Search form

Classical Drawing and Animation Are The Foundation

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Classical Drawing and Animation Are The Foundation

There are other threads going on this subject that really should be here! As educators we need to openly discuss curriculum and the trends in animation education. Personally, I think it's unfortunate that dance, jazz, animation and other arts are now part of the university system.

In the first place, unless the degree given is spread over more years, it seems impossible to me to provide deep enough training to students who are busy writing papers on theory, and are also taking general liberal arts courses.

I believe in education, but you simply can't do everything at the same time and do it well.

Now that art training is so often "modern," that is, unconcerned with things like perspective and basic visual art literacy, incoming students need to be taught basics. They need this before they can concern themselves with cartooning, layout and background design, or animation. They certainly need to understand good storytelling, and they need acting skills.

How do the rest of you feel about the programs you are part of? What changes would you like to see?

We do try to encourage the students to act out parts in the movie scene/ part themselves to capture the extent of exaggeration (I think you can try this - though i suspect no one's been trying it this way).

Think again.

I was having students act in my storyboard classes, to given them an idea of the posing and acting considerations at play.

It was almost universally like trying to extract their teeth--almost no-one wanted to do it, and yet there was nothing they were pushed to do that they would not have done on the job.
Frankly, most students dreaded it because they thought they'd look like complete idiots and froze up. The stuff I pushed them to do was very broad acting, really hammed up--with all the relevancy explained in detail.
Never worked.

Even when students would do video camera test shots using themselves as players, their performances were always stiff and stilted--negating the use of the tool in that case.

I'm resigned to the fact that it takes a certain specific kind of personality willing to put aside their embarrassment and go for broke in acting out stuff--something very few people possess or are willing to explore.

Its probably better to do freeze frames and screen-grabs to show students how exaggerated poses and acting can be.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Single Frame the Film

Recently, I had a student ask about how to do smoke. Now I have taught effects - most recently in Germany (though character is my forte). I would teach them some basic info and then encourage them to watch films and single frame areas of interest...even with effects.

Three months the later the same student was after me to explain smoke effects...and this person was a good student.

When I was in school, I would procure a flatbed editor- check out films from the library and roll them
by one frame at a time.

I did that to Ward Kimball's TOUGH TO BE A BIRD and was amazed to see what he did on two's...it is a great way to learn- talk about exaggeration!
WOW!

Think Again

Yes, using freeze frames is a great idea, nonetheless there is nothing like feeling through acting yourself. It is similar to feeling animation acting through sketching frames so that it gets into your system, though 3D software claim there is no such need.

I have only had 2 batches that I tried it on (since this curriculum is new at our place), and I may be lucky to get a batch of charged students (in fact i had to leave some out). So, I suppose I can keep trying till they snuff out this enthusiam born out of my naivety :-)

I understand that principally you, Ken, agree with me, but want to caution me on the hurdles of implementation and I highly appreciate that.

I would love more guidance from you so that I can train my students even better.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

We (Filmakademie) have an improv artist come in and do two days of exercises. Once the students have gone through the basis of acting warm-ups (falling blind into their colleagues hands, passing actions to ach other) and gotten familiar with these things in a fun way, they are much more willing to let loose and play things out. Its one of the greatest things we offer, imo. The effect is metamorphic...
That said, there's a tendency to stiffen up again immediately afterward, or to neglect using these techniques when working on their projects. A fantastic project was a choir that the students themselves organized... it was interesting to see the effect in a more open atmosphere of critique and exchange, and willingness to try things out in front of their colleagues.

Maxine--
In almost every program I've ever taught at, stuff like perspective scares the pee out of students. Terrifies them, actually.

I used to do this thing where I'd take my storyboard classes and I'd teach a "10 minute-perspective class" ( and they'd time me to boot).....and for some students it'd be more useful that the 12 weeks of perspective studies they were taking.

Go figure.

One of the things I made a distinction about at the very start of my own career, a gut-level decision, was that I was ( wanted to be) a cartoonist.
Not an animator, not a inbetweener, not a storyboard artist or comic book artist-though I have worn all those hats. I'm a cartoonist, and I approach everything from that POV. I got the sense over the 10 years I taught from my students that few of them saw their careers as being about cartooning. They wanted the sub-specialties: animator, designer, director, rigger, BG artists etc- and to that end they appeared to narrow their focus to achieve those goals.

I used to teach at schools that held a 1 year programme, then I had a chance to spend time teaching in a college that offered a 3 year animation programme. Although that 3 year programme had some flaws--there was one element that shone through for me: thinking time.
In artistic self-exploration, the processing time the brain has available to it is intensely valuable. If the system is set up to allow visitation of the material, then time away from it, then RE-visitation.....THEN the material tends to sink in.

That's very difficult to do in a 1 year programme because the constant stress of progress impacts thinking time. Students are forced to process, or fall behind.

I'd love to see an across the board standard of 3-4 years for an animation program--with the first 2 years being solid explorations of basic studies like perspective, composition and other drawing fundementals. Later years can focus more on application.
Trouble is.......a programme like that isn't "sexy" with a lot of newcomers because its takes so long and its going to be expensive. The modern pitch a lot of 1 year programmes give is that its "just one year, and then you are out into the industry".
Honestly, I used to unthinkingly parrot that line as well ( hey, they were signing my cheques...) but I now see the fallacy of it.

I think a good clear understanding of story and story structure helps--because that is ultimately what the job is about. Without story, it all falls apart. I never knew if the programmes I was involved in were tearing apart films to study story, but the approach students had seemed to indicate to me those classes either did not, or the students didn't absorb the material.
I've always felt a fearless approach to the stuff is warranted--and yet I found some students would crystalize and iconify some of the material or get lost in it because they remained consumers of it, rather than approach it as creators.

At the pointy end of teaching, I always found that equipment limitations prohibited instruction of material-which ended up being a political concern of the school.
Its hard to pour over and study the DVD of a film when there's no TV or player available for that class. Even using what are considered "common frames of reference" or widely held examples don't work without something all the students can watch directly--usually because SOME of them have NEVER seen the material.

I dunno.....I'm no longer teaching and have no plans to teach again, so all I'm doing is just venting off old steam.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Acting is good!

Acting classes are good for students...in Dublin we took advantage of the Dublin theater scene. Twice a week, someone would come by to work with the students.

They began with games and developed from there...eventually, they performed scenes.

I did the same thing in school at Art center- we had a relationship with MTM studios and did acting and directing classes with Tony Miller. a new scene every week- great stuff!!!

Please visit us when you visit Toronto! We begin with a solid year of representational fine art training.Then we follow the old Warner Bros and Disney guidelines for schools (Dave Masters did a great job putting together what he and Warner Bros considered the appropriate, broad based curriculum), and, when we added computer training, we didn't dilute the courses we already had: we just added more. We offer a 3 year diploma in Classical and Computer Animation basics, and an advanced fourth year diploma in 3D Computer Animation and Production.

We still could use more time, but at least our students are equipped to enter the industry. We also stress professionalism. In fact, students are graded on professionalism as well as course content.

