That work you posted ZacD, is called "ciencia y caridad", "Science and Charity". Is a common work we study at our schools hehe, and was criticized by the terrible disproportions in the whole painting (like the size of the bed, the hand of the ill woman, etc. etc.) plus composition errors.
The are also perspective mistakes... like the one in the man... "his father".
If i remember well, the painting was for a contest in a exposition in Madrid and apart form this and a few ones, he opted for what i think is a bad style. He started painting very well, but he ended his days painting like a child... weird, maybe due to the problems he had with proportions and perception of space. He was very criticized in that aspect, an example:
Here in spain we have a term to call bad artists: "brocha gorda"
An astonishing art... ¬¬
You choose, to paint with skillz, or not. I rather prefer to paint better.
And of course, if you want to model 3d very well, you need to see the small details. without an accurate perception of space, you won't do great models or paintings, and that's a reality.
Don't misunderstand what is a production concept, than a concept done to make an idea, a fast sketch to make an idea, better said. Also, i think deadlines are not meant for this disccussion hehe. Concept art for the production of a 3d model is quite simple... and you don't need to make an illustration, who says that ¬¬?. In less than 20 min you can have done a character with perspective views of back and front (pencil work, 100% readable).
Heh.. i wonder what's this.. give this to a modeller and let's hear his screams!, what can do a modeller with this disaster? the information about the design is ZERO, The author call it SOMETHING... LOL
In Game Art, you CAN'T give to a modeller a poor concept. IT MUST BE CLEAR and EASY TO "READ". give or take.
BTW.. a pencil work is done fastest than a crappy photoshop work with ugly brushes. Ugly sketches, very dirty, are not very suitable for game art, and all disciplines of art where production is the goal. I would be bery ungry in a team with people who pass me a drawing i don't understand... that would be like to do the 90% of work they didn't finished. Bad team mates.
Could you model the tank in the example pic?
A part of the credits should be for you if yes... because you complete the "idea". Blurry drawings without definition are not good.
For true and good concepts check out massive black: http://www.massiveblack.com/MBwebolution/conceptart/
You can read perfectly all the form/volumes... precise ilustrations.. quality in comparison.
cough cough
Some of the images displayed below are masterpieces of abstract art, created by great artists. The rest were painted by an ape. Can you tell which is which?
Are you a monkey or a human? LOL
Sorry for the bad joke and forget my bad english hehe.
I kinda rushed that image, so forgive the white space. The three paintings all look pretty similarly detailed when you shrink them down. But when you blow them up, all three of them have totally different levels of detail and refinement. I used a rembrandt instead of the picasso because I have a lot of his paintings on my HD (probably my favorite of the old masters) and the picasso example was really badly compressed.
When you localize areas of a painting you can see just how little detail some of them look, even the ones that look really highly detailed. The girl's faces in your example are very detailed and very painstakingly blended. Their hair is less so and this gives the hair more texture. The plants in the background are really little more than flicks of the brush. The pot is similarly abstracted.
The Sargent painting - while not very detailed when blown up - looks just as detailed when you shrink it down. More importantly, tho, is the fact that when you look at it that way you can see just how subtle the lighting actually is. The way that her sleeve is somewhat sheer, the way the bag now has a well defined structure. It looks haphazard at full size, but there's really a lot of structure there.
The Rembrandt is somewhere between the two. He suggests a lot of his forms, but the faces are usually pretty detailed. His later work - this being one of them - were more rough, but also more elegant and efficient. You can tell he was confident as hell, and you can see it in Sargent's piece as well.
Point is that just because something looks rougher, it's not necessarily "abstract" in the way you mean it to be. They just aren't refining their work any more than they feel the need to. They stop when they feel right about it, like all painters.
As far as concept art goes, it's not even really meant to be shown. It's idea generation, and it's rough because they have to do tons of them. That example posted by MagicSugar isn't meant to be super detailed or finished. It's meant to suggest some possible detail and the basic overall shape and scale of the tank and was probably painted in an hour or so.
I'm more towards to refinement and definition , to realism, it's a personal taste that is quite asked nowadays in 3d game art (the trend is realism).
But talking about art for production, you cannot give a concept with a blurry idea you can only see. The artist must express himself clearly to others in the team. That's the point.
Would you play a game with a rough aspect? with "unfinished art"? :P
Yeah, but that's FINISHED concept art. You don't just sit down and crank out one perfect concept. If you need a concept for a creature, you don't just do one, you do dozens and dozens of little doodles and ideas and sketches and crap and then you take bits and pieces of that and combine them or vary them or do something else and eventually your lead to an idea that works for you as a design, and THEN you can start doing some more detailed pieces and THEN you do the finished concepts and orthos and whatever else you need.
And since when did we go from traditional art to concept art?
First concept art is used for mood, color, style, and is normally rough, no one needs to know the exact form of the left knee pad in early production. As the game is fleshed out (backstory, ideas, levels, other planning) so is the concept art.
Would you play a game with a rough aspect? with "unfinished art"? :P
Team Fortress 2 comes very close to this; the environments aren't very detailed for a modern game and it has broad, visible brush strokes. Characters, on the other hand are sharp and detailed. The result is that your eye is drawn towards the important things. Mirror's Edge is another example... Gears and UT3 are the exact opposite, and while they're very impressive, I wouldn't call them aesthetically appealing.
Personally, I don't think you can say that more brush strokes equal more quality. It all dependson the purpose of your picture. For the living room, where I'd stare at it all day, I'd prefer a Bourguereau with its perfection, but in any place where I wouldn't have the time to examine it all day long, a Sargent fits better. I recently had to study the works of Alphonse Mucha for the Comicon challenge. Analysing it closely, it became clear that there wasn't a hint of laziness about the pieces, but every detail that was left out, was left out on purpose. In the end, his works were absolutely masterful at guiding your attention to specific points in the picture (as was necessary, them being posters and advertisements). For example, he often only drew vegetation at waist level and above and more contrast the higher up in the picture you got; because who wants your attention to go to the feet?
Then there are guys who deliberately just draw badly, and those are poor artists who will be forgotten at one point.
