Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayalez | Hacker News Reader

My experience is completely opposite.

I have never went to the art school, learned art(painting, computer graphics, animation) myself, and then have worked as a 3D artist for several years.

It is definitely not a lottery, but a matter of competence. There's plenty of jobs available for digital artists, and when vr comes around there will only be more.

I agree with the author of the article though, art schools have very little practical value. When it comes to painting, 3D graphics, and animation, you can learn everything online, for free. Or for a few thousand $, if you're not willing to use torrents.

View on HN

> There's plenty of jobs available for digital artists

Jobs in the 3D/VFX business:

* Are contract only (edit: I should say.. the OPEN jobs are)

* Require moving between continents for projects.

* Require 80-100 hour weeks when employed (but with overtime pay!)

* "Funemployment" for 3-18 month stretches

Follow @DrScottRoss and @VFXSoldier if you want to read up more on that business's total collapse in the US.

For 3D work like games and such, art pipelines are already scaled up in Poland, Ukraine, China, India, and more. There hasn't been significant growth for 3D art jobs in the US for a long time (since at least 2008).

> when vr comes around there will only be more

Why would 3D jobs come back into the US for VR? The same people doing game art overseas can do that work.

Overtime, in games? Hah.

Some studios, Electronic Arts notably, start new graduates as hourly with overtime for their first two years. At least in EA's case this was done in part as a response to the "EA Spouse" episode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Hoffman#.22EA_Spouse.22_b...). Paying overtime acts as a financial incentive, beyond the broader philosophical changes to improve work-life balance, to better plan and scope projects.

> Are contract only

I know a bunch of artists at WDAS in Burbank and at Pixar up in the Bay area, and I don't think they are contract.

Yeah, this is discussed in Catmull's book Creativity Inc.. Pixar has never had contracts. When Pixar's leadership took the reins at Walt Disney Animation in 2007, they eliminated contracts there too.

Good luck getting a job at Pixar or WDAS without doing a lot of contract work at smaller studios to build up your reel first.

I'd imagine that the useful things art school could give you would be art history, aesthetics, color theory, and criticism. Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist. Commercial work is certainly far removed from the art world.

I'm honestly curious - through your best effort were you unable to tell this comment comes off as pompous and condescending?

If that is the case, consider this a polite and gentle suggestion that it may be interpreted the wrong way by some.

It's a legitimate idea hard to express without sounding condescending. Artists get annoyed by "I never needed to go to art school because I taught myself photoshop" as much as others are annoyed by "oh, you're a computer scientist? Can you fix my windows?"

To which the answer is "yes. my rate $200 an hour"...

And professional digital artists get annoyed when their work is being referred to as "teaching yourself photoshop".

To better understand what digital artists actually do, I highly recommend to check out http://artstation.com

Matt, I understand what you're saying - but that wasn't his main point. I object to the summary dismissal of anyone who has a job as unable to be a legitimate artist.

I'm interested in what you think my main point was.

> I'm honestly curious - through your best effort were you unable to tell this comment comes off as pompous and condescending?

Not worst than the writer of the article who present himself this way:

    I am a creator.

Out of curiosity, what does mean you are an artist?

I don't think there is a definition! But if you think you are an artist, you should push for self-expression. If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist. I also have full faith that you can make art anywhere, and you don't need an education for it. But knowing the technical craft does not mean you are doing anything aesthetically interesting, whether conceptually, visually, etc etc.

I mostly point this out because "Graphic Artist" is a term sort of like "Software Engineer"—the artist/engineer label implies a lot culturally about the job (and people occupying it) that may or may not be true. Subway may call their people "sandwich artists", but I'll leave evaluation of THAT art up to you.

"You should push for self-expression"

I respectfully disagree - and honestly get tired of folks expecting that. There are a lot of times I just thought it was neat looking or what I thought would be nifty there. And I'm sitting here doing surrealist and somewhat abstract stuff.

Besides, self-expression is never quite enough. If you watch people going through an art museum, you find little changes in the way they look at pictures. Folks will linger at different points - whatever brings up feelings in them, hits their beauty point, and so on. And it is really neat when you see that with your own art.

Being able to do that in other people is one of those things that differentiates good art from other art. It is kind of like being a good cook or chef.

Edit: Grammar.