How can you have an animation program if the students can't draw and don't understand storytelling and acting? It simply isn't possible.

I've really appreciated all your comments on these forums. I should tell one and all that although I direct Max the Mutt, I was a fine artist with a strong background in life drawing (with an emphasis on movement) and anatomy, which is how I got connected to animation in the first place. Tina Seemann, an incredible teacher, is the Animation Director. However, I've been so deeply connected to animation for the last 10 years, that I've developed an understanding of the skill base that's needed. Needless to say, my personal work has suffered and I'm looking forward to our school getting to a point where I can reconnect with my own work.

If you visit Toronto, perhaps you would be willing to speak to the students about cartooning and share your work. We are an interesting community of like minded people, and I know everyone would be interested in meeting you.
Our website is: www.maxthemutt.com. We also have a Blog, www.maxthemutt.com/blog.

Animation Program

You are right. Every time I teach students I have deadlines. If I don't get those deadlines, my students would fall behind and their remaining lectures would suffer.

I think animation is mainly upto making the story, camera angles, and characters. Whereas the students tend to focus on the production aspects and software much more..

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

You are right. Every time I teach students I have deadlines. If I don't get those deadlines, my students would fall behind and their remaining lectures would suffer.

I think animation is mainly upto making the story, camera angles, and characters. Whereas the students tend to focus on the production aspects and software much more..

Well, a lot of schools teach mostly software et al. because it can (more or less) come right out of a box.
To teach storytelling or artistic sensibilties, you need someone with a pulse--re: an experienced cartoonist/animator teacher.

Thems ain't exactly easy to come by.

Solving problems in storytelling largely comes down to self-exploration.
"How would you get this character to that side of the room?" kind-of-thing.
A teacher can suggest one method of solving that kind of problem, but its not truly instructional in the sense because its just ONE of thousands of possible solutions. It takes experience to convey that and, more importantly, experience to evaluate a student's solution to the problem to see if it works or not.
Some schools ( shamelessly, I might add) hire former students or alumni to teach classes that only a couple of years before they were taking as students themselves.
That kind of practise send me into fits because there's next-to-no way in Hades they can bring with them enough industry experience to evaluate students on anything more than a cursory level.
Just telling someone "ya....that works" is bullshit teaching.
It doesn't tell them WHY it works, why its funny or dramatic or what-have-you. Only someone who has faced that kind of problem on a day-today basis and came up with solutions that sold can really offer something of value in instructing that material.

Learning software is monkey-work. A chimpanzee can be trained to push the right button at the right time yielding the same kind of result, in most cases.
What should be emphasized......and isn't always.....is using intuition--rather than learning the hot-keys.
Its like the old ( almost cliche) thing about learning software--the infamous "lens-flare" effect--where once students learn how to do that kind of thing...they feel compelled to use it EVERYWHERE and on everything.
A sage hand can show them what that effect is, but also impart when it can be used and abused. Sometimes the benefit of the experience is just being able to say "less is more".

I've seen a lot of kids graduate from art schools that are damn-fine pixel-pushers--usually well versed in the mechanics of software, or animation principles.......but they are LOUSY cartoonists. That disheartens me, because--in some ways-- its a failure of the programs they were enrolled in, or a failure of the instructors that taught them, or even their own expectations of the craft.
To this day, I still wish I had more time to share and instruct with them on matters of the craft.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

This from a former student:

During animation school in Cologne we got some acting lessons but because the instructor's time was very limited they were - INTENSE!
I think his main focus was on coaxing us out of our shells, which means he made us do stuff which to us appeared downright embarrassing from time to time. A lot of people are embarrassed when they've got to act in front of others but once you get over that you realise it's stuff you see other actors do all the time. Well, I said he was trying to coax us - that's wrong. He actually, and successfully, shattered our shells with a sledgehammer. It was the tough approach but sometimes you just gotta work with your limited time. It's this getting over the superficial embarrassment of having to act that's the first major line one has to cross.
Some may think acting for animation is different because it's not the animator who is acting directly, that s/he is acting through the characters and that makes it less "embarrasing". From my own experience I say no! You can't convincingly draw what you can't at least imagine yourself act out. The inner freedom to "act" like whatever it is you want to animate, no matter how stupid it might make you look, will show in the drawings.

Acting for Animation

Thanks for your enthusiastic feedback.

It is so nice to see so many people want acting to be integral part of animation and surprisingly the least time is given to acting in most of the animation schools. I can now stick out my neck and risk further ridicule by saying "50% of Animator's work is Acting!"

Let me have your comments and feedback.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Take them outdoors

Thanks for the wonderful comments - I like that we are "talking" education rather than debating...at least at this point.

When I have taught students, especially over the last few years, I have found they are usaually terrified of drawing. So, when teaching perspective, character design or storyboarding I would take them outside.

The building that houses the animation course has no windows.(another motive for being ouside).

For perspective I started them out with thumnails - we would be outside the first three, the assignment was that they had to turn in 45 thumbnails. 15 - of a flat view (horizon line approx, 1/3 up from bottom), 15 - bird's eye views, 15 worm's eye views. Most students would do more- to obtain 45 "keepers".

Most of the time we would be on River Street (by the- what else, river) in Savannah. We would meet and I would demo perspective (probably pretty close to the Ken Davis 10 minute demo) and then they would for it.

The idea was to find a place where folks could relax and just enjoy drawing.

Thumbnails are non threatening to students and small (in this case 3 by 4 in. or smaller) and fun. I find the larger the drawing at this point the more folks obsess about details. Anybody can be seduced by details. With thumbnails there really is no failure - so the students are free to explore their drawing. I also tell them that everything on River Street is resource or reference materials. I don't want to copy a building- I want them to resource the building.

One other thing I did was allow redo's of work- as many times as possible- to up their grade - as long as the assignment was handed in on time in the
first place. For me it wasn't about the grades it was to get them to put in the "pencil mileage".

We would venture out at other times for character design....

Great to share and hear how others approach their teaching.

Thanks

One other thing I did was allow redo's of work- as many times as possible- to up their grade - as long as the assignment was handed in on time in the
first place. For me it wasn't about the grades it was to get them to put in the "pencil mileage".

This is one thing I was never able to employ--and I regret it.

The usual "implied" policy was that student does the assignment once, and then get their graded/reviewed assignment back ( whenever it got marked :( . They live with the grade they got and whatever notes that were on the assignment.

If I were to teach again........I'd do things differently, as you did--allow re-do's up to the point of the deadline.

But with the schools I used to teach at, there would have been problems:

Most students leave it to the last minute anyways and........most instructors like myself are on part-time, so catching us to get an assignment in for review beforehand would be daunting. That, and finding the time to review in the midst of all the other assignments pending and handed in at deadline would be equally daunting.
Especially if said instructor were only part-time, working freelance off-site and not on-site in a full work week.
This was one of my arguments for putting some instructors on full-time: there would always be someone around during the day to help students and coach them.
( I was able to do this effectively only once while teaching, at SCETCH, and that was essential crippled early on--long story. The only other time was when I was doing it voluntarily at VFS--but how long can a teacher sustain that doing it for free?)
The retaining curve in learning would be exponential and the school could boast an enormous success rate.
But no-one does that because the schools look at costs first.
Phooey.