Really, TF2 unfinished art? I thought the art direction of TF2 was f*cking off the charts: http://kotaku.com/5343037/how-team-fortress-2-maps-are-made
I remember the first time i heard the music that plays in that video on the load screen. Instead of going into the game i just kicked back, sipped my beer, and thought about how bitchen the entire TF2 package was. TF2's about as classy as FPS's get (get it? TF2 has classes, har har!).
Would you play a game with a rough aspect? with "unfinished art"? :P
I WOULD HAVE SEX WITH A GAME LIKE THAT.(and so would other people, hell look at okami's success.)
And besides it is not unfinished art. If it was would craig mullins be so successful in industry today?
Anwyays, im just curious, what do you think of xhaoming wu, or zhang lu.
Both of these images have been painstakingly rendered, and this so called blurriness is completly intentional.
To me these are some of my favorite works of art, because the edge control is valued much more highly than photo like sharpness. They both use a value range, and edge control that looses form, in a way to exxagerate other more important forms. But it doesnt mean the pictures are unreadable at all.
One of the main advantages of an illustrator over a photographer is that they can choose to ommit or include any detail that they want. Which is kind of amusing as good photographers are only good because the need to pay attention to how much detail is in the shot and deal with it in a positive way, eg blurring out that bg detail.
And besides, just because you like crystal clear details, doesnt mean you can just dissmiss all other art, that is fucking ignorant.
I cant stand clean american inked work, yet i can still see how much skill, time and practice that goes into it. I respect it as an art form.
Meh, you can't compare a master to the hacks in schools that can't paint details. Most of the master knew how to do photo realistic work, they were forced to do so when they were trained, unlike what you find in most schools today. Picasso could do it all, he just chose to do certain things a certain way because he liked it. The same can be said of Rembrant, Sargent, Matisse, Dali who's work was hated at his time but it's just amazing how he did things.
At schools being able to draw in a realistic fashion is often looked down on by professors. To them it's not interesting, of course most of the ones with this opinion can't do it. That's just the nature of the beast. To make matter worse you get graded on what they determine to be your talent to be. In other words if you have great skill they expect more from you than they would from someone that can't draw as precise as you can because the professor thinks you are not giving it your all if your work is lacking in other areas. So if your drawings are precise but lack proper shading the professor is going to think you suck. It's as simple as that. Art classes are very subjective so you just have to deal with that. Most fine artist professor I meet looked down on commercial art, and computer art isn't art. Anyway just make the most of your class, if you are not good at shading and composition, work to improve that and don't worry about how unfair things seem. That's harder said than done though.
Really, TF2 unfinished art? I thought the art direction of TF2 was f*cking off the charts.
My point exactly! But Blaizer calls any abstractification 'unfinished'. For example, the game doesn't have wood grains. Sand is just a stretch of orange. Hair is just a blob of brown and stubble is a blob of grey. Those are all abstractifications - the game is more Sargent than Bourguereau - but it is all the better for it!
I'm not dismissing any work.. i just said i don't like that kind of blurry drawings, i hate them beacuse i don't appreciate a shit hehe. It's a matter of tastes, i just have my preferences , heh open mind you say... why do you play some games and not others? it's the same.
TF2 concepts are very detailed, not blurry... with precission strokes. And in the majority of Craig Mullins works i saw, you can see perfectly what it's painted. The paintings are done fast, but what we see is enough readable.
To paint like we were aplying a gaussian blur in photoshop... it's not good for me. my eyes get disturbed!
In this painting i only see a bunch of bad strokes, bad proportions... the chin is unreadable and the hand the same... and where in the hell are the eye brows? is she a monster?, folds, where? did you appreciate that front of her head?. Sugestive paintings are not for me, you may love them, but not me. I believe they can hide a lack of ability. Imho, i think that to be a "dirty artist" it's not good, you can't be stucked in that kind of "art".
Don't get pissed off because i don't like what you like hehe.
In Art, you can see a work, and you may say yourself: "great! fantastic! love it!" and if results that it was painted by a monkey... then, what happens? you have a monkey level of taste=? Humans should be more refined and smart lol
I just don't like that dirty style, but instead of that, i love the style of realism, good perspectives/proportions/colors. Quality art over poor art, just that, preferences.
Another example, talking about asiatic artists, chen shu fen.
The style is quite nice for me and shows what i think is beauty, and the artist usually do the female models from his head... and not from a girl posing. that's the difference of understanding reality (perspective/anatomy/volumes/forms) than just simplily copying what we are looking at. Studying perspective/anatomy is VERY important (you must see clearly in you head, what you want to paint), and that is because i always advice: focus first on the basic and learn very well the theory, then, practice 4 hours per day (till you reach the famous 10000 hours haha).
Another example, in manga or comics, they don't have references to draw a picture. With a few lines, strokes, they represent the volumes with precission, brain power.
I think i repeated myself enough haha, my advice was given
Follow the path you like the most, and train all the days. Perspective Theory/anatomy is very easy to learn, and if you put in practice all that knowledge, your works will be better, no doubt.
trust me man, i value the fundementals more than anyone. But one of those fundementals that i think should be respected as highly as the rest is the ability to use edge control.
Perhaps you need to question the goals of a painting, in the case of the painting i showed above, i think it was a study of edge control, and focus. There is alot more subtelty in there if you appreciate the image as a whole.
It almost seems like you have got is stuck in your head that loosing edges should be avoided at all costs. Almost like a little kid that decides he doesnt like something before he has even tasted it.
I believe they can hide a lack of ability. Imho, i think that to be a "dirty artist" it's not good, you can't be stucked in that kind of "art".
Don't get pissed off because i don't like what you like hehe.
People wouldn`t get pissed off with you, if only you cut this shit out. This type of comment render your argumentative opinions weak, if not laughable. Just state your opinion without belittling others.
So anyway... traditional art is the king shit, from draftsmen to surrealist... study it all.
