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.
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.
"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.
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.
(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.)
"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.
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.
If that is the case, consider this a polite and gentle suggestion that it may be interpreted the wrong way by some.
To better understand what digital artists actually do, I highly recommend to check out http://artstation.com
Not worst than the writer of the article who present himself this way:
I am a creator.I guess according to you having a degree from an art school is a necessary and sufficient condition for being an artist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.