To my mind there is NO ARGUEMENT in having a handful skilled teachers on hand for students to approach at anytime, and recieve instant feedback and re-do's . The kids would learn so much more, and to such depth, that kind of policy would have enormous impact.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

You are really on dot regarding the affordability of teaching students the way you like it.

Our market is all agog for the 3D software based courses because they are oh-so-cheap (pun also intended). We are running the riskier and more intense drawing based course with anatomy, Animation basics, timing, storyboarding, character design, and other mundane stuff.. in which either no one is interested or they find it costly.

For sketching, yes most people hate the stuff (more to do with their wanting to be a 3D animator, and the general perception that sketching is 2D), and it is tough getting their assignments in. Now, at times it is a real decision between giving the students a Zero for not completing it on time and slowly destroying his resolve to go through it, or allowing some relaxation on delivery (but the assignment has to come anyway or they don't passout but can still continue to learn).

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Tip for teaching the principle of exaggeration

I have a Tip for teaching exaggeration:

We choose an animated movie and watch it together and then select a humorous part.

We do try to encourage the students to act out parts in the movie scene/ part themselves to capture the extent of exaggeration (I think you can try this - though i suspect no one's been trying it this way).

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

With so much to teach these days there is never enough time! What's on my mind is how to get students more involved in classical animation. Problems aren't always about lack of interest. A need to get into the workforce and difficulty paying tuition are part of what is keeping people from spending more time on classical skills.

A part of me thinks that unless there are jobs for classical animators ( which there could be with the increased use of ToonBoom and Cintiq tablets ) students just won't opt to spend extra time pushing their drawing skills to the next level. I worry that by the time the jobs materialize, we won't have enough skilled classical animators... and that would be very sad. Anyone with suggestions?

I really would agree and disagree.

I agree that classical animation learning is necessary for 3D animators as much as it is required for 2D animators. Only the difference is that they can do away with lesser quality in their handwork, as long as they are able to absorb the principles well. The insistence of high sketching quality tends to make people shy away from this all.

I disagree that jobs for 2D animators only can sustain the teaching of techniques. It'd be same as saying that jobs for cursive writing/ calligraphy are required to teach kids handwriting.

So, my belief is that 2D is akin to handwriting and 3D is akin to computer typing. But neither of them means one can write good prose/ poetry. However, a person who has mulled over individual alphabets and words at some point in their life have a better chance at being a better writer.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

I agree that classical animation learning is necessary for 3D animators as much as it is required for 2D animators. Only the difference is that they can do away with lesser quality in their handwork, as long as they are able to absorb the principles well. The insistence of high sketching quality tends to make people shy away from this all.

I consider the refinement aspect of developing artistic skills to be the essential part of the process.
The reason for that is every person comes to this with a certain base set of skills, but basic skills are not always enough to cross the gap.
We can all write our names, type to a degree, move a mouse......its basic hand-eye coordination. Refining that training to a high degree means honing the hand-eye neurology AND the aesthetic senses and intuitions.
This is what a high level of sketching ability brings, and you will find this is all artists with refined hand skills.

If people shy away from this, I consider it to be just part of the weeding out process. Striving to be as fully-functional an artist is just smart business these days, and if a talent is unprepared, they will suffer.
Setting down a specific level of refine ability at the start builds a foundation of artistic disciplines that will give a growing talent more options to their career.

See, I'm not about just training people so they can "just get a job", I want to see talent that can raise the bar on the craft. I want to see what a given person can bring to the creative fields and inspire not just me but everyone else. This goes for 2D and 3D media.
There's legions of niche and mundane talents out there--they are the fodder for the industry. They are also the largest demographic of talent that drop out of the industry after only a short time.
I just do not see the point in that.
Pushing people to the levels where everyone is super-skilled makes the whole industry and craft stronger--which is the whole point.

Saying people do not need to have high-level sketching ability strikes me as just a half-measure, and undermines the whole craft. If someone is afraid to step up, I ( and I feel, the industry) do not want or need them.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Saying people do not need to have high-level sketching ability strikes me as just a half-measure, and undermines the whole craft. If someone is afraid to step up, I ( and I feel, the industry) do not want or need them.

I consider your feedback very valuable. Though I have an opinion on this that is different (That's what makes the world go round)

I think that there could be people who don't give it half measure treatment, but are not able to do good sketching despite the best training. And the cost of trying to imbibe the skills beyond that goes very high in terms of time.

Also, they absorb the animation principles very well, but are not able to translate it into action by hand, and need the assistance of a computer (a good 3d program). So, I have always considered that lack of one skill should not constrain a person from getting ahead as long as they are very good in all other aspects including the principles of animation and acting.

For e.g. I have a student in my class who has good sketching skills but only can make good war/ battle scenes. Despite our best effort he cannot make a normal scene. However, instead of forcing him beyond a certain point, we've accepted his drawback, and guided and encouraged him accordingly - since he'd have sufficient work in the area he's specialized. It's like trying to get a showman to make documentaries. Why try? Instead have good documentary people and good showmen than try to have all people become good at both things.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

The truth is that if they don't have the skills and cant fit in anywhere solidly they ought not to be in the industry. You are based out of India and running a studio here has led me to believe that people approach this as a business or a job which means they find a skill to do one job and just stick to it forever.

Some people might be able to acquire more on the job but most don't. Training people who dont have the aptitude to draw to begin with is the biggest problem facing Indian Animation today.

You are based out of India and running a studio here has led me to believe that people approach this as a business or a job which means they find a skill to do one job and just stick to it forever.

My bearings have no relation to the debate whatsoever. Neither I hope your bearing give you a blush. We are here to discuss our understand of the training methodology and there is a debate wherein we're trying to see various perspectives.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Some people might be able to acquire more on the job but most don't. Training people who dont have the aptitude to draw to begin with is the biggest problem facing Indian Animation today.

Unfortunately, you can't run factories without the workers. These people who learn just software, are trained to be the workers. It is a personal decision whether to become a worker or a supervisor/ manager. People without the aptitude to draw OR act OR write rarely would proceed beyond that point. But the difference in my and Ken Davis' opinions is about the big "OR" I put in between various skills. (I shall discuss this aspect later)

The Indian Industry is not facing any problem that is different from any other industry which is shortage of supervisory/ managerial manpower which could take responsibility of the creative aspect. There's no lack of training resources since NID, Toonz, Hearts (I think they're not giving training any more) and now Arena (DAE) have started offering the same. I am sure there would be more of these.

Course designing in Internet Era is quite easy since you have access to the best designed course. If I had this task I would focus more on "delivery" within the constraints of pricing. People weigh course costs against the returns, and there is where the industry needs to probably reciprocate.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

To continue the great debate that I'm learning from

Ken, to continue the great debate that I'm learning from. Your inputs are really valuable and I am reading everything you mentioned very carefully and trying to give responses based on my perspective, which I believe is not the generally held perspective.

