I forgive programmers making more money since their field is nothing but dudes. Have you seen these Computer Science schools? There's more sausage there than at a Polish meat festival.
Can I just come over there and punch you?
It's true programming is mostly a male field, but that is no reason as to why they make the money they do. I've done both the art and the programming and I find programming slightly easier for my brain to work with. Both professions require the use of different parts of the brain and as such require different skill sets which some are more developed in.
Bad programming I would argue still shows through bugs, performance hang-ups (could be the fault of someone putting in too much artwork also) and other issues that manifest themselves.
Good code generally requires a design as to how the code is going to be setup and how classes will interact with each other. Designing the code is not always easy to do with complex software as there could be so much to wrap your head around just to understand and see potential issues within the design.
yes, programming is a lot of reading about the environment you're going to program in, to make things work correctly, made worse, because its constantly changing.
At least they're contacting all the artists and asking them if they can use their art, instead of just stealing it, reproducing it with their own artists, and ripping off people's ideas. Sucks they're not offering some monies, but i think it presents some opportunities that may be missed.
The big catch would be if they'd be credited, and have the theme named "Artist Name" instead of "Wacky Cool punky!"
I call bullshit on bad programmer being able to get the same end result as a good programmer if given enough time. Programming is about problem solving and solutions. Some minds simply don't think the same way as others and as such some solutions can be hard or impossible to find by some.
Ouch, bringing the agression, huh MachineMinded?
Yes, programming is all about problem solving. You start with a defined solution, and then you figure out how to reach that solution, using the tools and syntax at hand. However, there is never any one method to reach that solution. In theory, there are an infinite number of methods for reaching any given solution. Given that, it is reasonable to assume that some of those methods are going to be more efficient or appropriate.
The defined solution may not change, but the methods can diverge wildly depending on the programmer. If you give a class of programmer a specific solution, they will all try to implement that same solution. But every one of them will do it differently. Some will use less memory, some will actually finish it by using less code, some of them may orgaznize their classes better than others. They will all reach the same solution, but the variable quality of their efforts will differ noticeably.
It's true that some people aren't cut out for programming. But this is less a lack of talent than it is simply having an illogical approach to life. This speaks to the comment made about programmers being predominantly male. Men generally approach logic and reasoning in a way that is conducive to programming. This doesn't mean that it is impossible for those who are less gifted in cognitive reasoning. Programming is defined by mathematics and strict rules. Anyone who is able to learn the rules can usually apply them.
Art is not defined by strict rules. The generalities that define the appeal of art to various audiences are extremely abstract and subjective. You can only deal with trends and styles, there are no hard and fast rules. Art is as diverse and fluid as the human experience. (and as nebulous and random as well) Being able to tap into this, and the dexterity to implement it effectively, is a talent that many people simply don't have. No amount of practice, training, or instruction can make up for an instinctual desire to express, and create.
There are less programmers than artists so programmers get paid more since there is also a higher demand for them. Most people can't learn to program or script. Html is scripting and it's easy to learn compared to other things like javascript. Also programming is like writing a book, just because someone can in theory learn the syntax of C for example doesn't mean they can apply that knowledge and make something useful. For most people learning this information means nothing, it's boring and confusing, for a programmer, it allows them to create things,
Artsyfartsy most jobs even if you are entry level want you to be GOD, yes it's stupid and unfair but that's what they want. Ever see and entry level job for graphic design wanting two years experience, it's the same with internships except you usually don't get paid.
Google CEOS are aholes for asking professional artists to donate their time to them, so they can make money. If they really wanted to offer exposure why didn't they offer it to starving artists or university students so they can benefit from the exposure, but they still should be paid a percentage of the money their work makes google. They are just being cheap bastards, kind of like Walmart treats their employees.
Has it ever occurred to you that there are more male programmers than female programmers because there is discrimination against them? I think the notion that male have better reasoning for programing is silly. Yes some people have their brains wired in such a way that makes programming easy, but it has nothing to do with their gender. I have met plenty of good programmers that are woman and they face a shit load of discrimination when they try and get programming jobs.
In the game biz, I've met more women programmers, designers and managers than cg artists so far. gameart is a sausage fest! (granted all my experience is from Mythic)
MTV gets most of it's visuals for free. Just the name of the game: free art = exposure.
Maybe it doesn't suit some people, but it does suit up and coming artists.
Google has always made wise business decisions and this is just another one of them. Several really famous artists have contributed to this project and it's done them a lot of good. The NYT article just puts a negative slant on the whole thing, when really, it's mostly good. I mean, the browser / service is free, right?
Hawken : ???
Yeah the browser and search engine are free for use, BUT they are making millions off them!! Ads! Ads! Licensing!