Blaming Sargent in lack of anatomy knowledge and calling his paintings dirty just because he didn't choose to render everything to death is ridiculous.
i think a lot of people are confusing abstract with rough
there are artist that can define shapes using a few lines but it is recognizable and everyone knows what it's supposed to be. But there are also artists that just poop lines on a canvas not knowing what it's supposed to be even when it's done (could be a good method to come up with a concept)
but that first kind do know their basics its just roughly visualized
Muzz, i know, for that reason i commented massive black. But understand, that the work posted as example is not his best work and not a good reference to follow, at least for me. that's all. I talked a few times about concepts for production, and concepts to make ideas (sketchs better said)... so why the hell do you talk me about goals and all what you said? :S Man, if you want to show an idea... you don't need to refine details... did i say the opposite? :poly118:
Hey firestarter, don't start a fire heh, don't misunderstand things because you get pissed off when someone don't share your tastes, ya know, tastes are tastes... and remember that i talked about A work... one painting, a style of doing things posted as example. Don't get things out of context please , do you read well? need glasses? don't piss me off now, damn.
I put it in big size beacuse you seem to don't understand it, and you ended misunderstanding things a lot, like Sandro did aswell.
But take in consideration that if you only show a few works in your 2d portfolio, and all are blurry... it's normal to think: "maybe he has not enough skillz and he/she only can do that in that style". And that's the reason of why we perfectly can believe they can hide a lack of ability if we see a dirty style.
Remember that the quality of an artist (2D) is measured first with his pencil stroke. That says almost all. His/her ability to show forms with a few lines is what makes him/her great. And, i repeat again, it's because of that reason why perspective and anatomy understanding is so important.
A person with a good perception, a good trained brain, don't really need to use fat brushes unless if he/she loves them, and his/her style is commonly clear an refined, smart. Just see the massive black work.. the artists have dirty and clean drawings aswell.
I'm customed to do fast sketchs when i want to model something, and i don't make blurry concepts because i don't like them, a few strokes and i have a clear drawing (like the ones japanese animators do, simple and easy to read). Dirty concepts you only understand? no thanks, that's a bad custom.
This discussion makes me to talk about that i'm seeing a lot noobzz starting the house from the roof nowadays. Like some artists who start learning 3d from Zbrush. when they are asked to do a 3d model... they can't figure it out, and as result, we see a lot of people asking in forums elemental things about polygonal modelling/subdiv techniques.
What makes me to laugh is to see like some ppl believe they did an uber art piece... when they did a shit (with pardon). Arrogant Ego-maniacs at art-schools are the worse, and examples can be seen in forums commonly, when they receive critique and they don't accept it because they think they did a great work ¬¬
And stop fucking with nonsenses when all this is merely subjetive, just compare a WORK against a work. Quality art with poor art. I have my preferences, you have your preferences, what do you don't understand?
Chill out Blaizer, I know you're a cool dude but you don't need such lengthy posts to justify your tastes. Writing so much about what you like and dislike tends to make you look as if you believe there is only one way one should paint/render things, either for production or just for fine art. I think you are being a bit emotional on this!
You don't want to play Love and that's fine, but you sound as if you genuinely believe no one should find it attractive at all - that kindof make you sound like a douche, really
For me, the style is super ugly, like experimental.
< bad english or not, this comes out as very, hmmmm, dumb. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's definately what you wrote hehe.
Remember that the quality of an artist (2D) is measured first with his pencil stroke. That says almost all. His/her ability to show forms with a few lines is what makes him/her great. And, i repeat again, it's because of that reason why perspective and anatomy understanding is so important.
< again, that's your opinion, but certainly not the (as in, THE) truth. Why do you think this has to be true ? Someone told you that and you just took it for granted ? Open mind dude, open mind. And it's funny too. If you replace "pencil" by "paintbrush" and "line" by "stroke" in your quote, you just pretty much described a Sargent painting heheh OWNED
yeah, i know, but i hate to see how others put words in my mouth i didn't say, misunderstanding all because they don't consider dirty a painting. Emotional, heh, surely, i'm drawing since i was born, and i love to draw haha.
Pior about the artist's pencil stroke, it's not an opinion, is a reality you may want to see or not. If you read manga, you can see how good can be an artist compared to other mangaka. Since i was child, i was teached that, and in almost all Art universities here, they put you an small exam to examine your level of perception of space. "Pencil, paper, and show us how good you are".
If you replace pencil with paintbrush you don't get the same...
Yeah, thanks pior for bringing a bit of sanity back.
Blaizer, man, yeah i know what you mean about putting words in your mouth, but you were also doing the same to everyone else .
Everyone agrees that clean concept work is better for production, but i wasnt arguing that, i was just trying to say that there is value to what you call dirty, and unskilled.
Lets wipe the slate clean and make some freaking art!
Sugestive paintings are not for me, you may love them, but not me. I believe they can hide a lack of ability. Imho, i think that to be a "dirty artist" it's not good, you can't be stucked in that kind of "art".
It's a possibility, not an affirmation, and i say "they" because i'm talking about a style. Seeing a lack of proportions, perspective.. is normal to think so.
Muzz yeah and then again, it depends on the production. If a team works well from "dirty" stuff and produces quality art and or assets, there is no point in polishing things to an uberclean state. It worries me a little when I hear artists say that some stuff has to be done one way more than another (read: I feel like kicking some heads sometimes hehe).
There is always cool, unexpected things to do. To me the best art teams are the ones working their own way, instead of going for a minutely broken down freelance kind of pipeline where everything has to be approved (often by someone not even working on the asset itself). If a talented modeler can work from a loose concept painting instead of using painfully rendered, lifeless ortho sheets, it's for the best!
To take a japanese example : Yoshii Shinkawa on MGS. Very loose expressive stroke, very rich and suggestive, but "dirty". How did they translate that to 3D? They made clay models to test and solve the shapes! Then rotoscoped that in 3D. It's even very possible that the whole process took less time than the polishing/refining/useless chitchat done in other studios. The result is some of the cleanest, most believable game art I have ever seen. Yet many studios just couldn't work that way. But the Kojima guys do, and they rule.
To take a japanese example : Yoshii Shinkawa on MGS. Very loose expressive stroke, very rich and suggestive, but "dirty". How did they translate that to 3D?...
With this kind of drawings... clean drawings, just pencil work with detailed views, and a lot of cool drawings. The typical anime sketches. Looking at the strokes, lines, one can see the level of the artist. Each person has a way to represent forms with lines.
