Do you guys / girls ever hit that wall though, where you have an idea in your head, but trying to put it on to paper (or 3d for that matter) falls short?
I think if I could bridge the cap between 3d and 2d, that may fix the issue. Any helpful tips / tricks / opinions on something that could help this?
I'm hitting that wall now. It's problematic because it's more difficult for me than others to, like you said, make something from 'thin air'. Competition is so stiff that it's a must to be able to think outside the box and just create freely. Definitely a reason to at least sketch more.
To answer the overarching question here: No. Many 3D artists, myself included, are doing just fine on a skillset that doesn't include painting or illustration on a day to day basis. The caveat is, there are drawbacks that will have to be addressed eventually.
The skillfull huntsman has a very good section on environments like a how to guide on thumb-nailing and stuff (been a while since i read it). Might be of some use if you know the workflow a little better?
Look. It's not an attack, its a statement. I'm free to say what I see, and I personally see that the ones defending the '2d isn't as important as people are making out' argument just don't have a certain richness to their work.
I'm free to say that if I find it to be true.
so....you took the time to check everyones folio, well played sir, well played.
You acted like a dick and got called out for it, your retort...to be a bigger dick... good plan! Remember you mustn't see this as an attack, I'm free to say that as I find it to be true.
My work in 3D has actually helped to improve my poor drawing skills but I know my traditional art skills need a lot of improvement. Basicly the skills can feed off and inform eachother, I dont see why a serious 3D artist wouldnt want the wider perspective that additional experience could offer them but it doesn't seem to be necessary by any means
Ace are you saying this through experience or through opinion? becuase it sounds like the latter.
I don't disagree with the larger sweep of your point but the last bit is just silly.
I've actually seen people quickly iterate and 'sketch' in 3d using sculpting programs, but imo it's personally easier to design things in 2d. You don't have to be a great 2d artist to use 2d as a way of getting ideas and designs down though, which I think gets back to the original question, you don't have to be a good 2d artist (like being great at perspective and shading in ps), but having design and composition skills is a must, and it just happens to be easier to get those types of ideas down in 2d (at least for me).
I tend to put a lot of emphasis into both 3D and 2D in my learning, and in my mind, it's all the same stuff. No matter what we do, our final product will always be a 2D image on a flat screen. (aside from 3d prints and traditional sculpting, etc.).
Composition, design, color, character, story, pose, etc. etc. these all apply across the board to both 3D and 2D.
I know for a fact that if I completely neglected 2D art in my studies, my 3D work would suffer GREATLY. The opposite is also true, but not nearly to the same degree.
I can't answer your question for you, but personally..... I NEED to try my best at both 3D and 2D.
I started learning 2d not to long ago and I can already see the benefit of learning painting. It is giving me a better understanding of composition/lighting.
Hey everyone has to start somewhere, those are both better than a lot of my early attempts. You recognize you have a ways to go, and that's all that matters. Once you lose the drive to learn is when you should be worried. Complacency is a quick road to mediocrity.
I should probably format this better, but here's some tips off the top of my head and some helpful links:
1. Draw from life.
2. Draw more than just what you're interested in. (draw a shoe, a cat, a telephone pole, a cell phone, whatever). Observation is the lesson to be learned here and EVERYTHING will serve a purpose and inform your future design decisions.
3. Draw quickly. Quantity is important here.
4. Study other artists. This might be one of the most important things to do. There's a taboo surrounding copying other artists, but I'm convinced every great artist has a secret stash of things he's copied directly from other artists that no one will ever see. Study everything from old masters to comic legends to anyone else you admire.
5. Do what you want. This might sound contradictory to number 2, but the only way you'll be motivated enough to study for hours a day is to (for the majority of time), learn what you want to learn.
some random links that have helped me along the way:
Hey everyone has to start somewhere, those are both better than a lot of my early attempts.
Thanks Murph. Unfortunately, that's the problem... I've been doing this for almost 2 years. In fact it must be more than that because I got my Wacom for my 24th Birthday, and I'm now 27.
The point of most concern is that those pieces are representative of my current level of skill, despite having a lot of [what I thought was] practice.
If you haven't been putting in the time necessary, then put more time in. If you put the time in and still no results, then change your method of study. If you love it, keep pushing and you'll be happy with your improvements.
after all that, if you're still discouraged and aren't enjoying it, then simply don't do it do what you're most passionate about.
I was doing 50 pages of sketches a week at college for two years, and my figure drawings weren't as good as what you just posted... you're not doing badly, and if you aren't satisfied, just practice more. A lot of what you draw for a while will probably suck, it's not a big deal. A lot of what I draw still sucks, and I'm rockin eight years of practice
Look. It's not an attack, its a statement. I'm free to say what I see, and I personally see that the ones defending the '2d isn't as important as people are making out' argument just don't have a certain richness to their work.
I'm free to say that if I find it to be true.
For certain things it isn't as important as it is for others. I went over the requirements for several artistic positions at some pretty big studios.
I only found one studio that listed:
"Strong traditional art background (B.F.A. or equivalent degree)." under "Desired skills and pluses"
They also had the same wording for Animators, FX artists, a web developer and a programer... Considering how small the studio was they probably will have to evaluate the candidates on their ability to do the job they are applying for. But then there might be more and I just wasn't running into them? The examples below do tend to jive with what I've seen listed before, but then I haven't been looking all that hard because I haven't had to look for a job in 5-6 years.
