[gfilmman]

Originally Posted by DanteHR

I for one would like to assert that digital matte painting uses all the same skills as painting by hand.

Yes, but what skill is, was and will always be more unique and also more difficult to pull off?

I'm not saying digital matte painting is easy, it is not. But definitely much easier than painting it all with hairs stuck to the end of a stick and making everyone believe and feel that it is real.

I do agree with you they are trying to get people to take less pay, and they are succeeding, by using computers and shot by shot underbidding, and forcing everyone to be digital art/ cg generalists.

How is having a less unique job title easier for someone to understand? I know what you're going for as one has to explain what matte painting is at most every mention outside the industry, but at least it's unique. If you say you're a digital artist, that just sounds so... general, and unfortunately- oddly appropriate (for the type of work digital matte art is now).

I don't know, this is all a waste of time. Let's just get back to work.

-Gary

[littlelizard]

I'm not saying digital matte painting is easy, it is not. But definitely much easier than painting ...
How is having a less unique job title easier for someone to understand? I know what you're going for as one has to explain what matte painting is at most every mention outside the industry, but at least it's unique.
-Gary[/quote]


I agree with the fact that everything done with traditional painting is more unique than digital art, but i believe that the very uniqueness of a piece comes from the idea not from the tool used to achieve it. For me to be a digital artist involves more skills and knowledges than being a simple painter, i started as an illustrator and for many years i used traditional medias, then i realized thai i wanted to be involved more deeply in different aspects of an environment creation and i started studying digital painting, 3d tecniques and compositing, because in this way i would have been able to turn my personal vision in something different than a still image. I think that matte art will allways have a great value in the film industry but the matte artist can't no longer be seen as in the past times, today many digital painters are involved in other different productions steps, which involve their work, that they can't ignore. Therefore i believe it's just a matter of how to consider oneself in the industry nowadays, digital painter sounds general indeed, but as many peolple said it's our knowledge and our portfolio that can make us different from the others.

Lill'

[gfilmman]

Originally Posted by littlelizard

For me to be a digital artist involves more skills and knowledges than being a simple painter, i started as an illustrator and for many years i used traditional medias, then i realized thai i wanted to be involved more deeply in different aspects of an environment creation and i started studying digital painting, 3d tecniques and compositing, because in this way i would have been able to turn my personal vision in something different than a still image.

Lill'

Hey Lil',
You bring up interesting points. I'll leave you with this however. Mike Pangrazio, famous matte painter and now art director/supervisor did a glass matte painting for a recreation of the King Kong spider pit back in 2004 or 05, and he said he forgot how difficult it was to do those tricks without a computer. Before that, Mike was on a 10 year hiatus from the industry when things shifted to computers, as I heard he was dubious about using computers. He gave in and got used to computers, and their added ease. Obviously, this great master of our craft in the pre-digital era, and now in the computer era admits it was harder before computers, why are you and others here seeming to deny it?

Before computers came along, there was a smaller number of qualified matte painters than there are today in digital matte art. As such, those few exceptional artists/craftsmen and women (simple painters as you say) were in higher demand and had more respect. I will agree with you that you need to be a generalist nowadays and know more computer software to be more employable in digital matte art, but that is to the craft's demise in my opinion, and will garner less respect - the Original issue being discussed. You can't offer a unique, valuable service (that not many people can do) if almost anyone who learns to use Maya can create the same stuff, and probably faster than a digital matte artist with the way things are going now. Sure you still need a good eye, but not as good of an eye as you once needed.

Anyway, I think the problem is that digital artists, cg generalists, digital matte artists or whatever we're called now are being too accepting of irrational timeframes, budgets, crazy camera moves that don't help a story, etc etc. We're just pushing vertices and pixels around and as Mike Pangrazio said, it was more difficult before computers. Being a simple painter, is not so simple.

[littlelizard]

Originally Posted by gfilmman

Anyway, I think the problem is that digital artists, cg generalists, digital matte artists or whatever we're called now are being too accepting of irrational timeframes, budgets, crazy camera moves that don't help a story, etc etc. We're just pushing vertices and pixels around and as Mike Pangrazio said, it was more difficult before computers. Being a simple painter, is not so simple.

I totally agree, it is true that in the pre digital era, matte painting creation was more difficult, but as you are underling above, making movies was vary different, shootings tecniques, crazy camera moves, vfx, high definition, this all makes traditional painting gone forever, and it is a pity. What does really look all the same today it's the movie making itself, talking about unique pieces of art, not even movies are unique pieces of art anymore, there are just few that can be considered that.

Lill'