Discussion about Game Art and Real Art

[neosorcerer]

Lately my parents have been bothering me about selling some of my art and I've been left wondering. I don't feel like I have made anything worth selling. It's not that I think I'm not skilled enough, its just that I've never focused on making pretty pictures. I've only cared about designing characters and concept sheets for making 3d models.

Now, this is something I wanted to ask specifically to game artists and not just digital artists in general. If a family member came up to you and asked for a portrait or your grandmother wanted a painting of some flowers, is this something you could do? Would you want to do it? Should game artists be practicing this kind of stuff? Is there really no difference between a game artist and any other kind of artist, we simply do whatever we can in order to make money?

Well this makes sense to me, money is good however you can get it but I still want to know what your opinions are. Is there any difference between a game artist and a 'real artist?' (sorry I can't think of a better phrase for it.)
Also have you sold any art and what kinds of art have you sold?

[YdoUwant2know]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

First off yes, an emphatic yes, game artists are REAL artists. Just because you use a computer and a mouse, instead of paper and pen does not mean you are not an artist, you merely use a different medium. Just like a sculptor may not draw or paint for a living, they are still an artist. They create art. Instead of “real artist”, I think the term you are looking for would be “traditional artist”.

While admittedly, I do not consider myself to be a great traditional artist, in my opinion, traditional art skills are a good thing to have and something you should practice. Traditional art skills can be very important to a 3d artist, but are not always required. It just depends on what you want to do. Think of it like this, being able to paint a portrait, or a flower, will never hurt you. However, just because you can paint or draw, does not mean you will be able to model the same thing in 3d.

As for selling your work, that is a choice you have to make. I have sold some of my clay work and drawing, sometimes for the money, and sometimes just because I don’t have a place for it. The money can be good, but more often than not, if you look at how long it takes to create, verses how much you will get paid for it; the experience is more beneficial than anything.

[ShadyD]

Do it for yourself.
Never let anyone force you to use your talent if you don't want to.

Yes 3D game artists get paid, but they enjoy the work.
I Would get bored within seconds if i had to model my grandmother with a flower all in uber realism just so my family can enjoy it.

Rule of thumb, enjoy it!
Do you think anyone would start up their program or grab a piece of paper without enjoying it? (We all have our lack of motivation AKA Lazyness from time to time though.)

Wikipedia says
Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective.

The difference lies in your own taste and interest.
If you are more comfortable doing full game-ready models that have some cool guns/augmentations etc than that's your art.

If you like doing portraits with flowers and skies in realism or your own style, That's your art.

You create the difference yourself.

[Snowfly]

No distinction, game artists have a broader stock of mental reference to draw from and you should be able to tackle anything, including a portrait of your grandma. If not for the theme, at least for the technical aspects of it...studying those wrinkles could make your next monster concept 100x more convincing! jk.

Friends ask me to draw pictures of them pretty often and I take that as an opportunity to do something more pop culture, so I don't get stuck in the mold of sci fi/fantasy/*, after designing things under those genres all day, it's a lot more challenging to move out of that comfort zone and make pictures that appeal to a general audience.

Just have the mindset that you are studying all the time, ask yourself how you can apply what you've learned to your prefered craft, and making any type of art becomes enjoyable imo

[cookepuss]

I think that it all really depends on how you look at it. Most of the time, when you're doing game art, there's a practical component at work. There's a very focused end to what you're doing. This piece of art has "x" purpose. It serves "y" function or is designed for "z" product. That's what commercial art is all about. You may not hang it in a museum (today), but it is still art.

Yes. It can indeed be fun. Who would do art if there was no fun in it? Whether or not you look at it [game art] as "real art" is altogether subjective. Can Lara Croft's design be art? Yeah. Apart from being pop art, it also is functional/commercial art. There are different types of art. Some do a job. Some art is there to provoke thought. Some art is there just to appreciate.