You have a tendency to miss points by a mile or two Blaizer hehe Also splitting a quote in half, at a question mark, then answering the question that wasnt an open question at all is not very good manners, but I'll pass on that one
I am not saying that Shinkawa cannot do detailled drawings, nor did I post dozen of pics to prove it, or the opposite :P I am just saying that clean drawings are not an absolute, as they proved it on MGS4 (Yeah I meant 4, not 1, my bad hehe). The MGS1 sketches here are actually too detailled for ps1 spec, hence could very well be considered as bad concept art. My point is, it does not matter, since they figured it out in the end!
After all it kindof goes back to the original post, which was unrelated to gameart btw. A striking composition or painting can very well be a very valid piece of concept at that a modeller could work from. It just depends whos involved.
Changing the text size is not going to help you. Either you are very bad with english and need to be careful you aren't misunderstood (which i cant fault you for) or you are pretty much the biggest most ill informed asshole ever. This is not our fault, this is yours.
You say some of the most technically proficient artists in recently history create 'poor art' -- that is to say 'bad art' because they do not share your silly anime inspired preferences about linework. Do you really mean to say you produce better art work than John Singer Sargent?
Or Zang Lhu, who you said makes 'Gaussian blur' art, -- a high profile artist at Massive Black, whom you idolize -- (http://www.conceptart.org/?artist=zhanglu) is a bad artist because he does not share your obsession with clear linework as the only medium of communication?
Edit: Guy who said he could model that tank, you're missing the entire point and not really helping. Muddy art with dark lighting and brushstrokes that obscure the details is NOT a valid production sheet for concept art. You cannot model that tank because you do not know what the artist intended in the areas that are obscured. Blazier is right about that. He's just completely wrong about its validity as a rough concept or as general artwork.
Suprore, I disagree on the tank thing. One workflow is not everybodies ffs, we are not rocket builders or surgeons. Modelers are not all tracing paper grunts, some manage to freely fill in the gaps and freestyle on top of loose concepts (they also happen to be the best ones!). In that case, the tank image is perfectly valid. As a matter of fact, (personal opinion and experience here, like everything else in this thread anyways), the more precise the concept the more boring it is to model. But thats just me.
Suprore, I disagree on the tank thing. One workflow is not everybodies ffs, we are not rocket builders or surgeons. Modelers are not all tracing paper grunts, some manage to freely fill in the gaps and freestyle on top of loose concepts
Well, a vague concept like that can produce a good model, yeah, but
Could you really show that tank to a client and then show a 3d model a few weeks later without the risk that they were expecting different things in those vague details and shadowed areas? I'm not saying you cant model a good tank, but can you really model 'that' tank with that tank being such an unspecific thing? And isnt the goal of conceptart usually to communicate the (client approved) art direction with the produciton staff?
Serious questions, not rhetorical or arguing, i'm interested in hearing insight. If you disagree i'll stand corrected, you're certainly both more accomplished and educated in both 2d and 3d art than i am.
If you work for a client, chances are you would need to provide something sharper. But maybe not! It's not Hollywood-factoryesque everywhere. It also depends on who the client is. If its for uneducated fat execs, they wont have a clue hence you would have to do something very "one to one". But if, say, Ian McCaig hires you for a game project he is ADing and needs some tanks fleshed out (I am totally making this up btw hehe) this would certainly work I think.
And if you work in a team, with your AD close enough, then you just do what works for the team. Could be rough, could be lineart, anything! That's the beauty of smaller teams. But it even happens in bigger studios - an example would be the concept art done for the rencent Prince of Persia game.
Pior, i think, you got me wrong because i posted the images to show something you asked, i took it literally. Where do you get the thing of: "I am not saying that Shinkawa cannot do detailled drawings"? :S
Also, I'm not saying clean drawings are absolute... where i say that? And if you edit your post, how can i figure out the question wasn't open, sighs...
You all are taking things that have not been told, dammit!
Anyways, i think those images of MGS are very helpful. If someone is learning, is a good reference!
Hey dudes, why don't you drop your battle axes.. if i say "a drawing has a dirty style", i'm not killing people. Or maybe.. you react so bad because you have the same style i consider as poor, bad and dirty? you feel identified? come on... to react in that way is ridiculous, no way, no way! your works will not please everyone!. Learn to take critique in the good way, damn. I just posted ilustrations i consider as Better, give or take, but don't reply me as a child... making assumptions constantly and entering the personal field as a stupid.
And SupRore, you are a misunderstanding master, i talk about a work... and you associate it to the whole artist, fantastic!, you deserve a prize. Sargent may be a good artist, but what's wrong if i think a work of him is not so good? are you his dog? huh? don't make me laugh. Man, you have a huge problem, go to medic and ask for a good medication for "frustration" and "noobness". You read what you want to read and you don't understand what others said. And you verified me you are not very clever as to calling me "asshole", when the unique Big asshole may be yourself. Don't take the license to insult so easily... so don't complain now little boy.
Or Zang Lhu, who you said makes 'Gaussian blur' art, -- a high profile artist at Massive Black, whom you idolize -- (http://www.conceptart.org/?artist=zhanglu) is a bad artist because he does not share your obsession with clear linework as the only medium of communication?
Did you read yourself? you say me all that shit beacuse i find a work of this person as blurry? LOL
Do you really mean to say you produce better art work than John Singer Sargent?
That question is super arrogant, typical from a fucking EGO-Maniac or fanboy. Where do you get that? you love to make assumptions huh? I can draw very well, so if i see mistakes in a drawing or if i don't like a style, what's wrong saying it? huh?. You should worry to level up man, because you are very green like to talk so easily, wannabe...
And, are you dislexic or what? because apart of your bad understanding, it seems you didn't learn at school to read properly. My nick it's not blazier... my nick is BLAIZER, gotcha?
This is what happens when arguing with NOOBS! :poly142:
I'll say this again: this is something subjetive. I'm starting to see i cannot share a point of view with so radical guys or FANBOYS, aka talibans. Grow up and then we talk.
If i am given a tank like in the rough concept, i would surely ask for a clear design, views, angles, details views. Pardon me if i like to work in a good way ladies. An engineer or an architect read some phrases you said here... and they must be O.O. "Artists", too many levels, and so much ego.
Oh well, it's the internet, the world of arguments going wrong hehe!!
