Geezers vs. Whippersnappers - Round Table

Gustvoc

I think both methods are good, if the person knows how to use to get the image the way he/she wants, Im still learning all the time, Im not the best, but I think is good to study the old way to make comics with pencil and color by hand to make better comics with color in the computer.

For example I see beautiful renderings of characters but they dont look dynamic like in the comics just standing there without any feeling, I think is good to study the techniques of "movement" from the classic comic artists even how to construct a comic with panels different kind of panels etc, to learn from them so we can make better comics in poser and I think the same about coloring the stuff made in a computer.

The opposite is also truth I know that some artists use poser to find a good pose to the character they draw with a pencil like Darryl Banks from Green Lantern or as a tool to draw better the anatomy of male and female characters.

samsiahaija · Forum Newbie Joined: Mar 21, 2003 Posts: 7

If I look at comic strip artists like Will Eisner, Berni Wrightson, Carl Barks, Walt Kelly or Bill Watterson, I'd say 3d produced comics are nowhere near the same league.
The same applies to animation - even if I like the Pixar stuff, it is still far removed from classics like Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, or even Aladdin, Tarzan or Lion King.
(And I have yet to see PDI, Dreamworks or Blue Sky produce some really subtle, believable and heartfelt 3D animation.)
I cannot imagine what they thought when they shut down the Disney traditional animation department and have the artists switch to 3D to produce something as utterly mediocre as Chicken Little. And did people really think the weight- and emotionless motion capture animations from Final Fantasy, Spirits Within would replace live action actors...?

I'm a Poser hobbyist, a traditional animation professional, and was the animation director for a 3D character in a live-action/3D animation combination TV production, and have heard so many instances of 'the rig won't allow it' and 'the geometry breaks if we animate it like that' that the limitations of 3D have become all too obvious to me.

I have nothing against 3D, don't get me wrong, but anybody shouting it should replace hand drawn art has a serious case of tunnel vision.

Or has anybody seen a 3D render at any forum that beats a Frank Frazetta, Alberto Vargas or Norman Rockwell painting...?

(And I'm not even talking Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt or Degas now...)

Josephus · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:16 am Post subject:

I'm of the "whatever tool works for the job" camp. Personally, I could never draw staight lines by hand, and the advent of computer graphics opened up the career I sort of fell into over the years. But I believe that anymore traditional artwork has its place, and digital art also has its place. Neither type is "better".

And to the argument that digital art has it limitations, I should point out that this medium has been around for how many years? It really still is a field in its infancy. Of course it will have its limitations. I look forward to see how the medium will develop in the next few decades.

thausgt · Forum Newbie Joined: Oct 17, 2005 Posts: 6

They say it in the martial arts: "Honor is in the man, not in the weapon." Wizards point out that "It's not the size of the wand, but the magic within it." And in a vastly-underappreciated sequence in Steve Martin's play, "Picasso at the Lapin Agile", the titular character has a 'duel' with a certain famous physicist (drawing on beer coasters... 'Draw!'... get it?). Track down the script at some point, but it all boils down to the following exchange:

Picasso: My sketch will change the world!
Einstein: And mine won't?

A tool is a tool is a tool. If one person just can't grasp chalk-drawing with the same facility as sumi-e, it says more about the artist than the media. The truly salient points in the creative process are:
1. What the creator (artist/scientist/etc.) is trying to communicate; a.k.a.: "the message"
2. The creator's grasp of the medium in question; call it the level of craftsmanship.
3. The capacity of every individual in the audience to understand the medium; call it schooled appreciation.
4. The capacity of every audience-member to understand the message.

Ultimately, even if the creator's work only communicates the message to one mind during the span of the work's existence, then that work is a success.

