Creative Pros: What comes first?
A bit of a chicken-egg dilemma I'm pondering as of late. The basis of the issue, to me, is the opinion that a creative pro needs two different qualities: an above average computer skill, and a creative ability. For clarity, I'm talking about creative people whose profession necessitates a computer, as, say, pixelpushers, vector junkies and CGI wizards.
I'm wondering which of these qualities presupposes the other: you might say that, of course, creativity itself comes first. But then again, how does one know if one is the beneficiary of such a trait if one does not have or know means in which to express them?
There is the situation, which most of the people concerned probably know, that you discover a new feature in an app you never knew existed, and that effectively opens up a whole new range of expression you didn't knew were even possible. Therefore, it's no wonder to me if I read pscates, for instance, say that he really wants to know the apps he works with (or am I misquoting?).
On the other hand, I distinctly remember M3DJack/LoCash writing that if you're not creatively gifted (esp. with drawing skills) you shouldn't even begin learning Maya and its brethren.
How does one know? Like, I've been having this on-off relationship with Flash (which, after having been thoroughly indoctrinated by Slashdot and affiliates, I have given up on), and I've always wondered how far I might have gotten if I had achieved a thorough working knowledge of the app. How does that work with you people? Do you know where you want to go before you begin? Would you know where you want to go (on a particular project) if you didn't know all of the possibilities your working environment offered you?
And more in general, what do you think is the most important skill for a creative pro, as technology continues to stride along, and applications are arguably becoming more and more complex? And what do you think is your greatest strength? Can one compensate weakness in one field by excellence in the other? And, am I making myself clear enough?
I'm wondering which of these qualities presupposes the other: you might say that, of course, creativity itself comes first. But then again, how does one know if one is the beneficiary of such a trait if one does not have or know means in which to express them?
There is the situation, which most of the people concerned probably know, that you discover a new feature in an app you never knew existed, and that effectively opens up a whole new range of expression you didn't knew were even possible. Therefore, it's no wonder to me if I read pscates, for instance, say that he really wants to know the apps he works with (or am I misquoting?).
On the other hand, I distinctly remember M3DJack/LoCash writing that if you're not creatively gifted (esp. with drawing skills) you shouldn't even begin learning Maya and its brethren.
How does one know? Like, I've been having this on-off relationship with Flash (which, after having been thoroughly indoctrinated by Slashdot and affiliates, I have given up on), and I've always wondered how far I might have gotten if I had achieved a thorough working knowledge of the app. How does that work with you people? Do you know where you want to go before you begin? Would you know where you want to go (on a particular project) if you didn't know all of the possibilities your working environment offered you?
And more in general, what do you think is the most important skill for a creative pro, as technology continues to stride along, and applications are arguably becoming more and more complex? And what do you think is your greatest strength? Can one compensate weakness in one field by excellence in the other? And, am I making myself clear enough?
Comments
Much easier to hand them a computer manual...
Mastering the medium second...
it's been that way since the dawn of mankind..
MSKR
Originally posted by Rick1138
Learn both, but you really need to learn traditional drawing skills if you want to excel at any kind of art - drawing is the foundation of all else.
he is right...creativity is the most important because its the basis
...and example of why you need both
lets say you want to make a short movie about fish (finding nemo-ish)
-you can't create the movie if you dont have the skill
-nobody will want to see the movie if it isn't humorous and cute
i bet pixar has both types...probably alot of both, the whole movie is done by people who know what they are doing, but the events are rather creative, when the dad is looking for nemo and is above water he has to drive back down to get a 'breath of water'
they weren't the first but its cute
But seriosly, I think a general understanding of computers combined with loads of creativity is needed at first. If someone has alot of creativity but has too much trouble learning programs or computers, they are likely to eventually give up, regardless of how creative they are.
Even if some one knows computers really well, but have no creativity, they can not do to well.
So I guess the answer is really creativity.
A VERY cool, useful, fun, life-enriching tool...but a tool nonetheless.
I think the distinction/break is more along the fine/commercial aspect. Personally, I never got into painting of any sort. Or charcoal or pastels. I'm not "arty" in the true sense of the word, and was always drawn to the precision of drafting and technical illustration than trying to paint a vase and a pear with watercolors.
I figured I could make a nice living for myself going a certain route (not into the starving artist stuff), so I did. I figure if computers didn't exist, I'd just be at a drafting table or be shit-hot with an airbrush and friskets.