I understand what you are trying to say, but there is still something in your phrasing that bothers me. Let's quote!! lol
if i say "a drawing has a dirty style", i'm not killing people
. You're not killing anyone sure, but you piss off many. Because we expect : "I *THINK* this drawing has a dirty style" instead of "this drawing has a dirty style".
Pardon me if i like to work in a good way ladies.
this also is bound to piss off people, dude! It suggests that you work in a good way, and others doing differently don't. I know you're not a douche from chatting with you, but this quote alone labels you as one!
Blazier have you tried painting in that style with real paint I mean? The Guassian Blur effect is really hard to do with real paint and keep those perfect edges that fade in and out. These artist are trying their best to paint only what they see and ignore what their brain is telling them is there. It's pretty hard to do. It's pretty hard not to paint an eyeball that you know is there even though it's in shadow for example.
Maybe the fact that you're throwing a billion word posts out there in a language you cannot communicate in very clearly is why you feel misunderstood? Honestly i dont know what your counter argument to me is, i sincerely cannot understand what you are trying to say at all. I'm sorry for being such a NOOB, i'll brush up on my mind reading for next time i want to talk to a non-native speaker who has a massive ego about his english language skills and will not accept that it's his fault he's being misunderstood.
Pior, you are getting things out of context, really. I have been saying all the time, "i think this", "i think that", "i consider this...", imho, etc. etc. Just read well what i said in the previous posts.
this also is bound to piss off people, dude! It suggests that you work in a good way, and others doing differently don't. I know you're not a douche from chatting with you, but this quote alone labels you as one!
what do you expect when they pissed me off first. I also know you're not a douche from chatting with you, but reading how you act with my comments, it's like you were disgusted because i have a different point of view than yours, and believe me, it's like to talk to talibans.. you say douche... i feel the same towards those who reply with acid comments.
Mightypea, you can get lost! :P
Sage, i have painted real life portraits, but not with that blurry style because i don't like it. It's not in my preferences.
And SupRore, don't shield yourself with my bad english, when you say things like: "you have terrible english". You don't speak english as good as a british, so STFU.
To make assumptions about what i said is a clear proof you understood me, so forget that of "you cannot communicate".
All this is like to talk about nvidia in a forum full of pro-atis heh. You talk about nvidia, and they want to kill you..
I think i have lost enough time, so i give an end to this stupid discussion. You like to paint with a style i think is dirty... good for you!
And SupRore, don't shield yourself with my bad english, when you say things like: "you have terrible english". You don't speak english as good as a british, so STFU.
Replies
The are also perspective mistakes... like the one in the man... "his father".
If i remember well, the painting was for a contest in a exposition in Madrid and apart form this and a few ones, he opted for what i think is a bad style. He started painting very well, but he ended his days painting like a child... weird, maybe due to the problems he had with proportions and perception of space. He was very criticized in that aspect, an example:
Here in spain we have a term to call bad artists: "brocha gorda"
An astonishing art... ¬¬
You choose, to paint with skillz, or not. I rather prefer to paint better.
And of course, if you want to model 3d very well, you need to see the small details. without an accurate perception of space, you won't do great models or paintings, and that's a reality.
Don't misunderstand what is a production concept, than a concept done to make an idea, a fast sketch to make an idea, better said. Also, i think deadlines are not meant for this disccussion hehe. Concept art for the production of a 3d model is quite simple... and you don't need to make an illustration, who says that ¬¬?. In less than 20 min you can have done a character with perspective views of back and front (pencil work, 100% readable).
Heh.. i wonder what's this.. give this to a modeller and let's hear his screams!, what can do a modeller with this disaster? the information about the design is ZERO, The author call it SOMETHING... LOL
In Game Art, you CAN'T give to a modeller a poor concept. IT MUST BE CLEAR and EASY TO "READ". give or take.
BTW.. a pencil work is done fastest than a crappy photoshop work with ugly brushes. Ugly sketches, very dirty, are not very suitable for game art, and all disciplines of art where production is the goal. I would be bery ungry in a team with people who pass me a drawing i don't understand... that would be like to do the 90% of work they didn't finished. Bad team mates.
Could you model the tank in the example pic?
A part of the credits should be for you if yes... because you complete the "idea". Blurry drawings without definition are not good.
For true and good concepts check out massive black:
http://www.massiveblack.com/MBwebolution/conceptart/
You can read perfectly all the form/volumes... precise ilustrations.. quality in comparison.
cough cough
THIS IS A CONCEPT, and its 3d work...
Heh.. follow this link: http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html Are you a monkey or a human? LOL
Sorry for the bad joke and forget my bad english hehe.
I kinda rushed that image, so forgive the white space. The three paintings all look pretty similarly detailed when you shrink them down. But when you blow them up, all three of them have totally different levels of detail and refinement. I used a rembrandt instead of the picasso because I have a lot of his paintings on my HD (probably my favorite of the old masters) and the picasso example was really badly compressed.
When you localize areas of a painting you can see just how little detail some of them look, even the ones that look really highly detailed. The girl's faces in your example are very detailed and very painstakingly blended. Their hair is less so and this gives the hair more texture. The plants in the background are really little more than flicks of the brush. The pot is similarly abstracted.
The Sargent painting - while not very detailed when blown up - looks just as detailed when you shrink it down. More importantly, tho, is the fact that when you look at it that way you can see just how subtle the lighting actually is. The way that her sleeve is somewhat sheer, the way the bag now has a well defined structure. It looks haphazard at full size, but there's really a lot of structure there.
The Rembrandt is somewhere between the two. He suggests a lot of his forms, but the faces are usually pretty detailed. His later work - this being one of them - were more rough, but also more elegant and efficient. You can tell he was confident as hell, and you can see it in Sargent's piece as well.
Point is that just because something looks rougher, it's not necessarily "abstract" in the way you mean it to be. They just aren't refining their work any more than they feel the need to. They stop when they feel right about it, like all painters.
As far as concept art goes, it's not even really meant to be shown. It's idea generation, and it's rough because they have to do tons of them. That example posted by MagicSugar isn't meant to be super detailed or finished. It's meant to suggest some possible detail and the basic overall shape and scale of the tank and was probably painted in an hour or so.