From their own statement :
Google is a business. The revenue the company generates is derived from offering its search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on Google and on other sites across the web.
I think the problem is, Google is still kindof seen as the internet "underdog" - I remember a time when searching stuff on Google was the new, obscure and cool thing compared to YahooSearch, Altavista and Lycos (over in France). Plus, Google applications (Gmail, iGoogle, GoogleMaps, you name them) all have that minimalist look that is usually associated with open source stuff. I think the ugly Microsoft look (big fat round ribbon and buttons, heavy UIs, crazy hotmail layout, or at least the old one) is being associated to evil corporate.
In short : Everybody would be pissed if MS asked artists to create their new logo for free. But when Google does so it's accepted because "oh Google is free you know". Same with Apple. Fanboys would be super enthusiastic to work for them for nothing. And that's bullshit.
So yeah I think it's a dick move from Google. Instead of trying to get art for free, I'd love to see them focus on giving me a way to remove the 3 (3!!!!) GoogleUpdate processes running in the background of my work machine. They are making creation tools ... run slower!
Programmers get paid more because they have "real" degrees. =D
Also they are the ones working 20 hour days in crunch to impliment retarded last minute features, or fix bugs created by retarded last minute features, not the artists. I will surely take a little less money, if it means at the end of the day i'm never the one staying up to 4am making sure the build is stable.
A friend of mine was in the same boat as your 'friend' while working on some projects for some self-important fraud who also happens to be the director of a school at the university.
Tell your 'friend' to get out of that shitty deal now.
If we relate this a little more to our field:
What would you do if someone contacted you to make a character model for halo4/zelda/gta5/random_a_title for free? Would you do it?
That video I posted earlier pretty much summed up my first freelance experience. Luckily enough I got paid 1/2 of what was promised so I didn't starve, lol Learned a good lesson though, "get everything in writing".
I don't think I would like to work for free, I've got bills to pay.
As to the whole programmers pay vs. artists pay issue from what I've seen good programmers get paid well and bad ones don't, same for artists.
Somethings are fine to do for free, and somethings are not.
If someone contacted me to create a model for them, I'd a) not be interested, but if I was then b)I'd charge them a chunk of cash. That's new art and would take me time.
I have however been contacted on several occasions by people who wanted to use one of my photographs for magazines or band CDs - always with no monetary reimbursment. I've already taken the photo so no extra work is involved, and THESE PEOPLE (unlike Google) don't necessarily have the cash.
For the people who have asked to use my photos not one has said "We can't offer money but think of the exposure!!11one", they've just stroked my ego by saying "We like that, can we please use it?"
Programmers get paid more because they have "real" degrees. =D
Also they are the ones working 20 hour days in crunch to impliment retarded last minute features, or fix bugs created by retarded last minute features, not the artists. I will surely take a little less money, if it means at the end of the day i'm never the one staying up to 4am making sure the build is stable.
MTV gets most of it's visuals for free. Just the name of the game: free art = exposure.
Maybe it doesn't suit some people, but it does suit up and coming artists.
Google has always made wise business decisions and this is just another one of them. Several really famous artists have contributed to this project and it's done them a lot of good. The NYT article just puts a negative slant on the whole thing, when really, it's mostly good. I mean, the browser / service is free, right?
What's the point of exposure if all they do is continue to ask for hand outs from artists? If you can continually get the artwork for free they're not going to pay for it and all the exposure in the world doesn't mean squat if that's the common practice. As a professional community we need to stand against this type of thing to protect our own interests.
Replies
Can I just come over there and punch you?
It's true programming is mostly a male field, but that is no reason as to why they make the money they do. I've done both the art and the programming and I find programming slightly easier for my brain to work with. Both professions require the use of different parts of the brain and as such require different skill sets which some are more developed in.
Bad programming I would argue still shows through bugs, performance hang-ups (could be the fault of someone putting in too much artwork also) and other issues that manifest themselves.
Good code generally requires a design as to how the code is going to be setup and how classes will interact with each other. Designing the code is not always easy to do with complex software as there could be so much to wrap your head around just to understand and see potential issues within the design.
At least they're contacting all the artists and asking them if they can use their art, instead of just stealing it, reproducing it with their own artists, and ripping off people's ideas. Sucks they're not offering some monies, but i think it presents some opportunities that may be missed.
The big catch would be if they'd be credited, and have the theme named "Artist Name" instead of "Wacky Cool punky!"
Ouch, bringing the agression, huh MachineMinded?
Yes, programming is all about problem solving. You start with a defined solution, and then you figure out how to reach that solution, using the tools and syntax at hand. However, there is never any one method to reach that solution. In theory, there are an infinite number of methods for reaching any given solution. Given that, it is reasonable to assume that some of those methods are going to be more efficient or appropriate.