Gearbox FX artist, no where does it say anything about 2D drawing skills under required or even desired requirements. This is a creative position but also a technical one. Amazing 2D drawing skills alone aren't going to land this job.
Bioware Sr Environment artist, "Drawings/sketches that display basic skills as well as any modeling and texture work related to objects, buildings, natural terrain, etc".
"The best World/Environment Modelers tend to have solid technical knowledge and skills and are able to push a programmer to generate new innovative looks, lighting, and moods in their levels. To do spectacular work, they usually push programmers pretty hard to achieve amazing results, but they are also flexible to change and able to modify their work if it will result in improving the overall ambiance of the world theyre creating. They do a lot of work in 3D art packages, custom level layout tools, and in texture artwork packages like Photoshop."
I'm not really seeing where they wow people with their amazing concept skills on a day to day basis? Photoshop as it relates to texture artwork?
Valve 3D Character artist, 5th one down right above "Get your hands dirty in InDesign, HTML, Flash, and other similar tools." we have: "Drawing, sculpting, and other traditional art skills a plus" not required but it will help.
Gameloft 3D Artist, "We are looking for various types of 3D artists. The job duties above reflect multiple positions." No mention of 2D drawing skills.
LucasArts Art Lead, probably one of the more critical artistic jobs around and no mention of 2D drawing skills?
The theme among most listings is a demonstrated ability to do the job, that doesn't always mean sitting down and doing 2D drawings day in and day out. If it does pop up in the listings its normally not a make or break requirement. There are skills that transfer really well from 2D to 3D which is probably why it is helpful to see good 2D art instead of having to find it in bits and pieces in other areas.
I think everyone can imagine what a nightmare it would be to work with someone who doesn't have a technical clue and is constantly pestering those around them with basic questions. After a few weeks they'll have the hang of it but its going to be rough.
With that said most places if given the choice between two candidates, its easier to take the more traditionally minded artist vs the technical for very artistic positions. The reason being you can teach the traditional artist to push a few buttons and follow a few written steps and you have a great game artist in a few weeks/months. But it's a big gamble hoping that someone technical can grow their traditional art skills over time, there is no guarantee they can. Of course the best candidate would be the perfect blend of both to match the given job. That mix isn't always 2D > technical for every job.
Will not being an amazing 2D artist keep you out of certain positions? Yes it will, but it's not a deal breaker.
It's fascinating how many people view 2d/3d and arts skills as one and the same.
You don't think that someone's a blacksmith just 'cause he knows how to handle a hammer.
Ok, I'll just say that the people who cant draw will have a tough time working on stylized hand painted stuff. I was worried that my skills where outdated but hand painted textures are still popular and the drop off in artists with those skills has made positions hard to fill. I'm not saying you have to be Craig Mullins just be able to draw more than a stick figure. Don't you want to be the best that you can be?
Look at Vigil and Blizzard, they've had gallery showings of their artists work.
Ok, I've come up with an analogy, sculpting and modeling are diet and cardio, drawing is weight training.
LucasArts Art Lead, probably one of the more critical artistic jobs around and no mention of 2D drawing skills?
Being an art lead doesn't make you an art director. Many good lead artists I've worked with have essentially just been a manager with tech art skills.
Which comes back to the central point. Yes, it's handy if you can quickly sketch a concept to show someone what you want, or what you're going to make. If you ever want to be an art director then drawing skills are essential.
BUT!!
Many game artists do not have to draw. And many roles do not require drawing. So if your drawing isn't amazing then don't worry too much. Your 3D art skills have to be amazing. And that's not the same thing.
I agree about the "break time" part, too - reading books, studying theory and other things like that are extremely valuable, and necessary. I think there is a distinction to be made between "random doodling" and "purpose-driven doodling" tho. Not much can come out from sitting in front of a piece of paper and just doing the same head over again ; but sitting down and achieving a precise goal (inspired by an interesting art or non-art related read) is much more valuable.
Another distinction is to be made between being an "execution artist" and more creative type of game artist. Some feel okay to just blindly follow and "execute" a concept. But there is no doubt that a modeller with a solid grasp on, for instance, folds and anatomy would be much, much better game artist. And I still believe that such knowledge comes faster with paper than 3D or even digital 2D. The limitations imposed by paper and traditional media in general are in favor of that. No fancy brushes or tools - just a simple media with limitations to work around. It simply tends to flex the art muscles better!
Many game artists do not have to draw. And many roles do not require drawing. So if your drawing isn't amazing then don't worry too much. Your 3D art skills have to be amazing. And that's not the same thing.
I think that's looking at it from the wrong end of the issue tho. The fact that it is not a requirement, doesn't mean that an applicant should be happy with just the "minimun" skills asked by the position. That's especially true since the field is competitive. To get the job, not only do you need to match the qualifications - you also need to be the best at them.
One argument that needs to be debunked is the claim that since some good modelers don't know how to draw, then this is not necessary to learn that craft. Sure, but what about future career advancements ? Why would one want to be stuck that way, instead of working on become as good as the best in the business ? Learning stuff is a lot of fun, and nobody is born with instant magic talent. Every skill needs to be acquired, and nothing comes "by itself"... Art is in the eye, not in the tool ; learning more crafts like 2D and traditional sculpture can only make one's eye better, and giving up just because "oh I cannot draw anything else than stick figure" is a bit misguided, I think.