Can game art be "art" art? Sure. If one considers film making art, then machinima could easily classify as such. Same thing with cinematics. Of course, don't expect Roger Ebert to agree with you - the douche. ;)

Just ask yourself this. How many people actually got upset or cried when Aeris died in Final Fantasy 7? Probably more people than we'd guess. If that isn't art, what is? It evokes. It inspires. It provokes. THAT is art. Game art can indeed be art. It's all in presentation and purpose.

Art is art is art. Warhol is one artist whose work constantly straddled the line between pop/appreciative and functional. Just look at his painting of 32 Campbell's Soup Cans. On the surface, it's a very artsy jab at commercialism. However, one can also look at it as functional in that it laid some of the groundwork for modern advertising. No doubt, it (unintentionally) sold as many cans of soup as it won over art lovers. :)

Do whatever makes you comfortable. If you feel that you can produce functional art because that's what makes you happy then do it. There's a place in the world for art that serves a purpose. If you enjoy it, why not? If you feel comfortable with stretching your wings and doing something more provocative, do that too.

[neosorcerer]

That's very interesting, cookepuss, while I did not intend to debate whether game art is real art or "what is art?" its very relevant to this discussion. I think traditional art is great but I'm really in love with the digital and interactive art of games. All of us here know how cool it is but as you said its not going in a museum and the world will continue to ignore us. It's not something I'm worried about, I just wonder if we can(someday) say "I'm a games artist" and not get weird looks because people only care if you can make something pretty to hang on their walls.

[cookepuss]

its not going in a museum and the world will continue to ignore us
Actually, I'd have to say that it's the exact opposite. The world at large doesn't ignore game art. If anything, it focuses on it almost obsessively. Trust me, if the graphics were bad, people would most definitely complain. It's not that game artists are being ignored. It's that they're almost taken for granted, as if they are machines.

To the average person, a game is a form of entertainment. To a business, it is a product. Like all products of any noteworthy scale, there are so many people contributing to the end game. Because of that, each artist enjoys a certain level of anonymity. That translates into a company like Sony or EA getting all of the glory instead of its individual employees.

The average person probably doesn't see a game artist as an artist in the classic sense for one of several key reasons... the medium. Many people assume that if you're creating art on the computer that the computer is doing most of the work. They simply cannot see the amount of artistic skill that goes into game art, or any digital art for that matter.

If you work with a mouse or a Wacom then clearly, by their standards, you are less of an artist and more of a technician. Obviously, that could not be further from the truth. The general public still doesn't understand that a mouse/Wacom is just another tool, no different in essential purpose than a paintbrush, pencil, or chisel.

Is it ignorance? By definition, yeah. Joe Schmoe might be super brilliant (or not), but he is probably not adequately exposed to the behind the scenes stuff. A good example is my father. He LOVES movies. His DVD collection is probably close to 1,000 titles large. I doubt that he's even seen 1% of the bonus features that his movies have to offer. He doesn't care about the making of stuff. Because of that, it's all technical and zero art.

The other reason why most people don't look at game art as appreciative art is probably a little bit of elitism. While CG has come a long way, it is still in its infancy. Painting has been around since Caveman Grog could smear berry juice on a cave wall. The average person is very reluctant to accept change. Because of that, they'll hold onto what they know and understand with fierce determination. By that same token, they'll reject the unknown with equal force and even a dose of ridicule.

Give it time. It'll change.

Do I think that game art, games, or CG in general qualifies as "real art?" Sometimes. While I think that beautiful stuff is created daily, I still think that CG and games are still waiting to break out. Same thing with CG movies.

Sometimes, art can just stand on its own, do nothing, and simply exist. Currently, CG movies, stills, and game art do this perfectly. Other times, art must do more than simply exist. It must provoke thought, emotion, or debate. Currently, games, CG flicks, and game art have a really tough time doing this. For every one CG short like "Ryan" that provokes thought and debate you've got 100 that don't.

