I won't call devs artist by default, since they're not making it for themselves. They're making it for someone else, ADAPTING their view FOR someone else.
I'm not saying they're blant sellouts, they're entertainers.
Which still doesn't apply to devs.
I just call them devs, cause they develop games.
Why would we ask an animator? They are not artists. They are programmers. They are just monkeys that implement the writers' vision.
At least, that's what I imagine chuckdm would say. From what he wrote, you'd think he never met an artist, programmer or even a game. The number of people who agreed with him in this topic makes me very happy though.
Well, he's wrong, for one. And if you agree with him, you're wrong. If you actually knew anything about animation, or animators, you'd know they are in fact artists. At an actual art school, you aren't even supposed to touch 3D animation, until you've grasped 2D animation. Most of the Disney animators started out as fine artists. Most of my teachers at the Art Institute started out as fine artists.
In terms of coding, the character riggers deal with most of it. Yes, there is some involved, especially with repeating animations like walk cycles, but no where near as much as the rigger uses. All the coding does is help speed up the process.
Just because the writer comes up with the story, doesn't mean that the animators aren't artists. Are the background and environment artists not artists because they're creating a scene around what was provided by the writers?
Further more, more and more 2D cartoons are being written as their pitched. The guys behind Phineas & Ferb actually made a rap song about it. So, there's actually a lot of artistic skill involved in 2D animation that doesn't involve a writer.
I was afraid my sarcasm might not be understood by all in this written medium. That's why I put the "spoiler" in, but I get the creeping feeling that you didn't read that.
Anyway, obviously animators are artists. So are the sketch/2D/3D artists. Furthermore, programming is part art, part science and part engineering. The art part is because code can be elegant and beautiful, and because programming requires a great deal of creativity. This is rarely seen by most people however, as it is mostly in the code. The visible end result is a piece of art that was created by the programmers, graphics department, writers, etc together.
I was afraid my sarcasm might not be understood by all in this written medium. That's why I put the "spoiler" in, but I get the creeping feeling that you didn't read that.
Anyway, obviously animators are artists. So are the sketch/2D/3D artists. Furthermore, programming is part art, part science and part engineering. The art part is because code can be elegant and beautiful, and because programming requires a great deal of creativity. This is rarely seen by most people however, as it is mostly in the code. The visible end result is a piece of art that was created by the programmers, graphics department, writers, etc together.
I won't call devs artist by default, since they're not making it for themselves. They're making it for someone else, ADAPTING their view FOR someone else.
Are you trying to say that something can't be art because it's being made for someone else? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. The VAST majority of art throughout the ages and across all mediums has been commercial. From Shakespeare filling up the Globe Theatre (with his adaptations of popular stories and poems, btw) to Michelangelo's commission to paint the Sistine Chapel, to Dickens paying his rent from story scribbling, to Hitchcock thrilling audiences with suspenseful camera work to...
Heck, you get the idea. Okay, Van Gogh didn't sell too awfully much. He was kinda insane, though.
The videogame industry has its problems, sure. People liking games enough to pay from them isn't one of them.
I won't call devs artist by default, since they're not making it for themselves. They're making it for someone else, ADAPTING their view FOR someone else.
Are you trying to say that something can't be art because it's being made for someone else? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. The VAST majority of art throughout the ages and across all mediums has been commercial. From Shakespeare filling up the Globe Theatre (with his adaptations of popular stories and poems, btw) to Michelangelo's commission to paint the Sistine Chapel, to Dickens paying his rent from story scribbling, to Hitchcock thrilling audiences with suspenseful camera work to...
Heck, you get the idea. Okay, Van Gogh didn't sell too awfully much. He was kinda insane, though.
The videogame industry has its problems, sure. People liking games enough to pay from them isn't one of them.
Most of those, indeed. Entertainers. Very creative people making high quality, creative entertainment for the masses.
I don't call that art, and something not being art isn't an insult. It's not like a good, creative entertainer is any less then a good, creative artist.
I wasn't aware all these programmers were going around calling themselves artist.
Where did you get this information?
Citation please, and why are you so angry about it?
Pretty much this. No programmer I know has ever claimed to be an artist.
But that said, the people responsible for ME3's ending WERE artists - they were writers, not programmers. And writing is definitely an art.
As for the OP's example of the rock band playing country music... Sorry, but I'm an idealist; I don't subscribe to that nonsense. Your rock band can do whatever they like, but I'll always choose to do what I enjoy any day, even if it leaves me with a lower income.
An artist doesn't care for "how" in any way, shape, or form. An artist only wants to answer two questions: what and why. A programmer, on the other hand, doesn't care why - they only want to know what and how.
The "how" is important to convey an artists' vision the way they want to. Art inherently has a technical aspect to it, which needs to be honed to become a skillful artist.
Either you worded that passage wrong, or you're not an artist.
I won't call devs artist by default, since they're not making it for themselves. They're making it for someone else, ADAPTING their view FOR someone else.
Are you trying to say that something can't be art because it's being made for someone else? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. The VAST majority of art throughout the ages and across all mediums has been commercial. From Shakespeare filling up the Globe Theatre (with his adaptations of popular stories and poems, btw) to Michelangelo's commission to paint the Sistine Chapel, to Dickens paying his rent from story scribbling, to Hitchcock thrilling audiences with suspenseful camera work to...
Heck, you get the idea. Okay, Van Gogh didn't sell too awfully much. He was kinda insane, though.
The videogame industry has its problems, sure. People liking games enough to pay from them isn't one of them.
Most of those, indeed. Entertainers. Very creative people making high quality, creative entertainment for the masses.
I don't call that art, and something not being art isn't an insult. It's not like a good, creative entertainer is any less then a good, creative artist.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