TeeJay : it's okay, don't worry too much about these pieces not being as good as you wish them to be - it doesn't mean that you lack some mysterious talent or anything of the like. It simply means that there are some principles that you are not aware of yet that are actually driving the structure of a strong image. It's okay - they are hard to guess. Some come naturally from observation ; some come from learning about them. Everyone went through that at some point, even the most so-called "talented" artists. There really is no such thing as talent ...
The fact is, these principles also drive the strength of a 3D piece. So, learning more about them will make you better at just about everything. Most of it is about the different kind of contrasts (value, saturation, texture ...) and how the way light works across surfaces. It can be very counter intuitive, but it is fascinating stuff to learn about. Just don't try to "copy" an image pixel by pixel ; instead, identify the more important contrasts driving the reference image, and find an appropriate tool to convey them...
You can ask any artist out there how they became good at what they do. I can guarantee that all these artists would feel pretty insulted if one told them that their skills must be coming effortlessly from some magical effortless "talent" source without working actively working on them.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, if someone's 2D is lacking in some aspect, it means that there is some fundamental skill missing from that person's toolset. It's okay, because learning is fun anyways and feeling like a noob is actually a rather good humbling feeling. But simply brushing the problem aside because one "doesn't need that skill anyways" can turn into an unexpected problem later on, I think.
For myself, working in 2d was essential to my artistic growth. When I started out learning 3d, I had 9 months of figure drawing classes (as well as other art fundamentals classes) where we'd sit down for 3 or 4 hours and just do tons of drawings getting better and better. In that same period of nine months I made one or two mediocre character models learning more technical aspects of 3d art as I went. If it wasn't for my time spent with other mediums I would have learning comparatively nothing about anatomy, gesture, colour theory, composition, material properties, light, etc. Eventually once I began into Zbrush sculpting I started to get a better understanding for everything in 3d, which fed back into my 2d.
If you're a good painter it will help with your texturing, it makes you a lot more versatile when you can paint something exactly the way you want instead of having to sample various images and photos. If you're comfortable and fast at making concepts, you can easily make a solid concept to work from before making it in 3d, instead of struggling through the design as you go.
So, as a lot of others have said, they do feed off of each other. Whether one or the other is necessary is up to you. I personally wouldn't want to just be a 3d guy.
As much proof as I need is going to CGHub and being extremely jealous at the art there. It's awesome that great 2d artists can express anything they want without the same technical limitations or time requirements as 3d. Directly from brain to page.
I think that's looking at it from the wrong end of the issue tho. The fact that it is not a requirement, doesn't mean that an applicant should be happy with just the "minimun" skills asked by the position. That's especially true since the field is competitive. To get the job, not only do you need to match the qualifications - you also need to be the best at them.
Well my suggestion wasn't to not draw. I was suggesting that you shouldn't get upset if you're not the best 2D artist. Because many of the top people in the industry do not draw - or exhibit any particular skill at drawing.
Unless the criteria for sucesss is to be a concept artist?
Sorry I wasn't being totally clear ... what I mean with the quote above is that if you have two applicants for a modeler position, chances are, the best one of the two is the one who took the time to do 2D drapery studies, anatomy sketches, and so on - because this training transfers instantly to modeling. It doesn't mean that this person would ever have to hold a pencil at work - but to get there as a great modeler, I think it is necessary to hold one at least at home or on lunch breaks for instance.
I also very much agree about what you say about people who shouldnt be "upset" for not doing great at 2D. Two reasons for that : there is no need to get upset, because as you say one can work decently-ish in 3D without much 2D skill ; and also, there is no need to be upset because developing such skills has nothing to do with some magical talent thing that one has or hasn't. It just comes from practice, and there's a certain zen to knowing what one's skills and weaknesses are, and working on them to get better...
Sorry I wasn't being totally clear ... what I mean with the quote above is that if you have two applicants for a modeler position, chances are, the best one of the two is the one who took the time to do 2D drapery studies, anatomy sketches, and so on - because this training transfers instantly to modeling. It doesn't mean that this person would ever have to hold a pencil at work - but to get there as a great modeler, I think it is necessary to hold one at least at home or on lunch breaks for instance.
That's not been my experience. I find that the people who practice 3d modeling tend to be the ones who are good at 3d modeling. And a lot of them do 3d modeling at lunch and in their time off. Suggesting to me that raw hours practicing modeling and texturing is more effective than ancillary skills. Drawing is a useful skill , for various reasons, but I see no direct transfer of ability that you seem to be implying.
Great points here. Really liking reading people's opinions on this.
One more thing I wanna add is to this:
Another distinction is to be made between being an "execution artist" and more creative type of game artist. Some feel okay to just blindly follow and "execute" a concept. But there is no doubt that a modeller with a solid grasp on, for instance, folds and anatomy would be much, much better game artist. And I still believe that such knowledge comes faster with paper than 3D or even digital 2D. The limitations imposed by paper and traditional media in general are in favor of that. No fancy brushes or tools - just a simple media with limitations to work around. It simply tends to flex the art muscles better!
This is so true, I totally agree with this. And I'd like to add a point to it too. And that is that for the people usually asking these questions, students, aspiring artists, etc, it comes from a point of "what do I need to do to get a job?". And to that, you really need to be more of an "execution artist", as Pior puts it. Quite simply, I don't think anyone is going to trust a junior artist with any major art decisions.