However, the medium has changed and there probably could be a way to approach the fallout of the computer era which initially focussed on software than the process. However, with 5 failures, Disney studios learnt their lesson from Pixar, which stuck to Disney principles.

There's always a requirement of workers in the industry and at this point, both you and I am not discussing those. People with only software knowledge and without the aptitude to draw OR act OR write rarely would proceed beyond that point. But the difference in my and your opinions is about the big "OR" I put in between various skills, whereas I believe you put an "AND" at that place. Especially regarding sketching skills.

To take the debate further, I believe, even Walt Disney was an above-average sketcher but a top artist or animator whatever you'd like to call him. However, he realized his shortcomings early but had enough of other skills in him, that other good artists lacked.

And in the present context where the software is able to remove the issue of the artist being able to maintain the continuity of flow and consistency of drawings - these issues have ceased to exist in 3D. So, the need to be the sketch artist of highest order is not so essential. And this has pushed acting into prominence since so far there is no mechanism to tackle acting.

This augurs well for the industry as more creative people can now join the industry than earlier. I am ecstatic about this.

However, now the training processes that have served us well for 90 years, need tweaking. We have to transfer the same knowledge but the dependency on sketching has reduced.

I have stated before that at least for now training by hand/ sketching is essential, though my belief is that they need not focus on delivering the perfect artwork. And focus more on learning the principles of animation. Surely they should go through the entire gamut of training like Human and Animal Anatomy including Muybridges great works. Well, I think, I can stop here since we understand that path.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

And in the present context where the software is able to remove the issue of the artist being able to maintain the continuity of flow and consistency of drawings - these issues have ceased to exist in 3D. So, the need to be the sketch artist of highest order is not so essential. And this has pushed acting into prominence since so far there is no mechanism to tackle acting.

I think you have mistaken some of what I said, and I also feel you are completely wrong in this respect.

Software will never replace talent. What I read from the above is that you believe it will.
Let me specify something here:
The reason I push drawing ability is not for animation per se, but for problem-solving ability with artistic matters, specifically the design aspects in characters moving.
A skilled pencil artist, trained in 2D, and using 3D, will know when to "cheat" a bit of animation, so as to pull off a tighter bit of movement, and maintain the design in an appealing way.
This, I feel, is the distinction between the exceptional 2D and 3D animation we see in shows like the Incredibles etc., and the rest of the stuff that is often far weaker.
To my eye, a LOT of the current 3D ( non-feature) animation looks weak, simply because it looks stiff. So much work goes into rigging the objects that the animators become more puppeteers than "animators". The rigged objects are limited by their physics and structures and thus the animators figure if it "can only bend so far, then that is how far its gonna bend".
That, in my opinion, is forsaking and abandoning one of the key principles that makes animation read on screen.
Software will not automatically supply this.
Learning how to cheat a drawing effectively for a scene will supply this knowledge, because the artist facing this kind of drawing problem has to understand not only the cheat, but how to make the drawing for that frame stronger to make the cheat work and not be glaringly noticeable.
Getting one's "hands dirty" via 2D animation is the best way of learning this kind of thing, and understanding it well enough to use it properly in 3D.

A LOT of people ignorantly believe that software will solve all the answers, I've had students actually think this is the case.
Little wonder that those that cling to the notion produce shitty animation in 3D.

I continue to push solid 2D training because I'm not a proponent of half-measures when it comes to a person's career. Our modern societies are rife with disastrous consequences for people with niche abilities in their skill-sets. If a job fails, for whatever reason, a person so saddled with niche talents WILL find difficulty gaining further work, simply because their range of talent is limited. I'm not talking expertise here, I'm talking about a level of general competence that gives a person at least a starting place within a specific skill.
By my own admission, I'm no expert in the two main genres in western animation ( "funny animals" and action-adventure) but I am competent enough in both genres that I can work comfortably ( and to the needs of my clients) in either.
Telling a newcomer that "they don't need to bother with something" is.......well, its almost criminal, because its potentially misleading. Rather than say they do not need a particular skill-set, add that skill-set to the curriculum, and make then sweat it out and in the process give them an option that other talents do not have.

One of the distinctions I have made about my career, about my job description, is that I am NOT a animator, or a storyboard artist per se, I consider myself to be a cartoonist, first and foremost. I've explored the basics of cartooning, from animation, to comics, and comics strips, illustration etc.
In addition to learning how to draw, I've added skills like inking and lettering to my skill-set.
Now, I lack certain skills, like painting and sculpting, but the additional skills I have make my overall skill-set that much more nuanced and valuable.

Yes, in light of 3D needs, my skill-sets are VERY traditional.....but I'll never lose them, and they have given my hands and eyes a kind of training that......well.......I think its better than what most students get in animation schools these days.
The end reasoning about this is that I'm not advocating training for mere jobs, I'm insisting on training for life-long careers. Anyone with a few weeks of training can fill most of the jobs currently required in animation. The compartmentalization of most studios (around the world) is such that a given task is pretty isolated ( in practise) from other tasks.
Now, on a specific job, that's fine.........but what happens after that job ends? What happens if that talent wants to try something different?
If they have niche talents..........they are stuck. They have learned how to do only one or a few things. Their career options are then stalled until they learn and can demonstrate additional skills.

Now the studios don't care about this. They just want that talent that can do THAT specific job. Once the project is done they will not hesitate to lay that talent off.
My philosophy in this is to help talent avoid that by being better and more broadly trained at the outset.
Having a broader based skill-set, versed in things like solid drawing abilities, gives a talent the options of exploring other aspects of the field, and not being relegated to working in just a niche capacity.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Rather than say they do not need a particular skill-set, add that skill-set to the curriculum, and make then sweat it out and in the process give them an option that other talents do not have.

Exactly, I remember this debate started at this very point. I never mentioned that a particular skill-set was not required. In fact teaching all skill-sets is important. Rather I mentioned that instead of wanting every student to be able to excel at the highest level of art, we can allow that skill deficiency to a certain extent in some people and guide them accordingly. This allows them to retain their head in it's position since for them a mentor's disapproval is very disheartening. It's criminal actually to dishearten an otherwise highly talented person, on lack on a certain skill which he fails to acquire.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Software will never replace talent. What I read from the above is that you believe it will.

I apologize if I have made it sound like the above line you wrote. On the contrary what i've been fighting for is the reverse "Software will never replace talent". It's same as "a good cartoonist would never mean a good story teller."

[B][LIST=1]
[*]My point is that the software has eased a part of the work and we can now focus on the earlier ignored aspects.
[*]The present stage can allow for some very good actors who are not good in sketching to enter the Arena.
[*]Finally, pure software people can only become workers or helpers or whatever you may call them.
[/LIST][/B]

I am not saying that the traditional training is passe, only that a couple of modules can now be tweaked for people who do not have good sketching skills.

