I think there are artists that have more of a knack (or "natural talent") than others - but I've also both learned and observed that even if you have that natural talent, it can be improved through study and practice. And meanwhile, those with the natural benefits can still learn most or all of what's needed.
- Chris
On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Chris Bobotis wrote:
In my experience, I have yet to meet an artist that has come by it ˘naturally˘. One way or another you need to put in the time, be it ˘formal˘ or ˘informal˘ training. I think the 10,000 hour rule applies to art as much as anything else. In other words you need to put in the time and effort. I have worked with brilliant artists, some with and some without any formal training. The ones without any formal training had still put in the time.
Some take to conventional teaching methods and a cartesian approach others just do not. I cannot say one is better than the other. The end result is what counts, at least to me.
I get it and agree with you that education is always important. I just took issue with anyone actually defining the term artist. I think 2 of the defining characteristics of success in this business are awareness and talent. Both of which can be greatly enhanced by education but can also have been come by naturally.
I think my point is more that some people are devoid of both - either an education that allows them to provide "art" (craftsmanship/ tricks of the trade/ services whatever you wanna call it) in a certain manner or an "intuitive", inate understanding of "art" - and those should actually never go near a computer or use certain tools. You're not getting an argument about that one can make up for the other, but I would still consider a certain level of education important. Even if you are an artist who does wonderful paintings just from his gut feeling, it helps if you can rationally explain some color theory, if you get my meaning. And let's not lose sight that everything we do is also a technical process no matter what. So if not on the artsy side, at least a well-founded knowledge helps to let people see your creation. If you wouldn't know how to get it on YouTube, you could producxe al lthe most beautiful shorts and the world still wouldn't take any notice of you as an "artist"...
Mylenium
[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre] ----------------------------------------- www.mylenium.de
sean cusson <scusson@mac.com> hat am 1. Februar 2013 um 17:24 geschrieben:
I think trying to define the word "artist" is pretty useless. In my opinion, if you create something that another person sees value in then you are an artist. Art is completely subjective so how could anyone possibly try to define the term "artist" or the requirements necessary to achieve said title? I know tons of people (including myself) who have only gone to high school and yet have somehow MIRACULOUSLY carved out a decent living for themselves. There are definitely advantages to pursuing an art education (in whatever discipline you choose) but to say you are not an artist if you don't have formal training is as antiquated as the first version of AE itself.
On 2013-02-01, at 10:47 AM, Teddy Gage wrote:
"When I started out as an 3d artist 19 years ago"...
You wouldn't happen to be typing this from the retirement home computer, would you?
You're certainly grumpy enough to be a grandfather...
I tend to see it from a different angle, coming from a 3D graphics background. I don't think anyone was actually excluded in the past. People just take affordable equipment or things like discounted education versions for granted these days, luxuries we never had. There wasn't even something like Blender around when I started out as an 3D artist 19 years ago. And still, if you only wanted hard enough you could somehow manage to buy your tools no matter how expensive they may have been (not talking about a 50000 bucks SGI workstation and another 70000 bucks Power Animator license, obviously; more like a 3000 bucks Lightwave license). And instead of the annual upgrade death spiral we have now, they got an update every 2 years and you actually had time to learn them and hone your skills and save the money. It works in many ways, if you get my meaning.... And seeing how many people struggle with even the simplest tutorials, I'm not sure if it's just a "literacy" people can pick up or it produces more talent in any way... To me, it still comes down to this: People, who can't draw a straight line with a pencil probably shouldn't call themselves "motiongraphics artist". Or in other words: I consider a classical training/ education just as important or even more important than just hacking around on the computer or doing odd things with your digital camera....
Mylenium
[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre] ----------------------------------------- www.mylenium.de James Culbertson < albion@speakeasy.net> hat am 1. Februar 2013 um 08:37 geschrieben:
You are describing film/video Production in general. And film/video production is now just another literacy, like writing, that people grow up with. So, yes, there are a lot of folks who just start doing it, and we are awash in competition. There is a tremendous amount of incompetence. But at the same time if you have the potential for talent you are not excluded by inaccessibility to tools. I'll take the trade off. I find today to be just as exciting a time as the 90's were.
You're talking like people at the retirement home getting all sentimental... ;-) Things will never be the same. AE has arrived at being "just another software" that is being used by more people with no talent or skills than by ones who actually intimately know it. It's just the way it is, sadly...
Mylenium
[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre] ----------------------------------------- www.mylenium.de Jim Lang < james.c.lang@gmail.com> hat am 1. Februar 2013 um 06:29 geschrieben:
> Darn- Totally missed it. > I've been thinking about the AE history lately. I was at a pottery > workshop, and > the teacher kept telling us that if anyone asked "how'd you do that!"
> To say you don't remember. > This got me thinking about how in the beginnings of AE, that anal, > secretiveness was the polar opposite and you could go online any time > day or night, and a Trish Meyer would always help out. Or a TSassoon,
> or a Brian Maffitt. And "secrets" were taboo. And because of that, > AE took off, attracted geniuses from all over, and and made history of > all of the old guard dinosaurs and their secrets and high-end
> equipment. > That was a dazzling era. > Of course, nothing this great lasts. > I've been at this long enough to be able to tell the ethics of a > worker by just looking at his/her profect. One of the last projects I
> worked in was unbelievably booby trapped. It was for a fast > turnaround network news show, and the dude did certain things wrong > then sneakily made layers invisible. All designed to get the
> producers on t > he phone to get him back. I pointed out all of his shenanigans to the > creative director. But back to the point. Way back in the early > beginnings, what a classy group.
> > > On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:46 PM, David Simons < ae@cosa.com> wrote: > > > >> In case this event tomorrow hasn't been posted on this list yet:
> >> > >> ASK A VIDEO PRO: The History of Adobe After Effects > >> > >> Thursday, January 31st, 2013 at 10:00am PST > >> > >> REGISTER NOW: http://adobe.ly/p6ZMbd
> >> > >> About 12 hours from now, Dan Wilk & I will present an interactive history of > >> AE, including demos of the old versions. We welcome questions from the > >> audience via the chat pod.
> >> > >> -DaveS > >> > >> > >> > >> +---End of message---+ > >> To unsubscribe send any message to < ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
> > > > > > +---End of message---+ > > To unsubscribe send any message to < ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
> > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to < ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