That's not to say that they're not entertaining. Many CG flicks (short & long) are a hoot. Most game art is stunning. Very little of it is up there with the likes of the "Mona Lisa" or "Birth of Venus". This is due in part to the fact that the whole art form is still evolving, but it's also due to the fact that the artists doing the shorts or the devs making the game haven't aspired to those artistic levels. Just because "Mega Man" has art doesn't mean that it is art.

Just a simple (rhetorical) question, when you're following a brief for a character or some props, do you ever aim to make the next "Last Supper" or "Starry Night?" Probably not. You're probably just trying to make something that looks super cool and still comes in under or at spec.

Sometimes, games, game art, and CG flicks are high art. Sometimes, they're not. How long it takes for it to be more than not depends on the artists, the devs, and the desires of the public getting that end product. These 3 groups need to want for CG, in all of its forms, to be more "Schindler's List" and less "Rambo." Not just in terms of look, but also artistic, entertainment, and social value. If the CG arts can do this more and more often than it'll be perceived differently.

Just some food for thought.

[BuroKun]

ya what cookepuss said. =P nicely put.

[neosorcerer]

Wow cookepuss you really know your stuff.

Well I admit most of my own experience just comes from dealing with my relatives. My sister paints a nice (but clearly flawed) picture and it gets framed and hung on the wall of my grandparents office. Everyone marvels at its beauty and that's fine, I'm happy for my sister. My parents say I should make something for the wall too but I've never wanted to.

And its true, none of them have a clue what I really do. I end up just being called a "computer whiz" "he knows computers" when actually I'm horribly inept with computers in the sense that they are thinking. No really, I have no clue why your computer isn't working stop asking.

I don't have a job in the gaming industry yet, and I guess one of my fears is that I really won't be making anything relevant to my interests and it won't be "real art" because its not from my heart. This is what I like doing but can I really do this for a living?

Thank you everyone for your replies, while it makes me feel silly I can see that my own experience is rather limited and you've given me something to really think about and I hope it helps other's like me as well.

[TryForce]

Yeh sometimes even my parents missunderstand me, i think. I'm mainly sitting watching CG stuff or doing gameart. What they think i do is working on the computer and knowing everything about it.
My Parents dont even respect that to much, My Dad came into my rom while i was Rig-testing an Arm of a character. He doesn't understand whats so interesting on it, that why he start to say its Very Primitive what i do, kinda hurts.

As for us, who are doing these things on Computers, we call it art, For the others who are not doing this they call it "computer stuff".
To be honest, Art is now everything, If you look closly. Everywhere you go is art, but in another way.

As for the job, i bet you can, but still get the greatest degree on school if you still can, you never know what can happend.
As maybe try to find some interesting style on wich you like to make urself used to. And start to do the "real art" (I would call it more, Basic Art) with it. While that transform it into the Game art.


EDIT: COkepuss, neat comment!

[Ged]

Theres a little bit of conversation like this on mudbox forums from time to time. Some of the people on there have created sculptures which I definitely classify as high art. Yet we know that they will probably never be displayed in a gallery as they only exist on this 2D plane we call a computer screen. Perhaps when 3D printing becomes a fast detailed and cheap process things may change more. Imagine if we could just print out our latest game characters as 6" tall figurines with all their detail preserved? They would still probably be considered "toys" by some people =P but others may respect that we are actually making something that has not existed before with our own hands and perspiration. But then theres still the argument that it can be easily duplicated(jpeg,obj,max,maya files etc) so ownership of an original artpiece is a confusing issue. I was even thinking of doing my dissertation on this topic, Im studying interactive media design at the moment but I wish I had taken fine art cause it would have helped me more with my 3D art than my current course does.

I get annoyed with the fact that so many people see the letters CG or CGI and think "that means its been Generated by a Computer doesnt it?" ...no it doesnt! its generated by me!!!

I think that only when the world has overcome its ignorance and realised that computer art is created by human beings...then the art being made will be fully appreciated by everyone and not by the educated few.