The defined solution may not change, but the methods can diverge wildly depending on the programmer. If you give a class of programmer a specific solution, they will all try to implement that same solution. But every one of them will do it differently. Some will use less memory, some will actually finish it by using less code, some of them may orgaznize their classes better than others. They will all reach the same solution, but the variable quality of their efforts will differ noticeably.
It's true that some people aren't cut out for programming. But this is less a lack of talent than it is simply having an illogical approach to life. This speaks to the comment made about programmers being predominantly male. Men generally approach logic and reasoning in a way that is conducive to programming. This doesn't mean that it is impossible for those who are less gifted in cognitive reasoning. Programming is defined by mathematics and strict rules. Anyone who is able to learn the rules can usually apply them.
Art is not defined by strict rules. The generalities that define the appeal of art to various audiences are extremely abstract and subjective. You can only deal with trends and styles, there are no hard and fast rules. Art is as diverse and fluid as the human experience. (and as nebulous and random as well) Being able to tap into this, and the dexterity to implement it effectively, is a talent that many people simply don't have. No amount of practice, training, or instruction can make up for an instinctual desire to express, and create.
Artsyfartsy most jobs even if you are entry level want you to be GOD, yes it's stupid and unfair but that's what they want. Ever see and entry level job for graphic design wanting two years experience, it's the same with internships except you usually don't get paid.
Google CEOS are aholes for asking professional artists to donate their time to them, so they can make money. If they really wanted to offer exposure why didn't they offer it to starving artists or university students so they can benefit from the exposure, but they still should be paid a percentage of the money their work makes google. They are just being cheap bastards, kind of like Walmart treats their employees.
Has it ever occurred to you that there are more male programmers than female programmers because there is discrimination against them? I think the notion that male have better reasoning for programing is silly. Yes some people have their brains wired in such a way that makes programming easy, but it has nothing to do with their gender. I have met plenty of good programmers that are woman and they face a shit load of discrimination when they try and get programming jobs.
Maybe it doesn't suit some people, but it does suit up and coming artists.
Google has always made wise business decisions and this is just another one of them. Several really famous artists have contributed to this project and it's done them a lot of good. The NYT article just puts a negative slant on the whole thing, when really, it's mostly good. I mean, the browser / service is free, right?
Yeah the browser and search engine are free for use, BUT they are making millions off them!! Ads! Ads! Licensing!
From their own statement :
I think the problem is, Google is still kindof seen as the internet "underdog" - I remember a time when searching stuff on Google was the new, obscure and cool thing compared to YahooSearch, Altavista and Lycos (over in France). Plus, Google applications (Gmail, iGoogle, GoogleMaps, you name them) all have that minimalist look that is usually associated with open source stuff. I think the ugly Microsoft look (big fat round ribbon and buttons, heavy UIs, crazy hotmail layout, or at least the old one) is being associated to evil corporate.
In short : Everybody would be pissed if MS asked artists to create their new logo for free. But when Google does so it's accepted because "oh Google is free you know". Same with Apple. Fanboys would be super enthusiastic to work for them for nothing. And that's bullshit.
So yeah I think it's a dick move from Google. Instead of trying to get art for free, I'd love to see them focus on giving me a way to remove the 3 (3!!!!) GoogleUpdate processes running in the background of my work machine. They are making creation tools ... run slower!
Also they are the ones working 20 hour days in crunch to impliment retarded last minute features, or fix bugs created by retarded last minute features, not the artists. I will surely take a little less money, if it means at the end of the day i'm never the one staying up to 4am making sure the build is stable.
lol, dully noted!
What would you do if someone contacted you to make a character model for halo4/zelda/gta5/random_a_title for free? Would you do it?
I don't think I would like to work for free, I've got bills to pay.
As to the whole programmers pay vs. artists pay issue from what I've seen good programmers get paid well and bad ones don't, same for artists.
If someone contacted me to create a model for them, I'd a) not be interested, but if I was then b)I'd charge them a chunk of cash. That's new art and would take me time.
I have however been contacted on several occasions by people who wanted to use one of my photographs for magazines or band CDs - always with no monetary reimbursment. I've already taken the photo so no extra work is involved, and THESE PEOPLE (unlike Google) don't necessarily have the cash.
For the people who have asked to use my photos not one has said "We can't offer money but think of the exposure!!11one", they've just stroked my ego by saying "We like that, can we please use it?"
/coffee spit!
What's the point of exposure if all they do is continue to ask for hand outs from artists? If you can continually get the artwork for free they're not going to pay for it and all the exposure in the world doesn't mean squat if that's the common practice. As a professional community we need to stand against this type of thing to protect our own interests.