What I look for in a freelancer and/or employee is this:
1) An eye. In saying that, not all eyes are created with both a creative and technical vision. I look for a person that has a bit of both, but the two are different animals. A 'technical' vision, by some of today's standards, can pass for good design. You've seen it...'line this bit of text along the left axis of that photo, then lay that graphic in line with both' type thing. Some people design that way. Sometimes it looks great. Others have a more 'Carson-ish' feel to their work. While I personally prefer that look (designed chaos), it's generally not applicable to most clients.
2) A skill set. I like people that have poked around in a number of the sub-sets of design, and can be honest with me in what they like and don't like. I, for one, loathe web design, but it's still something we have to do. I like to know people's strengths and weaknesses, and that usually aligns with their favorite set of programs (but not always). The absolutely, positively thing I hate about people coming into my office looking for a job is to open their portfolio and see a bunch of Photoshop filters obliterating any talent that may once have been there. That tells me one of two things: they have no talent or they are lazy.
3) An understanding of their machine. Yup. My place is small enough where I almost *demand* that people have ownership of their working environment. You might think that this has nothing to do with the 'creative' aspect, but I'll differ. People that aren't afraid to break their machine while trying to fix it are the best employees. Believe me. I've spent too many years as a creative director for large companies, only to find myself running NDD on OS9 late at night because they had a crash and couldn't deal with it. People who throw up their hands at the slightest crash make me weary. It's only a tool for krizzakes. Try and fix it yourself first. If you can't, I'll help you.
Of course, personality, experience, a 'hunch' that this person might be good all play into the final decision, but more often than not, I hire on the 3 steps above.
Christ....in re-reading through all that muck, does that help you at all?
Originally posted by 709
Christ....in re-reading through all that muck, does that help you at all?
Yes it sure does, although I think that to some extent, I'm not really asking the question for myself. Or I may have realised that while reading some of the replies here. I guess my interest into things like Photoshop and Illustrator are computer-based first. I doubt if I have a true creative knack in the graphics department. I tend to see myself as a writer though. I wonder if those kinds of creativity are interchangeable? In any case, I think that landing myself a job in the creative pro world might not allow me to release my full potential (but then again, at 24 and in this economical climate, who cares about that?).
However, he can't for the life of him use much more than a bit of Illustrator and some Quark.
I don't think he should either. But what he does do, is educate himself in what is possible with each programs such as Flash, HTML, etc...
That way he at least can speak the lingo when directing an "operator".
I firmly believe creativity comes first. I think part of being creative is being honest with yourself. By being honest with yourself, I mean in your confidence to create from within you; how you see and you you transcribe what you see. It also happens to be the million dollar struggle that a lot of artists spend countless years trying to achieve. But you don't have to "achieve enlightenment" to be a creative professional.
I just think you need to be walking the path.
A formal art education is priceless, because it's going to force you to work from within yourself. You're going to work in a lot of traditional mediums that are still practiced today for very, very specific reasons. Working with clay, or charcoal and paper, or traditional black and white photography where you're working in a wet darkroom processing and printing by hand... all of this is going to improve your eye and your knowledge at the very roots of it all.
Drawing is an essential foundation for anybody wanting to be in a creative field. I have improved my eye for everything, including my photography, through drawing. Drawing is all about how you see and about transcribing that directly to paper. A very immediate and tactile process. A lot of people dislike drawing because they feel they aren't good at it, assuming they have to be able to do photo realistic sketches to be "good". That's another plus about art school, it very quickly disposes of these myths.
I'd compare it to cycling for a moment. As a competitive cyclist, I do strength training in a weight room, focusing on both upper and lower body strength. I race with people that don't do *any* strength training, and they're still pretty fast. However, while you can become pretty good at riding a bicycle fast just by riding the bike... those of us that put the extra training time in strength training with weights, or cross training in the winter... you really see those improvements out on the course.
Same with creative professionals. Those that have put the time, effort and energy into learning the foundations are totally going to shine through when it comes down to working in a professional setting. Again, like with the above example, you could get away without any sort of real art and design background, but you'll only go so far because I think you're going to find it difficult to take your work further, be honest with yourself through your design, and have a complete and full understand of the tools you are working with from a foundation standpoint.
Touching up photographs in Photoshop, for instance. Doing color corrections... it's so much easier for somebody that has done wet color printing in a photo lab, and art schools teach this. You learn basic color theory, how to manipulate the enlarger... you learn what all the terms in Photoshop really mean. It's called "Photoshop" for a reason.
Same with Illustrator. It has the name for a reason. If you have studied drafting, graphic design, etceteras... you'll feel right at home with illustrator, save learning the app itself. Again with Maya or Lightwave... if you've done sculpture, worked with clay, etceteras... you've got an advantage. The people at Pixar even start with clay before they build a character in 3D space.
