Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com