[Guy-Incognito]

Now, I don't want to get on the wrong side of anybody here, but studying on a multimedia design and digital animation course has opened my eyes up to a lot of strange conflicts.

I'm talking about a real misunderstanding between people who know the ins and outs of computers (can I say - nerd?) and somebody with a creative flare. I think the problem arises from the creative person feeling envious over the skills of the tech-head and the tech-head is jealous over the artistic powers of the creative person.

It's weird but it annoys the hell out of me. I know that anybody can learn how to use a computer, but you are either born with the ability to draw or you’re not. I think this makes sense (just got back from a heavy night out) if not - sorry.
stuff

[moonchild]

Yeah, i think your right.

Im a nerd, I wish i wasnt and im trying to change that at the moment. Im trying to free my mind so that hopefully ill be able to stay off the computer long enough to practice my art...

Its sad but its true...

[Guy-Incognito]

Yeah, I'm morphing into a nerd thanks to this course! I have Softimage, Director, Dreamweaver etc, drilling into my head on a weekly base!

Must...retain...social...acceptance!

[Lunatique]

well, you're going to run into a lot of that once you start working in the various industries.

In an ideal world, this is what SHOULD happen:

1)the techinical wizards become technical directors and trouble shoot problems or write shaders/research new effects.

2)the artistic dudes work on the art end of things--animation, modeling, concepts...etc

Both sides work together seamlessly to create awesome work.

BUT, in reality, that is often not the case. In reality, you often have this:

1)technical dudes who fancy themselves as artists, and they always want to do the artistic stuff, when there are people more talented that should do it. Deep down inside, they are jealous of the talents of real artists, and they protect themselves by saying things like, "in 3D, art skills are not that important. So-and-so(someone well-known)is not much of an artist in the traditional sense, but he/she kicks ass in 3D."

2)artists that need more technical skills are too lazy to learn it. They think because they are "real artists," they don't need to know that technical crap.

So, you end up with techinical guys without artistic talent doing creative work, and artistic dudes not getting into the industry because they lack the technical skills.

In games, it's even worse. You have programmers, designers, and producers that fancy themselves as artists, and end up ruining the visual integrity of the game. More often than not, people that have no business telling the artists what to do are making artistic decisions.

Programmers, designers, management, and artists fight about the game they are working on all the time. But, when it works, it's magical.

Very rarely do you find some kickass dude that are both artistically talented and technically savvy. People like that never have problems finding high-paying jobs. Well, unless that person's got a horrible personality.

[Ben Barker]

Lunatique, you are so right. I had a digital design teacher like that. He believed, and I quote, that "once you know what buttons to push, a 10 year old can make 3D animation".
Interestingly enough, he once told me how he "couldn't draw worth a shit". Also interesting was how he never showed a piece of his digital work, if he even had any at all.
He claimed to be a techie guy but he didn't really know a lot about that either. He just knew a bunch of vocabulary words and liked throwing them around in lectures to prove how much he knew about 3D. I read in the paper a few months ago that the University just bought this guy a multi million dollar render farm. Another waste of student money. I'm glad they aren't getting mine anymore.

Artists versus Programmers is one thing I absolutely hate and almost cannot tolerate. I say almost because I fear it's something I will have to tolerate if I ever want a job at a game company.

[a0]

The computer is yet another tool that an artist should master.

An artist should know the construction, limitations and abilities of various paints, brushes and surfaces, so must the digital artist know the limits and capabilites of his tool: the computer.

[balistic]

Being an artist doesn't preclude one from also being a nerd . . . I mean, shit, I just ordered a 6 hour DVD of people playing Street Fighter.

[29A]

acctually, the programmer SHOULD be able to tell an artist if changes are needed. "yes, that is very nice model but 83746583 polys just doesn't cut it for realtime games". besides, it's mostly artists looking down on geeks. along with all tha hoopla about "anyone can learn computers, an artist need talent". well, the learn about it and do it yourself.

yup, i'm a programmer
though i'm learning drawing for the purpose of illustrating my point in conversations with artists. and it's great fun.