Good storyboarders as well as character designers would continue to need hig sketching skills.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Unfortunately, you can't run factories without the workers. These people who learn just software, are trained to be the workers. It is a personal decision whether to become a worker or a supervisor/ manager. People without the aptitude to draw OR act OR write rarely would proceed beyond that point. But the difference in my and Ken Davis' opinions is about the big "OR" I put in between various skills. (I shall discuss this aspect later)

The Indian Industry is not facing any problem that is different from any other industry which is shortage of supervisory/ managerial manpower which could take responsibility of the creative aspect. There's no lack of training resources since NID, Toonz, Hearts (I think they're not giving training any more) and now Arena (DAE) have started offering the same. I am sure there would be more of these.

Course designing in Internet Era is quite easy since you have access to the best designed course. If I had this task I would focus more on "delivery" within the constraints of pricing. People weigh course costs against the returns, and there is where the industry needs to probably reciprocate.

i think our bearings are extremely important when having this discussion, India's problems are fairly different from an organized education center like North America. There is no standard where a person chosen to attend a program deserves to be in it or even should be in it. Besides there is no standard to regulate the bodies that train these animators.

Its completely unfair to compare a grad from NID to someone coming out of the erstwhile Toonz Webel program or any others you list. NID has a much higher standard that i will attest to (and then again, that is another set of problems) which they have maintained by admitting the right people and then forcing them to play to comparable western standards.

I have interviewed dozens of people coming from Arena programs over the years and never hired one. Simply because they dont know their head from their a**, to no fault of theirs, its just the way they are taught (And no offense since you are affiliated with Arena)

The truth is that a majority of training centers are franchised and offer a standardized curriculum taught by folks with absolutely no understanding or experience themselves. Therefore the quality of two grads from the same program even 20 miles apart is not comparable.

While you can discuss plenty of the macro level issues regarding the progression of 2d artists into 3d production or skill levels, i somehow feel pretty sure that most people creating quality 3d content come in with a strong sketching or 2d animation background.

You can send non-artists to take care of things like fur, skin, texture, lighting but thats not animation. its a part of the pipeline and staging but not animating. Which does not mean that its not absolutely imperative as well.

To come back to the previous para, there isn't even a strong screening process to weed out the chaff and only take in the people with the right aptitude. The right aptitude is being able to pay the tuition on time.

This is part of the reason why we as a nation cant come up with anything of quality on our own. Most of its directed down to a t by someone else and we follow the directions and do the laborious parts. thats how we make animation here and it shows when we go out to do something of our own. there is no quality control and no imagination.

Its completely unfair to compare a grad from NID to someone coming out of the erstwhile Toonz Webel program or any others you list. NID has a much higher standard that i will attest to (and then again, that is another set of problems) which they have maintained by admitting the right people and then forcing them to play to comparable western standards.

I have interviewed dozens of people coming from Arena programs over the years and never hired one. Simply because they dont know their head from their a**, to no fault of theirs, its just the way they are taught (And no offense since you are affiliated with Arena)

The truth is that a majority of training centers are franchised and offer a standardized curriculum taught by folks with absolutely no understanding or experience themselves. Therefore the quality of two grads from the same program even 20 miles apart is not comparable.

What essentially you're talking of is a program like that of NID, and then comparing them to the Arena student's you interviewed who've done a simple software course. The first kind have done a 2-3 years full-time course and the latter may have invested a small amount of money and time. Hence, my usage of the term animation workers. You want a course for people who can create good stuff, and then you mention about workers not coming upto the standards.

You don't get delicately cooked Octopuses for the price of a Rohu (a fish). I think long time ago we discussed this aspect somewhere in this forum - so no point getting into that debate again. It is more of a financial constraint in India with people not ready to invest into learning and the cost of infrastructure being high and only Govt. subsidized colleges like NID can afford to showcase a course at lower cost. A course with all proper training can be around ).1-1.0 million INR at the least. And presently the outlook doesn't match the same.

Like Ken has said else where in the forum, the bottomline, all people are working for the cheque they take at the end of the month.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

What essentially you're talking of is a program like that of NID, and then comparing them to the Arena student's you interviewed who've done a simple software course. The first kind have done a 2-3 years full-time course and the latter may have invested a small amount of money and time. Hence, my usage of the term animation workers. You want a course for people who can create good stuff, and then you mention about workers not coming upto the standards.

You don't get delicately cooked Octopuses for the price of a Rohu (a fish). I think long time ago we discussed this aspect somewhere in this forum - so no point getting into that debate again. It is more of a financial constraint in India with people not ready to invest into learning and the cost of infrastructure being high and only Govt. subsidized colleges like NID can afford to showcase a course at lower cost. A course with all proper training can be around ).1-1.0 million INR at the least. And presently the outlook doesn't match the same.

Like Ken has said else where in the forum, the bottom line, all people are working for the cheque they take at the end of the month.

i don't see the government investing a bunch in animation education anywhere else either. it comes from private colleges and with people paying to learn.

even if there were people ready to pay, we don't have the infrastructure to teach people. arena has hundreds of centers but no campus.

its a cop out to blame the government and poverty. people will borrow money to learn, they do so in the west and in this country too.

question is who will teach them ? besides most people teaching have no clue what to teach, there is rarely any industry interaction and most institutions have no clue what the industry wants.

its stupid to see a student after spending money and time having to spend another year just unlearning everything he has been taught.

everyone is working for a cheque but that does not mean you toe the line.

Ken,

i absolutely agree, people seem to think that 3d animation requires less talent and therefore you can get away with relatively cruder skills, it couldn't be any less true. forget about what you have seen, come have a look at what some of the people in India are doing. its f*****g scary how bad some of it is.

at the same time i have seen the odd reel by kids and the work is incredible, they happened to draw very well but beyond that they were fairly aware of what was going on in the world at large. they used their awareness and put it to work.

a thing that mars Indian animation now is that we have absolutely no sense of pop culture or a real sense of humour. we are still hung up on creating animated parodies of one movie that came out 30 years ago.

even if we caught up on skill and mastered the art, we would need a solid imagination. something you cant teach in school.

Unfortunately people who have the money are not interested in animation as they have other uses for them..

and there are people who are creative but don't have the money, so again, it's a no go for them

finally there are people who have creativity and money but locate the wrong course (software course).

Courses are available, but the numbers who want to go for high end is piddly.

It's no use cursing the imagination, or constraints. It sounds like a history lesson. The world has changed a lot!

India has started out as a animation factory and like all factories will find it's bearing with time. The world is not dying for content. But the learning through production is much faster, like the japanese, and later taiwanese and koreans did. The factories slowly turn into creation centres. Even, China has now started inventing toys.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Unfortunately people who have the money are not interested in animation as they have other uses for them..

and there are people who are creative but don't have the money, so again, it's a no go for them

finally there are people who have creativity and money but locate the wrong course (software course).

Courses are available, but the numbers who want to go for high end is piddly.

It's no use cursing the imagination, or constraints. It sounds like a history lesson. The world has changed a lot!

India has started out as a animation factory and like all factories will find it's bearing with time. The world is not dying for content. But the learning through production is much faster, like the japanese, and later taiwanese and koreans did. The factories slowly turn into creation centres. Even, China has now started inventing toys.

these are just broad generalizations, they sound accurate but when you actually explore them they fall flat.

your making out animation to be the dream of poor people who put the money together to earn a living.

i run a studio and i can assure you that most of the animators here get paid well. very well. infuriatingly well.

