What's the easy option: art or dev?

Well the art world has it's own ridiculousness. Fine art especially is often nothing but a giant pyramid scheme balancing ultimately pretentious crap on top of a buying public specifically educated to think crap is good. The cult of personality is sickening.

However the production art business is often the exact opposite (often, not always). If a studio artist can't get the work done to the acceptable level, they're going to be out on the street and there will be another very talented artist to come in and take their place. Some of the best artists I've ever met noone would ever know their names. Truly unsung heros, and the exact mentality that drove them to develop into great artists and craftsmen is the exact mentality that will keep them from seeking the limelight.

F*** Pablo Picasso. He mucked it up for everyone. (and you too Andy Warhol, Basquiat, Jasper Johns etc. etc. etc.) Am I off topic?

 

Well, if we're going to generalise, there's the thing about the neckbeards in the momma's basements that do nothing but code and play computer games, and who couldn't talk to a girl if they were the only guy left alive. They'd mess up when they were invited by the beautiful amazons to repopulate the planet...

 

LOL, well ain't that the arty elite culture in general? Go read People Magazine, TMZ, The National Enquirer, The Sun, and so on if you can stomach it.

I used to scoff at Picasso, Warhol, Giacometti, Chagall but they could have produced technically exacting art and lived as paupers.

I've seen a painting of a view of a forest as big as a small wall that was photographic in quality made hundreds of years ago. And we've seen what Italian marble sculptures can do.

Now there is an art movement (and that's not intended to be a an obscure double entendre) that uses bodily fluids and I'm repulsed at the thought that this 'movement' managed to get noticed in the sad big newspapers and some sad museums.

Now, after that, I'm like those artists like Picasso and such in the 1st paragraph are pure genius in comparison. OK, I still do scoff just a little bit at them but at least in the correct display context their art can be quite nice.

 

Yeah, at least Picasso knew he was jacking people and wasn't hiding it, just riding the wave... the problem is everyone else forgot they were being jacked and now it's crystallized into it's own paradigm. celebrity and shock has gotten way out of hand

 

I decided to look up Roy Lichtenstein because I thought it might be fun to produce 3D characters with that comic book dithered half-tone 2D print as textures (might look like crud though too but I can try):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Look at the record auction prices and look at his inspirations for his work by following those links. At one time I thought he actually made up his comic scenes. Certainly should be informative for those that think one must have the most realistic graphics to compete in the game world.

 

The option here is to develop your main talent and excel, which takes a long time. If you're looking for a quick buck, go for everyday needs hot spots: supermarkets, pubs, cafeteria, hotels, accounting, hairdressing.

 

Yes, Mr. Lichtenstein isn't enjoying those prices after all. Let's hope he enjoyed making them.

 

Pretty daft OP some great points raised, some pretty dumb ones too! Chingwa and goat are being a bit off topic because the amount of professional artists in any field who get to be creative is ridiculously small, nevermind end up being able to survive on personal pieces (a la a gallery and exhibitions). Perfect example is photography (One of the many forms of art ive done quite a lot of), if you dont do portraits of kids, weddings or product photography, you're going to find it hard, and you'll want to kill yourself after a few years of kids, weddings and products.

I have a degree in computer science, i only have it because my final project, a typical fps bot ala Unreal Tournament was particularly strong, this was in 2002 so i guess it was a big deal then and i probably surprised them with my dijkstra sort, out of the blue it was!

I write horrific code though, i'm exactly one of those artists who write horrific code, but I have to code because i spend all day every day making games on my own. I can understand good code and truly appreciate the art of it in itself but my mind can't broaden to anticipate the idea of reusable functions and encapsulation and even the most simple logic problems become a hair tearing chicken and egg dilemma

However saying art is either easy or non technical these days is absolutely mindless, particularly in 3D games where if you are to create the entire art for a pretty game the amount of fields you will cover is staggering. The fact i've had the freedom to do it all day every day is why i can use the plethora of different tools a videogame artist needs to know to be strong at his work. I dont work at a studio so dont talk to other artists all day however so im forever behind, but knowing how to code is very useful for a game artist and they SHOULD be able to understand and explain very complex subjects that go way into mathematics and physics

I still can't do maxscript even though i started with it in 2000, and thats a massive black mark against me i feel, really writing any of my own tools is a little alien to me (cept for a few instances) but i'd consider that expected of a good game artist. They should at LEAST understand shaders even if the mathematics is a bit of a headache, and ideally be able to knock one up to order when needed. I can't do that either

