This academic year has seen me pushing myself harder than I thought possible, leaving me now with the question, 'was it all worth it?' Regardless of whether or not I pass this year of my degree, I would be inclined to answer, 'yes,' simply because of how much I've learnt in the process. You can't put a price-tag on an experience.
This year, I have put a lot of thought into my future career and what I actually want to do with my life. I am still just as uncertain as when I started the year but I now feel more at ease with this fact, as I have recently gained a deeper understanding of my interests, passions and feelings.
It has taken me a long time to realise this but I know for certain that starting-up an independent game development company with a few friends and/or future colleagues after a while in industry would give me greater satisfaction and fulfilment than anything else I can think of. This thought constitutes a small beam of light at the end of a very long tunnel that I may or may not ever arrive at. Yet, it is enough to keep me marching onwards.
My painting ability and spatial awareness has developed an awful lot this year! The evidence is right there when my work is lined-up in chronological order. That, however, doesn't mean I am at all happy with it by any measure. There are two main things that upset me about my work: firstly, the fact that I seem to take forever to make even the smallest visual decision; and secondly, the fact that I keep on coming up with concepts I hate but then commit to them anyway because of time constraints. None of my peers seem to have these problems, which is what leads me to wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with me!
As is most likely clear to anyone who reads my blog, my emotions are possibly the biggest barrier standing in the way of my full potential. What can I say? I am emotionally fucked-up; I always have been. But then again, aren't most creative thinkers quite unstable in this sense? Is it not neuroticism and social-irregularity that leads to the capacity for creative thought patterns?
I am looking forward to now finally having the time to pursue personal art projects. Perhaps after a Summer of cycling across Europe with just a sketchbook and camera, I will be able to return next year to a fresh slate with a mind bursting full of ideas. I need to experience real things before I can continue as an artist.
An artist is not creating art if none of it comes from the heart. I have an empty heart, and it is crying for me to feed it.
Recent Posts
4 May 2011
1 May 2011
Creativity Revisited
Labels:
Critical Game Studies,
Musings
This course encourages the constant questioning and reassessing of ourselves, the world around us, and how the two interrelate. I have noticed a handful or so of people within different creative disciplines appear slightly taken aback by the brutal honesty with which I comment on their work. Artistic criticism is a wonderful thing to those who appreciate it but can be very alienating to those who don't.
One of the sacrifices of dwelling deep into the field of art is that of gaining critical eyes with which any prior sense of magic is lost. Art will always have a charm to it, and as no two artists can ever be fully alike, a magic of sorts still does exist, but as my skills develop further, so do my eyes grow yet more-so critically discerning.
To the left is a favourite painting of mine, 'An Interesting Story' by Léon Bazile Perrault, and to the right is a concept painting of a marine from StarCraft II. The period of time separating these two works is roughly that of a century.
Perrault's use of colour demonstrates a disciplined palette with a rich umber brown, emerald green and slightly cool ochre yellow playing as accents to a vibrant vermilion red whose subtle use is very striking in the places that it appears. Care has been taken in where focal points have been positioned such that both girls' faces fall just outside of the rule of thirds. There is a strong sense of form with the painting's positive space characterised by the appearance of a triangular shape against the negative space.
The StarCraft II painting uses a limited palette but doesn't do so with the same level of colour discipline as in Perrault's. The foreground's weedy use of saturation against the background's over-use of saturation creates an overly-intense aesthetic. The vast majority of the painting uses very low values and dark mid-tones which are strongly contrasted by a very bright, high chroma explosion occurring in the upper-right third of the painting. The whole, overall painting is a nightmare of conflicting visual components that fail to harmonise into a balanced aesthetic.
To cut a long story short, my point is that the StarCraft II concept painting isn't all that great in comparison to Perrault's!
The simplest and perhaps more open-minded answer would be, 'no.' It might be such that the concept of natural talent is entirely false. I believe it far more likely that an individual is born with a certain mental aptitude that is formed from hereditary influence, which is then further shaped and developed by how the individual's neural pathways are thereafter stimulated. That is to say, while some individuals may naturally be geared more-so towards certain cognitive processes than others, it is ultimately within the ability of any individual to tailor their mental faculties towards a particular mode of cognitive function.
I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, however. It would probably be fair to suggest that some individuals, while able to attain a skill or 'talent' to some degree, have an aptitude that is so unsuited for use as such that they simply cannot make the leap between familiarity and proficiency.
'Oh, he's such a gifted boy,' and the supposedly humble retort, 'well, he certainly doesn't get it from me,' form a dialogue that perfectly encapsulates society's attitude towards talent. The act of describing a skill as a 'gift' could in itself actually be degrading to an individual, as the term fails to recognise the dedication and graft with which such a skill has been acquired. I cringe whenever a curious individual innocently asks which side of the family my 'talent' comes from. It's questions like these that bring my mind to imagine the absurd vision of a gene with the word 'art' printed on it floating around in a chromosome pool.