This also calls back to the original question of the thread. Is it required to be great at 2D to be great at 3D? And I'd like to ask in return, required for what?
If your goal is being good enough to get a job, then no, it's not required. And I would even say that it may be detrimental to an extent. How could you get a job if you don't know what a normal map is or how to work with it? Just an example. And as a guy who had to hire people (a grim job, I tell you), you'd be surprised by how often I get portfolios that I think are actually decent, but don't give me the impression that the guy could get the job done. So it's important to be able to "get shit done" first if you ever want to work in the industry (or any industry).
But then, usually after you get into the industry, if your goal is being a great artist in general, then that's really when spreading out and learning all sorts of skills and disciplines would kick in. And some stuff can only be learned in certain mediums. Switching to a different medium can help sortof "shock" your brain into seeing things differently. And it can greatly help you improve.
I hope I'm not coming across as being "anti-2d" or something ridiculous like that. I'm just saying, there's a time and a place for everything. And for different people the time could vary, and the place could be elsewhere than others.
Being able to handle yourself with Photoshop should be sufficient enough.
Drawing is something that most of us cannot do but we can generate spectacular 3D art (atleast some of us :P) but creating texture for your self is also important, if you cannot draw then hand drawn art is out of the question. There are however alternatives like Photoshop and Photography! Both of this solutions can create facinating resoults especially if you use them in cojunction.
So I would say Drawing is not mustbut Photoshopping is.
hmm to some extent what pros here are saying it works, but as my personal experience and interest in media I have not limited myself to just making high end 3D, but have and still covering other areas too that are interconnected. I cant draw characters from top of my head but I have focused on my interest of technical drawings (mechanical stuff).
Given the current job climate and where industry is heading I think its best to become one man army, of course you cant be expert in all areas but if you are able to work on other areas like video editing, compositing, painting textures, drawing rough concepts and know manufacturing process of real world objects despite the fact that ur role is just Environment or 3D artist it will put you in a good spot compared to others.
Imho- no, i think its not necessary. But traditional medium will teach you to think, before you lay down the stroke. Its like car with manual transmission, you learn to have more control over medium, and see the final in sketches.
Didn't really want to contribute to a thread thats become more about stating your own opinion than discussion but w/e.
To stepback a bit i'd say that to learn 2d / pencil and paper youre learning more of a raw knowledge set that can be applied to anything. You can say the same for 3d, however as people have said... 3d automatically handles quite a lot of things for you (perspective being a prime example).
In short, i see 2d as more of a knowledge base and 3d (programs) as a tool to use the knowledge.
But theres nothing that stops a 3d artist from understanding anatomy/colour theory by experimenting in the medium theyre comfortable in. As someone who has hardly used Max/Maya I find them awfully convoluted without someone to explain why the camera has suddenly gone orthographic or why the texture is showing up poorly.
If the thread were about where people should start from scratch id say 2d, but i guess thats not the point.
Ok, I'm gonna rephrase my question because I've spent today banging my head against a wall (metaphorically of course) about how horrible my little landscape painting was.
Does it matter if an environment artist can't paint great environment scenes?
I've got this little bastard in my head saying 'yeah this 3D project is going great but you still can't paint a decent environment scene'... so I go back and try it, and it looks shit which tears up my motivation to work on any art at all, let alone 2D. I'm sure some know what I mean, that little nagging feeling that although you can do great things in one area, because you can't do one thing, it feels like you suck at everything.
I think a sense of humility can help you there. Just don't think that you actually can do "great things in one area". I pretty much think every single thing I make is total crap. It's harsh, but it leaves a lot of room for improvement.
If I'm going to spend the rest of my life doing this, which I hope I will, I don't ever want to feel like I'm doing great stuff.
Hey there again TeeJay. Again, don't feel bad about it - you just need to identify what makes a good landscape painting. (I personally don't do many of these hence I am no expert on the subject - but still, there are some general advice worth sharing).
First, you need to find a starting point. You might have seen videos of skilled artists starting from random strokes and pulling something out of them. However that doesn't mean that something good necessarily comes from randomness - instead, you need to identify what will be the main meaningful tool to convey the landscape in question, and I believe this is what speed painters get out of the initial "random" phase. Don't think of it as "the sky is blue, therefore I'll paint some blue surface ; the bushes are green, therefore I'll use a green bush brush" as this will only lead to "painting by numbers".
Instead think of what you want to convey, and find the contrast tool letting you express that. It could be shape contrast, color contrast, value contrast ... Once you have that figured out you can build the image around that. It is also good to start with black and white, that is to say, relying on barebones value contrast as this is usually the most striking one. Also think of foreground, middle ground and far background, and how atmospheric perspective affects it. Knowing these rules and systems will without a doubt transfer directly to your 3D scene building skills.
Another advice is to not necessarily rush into a painting, as it tends to produce always the same thing. (Mountains! Reflective water! Spaceships!). Instead, try to fully think the scene in your mind's eye first. I find FPS games very good at stimulating that. For instance, think of Rage : the bridge leading to the first mission, the underground passageway to access the decayed hospital ... very cool stuff, and quite different from the usual run-of-the-mill "epic matte painting scenery" subjects. I think Half Life 2 is also very good for that. Third person games usually not so much, but that might just be personal preference.
