoft toronto back in 2010 when the studio first opened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYjWdnUqNik
Not sure what the person does now, or if she's even in the company, but giving an idea of the variety of approaches to applications they have taken over the years.
In Cghub there was exposure for great works, and the same with CGtalk, etc. If your work were great, you earned a Mention/trophy and a front page.
But right now, anyone with an amount of likes can get exposure for their "questionable pieces of art". It's what the algorithm mark as "trending", and it's very obvious.
The more friends you have voting you, the better. It's easy. So sadly, if you are an ace of 3D without friends/connections, and you don't get enough exposure, it's like you were dead, unknown. It's simple, if you have a AAA portfolio, you will land a job sooner or later, but calling as much doors as possible.
But bear in mind, that if you are unknown, you will be applying for job positions only. You won't receive job opportunities, nor new opportunities.
EXPOSURE is very very very important.
https://quillette.com/2018/08/21/my-unpopular-opinion-theres-too-many-mediocre-artists/
And almost nobody cares about "latest", so if you don't get enough likes, you will pass unnoticed (friends and connections are very important). It's sad, but it is a truth as big a castle.
Anyways, Artstation is another social media like instagram. It can be helped.
Like the one thing that certainly counts is timing and what a company considers good at a particular time based on a multitude of factors.
And that company doesn't need to follow that restriction, it does so because its profitable and any sales/marketing firm would do the same for the sake of the business.
I mean if you considered talent, portfolio and experience to be king, why is there so much poaching? Why is the retention rate so poor?
Why do you have situations like Mass Effect Andromeda? If the talent was there and everything depended on that, then we wouldn't be having the same fiasco with anthem.
Counter that with the success which is Jedi Knight Fallen Order. Are all the top tier artists working on that and the plebs managing anthem? Why is so much of the work outsourced at the cost of public funds?
What I'm trying to illustrate is that the very corporate nature of game development isn't really viable in the long term for every artist.
And I do understand that artists (especially trying to get their first job) are pretty powerless to do anything about it, but if they've made it their objective to get in at the cost of everything and get consumed in the competition then all the challenges that come with that are well deserved.
And I don't disagree with the fact that a portfolio can matter, but every artist has a different objective in the end.
Its why there is such a difference between a run of the mill this portfolio for this job artist and someone like Vitaly Bulgarov.
Not that everyone needs to be Vitaly, but constantly pushing the advice that a killer portfolio will get you the job without taking into account just how varied everyones experience getting work is, and the fact that once you're in you have to use glassdoor anonymously to speak your mind makes it pretty obvious that there needs to be reform.
My biggest frustration was not having any connections in the industry.My country has zero potential for 3d. But starting from polycount discussions and challenges, went into artstation challenges and then discord channels, i can say i've met, talked, connected with people and i had no idea at the beginning on how that could be possible. You gotta work with what you have.You cannot control everything, so start with the things you CAN.And whoever does not accept/understand this reality will be stuck.Also as previously said, making decent/good art will get you likes, followers etc.People see you. And as Pixelmasher said, if you keep doing this consistently, you will probably get a fan base out of nowhere.Rome was not built in a day, and some people have unrealistic expectations on how fast they should be progressing in connections and skill.
Also i accept the fact that one can have a friend or two in the industry that say a good word for them and maybe get the job instead of me, but that's everywhere in life. Some have a headstart, some have a better skillset, some have other assets. People who have it easier in life, do not try as hard as others and in the long run, the latter will prevail.
"Established artists" with followers, likes, etc. have all easy. When Artstation opened to the general public, and become a social media, all changed to worse.
If artstation were only for "curated" artworks, it would be different. The same happens in Steam with their huge amount of trash games. It's very hard to find the good games. Artstation is worse, you see drawings done by childs, without any sense of art, nor anatomy, nor color, nor anything.
If you want to land a job, you just need to showcase your portfolio. But i'm not talking about landing a job, and all that is obvious. I'm talking about the matter of this topic, and that's all.