So if we can dismiss the idea of 'natural talent' with at-least some surety, that leaves us to focus on creativity. So, what actually is creativity? It is anything but a simple concept to comprehend. Before it was first suggested to me that my grasp of it might be entirely misconstrued, I thought of it as having the mental ability to fabricate something out of nothing. My understanding of it has seen some adjusting since then, although fundamentally, I still see it in very much the same way.
In its most raw and rigid sense, I'd be inclined to define creativity as the ability to satisfy a particular need through the generation of an appropriate solution. The need could be practically anything, as could be the solution. In this way, creativity can be seen as a form of problem solving, with a creative individual capable of fulfilling a range of needs within the spectrum of their creative focus.
To extend on this more-so, I believe that a large portion of creativity also entails making mistakes that are then tailored for use in satisfying the need. This is seen a lot in art where an artist will correct some of the mistakes they make and keep others. In this way, creatives are essentially experimenters; they experiment with the existing ideas of others; they experiment with the existing ideas of their own; they experiment with with mixing the two together.
I remember hearing a few years ago about two preadolesants who sold a game idea to a big games publisher for a phenomenal amount of money. Annoyingly, after searching high-and-low, I could not find a news article referencing this story, so please excuse the vague details. It may seem strange that two school children could come up with ideas that surpassed the imagination of those hired to do as such, but one must realise that children think differently to adults and therefore can produce ideas that an adult couldn't.
Children are a quintessential example of creativity at its purest. This is due to their uninhibited nature allowing for them to produce work that isn't tied down by cultural boundaries; they are yet for the education system to try and shape them into something that compliantly slides into a groove within our economy.
'The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged' defines creativity as:
Creativity cannot be conventionalised, although, within affluent society that is exactly what is expected of it. It does not stem from a linear mode of thought pattern and therefore cannot thrive in an environment that demands its continuous, unwavering output in a constant, measurable quantity. Sadly, it is those dwelling inside the realms of bureaucracy and administration who make the decisions on how creative individuals should perform within the work-place, and they have no empathy for the needs of a creative.
Please take a look at the following article: Drawing Development in Children It presents a fascinating insight into how a child feels and responds to the visual world throughout preadolescence.
What Betty Edwards labels as the 'crisis period' identifies one of the most pressing issues in art education. The crisis period occurs in the last few years of a child's visual-awareness development and can essentially make-or-break their interest in art. Up until the crisis period, most drawing development is intuitive, but as this period begins, it is up to the individual to consciously decide to further their visual skills.
Drawing is often seen as a mystic power and those who have learnt to see the world well enough to execute realistic drawing techniques are regarded as having this mystic power. The truth is that anyone with at-least one functioning eye can teach themselves to see the world well enough to then execute what they see onto paper. It should be such that during the crisis period, children are enlightened as to why their drawings lack realism and given the tools and encouragement to further develop their visual-awareness skills. This isn't what happened for me, or anyone else who I have discussed this matter with. A big part of the problem is simply that art isn't valued enough within overall society for education establishments to hire the right people for the job, and set-up an appropriately focused syllabus.
Hopefully, one day soon, creativity will be valued enough throughout all sectors of the economy for creative children to have their skills encouraged and nurtured at school, while creative adults have their skills properly accommodated for in the work-place.
One of the sacrifices of dwelling deep into the field of art is that of gaining critical eyes with which any prior sense of magic is lost. Art will always have a charm to it, and as no two artists can ever be fully alike, a magic of sorts still does exist, but as my skills develop further, so do my eyes grow yet more-so critically discerning.
Some artists of previous eras have created works qualifying almost to that of Godly status, with many left speechless in trying to explain how such works could have been executed using such limited and unforgiving media (such as egg tempera) — that is one side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, resides the many amateur and professional contemporary artists whose shortcut methods and limited scope of inspirations are evident in their lack of originality and skill. In this way, the computer is as much of a retardant as it is a stimulant to society. There are so many corners that artists can — and do — cut, in creating digital art; paying a quick visit to deviantART's front page is enough to prove this. I may sound elitist but please do not think that I consider myself exempt of be categorised as such.
 |
| An Interesting Story, by Léon Bazile Perrault |
Perrault's use of colour demonstrates a disciplined palette with a rich umber brown, emerald green and slightly cool ochre yellow playing as accents to a vibrant vermilion red whose subtle use is very striking in the places that it appears. Care has been taken in where focal points have been positioned such that both girls' faces fall just outside of the rule of thirds. There is a strong sense of form with the painting's positive space characterised by the appearance of a triangular shape against the negative space.
 |
| Marine, StarCraft II |
To cut a long story short, my point is that the StarCraft II concept painting isn't all that great in comparison to Perrault's!
