Tuesday, October 30, 2007

in response to sepehr

it's not that i disagree that computers are more effective and practical for visual effects. it's more that i personally enjoy animation for the magic it demonstrates when you can see inanimate objects or drawings - things that you know don't move on their own - come to life. i'm always more mystified when i can see an artist's hand (figuratively) in the work. and on top of that, the story of traditional animation is always an important part of the work. when you throw a computer into the mix and start talking about programs that do this all for you (and of course they're more efficient and closer to technically perfect - they're machines!), the focus is ALL about the effects, and i cease to see anything that captured my interest in the first place. i do appreciate that you can make a computer program make believable water, but watching a few seconds of a computer program doing its thing doesn't really inspire me in any way.

this is all very reminiscent of an argument i'd make in high school, about being on the "swimming and diving" team. i was on the swimming part, but the diving half - in their completely separate practice - slacked off all the time and sort of sucked, so they'd always drag us down in meets. my argument was this: just because we both were in a pool, doesn't mean we're at all the same sport. i mean, volleyball and basketball both used the gym, but they didn't compete as the "volleyball and basketball" team.

3 comments:

Sepehr Dehpour said...

Please look at it from this point of view:
Again I don’t say computer is everything for VFX but it is because of “technology” and “innovation” is that we can now make movies instead of only painting on canvas or paper. So the art of moving image has close relationship to technology. Computer is a new “tool”. It is not everything. It is just a tool. Who knows about future and future tools? But for now, computer has been more than helpful to come up photorealistic imagery for VFX purposes. And it will have this role at least for the near future. So please try to come up with a peace resolution with this “tool”! And use it!

Wyatt_USC said...

I do agree that the computer seems better suited for photo-realistic VFX work. Though, photo-realistic VFX, by definition, most borrow all of its style from the plates shot to composite to. We are just getting into an era where people are applying the abilities of a computer for creating stylized, unique looking films (Sin City, 300, etc.).

Unknown said...

You said you like to see the artist's hand in the work...I've been working around character animators for a while and I can see the personal touch. "That was done by this person, that shot was done by that person." etc. I can see that, but some people can't because they aren't exposed to that the way I am.
I also LOVE stop motion and puppetry and seeing the fingerprints in the clay characters to know that the human invervention is there. I have a sculpture background, but the sculpture tools I use are just that, tools. A paintbrush is a tool. My computer is a tool. I am directing it with my mouse and wacom, just in a different fashion than how I direct my sculpting tools, but it comes down to my own control of the tool and my eye.
Yes, a computer is a machine, but humans still storyboard, concept design, model, rig, animate, etc. You don't talk to your computer and say "okay I want a movie in 8 months....go!" The artists drive the system.