CompuServe Thread

I agree with you about artists needing to know what to expect from a program, and how to request it. I was not trained in computers at all, I have a fine arts background and only recently took up computers as a medium. Just doing what I have to do to get these damned VOODOO BOXES to work makes me feel like I should've gotten a quadruple major in art/electronics engineering/programming/psychiatry (so I can perscrive myself sedatives when my system doesn't do what I want it to…<g>). But I, a lowly art kinda guy, have managed to teach myself enough to get things going. When you speak of ILM, you speak of a tightly run ship… a crew of people being payed good money to work together. The programers don't have to rely solely on their artistic skills, and the artists don't have to rely solely on their programing skills. While I'm sure there was some overlap in both areas (artist/programer and vice versa), the key is that in a production crew of any sort (one's I've been in, anyway) one does the job one was hired for, and if it's programming graphics then that's what you do. If you run into a snare and need to consult the artist about what he needs, then that's what you do. And if the artist can't do something with existing software then he consults a programmer to make it possible. At ILM, as in most production companies (film, digital effects, etc…), there are heads of department who hire the crew and ensure that it is working together and producing the product that is needed to fill the bill. Department heads and support artists are usually the folks who do the creating of art(production designers, art directors, artists hired to create and execute), while systems specialists, programmers, etc… usualy take care of the hardware/software. There is nothing inglorious about this, and nothing to defend. If a programmer happens to be a good artist then he's qualified for two jobs, but will probably officially only do one at a time on a large production. Pardon my overly long message, but I feel that people make too big a deal over what job is better and who's headed for heavan faster because of it. My bottom line is this: Film, TV, and lots of CG stuff is a popular and public art, and requires the support of a lot of people to exist. If you're a programmer and produce an animation that lots of people like, you're also an artist. If you're an artist that produces an animation that very few people like, you'd better try doing something different (maybe programming? <g>). Proffessional approval and accolades are nice, but they're NOT what art is about.

While it may be true that ILM is the exception to the rule, I also think that they are they are of the sort that define "good" computer animators. You don't get to ILM without having the right blend of art and tech, and I doubt very much that anyone at ILM was taught anything technical or artistic by ILM. I know for a fact that almost everything ILM does revolves around custom code. That requires really strong technical knowledge, but I find it hard to believe that they just hired some crackerjack programmers and taught them to draw. There's no way that a straight programmer could make a dinosaur move and look that realistically.