However, my intention here isn't to have a stab at contemporary artists, as, contrary to my words, I do appreciate the passion and ability with which some of today's digital artists go about painting what they paint. Rather, the question that these first few paragraphs have been leading up to is this: is an artist who is considered better than another artist more creative and/or naturally talented?
I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, however. It would probably be fair to suggest that some individuals, while able to attain a skill or 'talent' to some degree, have an aptitude that is so unsuited for use as such that they simply cannot make the leap between familiarity and proficiency.
'Oh, he's such a gifted boy,' and the supposedly humble retort, 'well, he certainly doesn't get it from me,' form a dialogue that perfectly encapsulates society's attitude towards talent. The act of describing a skill as a 'gift' could in itself actually be degrading to an individual, as the term fails to recognise the dedication and graft with which such a skill has been acquired. I cringe whenever a curious individual innocently asks which side of the family my 'talent' comes from. It's questions like these that bring my mind to imagine the absurd vision of a gene with the word 'art' printed on it floating around in a chromosome pool.
So if we can dismiss the idea of 'natural talent' with at-least some surety, that leaves us to focus on creativity. So, what actually is creativity? It is anything but a simple concept to comprehend. Before it was first suggested to me that my grasp of it might be entirely misconstrued, I thought of it as having the mental ability to fabricate something out of nothing. My understanding of it has seen some adjusting since then, although fundamentally, I still see it in very much the same way.
In its most raw and rigid sense, I'd be inclined to define creativity as the ability to satisfy a particular need through the generation of an appropriate solution. The need could be practically anything, as could be the solution. In this way, creativity can be seen as a form of problem solving, with a creative individual capable of fulfilling a range of needs within the spectrum of their creative focus.
To extend on this more-so, I believe that a large portion of creativity also entails making mistakes that are then tailored for use in satisfying the need. This is seen a lot in art where an artist will correct some of the mistakes they make and keep others. In this way, creatives are essentially experimenters; they experiment with the existing ideas of others; they experiment with the existing ideas of their own; they experiment with with mixing the two together.
I remember hearing a few years ago about two preadolesants who sold a game idea to a big games publisher for a phenomenal amount of money. Annoyingly, after searching high-and-low, I could not find a news article referencing this story, so please excuse the vague details. It may seem strange that two school children could come up with ideas that surpassed the imagination of those hired to do as such, but one must realise that children think differently to adults and therefore can produce ideas that an adult couldn't.
Children are a quintessential example of creativity at its purest. This is due to their uninhibited nature allowing for them to produce work that isn't tied down by cultural boundaries; they are yet for the education system to try and shape them into something that compliantly slides into a groove within our economy.
'The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged' defines creativity as:
the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations.Children are liberated in the sense of not yet having had these 'traditional ideas, rules, patterns and relationships' hammered into them, and therefore, find it easy to think creatively. We are all born with a free mind, seeing the world through an idealistic lens tuned to intensify beauty and disregard the limitations imposed by both physics and society. Sadly, this is then slowly beaten out of us in the years to come.
Creativity cannot be conventionalised, although, within affluent society that is exactly what is expected of it. It does not stem from a linear mode of thought pattern and therefore cannot thrive in an environment that demands its continuous, unwavering output in a constant, measurable quantity. Sadly, it is those dwelling inside the realms of bureaucracy and administration who make the decisions on how creative individuals should perform within the work-place, and they have no empathy for the needs of a creative.
Please take a look at the following article: Drawing Development in Children It presents a fascinating insight into how a child feels and responds to the visual world throughout preadolescence.
What Betty Edwards labels as the 'crisis period' identifies one of the most pressing issues in art education. The crisis period occurs in the last few years of a child's visual-awareness development and can essentially make-or-break their interest in art. Up until the crisis period, most drawing development is intuitive, but as this period begins, it is up to the individual to consciously decide to further their visual skills.
Drawing is often seen as a mystic power and those who have learnt to see the world well enough to execute realistic drawing techniques are regarded as having this mystic power. The truth is that anyone with at-least one functioning eye can teach themselves to see the world well enough to then execute what they see onto paper. It should be such that during the crisis period, children are enlightened as to why their drawings lack realism and given the tools and encouragement to further develop their visual-awareness skills. This isn't what happened for me, or anyone else who I have discussed this matter with. A big part of the problem is simply that art isn't valued enough within overall society for education establishments to hire the right people for the job, and set-up an appropriately focused syllabus.
Hopefully, one day soon, creativity will be valued enough throughout all sectors of the economy for creative children to have their skills encouraged and nurtured at school, while creative adults have their skills properly accommodated for in the work-place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)