India has not really moved up the value chain. Sorry. Even Rhythm & Hues outsources a great deal of menial work as do a bunch of others.

Very little of substance has come out from our minds for a long long time and this includes Cinema.

How many scriptwriters can you name ? none.

these are just broad generalizations, they sound accurate but when you actually explore them they fall flat.

your making out animation to be the dream of poor people who put the money together to earn a living.

i run a studio and i can assure you that most of the animators here get paid well. very well. infuriatingly well.

India has not really moved up the value chain. Sorry. Even Rhythm & Hues outsources a great deal of menial work as do a bunch of others.

Very little of substance has come out from our minds for a long long time and this includes Cinema.

How many scriptwriters can you name ? none.

You are not able to find good people and I am.
You are not happy at how India is moving and I am.
You are not happy with India minds but I am.
You can't find a good script but I can.

I have an understanding of both commerce and media and I think India has just started on this value chain and this has generated enough jobs for the low end animator. That's not infuriating to me. That's good that at the low end, there are takers. Rhythm and Hues doing piddly work is not infuriating, it's their business decision. Nevertheless, I produce quality content and have found my buyers as well as animators. I don't get furious at situations, I find my solutions.

I am not here to change India, or even the world. If it gets changed in the process, you don't need to thank me.

I am only on this forum to discuss and learn ways and means to fine tune my methodology and thinking. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks until they are interested in participating in debating the context of a good curriculum. I am only trying to help by contributing my learnings like others. I am surely interested in hearing some of the old school forum people like Ken, but more so from books/ notes and videos by Walt, Ollie, Fred, Bill Tytla, Ed Hooks, Tony White, Shamus, Edward Muybridge and numerous people who have contributed to the growth of the industry, but I make my own judgments and derivations.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

You are not able to find good people and I am.
You are not happy at how India is moving and I am.
You are not happy with India minds but I am.
You can't find a good script but I can.

I have an understanding of both commerce and media and I think India has just started on this value chain and this has generated enough jobs for the low end animator. That's not infuriating to me. That's good that at the low end, there are takers. Rhythm and Hues doing piddly work is not infuriating, it's their business decision. Nevertheless, I produce quality content and have found my buyers as well as animators. I don't get furious at situations, I find my solutions.

I am not here to change India, or even the world. If it gets changed in the process, you don't need to thank me.

I am only on this forum to discuss and learn ways and means to fine tune my methodology and thinking. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks until they are interested in participating in debating the context of a good curriculum. I am only trying to help by contributing my learnings like others. I am surely interested in hearing some of the old school forum people like Ken, but more so from books/ notes and videos by Walt, Ollie, Fred, Bill Tytla, Ed Hooks, Tony White, Shamus, Edward Muybridge and numerous people who have contributed to the growth of the industry, but I make my own judgments and derivations.

i think you fail to understand my point. the point is progression, the future. we missed the bus in the early 80's and then in the early 90's. the new millennium has brought work and some organization.

However its being torn down rather quickly by sub standard work, which is a result of substandard people creating the content which is again a direct result of lack of proper education across the pipeline.

Its not going anywhere. Ive done enough client servicing work and enough of my own content to know we are slowly heading towards a wall. The biggest reason is scam educational institutions teaching the wrong curriculum badyly to kids without the aptitude for it.

Thats a recipe for disaster...

anyway, i think were going off topic anyway.

Over to your Ken.

people seem to think that 3d animation requires less talent and therefore you can get away with relatively cruder skills, it couldn't be any less true.

I would agree and disagree on this. I believe in this:
[LIST=1]
[*]3D animation requires lesser talent of the kind we're discussing here. Which is a perfection in sketching skills.
[*]3D animation is only one of the story telling mediums and you require as much story telling skills as you need in any other medium. So no question of getting away with less talent.
[/LIST]

On another note. In India it's more a problem that the most highly-creative people I know are not interested in animation. Since, they see it as a non-paying career. So, it's not about the availability of a right course. And on the other end, you have students lining up for cheap courses only because they too don't have any love of animation, but because they are being told that animation holds a great career, and by doing a software they can get in. They're hearing what they want to hear! It's a "Caveat Emptor" situation, a buyer's intelligence leads him to what he wants.

Animation is a modern art form, and art forms need passion. I fail to recollect a great artist who passed out a great institute. Yes, great artists have walked away from shadows of their mentors after years of learning. So, those institutes are great who have great mentors, not the ones who have great campuses.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

You can send non-artists to take care of things like fur, skin, texture, lighting but thats not animation. its a part of the pipeline and staging but not animating. Which does not mean that its not absolutely imperative as well.

A non artist can also do animation if he's a good actor/ and understands acting rather than sketching.

However, character design is best left to good artists with "casting couch" skills :) since it needs imagination and high visualizing skills supplemented with an ability to put the visual on paper.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

A non artist can also do animation if he's a good actor/ and understands acting rather than sketching.

However, character design is best left to good artists with "casting couch" skills :) since it needs imagination and high visualizing skills supplemented with an ability to put the visual on paper.

so your telling me Marlon Brando would have made a great animator? coz face it, he was at worst a demi-god when it comes to acting.

there is a flaw in that argument. you can circle it all you want but the truth is you want someone to animate he needs to be able to animate. 2d-3d, cutouts, whatever you call it.

it all depends on the finesse you are looking for. you can get average animation from average animators. direct proportion.

2d = discipline.

i reckon animation = discipline as well.

so your telling me Marlon Brando would have made a great animator? coz face it, he was at worst a demi-god when it comes to acting.

I would reserve my judgment on someone's abilities whether he's Marlon or you. Whether I like them or I hate them I don't like to get low.

For me animation is, but just one of the mediums of story telling. And story telling needs "STORY" the most, and actors the next. What you call animators are equivalent to puppeteer at best, or just Director's assistants. Surely, one of them may or may not be occupying the director's chairs. Yes, what we are looking at are Animators, who can either write stories, or make the puppets act, and why try to fit round pegs into square holes?

So, far I've not considered discipline as one of the subjects since my basic premise of debate is not indiscipline.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

so your telling me Marlon Brando would have made a great animator? coz face it, he was at worst a demi-god when it comes to acting.

Just assuming you'd not like to miss a bit of history, here's something maybe you;re aware of:
Charlie Chaplin is the soul behind Mickey Mouse, more than any animator. And it's Walt's as well as Charlie's hard work as an actor that you see in the Mickey mouse movies. The artists were required to just translate it into film. There have been only a few unique artists who knew acting for e.g. Bill Tytla, UB IWerks etc. Only if there was acting in animation courses, the struggle would have been much less.

There were so many actors who acted out parts in old classical 2D movies, I'm sure you know that. So, why the hesitation in giving the actors their due?

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

I apologize if I have made it sound like the above line you wrote. On the contrary what i've been fighting for is the reverse "Software will never replace talent". It's same as "a good cartoonist would never mean a good story teller."

A good cartoonist IS a good storyteller. That is what you are saying, right?