I don't care about likes/comments, etc (i entered too late). but i see the huge importance behind this social media system.
BTW, the best artists are usually lonewolves, without many friends. Artstation might be cutting their passion for 3D, or worse, avoiding new artists to arise. There should be a quality option out there, a good alternative to Artstation. My two cents.
Getting swept by the flood is nothing new, nor specific to art. If you have a solid solution, this would benefit the entire capitalist system. All individuals are too insignificant and get lost in the masses of other people that have the same goal. All people who work in the industry have more experience, connections, and tools at their disposal. That doesn't mean that there is no room for new people. It's harsh, but this is the reality in every field, even if you just want to be a salesman.
EDIT: In the end it is just how you look at it. I'm basically a nobody, I haven't worked in the 3d industry yet, i have minimal connections and fan base, but my work is improving with every piece, and i can see how my quality impacts my connections, likes and visibility on artstation, without even having to do anything.Maybe my early work gets unnoticed, but the more i make the more followers i get the more visibility i get. The only condition being that i post my work, and it has consistent quality. Isn't this how this platform's supposed to work? From a nobody's point of view, it matches my expectations.
when I am looking to follow an artist (consuming media) I am looking for the value they are providing ME.
When I am posting my art/tutorials (creating media) I am looking for the ways I can maximize the value I am giving THEM.
everyone on any social media platform starts with zero followers. its an even playing field. how you use social, if you actively drive traffic to your profiles, consistently post new work etc is how you gain traction, over long periods of time.
literally sit down for 20-40 hours and research into how the different social platforms actually work in terms of algorithms and what types of content works best on each before complaining it's not working. this stuff takes time and investment to learn.
I don't consider anything a success or failure until I have been at it at least 5-10 years. most people (myself included) don't have the patience for this, especially when they are younger and think everyone else is an overnight success due the highlight reel people post on social media. Most people here have read this 100x already but I was working on my portfolio alone in my parents basement for 6 YEARS before i got my first jr environment artist job. 1-2 years of game design school is not enough for 99% of most people to be industry ready or even build a following/get noticed.
deep dive long ramble:
you say established artists have the advantage over newer artists.....of course. they have probably been on the platform for 5+ years and have huge gallery's filled with high quality art. its like compound interest in their effort over the years, it start slow but they will eventually accrue a large following as they gain a few followers each day. This process takes time, and consistency. Your first 10-20 portfolio posts will probably go unnoticed yes. but each one will get you a bit more attention. @DavidCruz had it right: most superfans will auto like anything the person they are a fan of posts. so look to build an army of super fans. how? see above. it's just brand, why do people go nuts for apple stuff and buy their new shit every year? brand. your personal brand is no different.
A lot of people look at peoples galleries with a lot of followers and assume that's all the work they ever posted. what they don't see is a lot of people remove work as they add new stuff over time, so in reality they have probably posted to their portfolio 2x as much as what is currently there.
its often like a graph that goes super low results for a long time then skyrockets upwards after a couple years of putting in work at least. creating a new profile, posting art and expecting results is just a recipe for feeling bad. its like new youtubers who post their first video and expect it to go viral and get disappointing when it only gets 50-100 views, when they should just be fuckin' stoked they made and put out a video, actually finishing something is a huge win. most people think success is a linear upwards graph, when in reality its usually flat for ages before finally ticking upwards in terms of success/results/income etc.
this is what success usually looks like based on my experience
here is my thought process in order of importance of how/why I follow someone. it's super over thinking it but a lot of new/student artists don't even think about a lot of this stuff i find.
1) their thumbnails are on point and initially grabbed my attention (thumbnails are SO important, and most student work has bad thumbnails that dont look interesting or even show what to expect, I just dont want to click it right off the bat). much like youtube/IG thumbnails are the key to getting peoples attention and cutting through the noise. having a badly framed shot of a prop in a black background or default painter hdri background that makes it hard to see just doesn't cut it.