I think doing traditional art is great, my first artistic love was drawing with pencils and occasionally painting, one of the reasons I moved to the computer is because it offered me the opportunity to make more fully realised ideas and I loved computer games. I could only ever draw or paint one angle of a character or design, I couldnt find any way of rotating and viewing it. So in this way Ive found 3D art on computer to be a superior medium for me to use in this context. Personally I still value traditional art alot, and find 3D art in most of its forms to be a good example commercial art and pop culture. This doesnt mean it has any less value than high art, people are taught that some art is more "real" art than others, in my opinion this is simply a cultural understanding not a fact or a truth.

is nirvana less "real" music than beethoven?

[cookepuss]

is nirvana less "real" music than Beethoven?
I get into this particular debate with my father all of the time. He's 60. I'm 33. To him, real music died when the 1950s ended. Everything else is noise.

How does this relate to CG? Simple. It's all about evolution.

It doesn't matter if you're talking about The Four Tops, U2, System of a Down, or the Supremes. In the end, it's all the same. The presentation may be different, to reflect the changes in society, but the themes pretty much remain constant. More over, they all share common ancestors. You can easily play a "six degrees of separation" sort of game to see how your favorite band is just a spin on something from 60 years ago.
The Shangrilas --> The Ramones --> U2 --> Coldplay
Smokey Robinson --> Michael Jackson --> Justin Timberlake

The same thing can be done with visual arts or anything else for that matter.
punch cards --> cassette tapes --> floppy disks --> CDs --> DVDs
Live singers --> vinyl records --> CDs --> MP3s
"Punch & Judy" --> "Howdy Doody" --> "The Muppets" --> "CG Yoda"
Cave paintings --> Canvas Paintings --> Flip books --> 2D Cartoons --> Stop Motion --> CG Animation

I sincerely doubt that a caveman could understand the logic or merit behind something like "Rugrats." There's a verifiable progression from one thing to another, though.

So, when my dad starts saying that he can't see how System of a Down is music, but the Four Tops are... I just laugh. It's all the same thing. Different package.

Yeh sometimes even my parents missunderstand me, i think. I'm mainly sitting watching CG stuff or doing gameart. What they think i do is working on the computer and knowing everything about it.
I get it. TOTALLY. Here's a typical conversation between my an my financial consultant dad.

DAD: You wanna make a couple of extra bucks.
ME: You know me. I loves the money. What's the job?
DAD: One of my clients needs their servers setup.
ME: Uhmmm.... I'm not an IT guy, pop.
DAD: You're a smart guy though. You can do it.
ME: Sure. I can do it. That's not what I do for a living though.
DAD: What did I put you through college for then?
ME: Computer Science. Ya' know, programming & stuff.
DAD: So you ARE an IT guy then!
ME: No, Dad. I create CG content custom tailored to the needs and demands of my clients.
DAD: Exsqueeze me?
ME: I'm a 3D artist. Ya' know, like Toy Story.
DAD: Really?
ME: Uhmmm.... Yeah.
DAD: Seriously?
ME: No. I'm really a pimp. Gotta go. The hookers don't smack themselves. SHEESH!!! :rolleyes: <storms off>

:) :) Sadly, that's usually the way it goes down. My mother understands it all a bit better, mainly because she's a fiction writer (currently working on novel #2.) My younger brother gets it because he's an artist too (2D & photography). My sister? Not so understanding. She's a programmer. Same mindset as my dad.

cookepuss you really know your stuff.
Nah. I just took a lot of art history in college & high school. Basically, I'm just another loud mouthed, opinonated New Yorker. :)

[Tully]

I have a degree in fine art, so I spent my whole university career dealing with that issue. One thing is for sure, you will NEVER get an answer to the question of "what is art?" because the whole thing borders on being non-cognitive. In my drawing classes, the die-hards would expound for hours on the exact dividing line between drawing and painting (you can draw with paint, but you can't make a painting with a pencil...what does it all mean!?!?).