I'm very much a newbie when it comes to actually putting together any 3D art, but I'm also lucky to put together three stick figures that look different from each other, so I appreciate the help that computer art offers to folk who can't freehand draw to save their souls. And yes, computer art is still a medium in its infancy (watch the "History of Computer Animation" featurette on the collector's edition of "Tron"), but then again, how long have artists understood the concept of 'perspective' and 'vanishing point'? Just because computer art to date hasn't produced works on the order of Picasso or Gu Kaizhi doesn't mean that it can't ever do so. I mind me of Benjamin Franklin's response to a fellow onlooker at the Montgolfier brothers' first ballon launch who asked what good the thing was: "What good is a newborn baby?" I'm perfectly content to keep a big ol' bucket of popcorn handy, 'cos I've given up trying to predict what's coming next and instead have decided to just enjoy the new stuff as it comes along.

My fiancee doesn't like to watch animated movies... or at least she *didn't* until she watched "Wallace & Gromit", "Shrek" and a few other gems. She soon learned to focus on the story, and whatever problems she may have had with the medium faded away.

I guess that the folks at "Mystery Science Theater 3000" said it best:

"We aren't worried about whether everyone will get [the jokes]. We know that the *right* people will get them."

lazyspark · Forum Newbie Joined: Aug 21, 2005 Posts: 2

I am fairly new to comics though I have been doing some art work in pixels and Using vector drawing tools with the use of several color schemes whichever seems the best at the time. I have started doing some anime based on poser figures and using path draw in Photo Impact (hey it works). Anyway I do also use a pencil (aka Wacom).If I ever get some work done that I think is presentable I will post it and you can seer which I do best ( or worst as may be).

MapleLeafSailor · Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:

I'd say either one. As with pencil, pen, paint, etc., the computer (and software) is a medium. You can produce art or crap in any medium.
_________________
"Take sides! Always take sides! You may be wrong - but the man who refuses to take sides must always be wrong! Heaven save us from poltroons who fear to make a choice." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Double Star"

samsiahaija · Forum Newbie Joined: Mar 21, 2003 Posts: 7

Traditional art is usually the thing that derives from the mind of a single artist: if there are any supporting artists they usually take of the less creative parts.
The difference between a 3D comic (as done in Poser) and a hand drawn comic is huge. In a hand drawn comic the creator has invented the characters from scratch, usually in a fairly unique way, with the own 'handwriting' as part of the style. Also he creates the world the characters live in, adapting reality to fit the style, or creating a more fantasy or cartoon like reality. He thinks of style elements as design, straight versus arced lines, line of action, basic shapes that lie underneath the characters like circles, squares and that sort of geometrical shapes - creating visual ideas is really a paper thing (Just have a look at the Art of The Incredibles book: there is not a CGI generated picture in it: it is all pencil and paint on paper there)

As a result of a lack of traditional art education, a lot of the 3D artists don't seem to have the slightest notion of image composition, and some seem to be convinced that a piece of art is defined by the most realisticly looking texture on the market. There's a huge misconception that many amateur artists have, that I you have a powerful enough processor, loads of Ram, and the latest version of a certain type of software, that will automatically lead to good art. That you can take the shortcut - I can't draw to save my soul, haven't got the slightest notion of composition or design, but I have Poser and the latest characters, with the fanciest textures, so it must be art that I'm making - with an equally mediocre platform that on forums even praise the crappiest of images. The lazy misconception that one can become an instant artist without needing or learning the skills to become one.

If I want to do a comic panel in Poser, most key elements were designed by somebody else: it will be a mish mash of, for example, Mike and morph targets by Daz, hair by Kozaburo, clothing by Wusama, set by Stonemason; and at the very worst even a ready made light preset and a pose by Schlabber or somebody else - the individual artistic input is minor in comparison to a hand drawn page, and I would not dare to claim that the picture that came out of this mish mash of the creative talents of others was my own.
Usually the end result will either look completely photo realistic or slightly plastic, dependend on how much you have spent on textures, but rarely as expressive as a drawing by Berni Wrightson and his elegant way of inking, or as graphical and unique as Frank Miller.

Where the hand drawn comic strip look highly individual, most 3D stuff tends to look the same. Most of it lacks the dynamic and delicacy of hand drawn art, and the uniqueness of a hand drawn expression - even stills of the best CGI films up to date have something quite sterile, artificial and lifeless about them, it really has to move to seem alive.

