Anyone can become an aritist. Thats the funniest thing ive ever heard and ill tell you why. There is a really big difference between being able to munipulate a few pixels on screen and actully creating a peice of art. Realistic 3d graphics and photorealistic terrains are not really art. Although I guess i shouldnt say that. Everyone looks at art in a different way so... Although Programming is a language that is taught to you. Yes you can be taught HOW to draw but that doesnt mean that you can use that skill with any level of mastery and create art. Dont mistake technical knowhow as art. I totally agree with the starter of this post. Artists are generally looked upon as dime a dozen. This is true to a certain extent. Anyone can create somthing in a 3d program. Its not that hard to read the book and know the tool but actully making art with it is where we differentiate the Artists from the tinkerers. I recently read the reply''s to one of my, yes many posts, and i wasnt really all that thrilled.The fact that they went as far as to mock me almost pushed me to the point of crashing each and every one of their computers perminently. But to tell you the truth. I dont care what they think. Some ideas may suck ( im willing to admit that) but others just need some support to become great. who knows. Maybe you are meant to be great mr cup.
I strongly disagree with the statement that anyone can be an artist. Sure, anyone can use how to use Photoshop and MAX, and maybe even produce something good looking, but that doesn''t make you an artist. Being a true artist takes a great deal of natural talent and drive.
I also don''t agree with the statement that programmers think artists are a dime a dozen. I, at least, would kill to find a couple of good artists to work with us, but two years of searching has yet to produce anyone.
Finally, I disagree with the statement that anyone can be a programmer. True, anyone can learn a programming language and compiler, but becoming a good software engineer requires creativity and problem solving abilities that don''t come overnight, and some people just aren''t cut out for it at all. I know dozens of so-called programmers that have no business programming.
And to answer the original question, yes, the sort of programmers you''re referring to DO tick me off.
haha, buster! beret, no problem. mac, problem. mocha-drinking, what''s wrong with mochas? commie rat, now, that''s a prejudgment. why can''t artists learn to be programmers and programmers learn to be artists? how many other hybrids are out there?
fellow hybrid, a2k
------------------General Equation, this is Private Function reporting for duty, sir!a2k
"Artists" tick me off, at least the ones Ive met online. Ive gone thru a dozen people who say they want to work on a game (which I''ll give them equall say in design) and only one of them has ever given me anything. Ive given them map editors, demos, everything. Ive talked with them at length about designing the game, planning it out. Then when I start asking for work, they stop responding....ticks me off.
ok done BTW - coding is quite an art. Theres nothing more beutifull than a well thought out piece of code
Well, I for one am BOTH an artist and a programmer. I first got my start by opening my own 3D animation company. I got tired of it after 5 years and sold it to my partner. I then went on to be a professional game programmer for a game company. Since then I have left the games business and moved to "corporate" development.
The general term of "artist" is generally equated to someone who creates something visually appealing. But, as everyone should know, art exists in every profession. Does the professional speaker not use artistic skill when writing and presenting their speech? Are writers not artists of literature? Are programmers not artists of code? Everyone is an artist.
Heres a good example of both programming and art-work:
Problem: Use restroom
1. Remove pants 2. Sit on toilet 3. Sing theme song to Jeopardy 4. Release
Notice the artistic solution in this scenario? It is also logic based; therefore, programmatic. Tada!
The moral of this story? Everyone is an artist, some suck, some dont, very few are masters.
When I first saw this post, I thought, "how childish to assume that programming is something anyone can do..." which of course was soon followed by, "how immature to think that creating imagery is any more difficult than programming machines". I didn't want to waste any time on posting to this thread to point those thoughts out, because I knew it was just flame-bait. (But I consider the topic of this thread to be flame-bait in itself).
Well, today while browsing the active topics page, I couldn't help but notice that this thread was still getting attention... and from reading the recent posts, I just had to state my point:
There should not be so much attention placed on differentiating the skills involved in being a computer programmer and an image creator. Note that I do not use the term "Artist", but this is not because I don't view those people as artists. Quite the contrary, I have an immense respect for those who can create captivating images. But I want to stress that I see the ability to make a program (efficiently, that is), as a kind of art as well. Just as there are those who can make excellent textures and scenery and models, there are those who can create programs and routines that are worthy of merit.
If you couldn't tell by now, yes -- I am a programmer by occupation. But I see what I do as creating something, just as much as you (artists) see yourselves as creating something. In my view, creating anything is an art form (which goes for music, storyline, etc.)
