#ILM
9 messages in this thread
Hi James,
You're right about having 200-300 people working on a film and saying
that computer films could be done with a tenth the number. It's
still a question of what you want to be doing. You could be a
complete techie person who knows the animation software inside-out,
but all you do it what the director tells you. You'd just be a tool
for the director to use, never giving any creative input of your own.
It'a hard to recommend any art book. There is just so much out there
and I don't really know of any good full range ones. I would
probably look for stuff about design, composition, motion. Some good
books on film theory would probably be really helpful for animation,
giving information on shot composition, camera angles and movement,
contrary motion, crossing the axes and stuff like that.
Aaron
<<You'd just be a tool for the director to use, never giving any creative input
of your own.>>
No, this isn't true, Aaron. The director controls traditional film
making, but it's his guidance that makes the film, not complete
control. The best films are made by directors who trust all the
artists around them. Sure, if you're lighting a film, you can't
expect to have a say of how an actor is doing a certain line. But at
the same time, rarely will a director tell an electrician where and
how to hang a light. Don't think of an animator under the director or
production designer as a tool. Especially with computer animation, the
little people like us will have valuable and creative input. Nobody
but the worst directors will "control" us and use us like tools.
Composition and motion and design. Right. I just dropped $200 on books
so I guess this'll have to wait a few weeks. Then again, Christmas is
coming.
Hi James,
Hm… I guess you're right. But it all depends where your training is. Someone
with just the computer knowledge, when given creative control, could go and
make something horribly ugly. I know this is an extreme, but it's something I
like to call "Video Toaster Syndrome". There's a guy at my school who has the
worst artistic and design instincts I've ever seen. He knows stuff inside-out
technically, though. He makes these videos with the Toaster that uses almost
every single cheesy wipe you could imagine. The stuff is really bad. If he
was on my film crew, there's no way I'd ever let him do what he wants. But on
the other hand, he'd be invaluable as a technical resource. If you want
something specific, he can do it for you.
Maybe if you've has gotten to the point where you're a professional
working on a professional movie set, it means you have a certain
level of creativity competance with your area of expertise. I guess
the no-art people will just never get that far, which avoids the
problem entirely.
I think it would be more appropriate to do film-making or
broadcast-design classes rather than just art to be an animation wiz.
Or even a mix of both. In fact, I would suggest a curriculum of art,
film-making, design, and programming – all using computer-based
tools.
BTW, I just finished my demo and didn't use any "cheesy" wipes or
transitions; only cuts, dissolves and fades. The result was still
fast-paced and high-tech, but without the fromage (cheese) <g>.
I agree with you. The closest traditional fine art to computer
animation, not including traditional animation, is probably film.
With film, you can study motion, angles, cutting, panning, set
design, lighting and a whole bunch of other stuff that ties directly
into animation. There are some things that make it different,
however. You don't have to work with actors, when making an
animation. You have control over a lot more in an animation than you
do in a film. Also, more abstract possibilities are available to be
dealt with.
<<If he was on my film crew, there's no way I'd ever let him do what he wants.
But on the other hand, he'd be invaluable as a technical resource. If you want
something specific, he can do it for you.>>
This is a good point. I'd hope that he'd learn some "artist" skills, so that
he'd have more input into the film. I believe that anyone on a film, whether
it's a director, producer, writer, craft service, or teamster, should know what
making a film means. But that's not always the case, sadly. I guess I think
that with fewer people working on a computer film, they'll need that knowledge
and experience ven more. At least those will be the types of people I'll want
to surround myself and be a part of and with.
I still think that at a professional level there's got to be a
certain level of competence with your craft. I also think that
there's a certain limit to the term "artist". If you tell your
lighting man to light the scene so it looks like night, even if
you're not telling him exactly what lights to place where, I don't
think that makes him a "lighting artist". As long as it looks like
night, that's all the director cares about. I may be wrong, here. I
just don't see how you can express yourself creatively by placing
lights.
<<I don't think that makes him a "lighting artist". As long as it
looks like night, that's all the director cares about. I may be
wrong, here. I just don't see how you can express yourself
creatively by placing lights.>>
Well, I wouldn't want to fight with any IASTE techies about this <g>.
But they _definitely_ consider themselves artists and I'd agree.
They're painting with light. Sure, they get direction from the DOP,
but at the same time, when I was lighting, it was a real thrill to
have lighting cues, to spend half a day lighting a set, then standing
back and seeing the canvas.
And it was even better when I saw the dailies the next day!
Hi James,
I'll back off a little on this one. I don't really know that much about
lighting to argue one way or the other. I do know, however, that art is more
than technical, it's political (not government-political). It deals with ideas
as well as technique. Art explores human feelings and viewpoints. I don't
know if it's enough just to be technically really good, but you have to be
saying something also.
Aaron