CGI, and more important, many of the CGI artists, have to come out of their infancy to produce truely artistic images.
Because those that do produce good 3D art put in the same dedication, blood, sweat and tears as the traditional artists, knowing that there are no shortcuts to real art.

Hasdrubal

Sam is so full of himself. I've rarely read anyone who was so closed minded about 3-D. I do pardon him somewhat for the unemployment problems that traditional animators are unjustly suffering.

If the big studios are turning out rotton eggs like "Chicken Little", it's mostly because they're still running the process as they would for a traditional animation. I watch the credits for 3-D movies, and I'm amazed at the amount of staff and budget these big productions have.

I know for a fact that it's possible to make an entire 6 and a half minute cartoon short in Poser from story board to final render, with no staff, no hand drawing, no motion capture equipment, and NO budget.

The newbee Poser artists tend to buy lots of things they don't need, which makes their work less original. There are some of us who make our own textures, figure meshes, props, and character rigging. I still see no sin in buying, or borrowing someone elses stuff if it's quality. Jerry Seinfeld doesn't sew his own pirate shirts. He just wears them to be funny.

Sam is correct about there not being any big name artists in 3-D to rival Frazetta, or Norman Rockwell. Usually artist aren't recognized as great until they're dead. I can recommend some of Doug Sturk's better pieces if he wants to see something great. His "Singing in the Rain" is my all time favorite. Of course Doug would have to cut off his ear in the insane asylum for it gain the recognition of the world.

samsiahaija · Forum Newbie Joined: Mar 21, 2003 Posts: 7

Dear Hasdrubal,

I have been a Poser hobbyist for several years now, and I have been working in 3D productions (Check out www.trixter.de, you can watch the trailer for Canterville Ghost there: I did the animation direction for that, and I had the honour to work with some fine CG animators there).
I am working for an animation company that mainly produces 3D.
In what respect does that make me closed minded about 3D?

I have also been a traditional animation professional for over twenty years now, and played around a bit with comics. I would consider myself to be only moderately talented, not a master draftsman like some of the people I had the honour to work with.

I am producing pictures both ways: the traditional as well as the modern way - I do feel that gives me the right to express an opinion about the subject, even if that is not the sort of opinion you'd like to hear.

And if I'm full of anything, it is of traditional art.

From your opinion I got the idea you're slightly biassed as well: you are giving me the impression that you believe that Frazetta or Rockwell are just great because of their names, that there is no real artistry that makes their paintings distinct, and that the greatest feat Van Gogh ever achieved was cutting off his ear.

I don't really believe to be overly biassed: I've witnessed the character development from early sketches to final rig, in a process that took several months, and with a setup that would put Michael and Victoria to shame. I see people do amazing things with Maya, XSI and Z-Brush. I'm witnessing people tweaking motion graph editors all of the time, trying to stay close to the handrawn animatic poses of our current 3D animation director, a traditional animator with Disney Feature experience. He brings in about 80% of the creativity in the animation process, by providing the CG guys with usually 8 or more key pencil drawings per second of animation.

There's a clear distinction between this director, who is very instinctive and passionate, and thinks and feels like an actor, and the CGI people, that are generally much more technical minded.
Where I hear the animation director giggle about poses he invents while drawing, I hear the CG people moan about constraints and other technicalities - some of them seem to be suffering rather than having fun at the job..

There are real actors among the CGI people as well of course - a lot of good stuff can be seen at the Ten Seconds Club website. Some do fabulous acting with the simpelest of characters - (simplicity being another aspect of good art too many of the 3D people sometimes seem to forget about.)

Many of the CG people working at Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks have a traditional background, and CAN draw to save their souls, by the way. (John Lasseter even started out as a traditional animator at Disney's, and still has a very traditional approach to 3D - and feels genuinly sorry that traditional animation is disappearing.)

And traditional animation is basically extinct right now, apart from some cheapo TV productions produced in the far east.