And to touch on what Satchmo said, I think part of it is also knowing what kind of person you are. His friend obviously makes an excellent creative director, but wouldn't make a great artist/designer because he has difficulty with the tools and knows that. Not that he couldn't learn to develop a proficiency with the tools given a lot of time and energy... but he has chosen to take his strength and learn enough of the tools to be able to creative direct people.
I always wanted to be a better programmer, and try as I might, I just have the hardest time writing anything more complex than Tic Tac Toe or Blackjack in Java. Even those take a lot of time and energy. But I understand what can be done in the programming languages my development uses, and I know my programmer very well in terms of his capabilities. So I'm able to explain to him in very technical terms what I want done in an application, how I think data should be moved around and stored, etceteras. It works out great. Furthermore, my programmer minored in art in college, so he can talk to me about my design in equally technical terms.
Whew...
Originally posted by LoCash
Drawing is an essential foundation for anybody wanting to be in a creative field. I have improved my eye for everything, including my photography, through drawing. Drawing is all about how you see and about transcribing that directly to paper. A very immediate and tactile process. A lot of people dislike drawing because they feel they aren't good at it, assuming they have to be able to do photo realistic sketches to be "good". That's another plus about art school, it very quickly disposes of these myths.
Whew! is right. Good points LoCash. However, while drawing is important, I rather believe that design is just as important. Design like drawing provides the necessary skills to judge proportion, colour, and texture. In other words, you can be a creative soul without being able to draw.
Musicians are also very similar in their approach creating "layers" so to speak. Subtle nuances are thrown in to make a song come to life.
In other words, you can be a creative soul without being able to draw.
Drawing IS design. You wouldn't understand this unless you know how to draw.
Originally posted by xionja
LoCash, you make your point of needing to start with learning basic art skills like drawing so well, that I am busy convincing myself that I need to work on my own drawing, and drafting skills. Thanks
I think the process of starting with the basics is something people forget about in any discipline. When I started getting into Jazz at a younger age, my father made sure I started with musicians like Monk, Coltrane, Davis, etceteras. I can truly appreciate more modern jazz influences because of this. It holds true everywhere, so I'm glad I've been an inspiration to you...
This is a quick picture of what I draw in my sketchbook. The quality sucks, it's from my cell phone's camera, but hopefully you guys can make it out
Originally posted by Rick1138
Drawing IS design. You wouldn't understand this unless you know how to draw.
Not quite sure I get what you're saying. Certainly a good drawing is also well designed.
All graphic designers, architects, art directors worth their salt, can draw to some degree. They do sketches and comps before fine tuning them usually on a Mac. But most cannot "draw" seriously. By that I mean, the human figure, which is probably the most difficult thing to draw properly.
Here is my take. I agree with LoCash on pretty much everything he said.
I work for a visual effects studio in Hollywood. At work I see some really diverse things. Everyone that I work with has some serious talent but for different reasons. Some of the artists are technically savy and creative but there are those that take it to another level. One of the guys, like myself, studied theater for years. The way he treats his shots is different then most. He totally looks at it from a theatrical standpoint. It does his CG as if he was doing it live action. You can tell. We both try to go that extra mile and add the little nuances that you see if it was actually shot. The little imperfections, the colors, the lighting..everything.
Now I do agree that a formal education of some sort of creative process is totally beneficial. I don't always think it needs to be drawing. I think any form of creative learning is the way to go. Anything that will teach you how to deal with your ideas. The guy that I was talking about can't draw, but he is beyond creative and is a amazing artist. He looks at his digital medium from the standpoint of reality. He and I both work that way. Another guy at work used to be a photographer, and is similar to his approach. He lights shots just as he would light a photo shoot. I think it just depends on your creative field and the type of person you.
As a final summary let me just say this...creativity surpasses anything. For the most part you can teach most people how to use a program, but the true creatives, will make that program and their work shine. Just look at Disney. They just shut down their traditional animation studios and are replacing it with a complete CGI studio. They are retraining their 500+ artists to do their magic in CG. Those guys might have trouble learning hte program at first, but once they know, they will rock it..at least I think they will.
Sorry if all this seems like some randomness. This is a hard topic to stay on track with...so many thoughts flow all around my head.
Originally posted by foad
As a final summary let me just say this...creativity surpasses anything. For the most part you can teach most people how to use a program, but the true creatives, will make that program and their work shine. Just look at Disney. They just shut down their traditional animation studios and are replacing it with a complete CGI studio. They are retraining their 500+ artists to do their magic in CG. Those guys might have trouble learning hte program at first, but once they know, they will rock it..at least I think they will.
An animator friend of mine got hired by Disney. And although he didn't have that great of a "digital" portfolio, he did have work from his secondary passion...sculpting.