(I personally find the Uncharted games less visually inspiring than, say, a solid FPS, even a visually aging one. There is just something extra about seing the world directly through a character's eyes)
I'd encourage you to look at Whit Brachna's videos. His progress through the years was very interesting to watch, and he is alo an excellent lecturer, explaining very clearly why he does things a certain way. Very clever guy.
I'd say it's not essential that you can draw but it is essential that you have the ability to take in and understand what you see.
If you're given a concept or a brief, your job is to create it - a lot of the time this will involve some extrapolation and in order to do that you must understand what it is you're looking at.
I look for that above all else when going through reels and portfolios because it translates across to every area from art to animation to rigging and so on.
and I'm with Bigjohn - if I'm ever 100% happy with something I've done, that'll be the day I quit 3d graphics
Pior, thanks so much for taking the time to offer that advice. It's interesting you raise those points because those speedy/random techniques are the way I've been approaching things and I think your suggestions of actually thinking about the way things should be going will help me a lot.
I will check out Whit Brachna, and keep on keeping on!
BigJohn - oh I agree, i think 100% satisfaction with your own work is dangerous territory. I tend to relish any kind of positivity towards my work though, it's the little moments when I say 'hmm, that's actually not looking bad' that keep me going!
Today I have a very drawing intensive assignment at work (stained glass window) - even though I've been very pro drawing I don't think my drawing skills are up to the level they should be. For an example of what I'm shooting for, check this out.
3. An artist without "2D" skills is like an art team without a concept artist. Sure, they can get by without one, but will the game look as good? They could hire a contractor from outside the team, but will that person "get" the game and the tech and be able to deliver a great basis for the 3D artists?
I don't think you'll find a great looking game without an in-house concept artist, nor will you find a great looking game without a significant portion of the 3D artists also being competent 2D artists. Yeah, you can scrape by without knowing how to draw, but drawing is fun. There's no reason not to do it.
Being good at drawing and painting makes you better at 3D art. It's one of the best ways to get better at it.
Today I have a very drawing intensive assignment at work (stained glass window) - even though I've been very pro drawing I don't think my drawing skills are up to the level they should be. For an example of what I'm shooting for, check this out.
Careful with that. There are rules to stained glass patterns that typically need to be followed. There is some forgiveness in those rules when doing game art, but you don't want break them as flagrantly as that image does.
Just skimmed through the thread and some of this was mentioned but I'll re-iterate.
Sure, there are lots of talented artists without 2d skills that do well in commercial settings. The work you get to do just won't be seen as creatively stimulating to someone who might be a concept power house. That doesn't mean it won't be interesting to you.
However, it's never a detriment to have a wider skillset, regardless of wether it's painting on programming, you'll be a more versatile overall artist for it and probably more likely to get hired.
2d and 3d techniques are the tools you use to make art. Anyone can learn the tools, the hard part is learning the art. The catch is, you cant get to the art without using the tool, and each tool comes at it from a different direction.
So choose whatever tool you want, all will make you a better artist, but keep in mind that if you focus too much on a single one it'll make you a one dimensional artist.
The best artists in any discipline, without fail, have multiple artistic focuses, whether it be drawing, painting, photography, sculpting etc etc.
I'd say that it depends on your discipline and the type of work you're looking for, but not diversifying your skill-set is going to handicap you without a doubt.
Very interesting thread I have a long way to go with drawing myself and even from this early stage I believe myself that it will help me quite a lot.
I believe every medium helps a lot with developing your artistic eye. I know for fact that photography helped me so much regarding composition and that was never my intention as I was only doing it for fun and not too serious.
Replies
I'm hitting that wall now. It's problematic because it's more difficult for me than others to, like you said, make something from 'thin air'. Competition is so stiff that it's a must to be able to think outside the box and just create freely. Definitely a reason to at least sketch more.
To answer the overarching question here: No. Many 3D artists, myself included, are doing just fine on a skillset that doesn't include painting or illustration on a day to day basis. The caveat is, there are drawbacks that will have to be addressed eventually.
Maybe post any work on this forum before slinging mud.
so....you took the time to check everyones folio, well played sir, well played.
You acted like a dick and got called out for it, your retort...to be a bigger dick... good plan! Remember you mustn't see this as an attack, I'm free to say that as I find it to be true.
anyway....
I've actually seen people quickly iterate and 'sketch' in 3d using sculpting programs, but imo it's personally easier to design things in 2d. You don't have to be a great 2d artist to use 2d as a way of getting ideas and designs down though, which I think gets back to the original question, you don't have to be a good 2d artist (like being great at perspective and shading in ps), but having design and composition skills is a must, and it just happens to be easier to get those types of ideas down in 2d (at least for me).
I tend to put a lot of emphasis into both 3D and 2D in my learning, and in my mind, it's all the same stuff. No matter what we do, our final product will always be a 2D image on a flat screen. (aside from 3d prints and traditional sculpting, etc.).
Composition, design, color, character, story, pose, etc. etc. these all apply across the board to both 3D and 2D.
I know for a fact that if I completely neglected 2D art in my studies, my 3D work would suffer GREATLY. The opposite is also true, but not nearly to the same degree.
I can't answer your question for you, but personally..... I NEED to try my best at both 3D and 2D.
Here's a couple of pieces I've done in 2D. In my opinion, they're perfect examples of why I'm concerned about my 2D skill.
I mean, the figure drawing I suppose isn't awful, but I think we can safely say my environment is horrendous; I spent an hour or so on both.