Please check out these weblogs from a couple of former collegues of mine currently working in CGI, (or forced out of animation altogehter:)

http://alecarloni.blogspot.com/

http://actarus.bloggerbash.org/

http://gabrielepennacchioli.blogspot.com/

http://andreablasich.blogspot.com/

No huge names like Frazetta or Rockwell, but solid artists nontheless.

Or the weblog of Rodolphe Guenoden, a former Dreamworks animator (He animated Chel in Road To
El Dorado)- can you honestly link me to Poser renders of girls that are as lively as his sketches?
Do you honestly believe this sort of work should be replaced by CGI renders with a toon shader?
That the pencil guys are dinosaurs that have to evolve or die?

http://www.rodguen.com//

CGI forced these people to lay their special talents mostly wasted, for a new art form that doesn't really show their individual talents and styles at all - I consider their better work to be on these weblogs now. (Even if some of the artists seem to be a bit indifferent about their switch to 3D, they'll bever really be able to abandon their pencils. And some of the other artists will simply never get used to turn sterile blend shape dials instead of searching for shapes with a pencil and will be lost for the art of animation forever.)

About Jerry Seinfeld - no, I would not care what shirt he'd be wearing when he's drawing or using a CGI program - because it is THAT that we are talking about - his talent as a comedian has NOTHING to do wih this discussion.

You did make an indirect point though, because of what it implies.

Poser cannot be compared with traditional painting, really - it is much closer to photography.
One takes a digital Barbie or Ken doll, dresses it up, puts it in a dollhouse or some other setting, puts up a couple of lights, chooses a camera lens and angle, and presses the snapshot button. No knowledge of anatomy or perspective required.

It is perfectly legitimate to express yourself in this way, of course - heck, when I'm playing around with Poser I'm doing it as well. Once in every while, even a halfway decent picture comes out.

But I know that there's at least 80% more creativity in my hand drawn animations and drawings than in my CGI pics.

Again - I have nothing against 3D art - it is a legitimate art form, that will occasionally produce a masterpiece. But where it comes to the question whether it should replace and crush the old art forms, a process that is momentarily taking place, I have to insist there's more creativity and feeling in the traditional art forms, and we are losing something very valuable.

Looking forward to your reply.

(And do send me a link to the No Budget Poser Short animation you mentioned - you've made me curious about that...)

Ratteler · Forum Member Joined: Jun 10, 2002 Posts: 551 Location: NYC

GlitchGirl · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject:

Hasdrubal

Wiser people than me have said directors are the people who insist on ruining their emplyee's best work. If I was working on a 3D movie, I'm not sure I'd want to have Sam as the boss. His heart wouldn't really be in the work. He may have witnessed his models being produced, but that's not the same as making one on his own. Ideally, a 3D director should know modelling and texturing intimately first hand, before being given control over the story board.

Since modern 3D is more comparable to Willis O'Brien's or Ray Harryhausen's stop action puppet figures, it's only logical that someone who makes their own models should be the director like Harryhausen. Ray used to do both modelling and directing. I would wager that if Sam was replaced as director by one of his modellers, the final product wouldn't be any better or worse. According to Ralph Bakshi, there has been a similar precedent for 2D inkers moving up the company ladder into directing. Although I doubt that kind of career advancement, is possible in a modern corporation. If there's a problem with the industry's 2D or 3D products, one has to look at corporate management, the studio organiztion,and the directors with great scrutiny. It's unfortunate that no artist, living or dead, is never more acclaimed than his corporation, sales agent, publisher, or ISP.

My comments about Van Gogh seem to have been misread. In no way did I suggest he was less than great. I merely suggested he would have been unknown if his brother, Theo, hadn't sold to the right dealers after his death. I'm certain there have been many other great painters the world has never heard of who died in obscurity.

samsiahaija · Forum Newbie Joined: Mar 21, 2003 Posts: 7

Hasdrubal, according to your remarks, Peter Jackson should not have directed King Kong, as he would not have a clue how to rig, and Steven Spielberg should have let his hands of Jurassic Park; he should have left that to Phil Tippet.
Are you certain that is what your opinion is?