What I like is not the same thing as what another person will like, so who cares? My professors scolded me for liking production art and "commercial" things. I yielded enough to get decent grades and didn't change a thing I was doing. I graduated and a year later I'm in London working for a developer on a triple A title. Who's laughing now? :lucky:

In answer to your question. Yes. No. Doesn't matter. I love doing portraits and figure drawing. I like to pick up the oil paints every now and then. I like making sculpture. All of the classical works I look at inform what I do for my own personal work and for my job. Modern production art is far more indebted to the golden age of illustration (and in turn the academic art world before the 20th century) than it is to the modern art world.

That said, if you want to become the best 3D artist that you can be, YES you should practice that stuff. 100% yes, absolutely, no question about it. Understand form, colour, composition. You should draw.. don't just model. Paint, preferably with real paint, as it'll teach you a lot more than the computer will. Sculpt with real clay (sculpey is nice too). It can be difficult, but if you get good at it you know you're as strong as you can be. An exercise in one area informs all of the others. If you can already draw a good character, it's a much smaller leap to be able to model a good character than it is to do it the other way around.

Traditional art is not seperate from game art... they're drawn from the same place. The methods are different, but the skills are hugely overlapping. You don't have to paint flowers or a portrait of your grandma, but a still life of some cool objects and a self portrait or fifty can and will be invaluable if you put the time into it.

[BuroKun]

DAD: Seriously?
ME: No. I'm really a pimp. Gotta go. The hookers don't smack themselves. SHEESH!!! <storms off>

XD LOL It's funny because its true!

[Yung]

Wow cookepuss you really know your stuff.

I don't have a job in the gaming industry yet, and I guess one of my fears is that I really won't be making anything relevant to my interests and it won't be "real art" because its not from my heart. This is what I like doing but can I really do this for a living?
.

I get the feeling that this is your major concern, and secondly with your sister's art being hung up being second concern. In short you got your ego shakenned (no offense, but which artists havent?) and your future in this career questioned. And most of the time I found out the answer to whatever your questions are lies within yourself. Just ask yourself how much you really like doing game art and if you could imagine 10 years from now you are modeling a game asset and that thought brings a smile to your face, heh your questions' answered. I don't know about the rest but I went through a similar process before so I can kind of relate to.

Well listen to what Cookepuss and the rest of the more experienced game artists here gotta to say, filter it through and take what is meaningful and resonate with you. And yeah, traditional art is very important. :lucky:

[Vikkie]

www.monkeyzombierobot.com

these guys are exhibiting game art on galleries :)

[Marco Mazzoni]

I've had similar experiences with parents not really understanding the subtle differences between what I do and what's hanging above their sofa. I can't even count how many times I've been between freelance gigs and my dad would say something like, "You know I saw some guy drawing people on the street and charging them $30 for a goofy looking picture. You're good enough to do that!" or "I know someone who just bought a painting at an auction for like $13,000, and it's just a bunch of colored squares and splattered paint. I think you could do that!"

Yeah, thanks Dad...:rolleyes:

Yeah, that routine can get old pretty quick, but I know he means well. Even though he wishes I was making more money, he's proud of what I can do, and that's what really matters.

As far as whether or not you should take these art jobs just because they're paying? Well, that really depends.

I wouldn't necessarily turn down a project just because the subject matter isn't within my comfort zone, that's where some of the best experience is gained. If you can force yourself to have fun painting something you hate, then just think about what you'll be able to do with your personal work!

I would, however, turn down a gig if I felt I wasn't being fairly compensated, even if it was for a family member. It may sound cold, but selling yourself short will only make yourself less valuable to that person anyway. If you don't think your parents respect your work now, just imagine what will they'll think if you practically give your work away for free.

That's not to say I wouldn't make a piece for them on my own time and give it to them of my own accord. I just don't do cheap commissions as a matter of principal.

That's my $.02 anyway