I am not here to change India, or even the world. If it gets changed in the process, you don't need to thank me.

But that is what our ultimate roles are, even if we don't think they are.
If we are trying to contribute to the future of the industry, even on a personal level, we are trying to contribute to the industry and craft as a whole.
Change is processional and progressive. It happens by changing one person's views, and having them change another's views.
Just a desire to see the craft being bettered is trying to effect change.

This is why its irks me when someone says that " oh, people don't need to learn THIS or THAT, they can get by without it".

Its not about "getting by with out it", its about adding to the craft.
Just adding people to the business is NOT a solution for building a stronger craft or industry. Just giving people jobs, in this case, does not help them.........because if all they can do is that job, they are not helping anyone except in the short-term.

Screw the short-term. That's a quick-buck, cold business-mentality. Its tantamount to using people for ulterior motives--which is an all-too-common vicious cycle in business, especially the animation business.
Thinking that way serves only an employer, and it corrupts any creative thinking in the process.
If talent are fostered to have a wider , more developed skill-set then they are of greater use in a production. They can problem-solve better, and achieve solutions BEFORE needless costs are incurred. Such talent can be held-on to, creating a clear line of succession in quality as time goes on--something a studio can offer to a client.
Treating talent as disposable means that every project starts completely over again in a quality sense, because there is no consistency.

This is what "half-measures" in training people brings. This is what letting people lapse a bit in skills brings.
Heck, every business seeks to hire the "best" person for the job, right?
Well, if the training process is undermining the development of quality talent....finding the "best" people is going to get correspondingly harder.

That's why I think you are off your rocker a bit in thinking that letting people slide on solid drawing skills is sensible. I mean, its your choice and your perspective to approach things as you see it, but its a classic situ: if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Well undermining the importance of acting and story is what has given us bad movies. I believe that the balance has shifted, whether you notice or not.

Being a good cartoonist doesn't mean one is a good story teller, at best one can be a good gag artist. Since a single cartoon has just a static gag. For a cartoonist to become a story teller in his chosen medium he needs proper training in the form you believe is correct, besides training in scriptwriting and acting.

You have so many good sketch artists, who don't come up to the mark when it comes to the moving frame. They shudder when it comes to stage performance, and hence dish out pedestrian stuff. With good honing in staging and facing the camera, they could be bailed out.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Being a good cartoonist doesn't mean one is a good story teller, at best one can be a good gag artist. Since a single cartoon has just a static gag. For a cartoonist to become a story teller in his chosen medium he needs proper training in the form you believe is correct, besides training in scriptwriting and acting.

Then I disagree with you completely here.
A good cartoonist is, by nature, a good storyteller. Illustration ability is only part of that, having a intuition about story and timing via the art is the other half.
A good cartoon depends upon a sound understanding of all the aspects of the imagery and the messages within, stated or implied--even if its just a static gag.
Guys like Bill Watterson, Charles Schulz, Gary Larson etc. all clearly understood story, and yet their primary work was in mostly static gags--especially Larson with his Far Side one-panel.

In my own case, I'm not trained in screen-writing or acting, I'm just a casual study--and yet I have had many clients compliment me on my storytelling abilities. I know story, but I get by quite well with some basic principles and my work and experiences bears that out.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Then I disagree with you completely here.
A good cartoonist is, by nature, a good storyteller. Illustration ability is only part of that, having a intuition about story and timing via the art is the other half.
A good cartoon depends upon a sound understanding of all the aspects of the imagery and the messages within, stated or implied--even if its just a static gag.
Guys like Bill Watterson, Charles Schulz, Gary Larson etc. all clearly understood story, and yet their primary work was in mostly static gags--especially Larson with his Far Side one-panel.

In my own case, I'm not trained in screen-writing or acting, I'm just a casual study--and yet I have had many clients compliment me on my storytelling abilities. I know story, but I get by quite well with some basic principles and my work and experiences bears that out.

I didn't mean you when I said cartoonist. Sorry you felt bad. But good that you admitted that you did not learn screen-writing or acting and are trying to manage with experience. I thought that you promoted no half measures?

Well, let me leave this here.. I don't mean to comment on personal - one can take the comments very personally. Being complimented is no measure of correctness. Again I am not challenging the abilities, but the premise of the logic. BTW why are you against learning acting or scriptwriting for animators?

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

I didn't mean you when I said cartoonist. Sorry you felt bad. But good that you admitted that you did not learn screen-writing or acting and are trying to manage with experience. I thought that you promoted no half measures?

Well, let me leave this here.. I don't mean to comment on personal - one can take the comments very personally. Being complimented is no measure of correctness. Again I am not challenging the abilities, but the premise of the logic. BTW why are you against learning acting or scriptwriting for animators?

Whaaaa?

You are putting words into my mouth.

When I'm talking about "no half measures", I'm not saying that you need to have schooling. I AM saying that you need to know your shit--and you can get that with or without formal schooling.
Telling a prospective talent that they "do not need to have a high level of artistic ability( drawing)" is promoting a half measure--as long as they have that ability, where they got it doesn't matter. If a school pushes that kind of training, then they are offering something that sets them apart from others.

As for being against learning acting or scriptwriting.........where have I said that I was against those things? I've learned them........on my own.
The example is that is anyone can learn them, and they are valuable, and you do not need to go to school to gain those things.

In my own case.....having consulted with fellow teachers that were teaching classes on acting and screen writing as to the materials they use, I found out that all they would teach certain kinds of books, studying movies and tv shows and physically acting out bits. Well, I found books, watched movies and got off my butt and acted things out in front of other people--and did that all on my own. What's the difference between one book on scriptwriting and another? Really, what is it--if any two books spell out what appear to be the formats etc? What movies need studying? If they all use similar principles then studying any of them can gain insights. As for acting.........just modelling the performances and timing of others can provide insight into one's own performance abilities.

See, I can do the stuff......I have sweated the basics......at least enough of the basics to have a foundation to build my career from. I don't have a piece of paper from a school declaring I've spent money with them learning how--big deal. I've gotten "other piece$ of paper" that say I've learned those lessons. I never had access to the kinds of resources available today when I first started out, so someone learning about the craft TODAY has enormous advantages, if they take hold of them.

Now I'm fortunate to have done a LOT of different things in my career, which is the crux of my whole argument. Training people to a level where they can do a whole lot of things is all I have been talking about.
There's no such things as a fully trained artist anyway, just one trained to a level where they can works comfortably in the craft for as long as they want.
That is what Maxine was pointing out in this thread at the start and its all I have ever said.
Students today want the quick fix and easy route, and many schools are willing to supply just that.....but at what cost to the students careers?
Telling someone they do not need this, or need that...........pffft.........its not something I would listen to because in today's business having what the other guy does not have is an advantage.

The one thing that glaringly obvious here in this discussion is the decided gap in standards in animation/cartoon schooling. The value in this topic is a over-view of the cautions a prospective talent needs in enrolling in a school, and ( IMO) the reassurance that in spite of any weak schooling, there are tools out there to learn the craft without the formalities.
Accreditation is meaningless if there is no talent. Talent will only be hired if it can demonstrate an ability to do the work at the level a studio demands--any kind of paper pedigree means nothing.
If a student shirks on ability, they shirk on their career.....or at least the options in their career.