But talking about art for production, you cannot give a concept with a blurry idea you can only see. The artist must express himself clearly to others in the team. That's the point.
Would you play a game with a rough aspect? with "unfinished art"? :P
We play now in Full HD...
First concept art is used for mood, color, style, and is normally rough, no one needs to know the exact form of the left knee pad in early production. As the game is fleshed out (backstory, ideas, levels, other planning) so is the concept art.
Yes.
You wanna hire me? If so I can pm you my freelance rate. 50% upfront please.:)
Personally, I don't think you can say that more brush strokes equal more quality. It all dependson the purpose of your picture. For the living room, where I'd stare at it all day, I'd prefer a Bourguereau with its perfection, but in any place where I wouldn't have the time to examine it all day long, a Sargent fits better. I recently had to study the works of Alphonse Mucha for the Comicon challenge. Analysing it closely, it became clear that there wasn't a hint of laziness about the pieces, but every detail that was left out, was left out on purpose. In the end, his works were absolutely masterful at guiding your attention to specific points in the picture (as was necessary, them being posters and advertisements). For example, he often only drew vegetation at waist level and above and more contrast the higher up in the picture you got; because who wants your attention to go to the feet?
Then there are guys who deliberately just draw badly, and those are poor artists who will be forgotten at one point.
http://kotaku.com/5343037/how-team-fortress-2-maps-are-made
I remember the first time i heard the music that plays in that video on the load screen. Instead of going into the game i just kicked back, sipped my beer, and thought about how bitchen the entire TF2 package was. TF2's about as classy as FPS's get (get it? TF2 has classes, har har!).
I WOULD HAVE SEX WITH A GAME LIKE THAT.(and so would other people, hell look at okami's success.)
And besides it is not unfinished art. If it was would craig mullins be so successful in industry today?
Anwyays, im just curious, what do you think of xhaoming wu, or zhang lu.
Both of these images have been painstakingly rendered, and this so called blurriness is completly intentional.
To me these are some of my favorite works of art, because the edge control is valued much more highly than photo like sharpness. They both use a value range, and edge control that looses form, in a way to exxagerate other more important forms. But it doesnt mean the pictures are unreadable at all.
One of the main advantages of an illustrator over a photographer is that they can choose to ommit or include any detail that they want. Which is kind of amusing as good photographers are only good because the need to pay attention to how much detail is in the shot and deal with it in a positive way, eg blurring out that bg detail.
And besides, just because you like crystal clear details, doesnt mean you can just dissmiss all other art, that is fucking ignorant.
I cant stand clean american inked work, yet i can still see how much skill, time and practice that goes into it. I respect it as an art form.
At schools being able to draw in a realistic fashion is often looked down on by professors. To them it's not interesting, of course most of the ones with this opinion can't do it. That's just the nature of the beast. To make matter worse you get graded on what they determine to be your talent to be. In other words if you have great skill they expect more from you than they would from someone that can't draw as precise as you can because the professor thinks you are not giving it your all if your work is lacking in other areas. So if your drawings are precise but lack proper shading the professor is going to think you suck. It's as simple as that. Art classes are very subjective so you just have to deal with that. Most fine artist professor I meet looked down on commercial art, and computer art isn't art. Anyway just make the most of your class, if you are not good at shading and composition, work to improve that and don't worry about how unfair things seem. That's harder said than done though.
Sweet examples Muzz.
Yeah, also just because an artist paints in a sketchy painterly style doesn't automatically mean he or she can't do tight renderings as well.
Like the artist who did this two pieces. He works for Blizzard by the way. Yeah, he's bad. Bad Ass that is.
http://mv.cgcommunity.com/
Completely true. Agreed 100%
But Sargent wasnt a concept artist, and his work is genius and shows no lack of skill. Only a different focus.
You linked massive black, it's funny -- it's the writing of massive black's foudners on conceptart.org that turned me onto sargent in the first place.
Best to keep an open mind Blaizer. Don't dismiss work like his so quickly, it comes across as being ignorant and or arrogant.
Now what was this thread about again?
TF2 concepts are very detailed, not blurry... with precission strokes. And in the majority of Craig Mullins works i saw, you can see perfectly what it's painted. The paintings are done fast, but what we see is enough readable.
To paint like we were aplying a gaussian blur in photoshop... it's not good for me. my eyes get disturbed!
In this painting i only see a bunch of bad strokes, bad proportions... the chin is unreadable and the hand the same... and where in the hell are the eye brows? is she a monster?, folds, where? did you appreciate that front of her head?. Sugestive paintings are not for me, you may love them, but not me. I believe they can hide a lack of ability. Imho, i think that to be a "dirty artist" it's not good, you can't be stucked in that kind of "art".
Don't get pissed off because i don't like what you like hehe.
In Art, you can see a work, and you may say yourself: "great! fantastic! love it!" and if results that it was painted by a monkey... then, what happens? you have a monkey level of taste=? Humans should be more refined and smart lol
I just don't like that dirty style, but instead of that, i love the style of realism, good perspectives/proportions/colors. Quality art over poor art, just that, preferences.
Another example, talking about asiatic artists, chen shu fen.
The style is quite nice for me and shows what i think is beauty, and the artist usually do the female models from his head... and not from a girl posing. that's the difference of understanding reality (perspective/anatomy/volumes/forms) than just simplily copying what we are looking at. Studying perspective/anatomy is VERY important (you must see clearly in you head, what you want to paint), and that is because i always advice: focus first on the basic and learn very well the theory, then, practice 4 hours per day (till you reach the famous 10000 hours haha).
Another example, in manga or comics, they don't have references to draw a picture. With a few lines, strokes, they represent the volumes with precission, brain power.
I think i repeated myself enough haha, my advice was given
Follow the path you like the most, and train all the days. Perspective Theory/anatomy is very easy to learn, and if you put in practice all that knowledge, your works will be better, no doubt.
The dude who painted that image you say has bad strokes, and proportions actually works for massive black and is one of their best artists.
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1742577&postcount=1
Perhaps you need to question the goals of a painting, in the case of the painting i showed above, i think it was a study of edge control, and focus. There is alot more subtelty in there if you appreciate the image as a whole.
