macievelli
04-12-2005, 03:56 AM
I've been reading an awful lot in these forums lately, drinking in the views, knowledge and opinions of my fellow artisans with reckless abandon. The web is such a fantastic and culturally unprecedented catalyst for the kind of gathering of souls and minds I find here. I am continually fascinated by the idea of so many artists in one place sharing the very core beliefs and philosophies which make us artists, our thoughts and emotions. I thank God that I have found this "creative Shangri la." I encourage you all to stop for just one moment in the frenetic pace of surfing the web and consider the cultural significance of this type of gathering. Never in all of history has there been such a pool of amazing talent in one place. The implications are stunning. Yet, I digress.
The aspect of creativity, regardless of the form of delivery (ergo, the medium), which has always seemed the most important is, to put it bluntly, the process not the product. That is to say, the process by which one accomplishes an interpretation of an idea - and executes it - is much more interesting and of greater importance than the actual end result. Please do not misunderstand me; I do not mean to belittle the fantastic works I have seen here by referring to them as product. I do not mean product in a commercial sense, but a procedural one. Nor do I wish to demean finished art in any way. A finished work is the culmination of tremendous effort and the execution of talent and will. What I am trying to stress is the execution...the process.
This observation has been a lifelong one for me, but it has become more so since finding this site. It appears that I am not alone in my fascination with the "process" of creativity. By process I refer to the combination of effort, style, creativity, medium of delivery, struggle, internal strife, etc. that one must go through in order to create a work of art. This process has always been, for me, the most interesting aspect of art, and I submit the question to you all, fellow artists: WHAT INTERESTS YOU MORE, THE PROCESS OR THE PRODUCT?
Let us take Picasso, for example. In a recent post, member Kargokultti made a variety of comments concerning his work and career as an artist which prompted me to write this post. While I do not mention that post to agree or disagree on it, there are elements within it that fall into line with my disposition towards Picasso. There is no doubt that he is famous, or that he had a certain amount of creative genius. But in all honesty, his work is horrible, and poorly executed. Yet he was a brilliant artist and among the masters. The discerning factor that places him in such a position is HIS PROCESS. While it is difficult to place his work on the same level as, say, Raphael or Rembrandt (from a technical standpoint) his genius lay in his rejection of past method and genre and his embrace of a new form of expression. Jackson Pollock is another great example. His work is simply splattered paint drippings, seemingly tossed at random onto canvas. Yet his process - his internal struggle with his own demons, his striving towards some new form of release which would satisfy his internal muse - is what made him famous. A third and more definitive example would be Van Gogh. If ever an artist embodied the philosophy of process over product, it is he. His product, however, is perhaps more masterful than the others. I love his work.
It is the process, dear brothers and sisters, which seems to be the mutually prevailing struggle here among us on CGTalk. One must only look to the posts to see of that which I speak. "How do you make hair in Maya?" "Can anyone help me with a Tutorial on making a bloody wound look real?" "Need help with a new plugin script." The list goes on and on. Even when we have finished a piece, we submit it to the countless critical eyes of our peers, still seeking refinement of PROCESS. Indeed, in the medium of 3D, the process has been extended to innumerable levels from a technical standpoint. I am forced to wonder that, in focusing so much on methodology and technique, if we lose some of the other critical and more traditional elements necessary to produce a work (i.e. - vision, concept, emotion, layout, etc.)
Perhaps I am misguided and mistaken. While impressed by the unbelievable skills I see exhibited here, I am more impressed, and have always been, by the process by which the artists arrive at the end result. Is not one of your first thoughts, upon seeing a brilliant new work by Meats, to exclaim, "How did he DO that?" What technique is used? What methods? What tools? What internal struggle? What small piece of himself did he have to dig down into himself and pull out at 3am to accomplish that? That is the process, and however great the work, it is a greater aspect than the final result.
I rest my case, but would LOVE to hear what the many of you out there have to say on this concept.
What is YOUR process? That's what I want to know. I think we all want to know. That's why we're here.
The aspect of creativity, regardless of the form of delivery (ergo, the medium), which has always seemed the most important is, to put it bluntly, the process not the product. That is to say, the process by which one accomplishes an interpretation of an idea - and executes it - is much more interesting and of greater importance than the actual end result. Please do not misunderstand me; I do not mean to belittle the fantastic works I have seen here by referring to them as product. I do not mean product in a commercial sense, but a procedural one. Nor do I wish to demean finished art in any way. A finished work is the culmination of tremendous effort and the execution of talent and will. What I am trying to stress is the execution...the process.
This observation has been a lifelong one for me, but it has become more so since finding this site. It appears that I am not alone in my fascination with the "process" of creativity. By process I refer to the combination of effort, style, creativity, medium of delivery, struggle, internal strife, etc. that one must go through in order to create a work of art. This process has always been, for me, the most interesting aspect of art, and I submit the question to you all, fellow artists: WHAT INTERESTS YOU MORE, THE PROCESS OR THE PRODUCT?
Let us take Picasso, for example. In a recent post, member Kargokultti made a variety of comments concerning his work and career as an artist which prompted me to write this post. While I do not mention that post to agree or disagree on it, there are elements within it that fall into line with my disposition towards Picasso. There is no doubt that he is famous, or that he had a certain amount of creative genius. But in all honesty, his work is horrible, and poorly executed. Yet he was a brilliant artist and among the masters. The discerning factor that places him in such a position is HIS PROCESS. While it is difficult to place his work on the same level as, say, Raphael or Rembrandt (from a technical standpoint) his genius lay in his rejection of past method and genre and his embrace of a new form of expression. Jackson Pollock is another great example. His work is simply splattered paint drippings, seemingly tossed at random onto canvas. Yet his process - his internal struggle with his own demons, his striving towards some new form of release which would satisfy his internal muse - is what made him famous. A third and more definitive example would be Van Gogh. If ever an artist embodied the philosophy of process over product, it is he. His product, however, is perhaps more masterful than the others. I love his work.
It is the process, dear brothers and sisters, which seems to be the mutually prevailing struggle here among us on CGTalk. One must only look to the posts to see of that which I speak. "How do you make hair in Maya?" "Can anyone help me with a Tutorial on making a bloody wound look real?" "Need help with a new plugin script." The list goes on and on. Even when we have finished a piece, we submit it to the countless critical eyes of our peers, still seeking refinement of PROCESS. Indeed, in the medium of 3D, the process has been extended to innumerable levels from a technical standpoint. I am forced to wonder that, in focusing so much on methodology and technique, if we lose some of the other critical and more traditional elements necessary to produce a work (i.e. - vision, concept, emotion, layout, etc.)
Perhaps I am misguided and mistaken. While impressed by the unbelievable skills I see exhibited here, I am more impressed, and have always been, by the process by which the artists arrive at the end result. Is not one of your first thoughts, upon seeing a brilliant new work by Meats, to exclaim, "How did he DO that?" What technique is used? What methods? What tools? What internal struggle? What small piece of himself did he have to dig down into himself and pull out at 3am to accomplish that? That is the process, and however great the work, it is a greater aspect than the final result.
I rest my case, but would LOVE to hear what the many of you out there have to say on this concept.
What is YOUR process? That's what I want to know. I think we all want to know. That's why we're here.