I should probably format this better, but here's some tips off the top of my head and some helpful links:
1. Draw from life.
2. Draw more than just what you're interested in. (draw a shoe, a cat, a telephone pole, a cell phone, whatever). Observation is the lesson to be learned here and EVERYTHING will serve a purpose and inform your future design decisions.
3. Draw quickly. Quantity is important here.
4. Study other artists. This might be one of the most important things to do. There's a taboo surrounding copying other artists, but I'm convinced every great artist has a secret stash of things he's copied directly from other artists that no one will ever see. Study everything from old masters to comic legends to anyone else you admire.
5. Do what you want. This might sound contradictory to number 2, but the only way you'll be motivated enough to study for hours a day is to (for the majority of time), learn what you want to learn.
some random links that have helped me along the way:
http://itchstudios.com/psg/art_tut.htm
http://theartcenter.blogspot.com/
http://radhowto.blogspot.com/
http://characterdesign.blogspot.com/
http://www.autodestruct.com/thumbwar.htm
Thanks Murph. Unfortunately, that's the problem... I've been doing this for almost 2 years. In fact it must be more than that because I got my Wacom for my 24th Birthday, and I'm now 27.
The point of most concern is that those pieces are representative of my current level of skill, despite having a lot of [what I thought was] practice.
I'm really starting to doubt my path here.
after all that, if you're still discouraged and aren't enjoying it, then simply don't do it
I only found one studio that listed:
"Strong traditional art background (B.F.A. or equivalent degree)." under "Desired skills and pluses"
They also had the same wording for Animators, FX artists, a web developer and a programer... Considering how small the studio was they probably will have to evaluate the candidates on their ability to do the job they are applying for. But then there might be more and I just wasn't running into them? The examples below do tend to jive with what I've seen listed before, but then I haven't been looking all that hard because I haven't had to look for a job in 5-6 years.
Gearbox FX artist, no where does it say anything about 2D drawing skills under required or even desired requirements. This is a creative position but also a technical one. Amazing 2D drawing skills alone aren't going to land this job.
Bioware Sr Environment artist, "Drawings/sketches that display basic skills as well as any modeling and texture work related to objects, buildings, natural terrain, etc".
"The best World/Environment Modelers tend to have solid technical knowledge and skills and are able to push a programmer to generate new innovative looks, lighting, and moods in their levels. To do spectacular work, they usually push programmers pretty hard to achieve amazing results, but they are also flexible to change and able to modify their work if it will result in improving the overall ambiance of the world theyre creating. They do a lot of work in 3D art packages, custom level layout tools, and in texture artwork packages like Photoshop."
I'm not really seeing where they wow people with their amazing concept skills on a day to day basis? Photoshop as it relates to texture artwork?
Valve 3D Character artist, 5th one down right above "Get your hands dirty in InDesign, HTML, Flash, and other similar tools." we have: "Drawing, sculpting, and other traditional art skills a plus" not required but it will help.
Valve Level Designer, No mention of 2D drawing skills.
Gameloft 3D Artist, "We are looking for various types of 3D artists. The job duties above reflect multiple positions." No mention of 2D drawing skills.
LucasArts Art Lead, probably one of the more critical artistic jobs around and no mention of 2D drawing skills?
The theme among most listings is a demonstrated ability to do the job, that doesn't always mean sitting down and doing 2D drawings day in and day out. If it does pop up in the listings its normally not a make or break requirement. There are skills that transfer really well from 2D to 3D which is probably why it is helpful to see good 2D art instead of having to find it in bits and pieces in other areas.
I think everyone can imagine what a nightmare it would be to work with someone who doesn't have a technical clue and is constantly pestering those around them with basic questions. After a few weeks they'll have the hang of it but its going to be rough.
With that said most places if given the choice between two candidates, its easier to take the more traditionally minded artist vs the technical for very artistic positions. The reason being you can teach the traditional artist to push a few buttons and follow a few written steps and you have a great game artist in a few weeks/months. But it's a big gamble hoping that someone technical can grow their traditional art skills over time, there is no guarantee they can.
Of course the best candidate would be the perfect blend of both to match the given job. That mix isn't always 2D > technical for every job.
Will not being an amazing 2D artist keep you out of certain positions? Yes it will, but it's not a deal breaker.
You don't think that someone's a blacksmith just 'cause he knows how to handle a hammer.
Though to answer the OP: No, it's not a must.
Look at Vigil and Blizzard, they've had gallery showings of their artists work.
Ok, I've come up with an analogy, sculpting and modeling are diet and cardio, drawing is weight training.
Being an art lead doesn't make you an art director. Many good lead artists I've worked with have essentially just been a manager with tech art skills.
Which comes back to the central point. Yes, it's handy if you can quickly sketch a concept to show someone what you want, or what you're going to make. If you ever want to be an art director then drawing skills are essential.
BUT!!
Many game artists do not have to draw. And many roles do not require drawing. So if your drawing isn't amazing then don't worry too much. Your 3D art skills have to be amazing. And that's not the same thing.
I agree about the "break time" part, too - reading books, studying theory and other things like that are extremely valuable, and necessary. I think there is a distinction to be made between "random doodling" and "purpose-driven doodling" tho. Not much can come out from sitting in front of a piece of paper and just doing the same head over again ; but sitting down and achieving a precise goal (inspired by an interesting art or non-art related read) is much more valuable.