It almost seems like you have got is stuck in your head that loosing edges should be avoided at all costs. Almost like a little kid that decides he doesnt like something before he has even tasted it.
People wouldn`t get pissed off with you, if only you cut this shit out. This type of comment render your argumentative opinions weak, if not laughable. Just state your opinion without belittling others.
So anyway... traditional art is the king shit, from draftsmen to surrealist... study it all.
Blaming Sargent in lack of anatomy knowledge and calling his paintings dirty just because he didn't choose to render everything to death is ridiculous.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/15/love-video/
It has very abstract graphics.
there are artist that can define shapes using a few lines but it is recognizable and everyone knows what it's supposed to be. But there are also artists that just poop lines on a canvas not knowing what it's supposed to be even when it's done (could be a good method to come up with a concept)
but that first kind do know their basics its just roughly visualized
Hey firestarter, don't start a fire heh, don't misunderstand things because you get pissed off when someone don't share your tastes, ya know, tastes are tastes... and remember that i talked about A work... one painting, a style of doing things posted as example. Don't get things out of context please
I put it in big size beacuse you seem to don't understand it, and you ended misunderstanding things a lot, like Sandro did aswell.
But take in consideration that if you only show a few works in your 2d portfolio, and all are blurry... it's normal to think: "maybe he has not enough skillz and he/she only can do that in that style". And that's the reason of why we perfectly can believe they can hide a lack of ability if we see a dirty style.
Remember that the quality of an artist (2D) is measured first with his pencil stroke. That says almost all. His/her ability to show forms with a few lines is what makes him/her great. And, i repeat again, it's because of that reason why perspective and anatomy understanding is so important.
A person with a good perception, a good trained brain, don't really need to use fat brushes unless if he/she loves them, and his/her style is commonly clear an refined, smart. Just see the massive black work.. the artists have dirty and clean drawings aswell.
I'm customed to do fast sketchs when i want to model something, and i don't make blurry concepts because i don't like them, a few strokes and i have a clear drawing (like the ones japanese animators do, simple and easy to read). Dirty concepts you only understand? no thanks, that's a bad custom.
This discussion makes me to talk about that i'm seeing a lot noobzz starting the house from the roof nowadays. Like some artists who start learning 3d from Zbrush. when they are asked to do a 3d model... they can't figure it out, and as result, we see a lot of people asking in forums elemental things about polygonal modelling/subdiv techniques.
What makes me to laugh is to see like some ppl believe they did an uber art piece... when they did a shit (with pardon). Arrogant Ego-maniacs at art-schools are the worse, and examples can be seen in forums commonly, when they receive critique and they don't accept it because they think they did a great work ¬¬
And stop fucking with nonsenses when all this is merely subjetive, just compare a WORK against a work. Quality art with poor art. I have my preferences, you have your preferences, what do you don't understand?
Man, i love that "some" ¬¬
-1
That's an example of a game i would never play. For me, the style is super ugly, like experimental.
http://www.quelsolaar.com/love/screen_shots.html
Nah, Grab a pencil, and work... stop whinning about tastes. Don't worry to argue with me about styles, and worry about level up your skillz.
PD. don't forget i'm spanish and my english is not perfect.
You don't want to play Love and that's fine, but you sound as if you genuinely believe no one should find it attractive at all - that kindof make you sound like a douche, really
< bad english or not, this comes out as very, hmmmm, dumb. Maybe that's not what you meant but that's definately what you wrote hehe.
< again, that's your opinion, but certainly not the (as in, THE) truth. Why do you think this has to be true ? Someone told you that and you just took it for granted ? Open mind dude, open mind. And it's funny too. If you replace "pencil" by "paintbrush" and "line" by "stroke" in your quote, you just pretty much described a Sargent painting heheh OWNED
Alright guys lets paint some shit!
Pior about the artist's pencil stroke, it's not an opinion, is a reality you may want to see or not. If you read manga, you can see how good can be an artist compared to other mangaka. Since i was child, i was teached that, and in almost all Art universities here, they put you an small exam to examine your level of perception of space. "Pencil, paper, and show us how good you are".
If you replace pencil with paintbrush you don't get the same...
Kio, i watch anime and i read mangas as bakuman.
yeah, let's work!
well - what pior said.
Blaizer, man, yeah i know what you mean about putting words in your mouth, but you were also doing the same to everyone else
Everyone agrees that clean concept work is better for production, but i wasnt arguing that, i was just trying to say that there is value to what you call dirty, and unskilled.
Lets wipe the slate clean and make some freaking art!
I quote myself It's a possibility, not an affirmation, and i say "they" because i'm talking about a style. Seeing a lack of proportions, perspective.. is normal to think so.
There is always cool, unexpected things to do. To me the best art teams are the ones working their own way, instead of going for a minutely broken down freelance kind of pipeline where everything has to be approved (often by someone not even working on the asset itself). If a talented modeler can work from a loose concept painting instead of using painfully rendered, lifeless ortho sheets, it's for the best!
To take a japanese example : Yoshii Shinkawa on MGS. Very loose expressive stroke, very rich and suggestive, but "dirty". How did they translate that to 3D? They made clay models to test and solve the shapes! Then rotoscoped that in 3D. It's even very possible that the whole process took less time than the polishing/refining/useless chitchat done in other studios. The result is some of the cleanest, most believable game art I have ever seen. Yet many studios just couldn't work that way. But the Kojima guys do, and they rule.
Some ilustrations are very rough, indeed, like this one.
With this kind of drawings... clean drawings, just pencil work with detailed views, and a lot of cool drawings. The typical anime sketches. Looking at the strokes, lines, one can see the level of the artist. Each person has a way to represent forms with lines.
I am not saying that Shinkawa cannot do detailled drawings, nor did I post dozen of pics to prove it, or the opposite :P I am just saying that clean drawings are not an absolute, as they proved it on MGS4 (Yeah I meant 4, not 1, my bad hehe). The MGS1 sketches here are actually too detailled for ps1 spec, hence could very well be considered as bad concept art. My point is, it does not matter, since they figured it out in the end!
After all it kindof goes back to the original post, which was unrelated to gameart btw. A striking composition or painting can very well be a very valid piece of concept at that a modeller could work from. It just depends whos involved.