Learning........everything you can, is an advantage.

That's simple logic..........very plain common sense.

But hey, it is up to the individual to figure that out.....its their career after all.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Exactly! a person who shirks on his career or on a particular subject, is taking responsibility on that topic. And as long as a person takes responsibility, we have to respect that. People can realize their strengths and weaknesses and work accordingly, as long as they get into the crux of the matter and get on working as per their strengths.

What I do not subscribe to is the software school concept, though unfortunately or fortunately they contribute their bit to the industry by providing the worker class (like a cleanup artist in the erstwhile era, and the software person in the present era). Whether it is wireframe removal in scenes, or rotoscoping, you do need a volume of low end people. However, presently let us look at someone who has the potential to go higher than that.

Maybe I am not clear enough in my submissions, and I'd begin from another end.

There are many careers in the 2D animation industry like: (there are many other ancillary ones, but I'd concentrate on the main ones at the working level)
- Character Designer
- Layout Artist
- Background Painter
- Key Frame Artist
- In-Betweener
- Cleanup Artist
- Ink and Paint
- checker
- Compositor

Do you agree that there are many careers in the 3D animation industry like:
- Character Designer
- Modeler
- Rigger
- Animator
- Camera
- Texture artist
- Lighting Artist
- SFX/ Dynamics
- Render Expert

The common ones would be Scriptwriters, Art Director, Storyboarder, Music Director, Voice Designer, Line Supervisors etc.

Now in the above set, there are roles in 2D and 3D which are different from each other. Even if you make a comparison matrix there are roles which have vanished when you move from 2D to 3D, and there are new roles which never existed. So it is imperative when even in a doctor's life technology and knowledge gamut changes (like non-invasive surgery allows doctors to bypass the first step in operation of making an incision, and many similar new procedures which bypass old procedures), here you have a paradigm shift.

Can you map all of these against each other, and come up with the same set of training needs for the same roles in the new setup? If you can give such a set here then we can go from there. If you fail, my point is justified.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

Can you map all of these against each other, and come up with the same set of training needs for the same roles in the new setup? If you can give such a set here then we can go from there. If you fail, my point is justified.

You are thinking just in terms of animation.

I'm not, and never have.

I'm thinking in terms of people being able to do comics, newspapers strips, illustration, caricatures, children's books, text book illustration, advertising art, greeting cards, painting, toy design, concept art, game design etc etc etc.

With a solid base skill-set--as I have described it, all of those above are possible. It means career options far beyond just animation--options that allow any given talent the opportunity to truly explore their own creative drives. I'm not just talking about a job, I'm talking about an "adventure".
(points to anyone who can get the pun/reference to that!)

The use of a computer as a tool doesn't change any of the above, and I've already explained WHY having solid 2D art skills is to the advantage of a computer artist.

But hey, I'm only advising here. I have no vested interest (other than my passion for the craft of cartooning) in seeing either philosophy dominate because I am no longer actively teaching.
If you want to use your approach on students, by all means.........go forth and create students with a like-minded approach. If they succeed or fail in the business/craft it will not be because of my POV.
The final justification will be made by those that create lasting (or not) material that is beloved (or perhaps ignored) by people all over.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Well I have been discussing animation only! Surely, being a cartoonist requires those skills you mentioned obviously.

So you agree to my POV that the new skillsets needs some additional training and similarly some of the old skillset has retired or become less relevant.

Even my discussing here is to learn from people who were involved and have seen the shift of skillsets from 2D to 3D, which I believe you have, so that we can fine tune the curriculum for 3D animators.

I have enjoyed your discussions, and understood your POV all along, since you've stuck to the debate without getting into unnecessary diversionary stuff like some others.

I am only trying to use some of the information you shared, and comparing with what I learned from some earlier people like Walt and his animators, Hanna Barbera, and others who set up a training need for 2D. But then later came the 3D which needs its champions who can define the learning paradigm.

Now, the next question, can we together continue and try to map the different careers and come up with training needs for each? I would love your help.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

So you agree to my POV that the new skillsets needs some additional training and similarly some of the old skillset has retired or become less relevant.

Nope, I do not agree with your POV. The "old skill-sets" are still relevant and will continue to be which is what I have said all along. I do not know how you could have concluded I've said anything else but that.

You cite Disney and Hanna-Barbera etc, but a quick check of the employment sites for prominent studios like Pixar etc. still calls for talent with solid 2D skills, even though they create primarily 3D material.
If the accepted best players in the business say that.......why accept anything else?

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Nope, I do not agree with your POV. The "old skill-sets" are still relevant and will continue to be which is what I have said all along.

We can surely tone down to "old skill sets are still relevant" which is more acceptable than "high sketching skills is a must". I have also said that all along.

Call for a certain post doesn't construe the entire gamut. Pixar is one company and it deserves to use Pilots where it needs car drivers. There is a whole new world out there, which has broken the shackles of old thought and have created property that invokes thought. They are not bothered by old thought and they take animation to be the art of storytelling or movie making. For them story is prime. And I am talking of just the 2D series going on TV.

When you come to 3D, the entire scenario changes. Again, I invite you to map the careers of 3D against those of 2D based on the skillset needs.

http://www.3danimationtrainingstudio.com I still have not told my story! - Vineet Raj Kapoor

You are thinking just in terms of animation.

I'm not, and never have.

I'm thinking in terms of people being able to do comics, newspapers strips, illustration, caricatures, children's books, text book illustration, advertising art, greeting cards, painting, toy design, concept art, game design etc etc etc.

With a solid base skill-set--as I have described it, all of those above are possible. It means career options far beyond just animation--options that allow any given talent the opportunity to truly explore their own creative drives. I'm not just talking about a job, I'm talking about an "adventure".
(points to anyone who can get the pun/reference to that!)

The use of a computer as a tool doesn't change any of the above, and I've already explained WHY having solid 2D art skills is to the advantage of a computer artist.

But hey, I'm only advising here. I have no vested interest (other than my passion for the craft of cartooning) in seeing either philosophy dominate because I am no longer actively teaching.
If you want to use your approach on students, by all means.........go forth and create students with a like-minded approach. If they succeed or fail in the business/craft it will not be because of my POV.
The final justification will be made by those that create lasting (or not) material that is beloved (or perhaps ignored) by people all over.

Ken,

A little experience of mine that came to light over the past few weeks. i have a little comic style 2 sheeter that needs to be done. i have spoken to a bunch of people and they have all had a go at it but none of them seem to understand what i am asking them to do.

There is a complete lack of understanding of the arts all together. I am saying this particularly about India, people just dont have a clue, if we ever get to the point like you said where an artist has a skill set and can apply it cross platforms it would be great.

However there is a bunch of other things artists need that they dont and probably wont get, things like art history, pop culture, awareness of whats on in the world.

teaching in India is such a scam and the students in general so unaware that only a handful actually make any sort of an impact in the long run.

Pages