Another distinction is to be made between being an "execution artist" and more creative type of game artist. Some feel okay to just blindly follow and "execute" a concept. But there is no doubt that a modeller with a solid grasp on, for instance, folds and anatomy would be much, much better game artist. And I still believe that such knowledge comes faster with paper than 3D or even digital 2D. The limitations imposed by paper and traditional media in general are in favor of that. No fancy brushes or tools - just a simple media with limitations to work around. It simply tends to flex the art muscles better!
I think that's looking at it from the wrong end of the issue tho. The fact that it is not a requirement, doesn't mean that an applicant should be happy with just the "minimun" skills asked by the position. That's especially true since the field is competitive. To get the job, not only do you need to match the qualifications - you also need to be the best at them.
One argument that needs to be debunked is the claim that since some good modelers don't know how to draw, then this is not necessary to learn that craft. Sure, but what about future career advancements ? Why would one want to be stuck that way, instead of working on become as good as the best in the business ? Learning stuff is a lot of fun, and nobody is born with instant magic talent. Every skill needs to be acquired, and nothing comes "by itself"... Art is in the eye, not in the tool ; learning more crafts like 2D and traditional sculpture can only make one's eye better, and giving up just because "oh I cannot draw anything else than stick figure" is a bit misguided, I think.
The fact is, these principles also drive the strength of a 3D piece. So, learning more about them will make you better at just about everything. Most of it is about the different kind of contrasts (value, saturation, texture ...) and how the way light works across surfaces. It can be very counter intuitive, but it is fascinating stuff to learn about. Just don't try to "copy" an image pixel by pixel ; instead, identify the more important contrasts driving the reference image, and find an appropriate tool to convey them...
You can ask any artist out there how they became good at what they do. I can guarantee that all these artists would feel pretty insulted if one told them that their skills must be coming effortlessly from some magical effortless "talent" source without working actively working on them.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, if someone's 2D is lacking in some aspect, it means that there is some fundamental skill missing from that person's toolset. It's okay, because learning is fun anyways and feeling like a noob is actually a rather good humbling feeling. But simply brushing the problem aside because one "doesn't need that skill anyways" can turn into an unexpected problem later on, I think.
If you're a good painter it will help with your texturing, it makes you a lot more versatile when you can paint something exactly the way you want instead of having to sample various images and photos. If you're comfortable and fast at making concepts, you can easily make a solid concept to work from before making it in 3d, instead of struggling through the design as you go.
So, as a lot of others have said, they do feed off of each other. Whether one or the other is necessary is up to you. I personally wouldn't want to just be a 3d guy.
As much proof as I need is going to CGHub and being extremely jealous at the art there. It's awesome that great 2d artists can express anything they want without the same technical limitations or time requirements as 3d. Directly from brain to page.
Well my suggestion wasn't to not draw. I was suggesting that you shouldn't get upset if you're not the best 2D artist. Because many of the top people in the industry do not draw - or exhibit any particular skill at drawing.
Unless the criteria for sucesss is to be a concept artist?
I also very much agree about what you say about people who shouldnt be "upset" for not doing great at 2D. Two reasons for that : there is no need to get upset, because as you say one can work decently-ish in 3D without much 2D skill ; and also, there is no need to be upset because developing such skills has nothing to do with some magical talent thing that one has or hasn't. It just comes from practice, and there's a certain zen to knowing what one's skills and weaknesses are, and working on them to get better...
That's not been my experience. I find that the people who practice 3d modeling tend to be the ones who are good at 3d modeling. And a lot of them do 3d modeling at lunch and in their time off. Suggesting to me that raw hours practicing modeling and texturing is more effective than ancillary skills. Drawing is a useful skill , for various reasons, but I see no direct transfer of ability that you seem to be implying.
One more thing I wanna add is to this:
This is so true, I totally agree with this. And I'd like to add a point to it too. And that is that for the people usually asking these questions, students, aspiring artists, etc, it comes from a point of "what do I need to do to get a job?". And to that, you really need to be more of an "execution artist", as Pior puts it. Quite simply, I don't think anyone is going to trust a junior artist with any major art decisions.
This also calls back to the original question of the thread. Is it required to be great at 2D to be great at 3D? And I'd like to ask in return, required for what?
If your goal is being good enough to get a job, then no, it's not required. And I would even say that it may be detrimental to an extent. How could you get a job if you don't know what a normal map is or how to work with it? Just an example. And as a guy who had to hire people (a grim job, I tell you), you'd be surprised by how often I get portfolios that I think are actually decent, but don't give me the impression that the guy could get the job done. So it's important to be able to "get shit done" first if you ever want to work in the industry (or any industry).
But then, usually after you get into the industry, if your goal is being a great artist in general, then that's really when spreading out and learning all sorts of skills and disciplines would kick in. And some stuff can only be learned in certain mediums. Switching to a different medium can help sortof "shock" your brain into seeing things differently. And it can greatly help you improve.
I hope I'm not coming across as being "anti-2d" or something ridiculous like that. I'm just saying, there's a time and a place for everything. And for different people the time could vary, and the place could be elsewhere than others.
Drawing is something that most of us cannot do but we can generate spectacular 3D art (atleast some of us :P) but creating texture for your self is also important, if you cannot draw then hand drawn art is out of the question. There are however alternatives like Photoshop and Photography! Both of this solutions can create facinating resoults especially if you use them in cojunction.
So I would say Drawing is not mustbut Photoshopping is.