Hmm, you've left me with a lot to think about. There's certainly value to "nifty" work, but I think that value can almost always be leveraged in self expression. Hey, even pointing out nifty things is self expression.

I think if you go around saying "you should" to artists, then "you should" also provide a link to your portfolio so they can make an informed decision on what value they choose to place on such advice.

I am a visual effects animator at one of the major VFX studios, and did not go to art school so I am one of these self-taught graphic artists. And I totally agree with what you're saying here. I don't consider what I do to be art. It is highly-skilled craft with a lot of specialized technique. But I am not personally creating meaning in any way. The filmmakers and directors who bring us projects might be artists, but I am just a cog in a large machine which produces their vision. I also work with many people who did go to art school and I can say that in general they have a better understanding of fundamentals like color theory and composition than those who did not. Also often a better approach to tackling creative problems. I frequently find myself wishing I'd hard those years of formal instruction.. It would make some things a lot easier.

> If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist.

I don't get this. When you are commissioned to do work, it is highly unlikely that you are being micromanaged in the technical details. "No. Don't draw this shape. Yes, make that shade lighter."

That's ridiculous. Artist are paid to do their craft.

If that is not your point, then are saying that you can't express yourself in the how you actually do your craft?

It is also interesting to think that working for someone else can be thought of as just another limitation to work around like what medium to use, what palette to use, etc.

The digital artists at big studios that he's talking about are micromanaged precisely like this. I think concept artists maybe have more freedom for creativity, but the majority of artists in animation and film graphics are constantly being told to make shades lighter and change shapes arbitrarily. A lot of the job is learning how to be flexible to appease those who are in charge.

"If someone else is dictating your craft"---I see what you're at, but the line isn't that clear. I'm an actor, and I have to follow the script and directions to convey their ideas. In that sense I might be a tool, or instrument, of a director, and I'm happy to be a good tool to serve great storytelling, but there is (and should be) room where I contribute artistically, bringing something that is unique of me into the work.

I was in 3DGC productions as well. A 3D artist can be just a worker to materialize director's vision precisely as he's told, but they can also contribute the creative process to carry out the greater work.

> If someone else is dictating your craft, you're the tool, not the artist

Not quite. According to this view, prominent artists from the Renaissance were just tools. Patronage made possible some of the best pieces in art history. In fact artists didn't even get to pick their subjects until relatively recently.

The line between commercial (commissioned), craft and artistic endeavour (self-expression) are often blurred.

And yes, art is escaping definition, and it should.

I think a better analogy are all the assistants and apprentices that worked in the larger Renaissance studios. They produced work in the style of the masters, or duplicated their works, but they weren't doing original work, and are mostly forgotten today. Are they doing art? Or are they just craftsmen? I dint think it's about patronage.. most professional artists today have some form of patronage. I think it's a distinction between how much freedom that patronage gives you to do what you want vs realize someone else's vision.

Peers recognition.

You appear to be talking about wanky art, whereas the poster you replied to was talking about creative art. Two totally different fields..

You are using unclear terms, but you are getting to some of the confusion on this thread.

Most art schools offer concentrations in areas that could allow you to pay back the debt you incur -- industrial design, film/animation, graphic design. But you have to be very lucky, or move laterally, to pay back those debts if you concentrate in painting, ceramics, or glass (all offered at RISD).

And, especially as you go from the BFA to the MFA, there is an increasing split between these two tracks. Different people on this thread are talking about different things.

My wife has a BFA and an MFA in sculpture from very well regarded schools. One of her classmates moved laterally and is now very high in the creative apparatus at Facebook, a couple are doing well with gallery sales, museum shows, and commissions, a few others teach (especially the ones with strong technical skills).

But, it's a hard path. Probably half her class pays the bills with earnings that don't use their skills. They almost all still make art.

I lecture webdesign at a prestigious art school in Sweden. I've done this for the last 5 years. One thing I've noticed is that mentioning anything regarding money or how to earn money(make a living) using the skills/knowledge you've aquired is strictly taboo and frowned upon (some of the students and most faculty. I've even been told not to talk about such things in my lectures. Utterly bizarre

> Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist.

Really? What is required for "being an artist" other than, you know, making art and being good at it? We could forever argue about what things qualify one as artist, but I believe that having the word "artist" in your job title is one of them.

