THE KISS Principle....Why is it so HARD for A LOT of artists to follow it?

#22

KISS is hard. Especially when you are working on a personal project. You start to elaborate because you can and you don’t have anyone telling you it needs to be done by a certain date so you can spend ages on the nuts and bolts of a car. Not that anyone will ever see them but you can say that you modeled every nut and bolt of the engine… That is hidden by the hood. But it’s there.

In other cases it can be because you don’t want to deal with other aspects of the process… I’m procrastinating a lot since I hate unwrapping but I really need to do it on my robots so I can finish the scene I have in my head :slight_smile: But instead of unwrapping I tweak and fiddle and do anything but… sigh

#23

Somewhere early on the path of developing as an artist I think most people stop telling themselves “Keep It Simple Stupid” and start telling themselves “God is in the details.” It’s an interesting situation, and I think the manner in which most artists are educated is the root of forgetting about KISS. …We are told to keep it simple; we are shown how to critique our own work with the finest of combs; and we’re told that because we’re artist we need to notice and be aware of the details, subtleties, and nuances of our subjects and surroundings that the general populace does not. …Is it any wonder that out of this young/new artists start focusing on details and building complexity to the point that they ultimately loose sight of KISS.

Somewhere in college I began to feel that attention to the minutest details was what set a really good piece apart from a mediocre one. And I wasn’t alone in this mindset - a great many of my classmates felt the same way. I have since learned that this is true… and it’s not. Details like how light plays in the scene, and how a texture wraps can really make a scene. Where as making sure that the the quarter you’re creating has a date, motto, and scuff marks when it will only be visible as a small metallic dot in the final rendered scene is completely unnecessary. God may be in the details… But so can the devil. Focusing on certain details, or too many details, is counter productive.

Over the past few years I’ve developed a different mantra: “Understand that the level of perfection that you strive for will go largely unnoticed by the average person.” This has helped me (at times) come back to a simpler approach to my art.

#24

Ha ha,… because it’s not really,… simple that is.
We are talking in general right so there will always be exceptions to the rule. There is a tendancy to whack as much stuff in a scene (or project) as possible to bring it up to par, but there is a saying in Dutch that goes: ‘It’s like a flag on a mud ship (the thing that dredges channels), it’s still a mud ship’.

To make something communicate and look simple is the hardest thing there is. Don’t be decieved by appearances. I saw a brilliant siggy here on cgtalk that about sums it up for me. Michelangelo was supposed to have said it: ‘If people knew how hard I have to work for my mastery, all the mystery would be gone.’

Cheers Chris

#25

It’s fun.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think simple always equals good… and I don’t believe that complicated things are necessarily evil.

When I was younger, I painted only what would be immediately noticeable in one of my paintings. Only the level of details that people would see, and care about. If there was a texture on a dress that no one would take notice off, I would simplify it or just sketch it in. I don’t believe in doing that anymore. I mean, honestly, each to his or her own, but once I felt I had started to grasp how to put a successful image together, I allowed myself to delve into the detailing… because I think that’s what’s fun about painting. And to me, that’s ultimately what all this is about (fun, that is, not detailing).

I believe that details that aren’t immediately noticeable might still elevate a piece to further heights. I think that attentions to such things as freckles, flowery patterns or scratches can take a piece to the next level. Even if these things might never be seen by the viewers, the level of details is still ‘sensed’ and they are present in the mood and believability of the piece.

However, I don’t think that crazy attention to details is a good thing until you’re able to look at the big picture, first. I never go into the detailing until the piece, as such, already looks good without them. Once I can look at the painting and see that everything is in place, light, anatomy, colours… then I can go wild with the details.

If I have to keep it simple, I might as well not do it at all. I’d bore to death.

#26

I agree and your works are a tribute to that. Everything we see is super complicated, to the point of non-reproduction so We all keep it simple anyway, no matter how hard we try to complicate it.

#27

I thought it was “The Devils in the details” :stuck_out_tongue:

#28

For the most part I agree with you. Texturing fabric in the background, freckles, blemishes, seams in clothing, rivets, cracks in plaster, etc. all add to a sense of reality and completion in a scene. However, I have to disagree with the inclusion of textures and detail that won’t be seen - which goes back to my Quarter analogy: if it won’t be seen in the final piece is it really worth going the extra yard to put it there? …You may feel it is, but I personally don’t.

Depending on how they will be shot film sets don’t always wrap around the camera, yet when we watch the movie we believe that they do. I feel the same applies to an illustration or animation: if an element will never be seen why include it? The level of detail can be sensed without modeling or creating hyper-accurate bump maps for objects that will be obscured or so small that the detail is lost. By paying attention to the details in the subject and its visible environment this level of detail can be sensed - even if it doesn’t exist.