Apart from that you are quick at judging about things you were not present at.
You know my general view upon 3D as opposed to 2D, and from there on you sure jump to conclusions.

As you are turning this overall discussion into an open attack on my integrity as an artist, without having the remotest idea who I am, or how I perform my job, or deal with my collegues, I feel impelled to defend myself.

To start with I was not the overall director, but the animation director (animation being defined as making the character move and making him do an acting performance and come to life): the overall director oversaw the live action part of the production, and had her vision about the film as a whole; my job was to translate her visions to the animators. I hardly believe a position like that can be called 'being the boss' - you're somewhere in the middle with everybody complaining about everybody; the animators about the overal director, and the overall director about the animators. There was a different animation director planned at the start of the production that WAS a 3D animator: as he did not see eye to eye with the overall director, and had creative problems with the rest of the crew, they took the next most experienced guy at the studio to take over - that just happened to be me, as I was the only one present with previous directing experience. By that time, the modeling was already finished and approved by the producers. The only way I was involved there was by doing some design suggestions on paper at an early stage, before I was officially part of the production: another 2D animator did some design sketches for facial expressions to assist the modeler doing the facial setup - by request of the modeler.

It was my job to keep the animators from being too individualistic in their approach: as there was only one 3D character devided between five animators, I had to make certain everybody was working on the same film and the same character.
For the first scenes, when the live director, who had no previous animation experience, wasn't really certain what to expect or even what she wanted, or what the jargon of the animators meant, I gave the 3D animators pretty much a free range: from the feedback from the overall director then a general animation style was established, to which everybody had to adapt.

Acting is acting, whether in 2D or 3D, so I would discuss the character's inner motivations, psychologic needs and plot points with the animators, determined the function of the scene within the sequence, and the sequence within the film, and then had them animate, mostly following their own instincts, as I am aware that good acting can only come from somebody's own inner experiences and emotions. I would then look for technical glitches like motion arcs that weren't quite on arc or analyse the voice track when the lipsync was slightly off, or sometimes had to improve a bit on the emotional aspects of the scene, or slightly retime accents for a better effect. Sometimes, I had to try and invent poses where the rig would not allow for the thing that we wanted, and see if there would be a way to improvise.
If an animator informed me that a certain thing was technically impossible, we would sit and look for alternatives, and I relied on the advice of the animators and the TD.

There was a live stand in actor that we had to use as a reference, even if we were allowed to improvise: I usually had the animators have a first go at a scene before I intervened: I had a good crew, and I knew that these people were all artists and actors, not just technicians. Creativity is not defined by making people do the things I want: usually the animators have a good instinct, but in a large production somebody has to overlook the whole of the film: animators often concentrate so much on their own scenes that they tend to forget their scenes have to match the scenes of the other animators. I was responsible for making the scenes of the different animators hook up with each other, trying for a balance between artistic freedom and neccesary guidance. Most of the time, I only had to do minor fine tuning. If you have a good crew, you have an easy job - most of my struggles were with the overall director, not the animators. I was happy enough that this particular small crew of 3D animators were not the technical types: all of these guys knew that a super texture and superb lighting or all of the whistles and bells Maya has to offer, cannot make up for poor acting, and all of them gave their full 100%; not because of me, but for the love for their job. Most of them had had some formal art training, and were surrounded by books on human anatomy, body language and facial expressions, not just Maya manuals. All of them had my full respect. Some of them would still keep on finetuning when I was already content with their work.
(If I had the feeling there were some more people like that in the Poser community, I would not ranted about them the way I did)

Each and every animator in the team had his own individual approach to animation, and with the production supervisor I would decide to devide the scenes based upon the individual strengths of the animators as much as possible.

At the end, even if I defended the animators during production meetings with the overall director and the producers, sometimes changes were forced upon me that I knew were not the best ones from an animation point of view - if I I had no choise than to demand from an animator to change their scenes in an unfavorable way, I would apologise to them: as a 2D animator I know animation is an emotional job - for 2D and 3D animators alike.