[Norling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guy-Incognito:
I know that anybody can learn how to use a computer, but you are either born with the ability to draw or you’re not.

---

So wrong. Everybody can learn how to gain artistic skill. Some people may find drawing easy, but nobody is born with the ability to draw. This thought is obvoiulsy a new weapon in the battle with artists vs nerds. "we where born with artistic skills, we can learn to how to become nerds, but the nerds cannot learn how to to become artists, so we're more important than them".

Ofcourse, artistic skills are needed to create art and nerdy skills are neede to create tools for the artists...but the "born with skill" snobbery is invented by the artists so that they can defend themselves against nerds trying to be creative.

[Norling]

Worth toi mention is that i'm an nerd that became (is becoming) an artist.

[Norling]

ohh....and i gained my artistic skills by doing computer art instead of "real" art. After a few yers of 3d-ing, i suddelny discovered that i could draw neat stuff with paper and pencil, eaven though i had never practiced.

[Lunatique]

29A- very true. Sometimes artists get carried away and dont' think about the limitations of the game engine.

But, when I say the non-artists meddle, is when they make "artistic" decisions that's purely visual and has no bearing on the game engine.

Norling- Yes, it's true no one was born with drawing/painting skills, but there are people who are born with raw talent. A talented person could end up a bad artist if he/she was lazy and misguided, but an untalented person could never become an excellent artist.

While it's true that anyone can practice and turn out some decent looking artwork, you can't deny the existence of talent. We see evidence of it everyday at sijun.

While art is highly subjective, but if we were to make a list of the most talented artists at sijun, I think it'll be pretty obvious that we all pretty much agree on which artists has the most talent.

If talent wasn't an issue, then EVERYONE at sijun should be producing stunning work. I would never in a million years even dare to think that one day I can do what spooge does, because I know the level of my talent only reaches so far. I can work hard and be the best artist I can be, but that'll still fall short of someone like spooge.

Producing average looking art(3D or 2D) is not some impossible goal if you practiced hard. But if you lack the talent, your work just won't have that stunning quality to it. It's that extra something that makes the viewer go, "WOW. . .." And, no, working hard alone will not give your work that quality. It takes true talent--the kind of talent guys like Sargent, Mozart, and Shakespeare had.

would you say that any average person without talent can become an excellent composer, writer, or a professional athlete? If not, then why would you say that anyone without talent can become a good artist?

Think of it this way:

Talent is like cars. Anyone can learn to drive, but--

An average person without talent is like a Honda Civic. You can only go so fast and manuever so well in a Honda Civic.

A talented person is like a Ferrari. You can go really fast and manuever tight turns that other cars can't handle.

If 2 drivers with the same knowledge, experience, and worked equally hard on improving their skills were to race, there's no chance in hell the Honda is going to win.

So, there's a reason why programmers are hired for their programming skills/talent, and artists hired for their artistic skills/talent.

Even in programming, I doubt many programmers would say that someone like John Carmack got to where he is by hardwork alone. Truth is, the dude has talent.

[Norling]

That was what i ment with "Some people may find drawing easy". Some people have more talent than others. It's all a part of the evolution. Everybody is different...the most sucessfull individuals get theirgenes represented in coming generations.
It's not a random event that both my father and me has artistic talent.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Norling ]

[Duckman2]

I happen to have a talent for drawing, I couldn't program even if I really wanted to, I really respect talents of all kinds and its very stupid to have that kind of friction between two parts of a team that need each other like we need oxygen to breathe.

[Kaete]

Personally, I have nothing but respect for techies. The only thing that I really know how to do with computers is draw and play games. People who know their stuff with tech really impress me.