2) their presentation on the first post i check out is nice and well though out, filled with information and usually multiple images/breakdowns, there is even a tool tip from artstation telling you when you create a gallery post that posts with multiple images tend to do 50%+ better or something like that. a lot of students create multiple posts of the same asset with a single image in each, usually to make their portfolio look more filled out. don't do this.
3) their gallery is filled with more than 1-2 posts and I am confident more awesome artwork will continue to flow into my feed consistently.
what's the point in following dead accounts? there are way too many 1 post wonders on artstation or people trying to do link building SEO with stolen artwork. Consistency earns respect.
4) Extra bonus points if they have tutorials or breakdowns that are super in depth and provide me with value, that's an easy follow for sure.
5) if they are in my niche aka lighting artists/environment artists/tutorial makers I am more likely to follow, I follow a bunch of concept and character artists but the ratio of the people I follow that is relevant to my "tribe" in my day job is vastly skewed to that. this comes down also to personal taste and subjective, what one person thinks is great art, others might not. for example I don't tend to follow anything anime related as it's just not appealing to me, doesn't mean it's bad art.
6) waaaaay down at the bottom of my list is if someone works somewhere cool and i might want to network with them in future, but I have also not followed a bunch of people from huge studios because their profiles didn't meet a bunch of the above criteria. but I'm sure if they are consistently posting work I will come across their profile again in future and end up following them anyways. It has happened a bunch of times. same for student portfolios I keep coming back to from the front page because the same person is constantly posting new work.
and most importantly of all: I NEVER consider the number of followers or likes someone has as a determining factor in if i am going to follow them and their work. if you are operating on that mindset of the amount of followers or likes somone has as a reflection of their worth, that's broken thinking. I will happily be someones first or 10th follower if they have a gallery full of awesome art, but i've rarely seen anyone with one of those not already have at least a couple 100 followers already.
But that clearly isn't the case, which is why OP made this post in the first place.
The direction artstation seems to be going is that of devaint art, well a bit better due to their Artstation Pro option which gives a bit of leeway on the algorithm.
Though its open to the public, anyone can join and post literally anything that to them is "art"
And I support that just like the next horny youtuber who clicks on a thumnail because "he's a simple man with simple tastes"
Another aspect that this thread ought to distinguish between (if it hasn't already) is the stark difference in hiring of artists looking for their first job working out of obscurity, and established artists getting offers/being poached.
Since its generally accepted that there is no difference between these two groups when it comes to hiring because the only thing that seperates them is the quality of their portfolio (which i absolutely know is not the case) when it comes to artstation I see a whole lot of differences.
For one the "you are only as good as your worst piece" moniker is totally out of the window, not like the more confident artists really cared that much about that anyway.
The other is whether you actually have an army of recruiters opening artstation at work looking to poach fresh talent (and the word fresh is important) after every other possibility is exhausted.
For instance it comes to actual recruiting, there's outsourcing, internal hiring, hiring past employees, hiring artists with more experience, poaching talent from other companies, hiring from schools for tax incentives, hiring seniors for internships, creating apprenticeships for fresh graduates usually in that order.
So in my opinion, if you actually have a case where a recruiter with limited video game hiring experience (and this is common) is going around contacting artists with the most likes, that is incompetency at its finest.
And to say that every company is totally competent in the process is absurd given the poor retention rate and the abysmal failures of so many games of companies that keep insisting that they are the greatest in the world despite having what they seem convinced is the best talent.
Fortunately as artists, to avoid this minefield, there are several avenues to express yourself, so it isn't absolutely necessary to seek validation in a job unless you absolutely need to/need the experience.
Now when it comes to companies and the way they go about evaluating candidates keeping in mind what's best for their business, this is one industry where there is very little transparency after the fact, meaning once you're laid off, fired, molested, sexually harassed there is very little redressal for fear of being blacklisted.
That doesn't seem very nice in my opinion regardless of the number of likes you gain on artstation.
Also it seems to be an industry run entirely on speculation which is why it seems so similar to real estate/marketing/sales rather than a place where the individual behind the art is actually valued.