#29

For me, yes, it’s worth adding them.

If you take a walk through the woods one late night, there will be a lot going on around you that you might not immediately notice, but you’ll still be aware of them. There might be moths fluttering by that you, engaged in watching the moon, don’t take much notice of… but they’re still there, and I have no doubt that subconsciously, they’re affecting your mood.

Likewise, a little frog on a rock in a painting where the frog isn’t really interacting with any of the characters might never be noticed, but it’s there, and it gives life to the image.

Furthermore, when you paint, if you paint the level of detailing to look good at any particular format – and you’re aiming for, say, web-format – it just won’t look as good as if you paint it in a more complicated manner and then shrink it down.

Having been at this for a while, I’ve noticed that the paintings I create that have the biggest impact, that people remember and write letters to me about even years later, are also the ones where the devil got hold of me and I worked like a crazy person on every little detail down to a tiny bird hidden in the foliage or the shape of a toe that’s hardly visible in the format they’re viewed it in.

In addition, I love the thought that to fully appreciate all the details, you have to view this image in a huge, huge format – it still works when you’ve shrunk it down (why I said you always have to make sure it looks good before detailing) – but if you ever get to see a glimpse of the full resolution size, you’ll know that there’s a world of things going on there that most will never see.

At the end of the day, maybe it just makes a difference to me. I’m a perfectionist, no way I’m letting go of something before I’m fully happy with it. I can work on a dress pattern or the shape of eyelashes for a week until I’m satisfied. The end result always seems to be better when I don’t let go until I’m happy. We all work in different ways… just saying that one should keep it simple because that’s how it’s supposed to be is, I think, simplifying things a little too much.

I’d say heaven is in the details. Few are the simple, clean pictures that hold my attention more than three minutes. The ones where I can look around for interesting things for half an hour or more, those are the ones I’ll remember.

(As far as movies and sets go - I think the LOTR movies are a nice example of how much detailing can help the mood of something. It’s INSANE to see the work that has gone into the sets that they use. The tiny touches to the face of statues, the insane level of details in the fabrics of the clothes, the patterns in the armour - these things, you might never pause your dvd and stare at and notice the perfection of it, but hell, I bet they’re making a huge difference anyway.)

#30

That about details is true, and a piece with subtlety is much more entertaining, longer-lasting than an excessively simplified piece. While both are good, in my humble opinion, extra details show the artist put the effort into them, to add that extra character/longevity to their work, and that’s good.

I know what you’re saying about making sure the entire picture and composition is set before jumping in, too. Advice I received years ago was to keep the whole piece at the same level of detail throughout as you work along, because then places won’t get left behind, and you’ll feel the entire piece more as it progresses… a lot of ‘newbie’ artists—and I really don’t think I should be calling anyone that!—will, say, be working on a face, and do the most detailed eye, but then not know where to go because they’ve hardly sketched out the other areas yet, and the uneven weightedness can be distracting.

Little details are good, especially if it’s something no one’s ever going to see. If you up the brightness on a photograph, there are tons of details that were not lost in the shadows, just hidden. I like to turn up the brightness on my monitor and look at what details artists have put into the shadows and obscured portions of their piece… and with some of the more accomplished artists, like you, Enayla, I’m amazed. Your most recent Hajieelkhe, for example - at my regular gamma and crap, his right hand is very much in darkness, but it’s not like it isn’t there.

If an artist is going for much realism at all, they should definitely not overlook things like that, or simplify them too much. Photos still contain those hidden details, though the main focus may be defined, and films most definitely do.

#31

I totally agree. Your work definitely proves that point.

Having said that, I’m not sure if I understand the original question of this thread. Are we talking about complex details in one’s work, or are we talking about complicating a process that could otherwise be simplified? Perhaps Roberto could elaborate the question a bit more. What does it mean by “Why do some of us like to overcomplicate things?.” Give us an example of this.
[i]

[/i]

#32

In LOTR, they super-detailed the sets and costumes. Really micro detail. . . that nobody in the audience would pick up on. . . but the result was that the actors had an easier time getting into the “feel” of the movie (according to the Extended Edition making-of dvd) and so the tactile detail helped the acting. It made the LOTR world feel very real to the actors.

Of course, micro-detailing the lace tablecloth won’t help the scene any if the table is a box primitive.

#33

my observations lead me to believe that people overcomplicate their work to disguise their inadequacies in ability.

when one becomes a true master of their art, they can express their message with a very limited pallette.

#34

I interpreted the question as “Why overcomplicate things?” Not whether or not details are important. Basically, do what the work requires of you; don’t make things more difficult than they need to be. For example, attempting to draw every leaf in a tree versus breaking it down into basic shapes and values. When done correctly, the simpler way will look as realistic as you want it to be, and it would take 1/10 of the time as the long way.