[elam]

My nephew, who is 6, can draw like a madman.
I don't mean draw like all kids to, crazy scribbles and such, but he has a maturity to his drawings that are beyond his years.
His grasp of perspective and his ability to drawing what he sees are amazing.
Pisses me off.

I think some people do have a natural ability to draw, or make music, or anything, just as there are naturaly gifted athletes.

But anyone can learn to draw. That's been proven many times over.

And programmers are some of the most creative people in the world.

[Ben Barker]

It's all about how you see things. There's no mystical cap to your drawing ability, that you can improve so much but never any more. The only thing keeping you from drawing like you desire to draw is your brain's own misunderstandings. Spooge doesn't have some miraculous gift that other people don't have. His paintings are a marvel to behold, and they seem so natural it's easy to imagine he's painted that way his entire life. But he's trained himself to observe, and has a greater understanding of the fundamentals of art than other people do. The kind of fundamentals you can't put into words, or at least I can't. I can't even describe them really. But the people here probably know what I mean. It's they way you see things differently after you have a break through. What exactly is different? I can't say. Combine that instinct with the rules you do actively think about remember while drawing. Both these things come from practicing the right way.

Do you belive that in the Renaissance, just by coincidence, some of the most talented people to ever create art happened to be born at the same time? Or course not. It had to do with how they were taught. Everyone sees things differently. Some start off closer to the artist's way of seeing things than others do.

If all the good paintings of the world could be attributed mostly to God given talent, immediately they would be devalued in my eyes. When I see a good painting it's like reading a book, only better. In an instant you are looking at all of that artist's practice and skill and refinement wrapped into one package. It doesn't get much better than that.

[Lunatique]

Ben Barker- I agree somewhat with what you said, but don't you think what you mentioned--the ability to "see", "think", and then apply them with hardwork in themselves = talent?

I mean, those traits, and how sharp, evident, and effective they are adds up to what talent is. Certainly most artists will never be able to reach the level of understanding, ability to observe, and highly refined yet stylized rendering technique that Spooge has attained. There are many factors at play, and when you add them up, they = talent.

For example, let's say talent is made up roughly of:

1)ability to observe
2)ability to analyze
3)imagination
4)ability to render
5)patience
6)perseverance
7)aesthetic taste
8)curiosity
9)passion
10)eye/hand coordination

Now, most people in the world possess some of these qualities. But few of them possess ALL of those qualities. So, how talented you are depends on how many of these qualities you possess, and to what degree. For some people who lack some of the qualities, they work hard to MAKE themselves attain the missing qualities. BUT, some of the qualities are just not attainable for that person, so the conclusion would be that person's talent only goes so far.

I'm not sure why it seems that people tend to think art doesnt' require as much talent as music or writing. Any creative work requires talent. Even non-creative work requires talent. Those traits I listed applies to many of the human endeavors, not just art.

[29A]

sorry about that last post, i was a wee bit pissed of. i get to work with a lot of ignorant artists that are unable to grasp even the simplest technical problems and always blame the tech when they make stupid mistakes.

but i'm cool now

[razzak]

a normal person might not see a piece of cod3e to be beautiful, but if you know what it means, one will see the beauty. it lies in simplicity, and a nice ordered arrangements i guess. its like a poem. one might just see it as words arranged after a specific set of rules, but this explanation does not apply to the emotional part of the poem. same is with a piece of code and even picture. something really simple can be very striking, but something very complicated might be just boring....

[Ben Barker]

Lunatique, I agree. But I also believe almost everything on that list can be learned, or deficiencies can be turned into strengths through practice. Perhaps it's very American of me to believe the old "hard work always pays off in the end" bit.
Obviously not everyone can be a good artist. But if someone desires to be a good artist, they will automatically possess some of those qualities. If you want to say talent is a combination of the rest of those things, that's fine with me. I think a bad definition of talent, though, is something someone is born with or without, that predetermines their ability.

[Lunatique]

Ben- I don't know if it's possible to just "want to," and then began to acquire one of those qualities.