I do audio too, writing (several of my plays have been performed) and a bunch of other random stuff, like annoy people on the internet. I like all of it and to say any of it is easier or harder than anything else is inane to me because if anything was 'easier' than something else there would be no need for experts in the field. I know experts in their fields in some very interesting companies, gaming, film, web, audio and so on and you could call them artists or programmers but they are phenomenal at what they do and all deserve a lot of respect for having done the hard work to get where they have and do it so well

Like i say i'm code-dumb in general but i respect it and enjoy it, it's really addictive sometimes, it's like a puzzle that i actually enjoy. I'm pretty well regarded by some folk in some fields of art and thats nice but i dont find myself acceptable to try and present myself as a competent videogame artist, i respect those who are so skilled in their field whatever their field and stating opposition or supporting opposition is obnoxious to me, ineptitude can be recognised universally though, thats about all i'd judge

 

If you are very good at math and logic, go with programming. Less competition exactly because you need those two skills to be very good at it and these are rare skills. Rarity also means excellent pay.
I still think programming is harder because of the complexity any medium sized app reaches. We are not talking scripting here like adding a little gameplay to a game, but real software architecture. Computer Science is such a wide field, you have endless possibilities, so if they take you at MIT, do it.

 

Such a wide field that many great universitys in america have well known computer graphics departments whose direction seems to be towards art...

Calling one thing art and another thing not is a philosophical argument anyway, but to even assume traditionally thought of prettiness generation doesn't often involve brilliant mathematical and programming minds is ignorant. Saying being excellent at math and logic is rare too is pretty innacurate, you generally need both to get a handle on programming in the first place, videogame programmers are only a very small fraction of the computer engineering workforce and that workforce is a saturated one here.

Although if MIT want you then yes that's a good place to go

 

Very true, for me programming is art.

I meant in the sense that if you are the one in class that gets the math stuff fastest and the ideas from math seem natural to you and you are the one telling the professor if he made errors in his proof, then probably you have the right mind to deal with complex stuff. The saying that some programmers are 100 times more effective as others is very true. If you have the basics to be one of those, go for it, there will be a place for you in every team. You will not get 100 times the money, but they hopefully appreciate you. Otherwise leave (I saw many companies IT department implode after the 100 times efficiency guy left).

 

Programming is "an art", musical composition is "an art", making textures is "an art", and they are also all "arts" and "dev" or "development". However, only physical products of "the arts" (typically 3D or 2D works) are typically referred to as being "art" or "art-pieces". This doesn't mean that they can't be labeled as such, but rather that most people don't for the sake of clarity or specificity. If you want to use a broader meaning, go somewhere that doesn't involve talking about many different art forms. There are no game companies I know of where you can walk in, ask if they'll let you check out some art, and then get shown music or code as though they were clearly included in your intended meaning of "art".

 

This thread inspired me to start a thread describing my own experiences
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/244418-How-to-not-suck-at-game-development

 

From the perspective of an artist: Art is probably easier but programming pays more. Programmers are ultimately more important than artists. You need a programmer to make a game, you don't need an artist.

Note that all of these statements are subjective, and I could counter all of them. Art is easier than programming for me, but it probably depends on your personality. In general though you have to be really smart to be a good programmer while you can be kinda dumb and be a good artist, lol. Although you do need programming for a game, you don't necessarily need a programmer. If you want to pick up a tiny bit of scripting knowledge you could make a good game with very minimal scripting in Unity, although it would have to be a very specific kind of game. Programmers are paid more in the industry, but you are probably looking to get into indie dev, in which case that doesn't matter.

Both ain't easy though. If you aren't better at one already you should pick one and start learning as soon as possible, because the road can be long and arduous regardless.

As a side note, let's stop this talk about programming being art or whatever. "Artist" is simply what people who do the visual art for games are called, and that's why the term is used. Nobody is trying to say programming isn't art or whatever.

(also in general the topic annoys me. Does everything that we like have to be art? It's like the "are video games art" debate. Even if it isn't art, it's still fun and emotionally engaging, so who cares?)

 

Personally I think being a pig farmer would be better than either.

Fresh air and an endless supply of bacon. What's not to like?

Seriously though: This is one of those questions, "If you have to ask...".

The irony is this: If you go looking for the easy option, you'll struggle all the more. You have to gravitate to one, the other, or both. Find your calling - you don't have to be great at either to work in games, there are other roles, and ultimately you'll only succeed in the one/s you enjoy and feel passionate about 24/7.