How Do You Define an Artist?
Some years ago the buzz words “follow your bliss” instead of “find a job” entered the American lexicon. Employment solely for the purpose of maintaining a shelter, putting food on the table and clothes on your back was no longer enough. The culture at large was beginning to support the idea that if you pursued what you loved to do you’d never work a day in your life. Where does everyone want to work? Where does everyone’s bliss lie…? Undertaking? No. Working for the police department? Nope…In the “film business” that’s where. Where else do you hear the word “passion” thrown around so cavalierly?
Filmmaking lets those of us that possess art skills but no burning personal vision to express those skills collectively in service to someone else’s vision. I was recently witness to a conversation where a young man with fine art skills and aspirations told a Flame artist to his face that he did not consider him an artist. Obviously things heated up with the Flame artist voicing his displeasure at not being recognized as an artist (which he clearly felt he was) while the other held his ground pointing out that the computer artist had no other art skills beyond whatever the computer offered and was neither capable nor inclined to conjure up a sketch of Tippy the Turtle or Spunky the Donkey – both well known for adorning the matchbook covers of art correspondence schools. The Flame artist skills are limited to what options the computer provides and rely heavily on someone else setting the table technically. From the young man’s perspective the Flame artist was an “operator” not an artist. Some folks define this distinction as artist with a small “a” versus artist with a big “A.”
At university the definition we used was “an artist is anyone who calls himself an artist.” As a visual effects supervisor I have found myself working with all levels of service artists. As quickly as possible I assess their strengths and make an attempt to assign the shots appropriately based on skill and temperament. Most supervisors, me included, prefer an artist with a strong art background. These operators can move the images forward without a lot of supervision. It’s much easier to steer the boat if it’s moving forward. I remember reading several years ago that there are more scientists living in our times than there have been throughout the entire history of the world. I suspect this is also true of those that call themselves “artists.”
True artists (capital “A” artists…) are those that point to things inside and outside of us that we may have missed while swept up in everyday living - the artist being the bellwether of the rhythms and directions of the times in which they live. In January when James Cameron was asked after a screening of Avatar if he had any trouble dealing with the numerous big egos that he found himself working with he essentially responded by saying that everyone was cheerfully on board and contributed their ideas to the overall effect of the film and were satisfied to get their single brush stroke on the canvas. Personally I feel the goal of Art is to reveal the soul of both the subject and the artist. I’d rather see an expressionist exhibit than an impressionist exhibit. Ultimately I find impressionism a bit of a bore after you acknowledge the technical virtuosity of the painter. Often no more than a snapshot of the moment recorded. It doesn’t tell me anything but what the surface looked to be on that day.
These days we work as collective artists – each contributing his part to the overall tapestry and creating a small piece of a work that is ultimately rolled together to create a film. A film at the level of Avatar is comprised of several thousand man-machine years. Just take a look at the credit roll. There are too many names to even list them sequentially; instead they are listed side by side. Some of these names are of artists who have made significant contributions to the artistic effort; others are of scientists and technologists who have supported the filmmaking process by providing new or revised tools to enable the on-the-box artists to realize Mr. Cameron’s vision. Where will all this take us? Ultimately everyone will be able to call themselves artists (not just in visual effects but globally) provided they’re utilizing a computer. As the power and speed of the computer increases the operator-artist will rely on voice commands to motivate the machine. Nothing will be between the operator and the art. You won’t even need fingers to be an artist.
Printer-friendly version
I told my kids we'd play after I found what I nedeed. Damnit.
Thanks for your comment. I think there are many reasons for the “middling sameness” of today’s films. One is the fact that everyone is using the same or similar toolsets. Maya, Lightwave, Nuke, etc…Fundamentally every image is extruded from the same tool, namely the computer. The great technical advances made on Avatar will rapidly work themselves down into the general VFX workforce and will become a part of the standard toolset. The computer shapes images into a certain form of perfection called photo realism. Initially the computer was particularly good at creating hard edged elements but over time it has successfully graduated to producing organic images very convincingly. Another reason for the creeping sameness is the fact that the studios don’t really want to take chances. Blockbusters are the goal of the day and rehashing old, successful ideas seems to be the safest approach. It’s a bottom line decision.
Shortly after Star Wars came out the studios rushed to make their versions. The most unabashedly direct rip off was The Last Starfighter whereby one character (Robert Preston as a turtle) dies and comes back as an Obi Wan level apparition. The copycats were demonstrating the parable of the seven blind men and the elephant. No one really comprehended what Lucas had done thus none of these copies were able to approach Mr. Lucas’ true understanding of myth. William Goldman’s comment that in Hollywood “Nobody knows anything” rings true and most feel that the safest route is to copy. This will be the case until someone comes up with either something fresh or rekindles a genre seen as dead. Currently in release is someone’s version of Harry Potter and you can bet that Avatar clones are in the works.
I think this article illustrates why so many films in our post CG era are devoid of a deep emotional connection to the content. Somewhere along the way filmmakers have forgotten that storytelling is about metaphor and myth. The supplanting of realism in their mythic or fantasy imagery has been with the casualty of real expression.
In the 1970s, you could tell a director's film just by looking at it - the choice of composition, lighting, grain, even film stock set one filmmaker from another. These were used in the service of the type of story that was being told. It seems that the current technological goodies (which I love to explore) combined with the industry side of film has sadly not opened up endless possibilities, but pushed film towards a middling sameness.
Rick,
"Don't you know that women are the only works of art?"
- Don Henley
Baby come back...!
two words: sandwich artist
Hey, it's like ol' times at TV City.
Is anyone else in the room?
Geo...thanks for your perspective on the definition of an artist. I appreciate the fact that your religious views are front and center in any discussion that you undertake. I would never presume to contradict you on that or any other deeply held belief. Certainly the world around us continues to amaze and confound all mankind. Nothing pleases me more than to read the latest scientific discovery or theory. I think these days I'm leaning towards Big Bangs and String Theories rather than a metaphysical explanation but for me the term God is what exists beyond the limits of my understanding. Arthur C. Clarke in his three laws states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"...I've heard this abbreviated as "After science- magic". For some the reverse is undoubtedly true..."Before science - God"...
Loren...I appreciate your perspective of "the definition of an artist" and while you could make an argument that an artist is a "brush operator" the primary question is the quality of the art that is generated by that brush. The computer guarantees a much better quality image than does the brush. In the case of the brush the abilities of the artist are evident. With a computer that isn't always the case as many of the final images are comprised of other CG created images combined with images stolen from other sources such as cameras, other images, etc. These days rarely does a traditional matte painting form the basis for a final shot. In visual effects we seek to create images as photo real as possible (generally). The computer is tailor made for such images. For me the big leap is made when the art is processed through the eye, brain and out the hand. Whatever happens during this process determines the final product. The computer shortcuts a lot of this process ultimately steadying the hand onto perfection. That being said the computer is the tool for the beginning of this century (and the end of the last)...I got a feeling it's gonna' stick around a while.
Great stuff, Rick. Wonderfully written.
As to expressionism, however, since I am a realist painter, I find that while Artists ( a will-if-I-want-to-do-as-I-please bunch, if ever there was one) do often paint just whatever they "feel like," those who paint nature, people, and bowls of pears paint instead what they discover. Their "talent" is in perceiving, seeing the light, the air, the textures of surfaces, the look in an eye, the lilt of a posture, and then seeing whether or not it has appeared yet on their canvasses.
Also, might a painter be considered a brush operator?
Post new comment