We've all heard people say things like, "I wish I could draw/paint/write/compose/sing/dance/photograph like that."

But, how many of them are WILLING to go through the life-long dedication to get there?

Maybe the things I listed previously should be seperated into 3 categories.

1)Raw talent(ability to analyze, understand, apply, imagination/originality).

2)Skills to be honed(eye/hand coordination).

3)Outlook and attitude that can be developed(passion, aesthetic sense, patience, dedication, perseverence).

Now, let's say someone with no talent or skill, but has qualities from the 3rd category, this person can gain qualities from the first 2 categories. BUT, something as elusive as imagination/originality might be unattainable to that person witout talent. I mean, he'll become a good technical artist, but his/her work would lack that "oomph!" quality.

I don't think imagination/originality can be learned. People emulate their influences, and most never develop anything original. Only the truely gifted can take those influences, digest them, and then infuse them with their own imagination and turn out something spectacular.

I'm convinced there is such a thing as unattainable talent, because I grew up with creative friends around me, and we all loved the same things(anime, manga, comics, film, novels, music...etc), and we all spent a lot of time creating our own things. During those years of growing up, it became painfully obvious who had talent and who didn't. We were all passionate and we all worked hard, but some of the guys just didn't have that flair. It had nothing to do with how smart they were, or what kind of family they grew up in. It came down to just raw talent. Some of the guys that felt if they just worked on it, they could surpass the more talented guys, so they try and try. Now, it's 15 years later, and nothing's changed.

If working hard to attain those qualities alone can make someone into a great artist, then why are there teenagers that are producing artwork that makes some of the professional artists who's been working hard at it for decades green in the face with envy? It's because guys like that worked hard at it for decades, then see some kid who can't even drive a car turning out artwork with such flair that they realize just how rare and precious talent is. It makes them wonder just how much better their work could be if they had the raw talent.

Obviously, talent alone will not get you very far if you lacked qualities from the other 2 categories. But, when someone possesses all three categories--watch out!! That's how Spooge Demons are spawned.

If all of my ramblings sounds like I'm advocating some elitist bullshit, then I apologize. I'm only stating what appears to be the truth to me. I WISH I had the kind of talent I see in some artists, musicians, writers..etc. BUT, I can only work hard and be the best I can be. That's enough for me.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Guy-Incognito]

hey people,

I'm overwhelmed with your response. When I said that you are either born with the ability to draw, I refered to a natural ability. Yes as humans we can all be taught how to do something, it's just how well we can do it. Imagine an artist without creativity - It's kind of like a nerd without a computer.
techno-art.co.uk

[Torstein Nordstrand]

I don't think there's one word more frustrating in my ears than "talent". It is used by some to elevate their abilities, and thus themselves. It is used by others still to devaluate their own chances, or as an excuse for being less dedicated. If it shall continue to be part of our vocabulary, it should be as a synonym to "favourable previous experience" if you ask me. Because that's what it is. Creative skills are psychological, not physical, so no, you're not born with or without, or in different quantities. Sure, some people are blind, but come ON...

There are so many holes in the argumentation here. What, you can't train your perception? What's wrong with you? And some of you would even compare your talents with Craig Mullins. Huh. Well, maybe you should consider that he's many years older than most of the people here. He's acquired his 'talent' through work. You've probably all been to his site, and there's such an otherworldly abundance of images there. He's learned from every one of them, and they are not drawn while he was thirteen! I dare Spooge Demon to post a mediocre picture from that period of his life, if he have kept any of them around. Not one of those we're proud to show off, but something were it's evident that he didn't grasp it because he was immature as an artist. THEN we can judge sizes The seed should not compare itself to a tree.

God, I positively loathe that word...
*shudder*

[Steelwind]

No hang on a second...I've always liked computers. I've always loved art. I played with computers when they first came into schools. I drew all the time. I went to school for Illustration. I dropped out for various reasons (personal stuff, not school related). I bought a computer, and learned how to muck with it. I went back to school and got an art degree. So I ask you:

Am I a nerd, or a creative person? Or can there be such a thing as a (gasp)...creative nerd??

