So... I was reading through some journals today and found an interesting response to that journal by some random person on da.
"saying a painter is not better then a colorist is a joke.. a colorist is little more then a cellshader.. and sometimes is a cellshader!
u can't compare paintings to what colorist do, which is just for speed.
thats like comparing a mathematician to an elementary school math teacher... the level of knowledge for successful painting required.. is way more then what a colorist does!
end rant"
You may have read it, you may not have, and I'm not going to say who's journal it was or who it was that responded with this, (cause I don't want people pouncing on this dude) but I'd like to make a comment.
Be very careful what you say online because you never ever know who's going to read it.
Now, while it stings me a little, cause I am a colorist, honestly, I don't really care if he feels that way cause it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. To top it off, I'm never going to work with the guy, so whatever, I'll forget this person and what they said in a few days and life will go on.
THEN I WENT TO THEIR PAGE.
Now, the whole reason I went to their page was they made a really rude comment to someone else about how they were going to disregard the other person's comment cause they thought they were the better artist so OF COURSE I HAD to go see their art.
That was when I discovered that they liked comics and I don't know what their aspirations in life are, but if you say you love Chris Bachalo and do a web comic, there's a CHANCE you'll want to work in comics and this is where my point comes into play~ If this person ever gets to work at Marvel, and I hear their name, the first thing I'm going to say in response is this, "I remember that douchebag talking smack about colorists..."
God forbid they HAVE to work with a colorist, and it be a friend of mine, is all I'm sayin. XD
well, I admire your attitude... very admirable. People are very silly on the 'net, reminds me of all the idiots with "beer muscles" in college... these people have "monitor muscles" I obtain great pleasure from witnessing them make fools of themselves.
word. Colorist are awesome and so are painters but in a sense its apples and oranges but then in another sense they are both fruit. They both have to understand and manipulate color. They both learned the same theory but at the end of the day they went about it in different means. Both have talent and both are very skilled, well at least the good ones. Amen
I did not read all the posts but guys like this who shoot off their mouth before thinking, piss me off. I just want to grab them by the back of their head and slam them into the nearest table, drag them to a colorists desk and force them to watch what all a colorist has to go through to create a quality product. Then if they give any lip during the process, I'd just keep slamming their head into the table until they shut their big mouth.
I want them to see the details of all the high speed switching of colors, tools, brushes, and other techniques. They need to see that digital coloring requires a massive amount of hand dexterity, hand-eye coordination as well as a understanding of software usage and tool manipulation. And that's all ADDED to the traditional understanding of light comp, shadowing, blah, blah, blah...
Hell, a painter has nothing but paints and maybe a dozen brushes. A colorist can have millions of "brushes" as well and many, many other tools that they have to keep track of as well as understand when to use those tools.
Painters only have to learn about art composition. Colorist have to know that AND know how to work with a software program
So screw the painters who spew crap only because they are trying to stroke their ego and feel their work threatened by lack of interest. Digital is just as hard if not harder to work with than paints. It'just a desparate attempt to keep making money for one field that is dying out.
Remember that one time magazines spew hate about the internet so they could keep selling their stuff. Now, who wants to buy a mag, when they can get the same thing online? Who needs a catalog maker when the catalog can be seen online?
I think the thing to maybe take away from this is the delineation of any form of art is an outdated mode fo thinking.
I had this problem a month or so back. I was taking a figure drawing class to keep my skills up. The teacher who does not understand structural construction and how it lends itself to observed drawing, brought out an Andrew Loomis book (actually, just jpg's because the douche didn't have the presence of mind to print out copies for his students.) He says, and I quote "He has some good concepts even though he's just an illustrator, not an artist." I think that maybe he could tell I was about to shove my boot up his ass by the expression on my face. We ended up getting into it about the the way he perceived illustrators. I promptly pointed out that "fine artists" don't (for the most part) do anything representational anymore, and that illustrators were the real "observe and dictate" artists now. He said came back with if you get paid for it, its commercial work and therefore not art. I pointed out that everyone we currently consider the greatest artists were paid for their art or sold prints, or even did sketches for money to get by.