It has little to do with adding details that hardly anyone would notice; instead, it’s about the process involved. Keep it simple. Don’t spend an hour on something when you can do it better in 30 seconds.

Really what it boils down to is knowing what the work requires. Sometimes you have to sit there and slowly render things for 30 hours. Sometimes you don’t. The trick is to learn when it’s appropriate and when it’s not.

#35

Since when is any creative endeavor simple–or anyone capable of keeping it all simple?
If you read any interview with any master creative minds past or present–ALL of them say that “It doesn’t get any easier, no matter how long you’ve been doing it.”

Ask any advanced artist, and they’ll tell you nothing is simple in art (or other creative endeavors). There is a lot to consider when tackling a piece of artwork–from the concept itself (which is already a complex subject that involves imagination, taste, and education), to the execution–which involves a lifetime of study and practice of complex subjects like quality of light, the science of color, the art of composition, the science of perspective, the science of anatomy, the artistic expression of figures, brushwork, line quality…etc. And all of these things have to work together, meaning changing one will affect the other. How is any of this simple?

#36

About a month ago I was talking to a buddy of mine who is a traditional cinematographer.
I have been to a couple sets where he films to learn a bit more about the production process.

As we worked he was complaining about how most CG artists he has dealt with overcomplicate shots.I asked him to elaborate and he explained how traditional filmmakers only concentrate on the elements that will be in front of the camera, and could care less about things that will never be seen by the camera.

He said that in his field of work they are interested in being able to produce the highest number of shot in the least amount of time, and over detailing a film set would kill the filming schedule.

-R

#37

I see your point, but I just want to offer one counter-example. Rostropovich, one of the top cellists in the world, was once asked what was most difficult about playing. He thought about it for a minute, and then he replied, “Nothing. It’s all easy.”

Also, the subject is not whether or not creating art is easy. “Easy” has nothing to do with it. The subject of the thread is why do folks make things more complicated than they need to be. An absurd example would be painting with the handle of the brush instead of the bristles for no reason other than one way is more difficult than the other. If the painting requires it, that’s one thing, but if not … don’t do it. Keep it simple.

#38

CGI is the art of the overthinker. In all but a few instances, CG is never the simplest ends to creating the image you have in mind. It involves heavy technical work and knowledge, lots of time, and the not-so-occasional mind-bending problems. It’s also new. People who are attracted to CG are attracted to the notion of a cutting-edge art and always want to try something new within it. Hence why every newbie looks hard for the best hair package before they even consider learning how to model a head. Most CGI artists are guilty of this to some degree. We keep doing overly complex stuff because the people who do CG enjoy doing overly complex things! It’s only partially about the results. Yeah I just needed a car to drive for 7 shots in my next animation… and it probably would have been easiest to simply keyframe its path, however it was much more fun and rewarding to build a complete dynamic car rig in XSI… because that complexity is what makes CG fun for me. :buttrock:

#39

I actually own and run a graphics art communtiy called tagmonkey that specializes in forum signitures. There are A LOT of newcomers to design and to cg art that post. It seems that most newcomers are overwhemled by learning new techniques and end up wanting to have all of their capabilities visible on one canvas.

I think they are more interested in showing off their technique than worrying about function or aesthetics.

#40

Simple, is a fundamentally complex narrative. The misunderstanding of ‘the nature of simple systems’, is the main cause of naiivity. Define “simple” first. Absorb the complexity of that notion, then seek it.

Simple, as a narrative is just like ‘love’, ‘hate’, ‘good’, ‘evil’, etc… fluff for an underdeveloped world recognition. Descriptive in nature, and inherently exclusive to a group of other narratives for the sole purpose of short-circuiting cognition.

This dialect seems to be a fluff by itself, by over"complicating" it. However, human history tells us otherwise. Humans tend to find the critical path more than any other species, reducing the phenomenon into parts, analysing them into smaller parts, and then somehow, by a magic wand everything click together into a THEORY.

Sir Isaac Newton himself, the greatest reductionist, fell a victim to history and myths. His genius was reduced to an apple fallen on his head.

IMO, “Simple” is a supernatural phenomenon that could only exist in my ignorant mind.

Excuse my language above, just a little bit frustrated with this dogmatic world that simplifies everything and act upon it.
'good weekend :slight_smile:

#41

After painting for a bit you will start to realize that in order to save time and energy, you keep it simple to get started then add more simple stuff like light and shadows and add more simple things like desturating some colors here and there. And in the long run you simple idea becomes complex.

And when you start things too complex, you tend to forget about the little details. And you will get headaches trying to do too much.