Come on, you can't seperate people's abilities like that. Programmers are creative, they have to be. Artists are also creative, they have to be too. So what's the problem? This whole thread sounds like an 'Us vs Them' thing. Silly.

[turnip]

art is 10% talent, 90% ambition and skill
works the same way with computers.
programming requires a flexible/sharp mind.

I have embarked on the road to nerdism by choosing compsci as a major instead of finearts...

...in which case, what if you had best of BOTH worlds?

[Ben Barker]

I guess it all comes down to the old "nature versus nurture" argument that is applied to so many things today. But when I said "the desire to be an artist", I meant people who are serious about it. I know a guy who always says that he wishes he could draw. I've told him several times I am willing to teach him. I've given him books, art supplies, everything he needs to get started. But he just doesn't put the time into it. He doesn't really want to draw. Or at least, when he said that he didn't realize how much work is involved in beaing able to draw.
Every human strives to reach his or her own level of artistic satisfaction. Artists are the ones who look the hardest, and never find it.

[Lunatique]

Fine, there's no such thing as talent. If you worked your butt off, you too can be a brilliant genius like the following people:

Ludwig Van Beethovan
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Claude Debussy
Michelangelo
Bernini
Rodin
John Singer Sargent
Adolph William Bouguereau
Richard Schmid
Michael Jordan
Nadia Comaneci
Shakespeare
Leo Tolstoy

Yeah, no such thing as talent. You have any idea how many billions of people since the dawn of human civilization had aimed for greatness, but how few of them actually had the talent to attain it? I mean, all of these nameless, ambitious folks worked their asses off, but why is it only a minority of them attained that greatness?

What about child prodigies? Six year olds that can play the violin/piano in such ways that adult musicians with a life time of experience and hard work can only listen in awe with their mouths agape are not talented?

We might like to believe that all men are created equal, but we are not. I mean, thank God we try to ensure that all men can receive the same human rights and opportunities, but we aren't born equal. Some people are more intelligent, some are more attractive, and some are more talented. Such is reality. Whether you classify talent as a psychological trait or physical trait, it exists, and people have it to different degrees. And yes, people can train their perceptions, but the talented ones can train their perceptions to a higher degree.

Sure, craig had to learn to crawl as an artist too, but I bet when he was a kid, he could draw better than the less talented kids.

[Kaete]

Of course, there is sheer prodigy-level talent. A good example of these are the list Lunatique gave. 'Course, there's one little thing to remember --- those child prodigies are freaks.

Great freaks, yes. But they're nothing but teeny tiny anomalies. What is a few hundred prodigies compared to 6 billion people?

When you're making decisions about the real world, it's best to go on facts, not anomalies. Where I live, people hate to wear seat belts. Everybody has a story about some person that was thrown out of their car when it went over a cliff, and so saved!

And because of that one little example, they're sure that they're safer without a seat belt. But the reality is that the one no-belt incident was a very rare exception to the rule. It'd be much better to think about the thousands of car crashes where the seat-belt saves riders.

So, what's my point? Artists worry about "talent" too much. Compare youself to the whole human population, not just the 0.0000000001% that seemed to make amazing art with little effort.

[Lunatique]

True, the people I listed are the cream of the crop--the best the human race has to offer, but that also points to one thing--there IS such a thing as talent.

They weren't freaks. They were EXTREMELY talented. There were other people in history that created works of similar quality, but since they never acquired fame, we don't know about them. There are more "freaks" in this world than we know about. There could be a person on your street that's a "freak," but might not even realize it.

Talent is a seperate thing from experience/practice/ambition..etc. I've known people who are naturally gifted at certain things, but have no interest in pursuing that talent. They simply rather do something else with their lives(of course, there are also the lazy suds).