I finally looked at him an said, we are ALL artists. We all spend our lives getting better and becoming masters at what we do.
So really, painter, colorist, inker, penciler, illustrator, sculptor, they are one and the same, we are all artists with varying degrees of expertise.
Wait, that's not true! Loomis did paintings he sold at galleries, I've seen a bunch of them! Doesn't that take him beyond the commercial aspects of "illustration?"
Hrm.... that would've irked me.
I remember asking an art history teacher why she didn't mention Mucha at all during her art nouveau section and why she focused primarily on Klimt when Mucha's the premiere nouveau artist and she said it simply boiled down to the fact that he was more of a commercial artist than fine.
uggg, small minds kill me. Seriously. People need to learn to let go of those preconcieved notions and let artists be artists regardless of where they got/get the money to pay bills. Seriously. I wonder if you teacher even saw the Slavic Epic.
i've been reading every comment. Its true colorists and even painters are underrated and they never get the respect they truly diserve. Sorry if my english isn't as good as it should be. But I'm intressted in the original comment that started all this....so if some one could/would be so kind! ps , CeeCee you rock!
and all the other good artist to (very diplomatic, ahum, haha)
One person replied with 'Yay!'
the artist responded with "huh?"
the person replied "that way there's artwork for me to be jealous of".
I was like
Hope you've been well, Christina.
Old man, signing off.
I want them to see the details of all the high speed switching of colors, tools, brushes, and other techniques. They need to see that digital coloring requires a massive amount of hand dexterity, hand-eye coordination as well as a understanding of software usage and tool manipulation. And that's all ADDED to the traditional understanding of light comp, shadowing, blah, blah, blah...
Hell, a painter has nothing but paints and maybe a dozen brushes. A colorist can have millions of "brushes" as well and many, many other tools that they have to keep track of as well as understand when to use those tools.
Painters only have to learn about art composition. Colorist have to know that AND know how to work with a software program
So screw the painters who spew crap only because they are trying to stroke their ego and feel their work threatened by lack of interest. Digital is just as hard if not harder to work with than paints. It'just a desparate attempt to keep making money for one field that is dying out.
Remember that one time magazines spew hate about the internet so they could keep selling their stuff. Now, who wants to buy a mag, when they can get the same thing online? Who needs a catalog maker when the catalog can be seen online?
I had this problem a month or so back. I was taking a figure drawing class to keep my skills up. The teacher who does not understand structural construction and how it lends itself to observed drawing, brought out an Andrew Loomis book (actually, just jpg's because the douche didn't have the presence of mind to print out copies for his students.) He says, and I quote "He has some good concepts even though he's just an illustrator, not an artist." I think that maybe he could tell I was about to shove my boot up his ass by the expression on my face. We ended up getting into it about the the way he perceived illustrators. I promptly pointed out that "fine artists" don't (for the most part) do anything representational anymore, and that illustrators were the real "observe and dictate" artists now. He said came back with if you get paid for it, its commercial work and therefore not art. I pointed out that everyone we currently consider the greatest artists were paid for their art or sold prints, or even did sketches for money to get by.
I finally looked at him an said, we are ALL artists. We all spend our lives getting better and becoming masters at what we do.
So really, painter, colorist, inker, penciler, illustrator, sculptor, they are one and the same, we are all artists with varying degrees of expertise.
haters gonna hate
Hrm.... that would've irked me.
I remember asking an art history teacher why she didn't mention Mucha at all during her art nouveau section and why she focused primarily on Klimt when Mucha's the premiere nouveau artist and she said it simply boiled down to the fact that he was more of a commercial artist than fine.
;_;
[link]
Good thing we are the future of art. We can eventually teach the up and coming kids in a more open minded way.
ps , CeeCee you rock!
and all the other good artist to (very diplomatic, ahum, haha)
grtz from holland!