Changing the text size is not going to help you. Either you are very bad with english and need to be careful you aren't misunderstood (which i cant fault you for) or you are pretty much the biggest most ill informed asshole ever. This is not our fault, this is yours.
You say some of the most technically proficient artists in recently history create 'poor art' -- that is to say 'bad art' because they do not share your silly anime inspired preferences about linework. Do you really mean to say you produce better art work than John Singer Sargent?
Or Zang Lhu, who you said makes 'Gaussian blur' art, -- a high profile artist at Massive Black, whom you idolize -- (http://www.conceptart.org/?artist=zhanglu) is a bad artist because he does not share your obsession with clear linework as the only medium of communication?
Edit: Guy who said he could model that tank, you're missing the entire point and not really helping. Muddy art with dark lighting and brushstrokes that obscure the details is NOT a valid production sheet for concept art. You cannot model that tank because you do not know what the artist intended in the areas that are obscured. Blazier is right about that. He's just completely wrong about its validity as a rough concept or as general artwork.
Well, a vague concept like that can produce a good model, yeah, but
Could you really show that tank to a client and then show a 3d model a few weeks later without the risk that they were expecting different things in those vague details and shadowed areas? I'm not saying you cant model a good tank, but can you really model 'that' tank with that tank being such an unspecific thing? And isnt the goal of conceptart usually to communicate the (client approved) art direction with the produciton staff?
Serious questions, not rhetorical or arguing, i'm interested in hearing insight. If you disagree i'll stand corrected, you're certainly both more accomplished and educated in both 2d and 3d art than i am.
If you work for a client, chances are you would need to provide something sharper. But maybe not! It's not Hollywood-factoryesque everywhere. It also depends on who the client is. If its for uneducated fat execs, they wont have a clue hence you would have to do something very "one to one". But if, say, Ian McCaig hires you for a game project he is ADing and needs some tanks fleshed out (I am totally making this up btw hehe) this would certainly work I think.
And if you work in a team, with your AD close enough, then you just do what works for the team. Could be rough, could be lineart, anything! That's the beauty of smaller teams. But it even happens in bigger studios - an example would be the concept art done for the rencent Prince of Persia game.
Also, I'm not saying clean drawings are absolute... where i say that? And if you edit your post, how can i figure out the question wasn't open, sighs...
You all are taking things that have not been told, dammit!
Anyways, i think those images of MGS are very helpful. If someone is learning, is a good reference!
Hey dudes, why don't you drop your battle axes.. if i say "a drawing has a dirty style", i'm not killing people. Or maybe.. you react so bad because you have the same style i consider as poor, bad and dirty? you feel identified? come on... to react in that way is ridiculous, no way, no way! your works will not please everyone!. Learn to take critique in the good way, damn. I just posted ilustrations i consider as Better, give or take, but don't reply me as a child... making assumptions constantly and entering the personal field as a stupid.
And SupRore, you are a misunderstanding master, i talk about a work... and you associate it to the whole artist, fantastic!, you deserve a prize. Sargent may be a good artist, but what's wrong if i think a work of him is not so good? are you his dog? huh? don't make me laugh. Man, you have a huge problem, go to medic and ask for a good medication for "frustration" and "noobness". You read what you want to read and you don't understand what others said. And you verified me you are not very clever as to calling me "asshole", when the unique Big asshole may be yourself. Don't take the license to insult so easily... so don't complain now little boy.
Did you read yourself? you say me all that shit beacuse i find a work of this person as blurry? LOL
That question is super arrogant, typical from a fucking EGO-Maniac or fanboy. Where do you get that? you love to make assumptions huh? I can draw very well, so if i see mistakes in a drawing or if i don't like a style, what's wrong saying it? huh?. You should worry to level up man, because you are very green like to talk so easily, wannabe...
And, are you dislexic or what? because apart of your bad understanding, it seems you didn't learn at school to read properly. My nick it's not blazier... my nick is BLAIZER, gotcha?
This is what happens when arguing with NOOBS! :poly142:
I'll say this again: this is something subjetive. I'm starting to see i cannot share a point of view with so radical guys or FANBOYS, aka talibans. Grow up and then we talk.
If i am given a tank like in the rough concept, i would surely ask for a clear design, views, angles, details views. Pardon me if i like to work in a good way ladies. An engineer or an architect read some phrases you said here... and they must be O.O. "Artists", too many levels, and so much ego.
I understand what you are trying to say, but there is still something in your phrasing that bothers me. Let's quote!! lol
. You're not killing anyone sure, but you piss off many. Because we expect : "I *THINK* this drawing has a dirty style" instead of "this drawing has a dirty style".
this also is bound to piss off people, dude! It suggests that you work in a good way, and others doing differently don't. I know you're not a douche from chatting with you, but this quote alone labels you as one!
The sound of shit going over Blaizer's head.
ohnobutyoutotallymisunderstoodwhatiwassayingandI'moccupyingthemoralhighgroundhere
The sound of Blaizer pretending he was misunderstood.
Maybe the fact that you're throwing a billion word posts out there in a language you cannot communicate in very clearly is why you feel misunderstood? Honestly i dont know what your counter argument to me is, i sincerely cannot understand what you are trying to say at all. I'm sorry for being such a NOOB, i'll brush up on my mind reading for next time i want to talk to a non-native speaker who has a massive ego about his english language skills and will not accept that it's his fault he's being misunderstood.
Sorry for being such a talibans.
what do you expect when they pissed me off first. I also know you're not a douche from chatting with you, but reading how you act with my comments, it's like you were disgusted because i have a different point of view than yours, and believe me, it's like to talk to talibans.. you say douche... i feel the same towards those who reply with acid comments.
Mightypea, you can get lost! :P
Sage, i have painted real life portraits, but not with that blurry style because i don't like it. It's not in my preferences.
And SupRore, don't shield yourself with my bad english, when you say things like: "you have terrible english". You don't speak english as good as a british, so STFU.
To make assumptions about what i said is a clear proof you understood me, so forget that of "you cannot communicate".
All this is like to talk about nvidia in a forum full of pro-atis heh. You talk about nvidia, and they want to kill you..
I think i have lost enough time, so i give an end to this stupid discussion. You like to paint with a style i think is dirty... good for you!
bye!
whu-