Given the current job climate and where industry is heading I think its best to become one man army, of course you cant be expert in all areas but if you are able to work on other areas like video editing, compositing, painting textures, drawing rough concepts and know manufacturing process of real world objects despite the fact that ur role is just Environment or 3D artist it will put you in a good spot compared to others.
I can confirm this as I am now doing Product Design a completly off track than my last 10 years in IT and Media.
To stepback a bit i'd say that to learn 2d / pencil and paper youre learning more of a raw knowledge set that can be applied to anything. You can say the same for 3d, however as people have said... 3d automatically handles quite a lot of things for you (perspective being a prime example).
In short, i see 2d as more of a knowledge base and 3d (programs) as a tool to use the knowledge.
But theres nothing that stops a 3d artist from understanding anatomy/colour theory by experimenting in the medium theyre comfortable in. As someone who has hardly used Max/Maya I find them awfully convoluted without someone to explain why the camera has suddenly gone orthographic or why the texture is showing up poorly.
If the thread were about where people should start from scratch id say 2d, but i guess thats not the point.
Does it matter if an environment artist can't paint great environment scenes?
I've got this little bastard in my head saying 'yeah this 3D project is going great but you still can't paint a decent environment scene'... so I go back and try it, and it looks shit which tears up my motivation to work on any art at all, let alone 2D. I'm sure some know what I mean, that little nagging feeling that although you can do great things in one area, because you can't do one thing, it feels like you suck at everything.
If I'm going to spend the rest of my life doing this, which I hope I will, I don't ever want to feel like I'm doing great stuff.
First, you need to find a starting point. You might have seen videos of skilled artists starting from random strokes and pulling something out of them. However that doesn't mean that something good necessarily comes from randomness - instead, you need to identify what will be the main meaningful tool to convey the landscape in question, and I believe this is what speed painters get out of the initial "random" phase. Don't think of it as "the sky is blue, therefore I'll paint some blue surface ; the bushes are green, therefore I'll use a green bush brush" as this will only lead to "painting by numbers".
Instead think of what you want to convey, and find the contrast tool letting you express that. It could be shape contrast, color contrast, value contrast ... Once you have that figured out you can build the image around that. It is also good to start with black and white, that is to say, relying on barebones value contrast as this is usually the most striking one. Also think of foreground, middle ground and far background, and how atmospheric perspective affects it. Knowing these rules and systems will without a doubt transfer directly to your 3D scene building skills.
Another advice is to not necessarily rush into a painting, as it tends to produce always the same thing. (Mountains! Reflective water! Spaceships!). Instead, try to fully think the scene in your mind's eye first. I find FPS games very good at stimulating that. For instance, think of Rage : the bridge leading to the first mission, the underground passageway to access the decayed hospital ... very cool stuff, and quite different from the usual run-of-the-mill "epic matte painting scenery" subjects. I think Half Life 2 is also very good for that. Third person games usually not so much, but that might just be personal preference.
(I personally find the Uncharted games less visually inspiring than, say, a solid FPS, even a visually aging one. There is just something extra about seing the world directly through a character's eyes)
I'd encourage you to look at Whit Brachna's videos. His progress through the years was very interesting to watch, and he is alo an excellent lecturer, explaining very clearly why he does things a certain way. Very clever guy.
Good luck!
If you're given a concept or a brief, your job is to create it - a lot of the time this will involve some extrapolation and in order to do that you must understand what it is you're looking at.
I look for that above all else when going through reels and portfolios because it translates across to every area from art to animation to rigging and so on.
and I'm with Bigjohn - if I'm ever 100% happy with something I've done, that'll be the day I quit 3d graphics
I will check out Whit Brachna, and keep on keeping on!
BigJohn - oh I agree, i think 100% satisfaction with your own work is dangerous territory. I tend to relish any kind of positivity towards my work though, it's the little moments when I say 'hmm, that's actually not looking bad' that keep me going!
2. Listen to Justin
3. An artist without "2D" skills is like an art team without a concept artist. Sure, they can get by without one, but will the game look as good? They could hire a contractor from outside the team, but will that person "get" the game and the tech and be able to deliver a great basis for the 3D artists?
I don't think you'll find a great looking game without an in-house concept artist, nor will you find a great looking game without a significant portion of the 3D artists also being competent 2D artists. Yeah, you can scrape by without knowing how to draw, but drawing is fun. There's no reason not to do it.
Being good at drawing and painting makes you better at 3D art. It's one of the best ways to get better at it.
Sure, there are lots of talented artists without 2d skills that do well in commercial settings. The work you get to do just won't be seen as creatively stimulating to someone who might be a concept power house. That doesn't mean it won't be interesting to you.
However, it's never a detriment to have a wider skillset, regardless of wether it's painting on programming, you'll be a more versatile overall artist for it and probably more likely to get hired.
So choose whatever tool you want, all will make you a better artist, but keep in mind that if you focus too much on a single one it'll make you a one dimensional artist.
The best artists in any discipline, without fail, have multiple artistic focuses, whether it be drawing, painting, photography, sculpting etc etc.
I'd say that it depends on your discipline and the type of work you're looking for, but not diversifying your skill-set is going to handicap you without a doubt.
I believe every medium helps a lot with developing your artistic eye. I know for fact that photography helped me so much regarding composition and that was never my intention as I was only doing it for fun and not too serious.
(But getting overlapping assignments is a pain in the keister!)