A far as texturing and lighting were concerned: I left that part of the job to the experts at hand, and the overall director - I was mostly hired to overlook the acting and story telling and continuity. If there are other people in the production better versed in certain aspects of the job than me, I'm not going to interfere and screw things up.
A film is a film whether 2D or 3D, and to be an animation director one is required to be a storyteller and an actor, not a modeler or rigger: we left the direction of that to the TD, who happened to be an expert at his job.

I consider myself to be an artist, not part of the board of managers. The job doesn't make me rich either, I'm in for the passion for animation, and was happy that during the long breaks between productions, my landlady was patient enough not to throw me on the street. In Europe most of the animators work on a free lance basis, or have a contract for a single production only: often you're just surviving.

I eat, I drink, I breathe, I draw, I animate, and I suffer for my art as hard as the next guy: that's the way I am, and I find your (and Ratteler's) insinuations about me downright offending.

Most of the animators on the production were closer to friends than employees before the production started: I did not notice any change in our relationship after the production, when I switched back to 2D. I can not speak for them, of course, but I have not been given the impression of having been a total asshole on the job.

If you think that expressing my sentiment about 3D animation destroying the art form that I love most of all (traditional animation), and believing that 3D is not ready to take over completely yet, makes me some sort of amateur monster, or a dinosaur that refuses to die, I leave that up to your own judgement: hey, it is a free world. I have only my side of the story to tell you, feel free to believe me or not.

But I think your latest reaction revealed more about yourself and your own prejudices than about me.

Ratteler · Forum Member Joined: Jun 10, 2002 Posts: 551 Location: NYC

MapleLeafSailor · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject:

samsiahaija, you seem to think 3D is somehow less valid as a medium than traditional 2D, yet I fail to see one arguement advanced by you to support this. Each one of your statements about 3D art can also be applied to 2D art. Yes, there are 'hack' 3D artists out there. The same applies to 2D, though. And that's kind of the point - any medium has its hacks, and has its greats. An artist may find it easier to express his or her creation in one medium as opposed to another, but that is not a reflection of the worth of the medium; it reflects the training, skill and preferences of the artist.

You posit that Poser artists are somehow less worthy because they use components produced by others - a figure by DAZ, say, and hair by Kozaburo, poses by whoever else, props and set pieces by yet another party - and on the basis of this, you argue that their work is somehow less. Let me ask you then, should a painter necessarily grind and mix their own paints? The artist who uses pre-mixed paints by, say, Grumbach, and perhaps buys prepared canvases is somehow less of a artist? Because that's essentially the equivalent arguement.

Let me now swing this around to the personal. I'm not a professional artist - I'm an electrical technician in the Navy. Playing with Poser is one way for me to realize images and scenes that heretofore have played only in the theatre of my mind. I have some art training - high school level. I can sketch, if I have to. My figure drawing sucks ass, frankly. Does that mean that I can't compose a scene and attempt to realize it? I use Poser because it takes care of the issue of figure drawing which has always been my personal bugaboo. I make my own textures, bumps and transparency maps to realize some of my own visions. I'm starting to create my own models as I learn techniques for doing so - just as an artist in any other medium learns techniques appropriate to that medium.

I submit to you that Poser and other 3D CGI programs are media, just like oils or charcoal or gouache or any other medium you care to name. A hack can produce shit in any of these, and an artist can produce art. You have your preferences as to your media of choice, as do I - but your media of choice are not somehow inherently 'more worthy' than mine. You have years of experience which I do not, and so I would expect that you are better able to express your vision than I am. That, however, is not because of the media you work in; it's because of the time and effort you've devoted to learning your craft.

I would really prefer that you refrain from dismissing the medium just because you don't personally like it. Now, if you can demonstrate some way in which 3D CGI software tools are inherently, basically inferior - some way in which they negatively impact the act of artistic expression - I'd be very interested to see it. I don't think you can, though.
_________________
"Take sides! Always take sides! You may be wrong - but the man who refuses to take sides must always be wrong! Heaven save us from poltroons who fear to make a choice." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Double Star"