> I'd imagine that the useful things art school could give you would be art history, aesthetics, color theory, and criticism.

Looks like we also disagree on the meaning of the world "useful" =)

Seriously though, if you're interested in art history you can definitely learn it over the internet. Color theory is just one of the many skills you pick up as you lean to paint, and there's plenty of courses on that. "Aesthetics" is a pretty vague term, I think it is sort of like "taste" - it is just something you develop as you get good at what you do.

And when it comes to criticism - you can just use your own judgement or get a lot of helpful feedback on forums. Online classes like Animation Mentor offer feedback and critique of incredible quality, from people who have exerience working in companes like Pixar/DreamWorks/etc.

> Commercial work is certainly far removed from the art world.

I think that a lot of of the best art is now being developed as a part of the "commercial" projects - animated cartoons, movies, games.

I was not arguing that you can't self teach, simply that art school is far, far, far more useful if you realize their value is not in technical instruction.

"Aesthetics" is a precise term.

Yes, there are places on the internet you can find critisism. I can't speak to the quality or if there is anyone at Pixar who says interesting things about art. I like their products, but I can't say I've ever seen a dialectic between Pixar and the critical community. Certainly, I can't say I would look for interesting art in people looking to sell it—entertainment, yes, but the most delightful reactions will always be surprises, not purchases. This last point may be the crucial division between our world views. If you want to make money, and if you want to make art, choose—you'll always be in conflict with the people with money and what you want to express.

This is not a matter of different "world views" as you call it.

The distinction you draw between paid artists and "the critical community" simply does not exist.

How many historically great artists, masters, geniuses, would you like to be named here - all who have been paid, or had patronage, or whatever, before you'll admit you're criteria is utterly deficient without depriving yourself the benefit of some of man's greatest achievements?

It's ironic, how you proclaim you don't care to consider whether you are condescending, that this lack of connection to humanity is probably related to the artificial boundary your mind has created to encircle what you call real art.

To each his own.

I don't believe I used the term "real art" and if you re-read my comment you'll find I have a more nuanced view of commercial/non-commercial art. Pixar isn't tackling anything controversial because they want to get paid; this does not mean they don't produce art, but rather that there are many pieces of art worth making they will not touch. This goes for any commercial entity, and Pixar is certainly producing more work that is interesting in itself than any organization of which I can think.

I agree with your first 9 words, my mistake, quotes removed.

Picasso's paintings sell for tens of millions of dollars. I guess he's not qualified enough to be called an artist by you.

Why am I suddenly getting flashbacks to endless threads on the Deviantart forums where mediocre painters rail on about how digital art is not REAL ART because you have UNDO and DEADLINES and you're working for the MAN half the time and getting PAID REGULARLY instead of putting your RAW SOUL on the canvas and starving in a GARRET like VAN GOGH for the PURITY of your ART!!!!!

(My summation of this viewpoint may be showing a little bit of bias due to the fact that I am a cyborg artist who works in the soulless medium of Illustrator.)

I did not intend to turn this into a discussion on real art—there's certainly plenty of people who produce amazing work without training—but you're fooling yourself if you think art school has no value to artists. There is so much more to appreciate about what you already love if you know what to look for; there are so many ways to push yourself you might not consider without other experienced people.

"Artist" can be misleading when it is used as part of a job title—not all people with those titles do something that you, personally, might identify as art.

I've spent time in art school, both gallery-oriented programs and commercial programs. Neither was without value. But I strongly agree with the thesis of the original article that art school is not worth the immense debt you'll have to take on in today's America; I'm old enough that things like "grants" weren't impossible to get when my family was paying for college. And college hadn't gone through the huge inflation it has in recent decades.

The best definition of 'art' that I've heard is "Does someone call it 'art'? Then it's art". Every other definition I've seen put forward has its exceptions. Using this definition, you can't separate out 'real' art.

My own personal working definition of art is "does it make me think or feel something other than questioning the skill of the creator?". This sets a pretty low bar, but still cuts out those things like the 'artists' who just nail up a sheet of plain paper and call it 'untitled'... yes, very funny, moving on.

Your comment reminded me of my uncle who considers his photography to be real art but photoshop to be a cheap commercial endeavor.

>Being proficient in graphics doesn't mean you are an artist.

I guess according to you having a degree from an art school is a necessary and sufficient condition for being an artist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com