To get back on track with the original question, I'll relate my experience with the game company I used to work for. The artists never fraternized with the programmers, only with each other. What relations they had with other people in the company were purely out of necessity. Socializing with other artists on different projects, however, occured all the time. But at the same time, programmers never ventured into discussions with the artists; it was as much their fault as it was the artists fault, I guess. When I first started working for this company, I was astonished by this... there seemed to be an invisible curtain between the two sections, and the layout of the cubicles didn't help much, either (and by what I've seen of the inside of other game companies, it seems to follow that there is a huge division between the artists' section, and the programmers' section)
One of the things that I think greatly contributed to this division has already been reflected in this thread: the programmers, on the whole, take for granted the amount of conceptualization and skill involved in creating a scene. On the same note, the artists take for granted the amount of dedication, patience, and abstraction necessary to create good, reusable software. Programmers think that the artists have most of their work cut out for them because the tools are already there; there is no real need to make anything or learn anything new once you've mastered the tools... and the day is spent making "content". This terribly undermines the amount of work that goes into even just a few images, let alone the toil required for making an animation, video clip, or model/mesh that is usable in the game, yet still captivates the player. Artists think that all programmers who have taken the steps to learn a language, have it down after that. This is seldom true, and even those programmers who know every intimate detail about the language they program in, still have the daily task of evaluating a problem, and abstracting it sufficiently to where they can form a semi-procedural solution. A lot of programmers don't really have this skill to analyze a problem sufficiently, but they do have the dedication to stick it out until they can form a workable solution.
I'm generalizing here, of course... but it has been my experience, both in the game development world, and in the telecommunications/programming industry.
Some other things that I think contribute to this division are that a lot of people view drawing and modeling as a natural ability.. so they respect the ability, but don't think that you spent much time or dedication working towards mastering that ability. I know this is far from true. Also, programmers can strut around spouting buzzwords, making themselves look smarter (whether or not they actually are). This does more than inflate their own ego, it gets them more respect from the executives in the company, and also gets them more animosity from the artist's section.
Another really really big contributor would have to be the communication amongst the different sections of a company. It's true that, in most cases, the artists are the last to find out about a project being cancelled. I think this was mentioned before by an anonymous poster... The managers of course know about a projects downfall, they can see it in the fear in a programmer's eyes (or is that sleep deprivation?). The producers know it before anyone, because they're the ones to make the decision. The programmers know it, because they can see the milestones slipping, and watch features get pulled, one after the other. The artists only know a project has been cancelled after the scythe has come down, and they're handed a design for another project. Sometimes an executive will tell the programmers one thing, and the artists another... (though I've only seen this once, but once is enough for me to believe that it has happened in other game companies as well). This causes miscommunication and wrongful expectations between the programmers and the artists, which leads eventually to a lack of desire for further communication.
All these things don't help the final outcome of the game, and they definitely don't make any steps towards harmony between the programmers and artists any better. I know that to make a good game you've got to have some kind of cohesion between the vision of all the members of the development team. Making remarks like "programmers tick you off" or "artists are ungrateful" or "anyone can learn to program" only cause for more strife between these two groups.
Now, before you go and say, "you obviously don't know anything about art"... I want to state that I've taken enough art classes and worked with enough tools in my life to be able to hold my own... But there's a reason I don't have any professional experience making art of any sort (including art for a games developer)... It's because I simply don't have the determination or the desire, or even the spatial understanding, involved in becoming an artist. This doesn't mean I don't respect artists... I acknowledge the skill required in being a good artist. Being part of the team is included, there, too.
None of this is meant as a flame to the original poster... I just want everyone to realize that we are all doing the same thing: creating a game. Being a part of any of the processes involved does not make you any better than someone else involved in the same project. Just don't try to knock your teammates.
"Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." --William Hazlitt
Edited by - void* on August 17, 2000 3:47:09 PM
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
I can''t believe I''m the first one to bring this up...
I''m a programmer, not a graphical artist, I can''t draw a lick. But gosh-darnit, a good program IS art. Programming is what you do with a technical skill, but to create a really good program is to create a very unique entity that can only be described art.
So being a good programmer, is being an artist, and requires its own type of vision, talent, and creativity.
.. well I just figured it was about time someone abstracted this thread out to a more ethereal level.
Do programmers tick me off? Only the ignorant ones.
What project are you working on that you''re looking for an artist and for what, specifically?
-JD
Various things; a couple of games, some stuff for a book, a few other odds and ends. Since it''s off-topic for this thread, if you''re possibly interested, send me an e-mail.
Anyone can become an aritist. Thats the funniest thing ive ever heard and ill tell you why. There is a really big difference between being able to munipulate a few pixels on screen and actully creating a peice of art. Realistic 3d graphics and photorealistic terrains are not really art. Although I guess i shouldnt say that. Everyone looks at art in a different way so...
BTW - coding is quite an art. Theres nothing more beutifull than a well thought out piece of code 
