poboyross

So, after almost two years of not doing collectibles, and over a year of not doing personal work due to growing my family, job duties, etc, it's now time to push forward and try to get the fires burning again, if at all possible.  The past 3 years have taken a LOT out of me in every way possible, adding gray hairs and possibly subtracting years of life. However, I believe its time to get back on that horse.  I've been blessed to work on so many big name movie projects over the past two years, and will continue to do so with Legacy Effects....Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, Oblivion, Robocop, and even some design work on The Wolverine.....it's definitely rocked.  However, I need to indulge my own interests and ideas, not those of others, to get the flames burning again.  That's my goal for the rest of the year....

The past year has been full of changes. Changes in my family (my son, Logan, born last March, and another one due this Christmas), changes in our location (moved back to SoCal), and change in job (now I work for Legacy Effects, formerly Stan Winston).  The biggest change, personally, has been my work.  The past three years of going balls to the wall churning out a lot of work for the collectibles industry was a blast. Every year at SDCC was more phenomenal than the last.  Then....burnout set in....I had been pushing too hard for too long.  I didn't have time for family or even taking care of myself, and it was taking its toll.  We decided to move back out to SoCal to be closer to my wife's family and so that I could find a full time job where I wasn't working from can to can't.  I more or less left the collectibles industry behind and put Idol Workshop on indefinite hiatus.  

I'll still be doing collectibles pieces from time to time, but the burnout I experienced was pretty extensive.  So extensive that I don't believe I'll have a single piece at SDCC this year.  I have lamented this fact for quite awhile, but haven't even mustered the motivation to do a personal piece like I've done every year for quite awhile.  I'll be attending the Con this year as an observer and film industry professional, not as someone who has wares to show.  Will the burnout be permanent?  I'm not sure.  Some days I think so....I enjoy working more or less 8 hour days.  Some days I think not, because I've got a pocket full of personal projects that I think need to be expressed in order to develop myself more as an artist.

We shall see.

If you don't see many updates from me over the next year, you'll know why.  I'm trying to relax, replenish, and re-ignite.

Best,
Adam

Man...it is HARD to believe that SDCC is upon us once more!  SO much has happened in one year.  My wife was barely pregnant at last year's, now we have a wonderful 3 mo. old baby boy in our lives.  We decided to move back to CA after this year's SDCC for damn sure, so I'll be back in the land of fun in the sun by fall.  I sold my hot rod which took up most of my free time for the better part of the past 2 years.  I started a new hot rod.  I've thought long and hard about what's important in my life.  I've reflected on things.

NOW, seeing SDCC 2011 is only about 3 weeks away, the heat is on.  Not sure how much will be at Sideshow's SDCC booth from my little operation, but I know I'm going to be rolling a heck of a lot differently than I did last year, and the year before, and the year before that.  Besides the fact that I'll have a little dude in tow, I'm going to be spending most of my floor time either wandering the darker corners of the con or maxin' and relaxin' at the Morpheus Prototypes booth with my compadres, Shawn and Will.  There *might* even be a new piece from yours truly showing there along with the WWII Logan piece from last year.  I've been working on it on and off betwixt paying work and changing diapers, and it's been KILLING me getting this thing out.  What started as a cool idea turned into a BIG undertaking.  Once you see it (providing we get it done in time), you'll definitely be seeing a motif forming, albeit unintentional.  As time passes, that motif is liable to grow exponentially....I have no idea how things lined up this way.  OK...ENOUGH cryptic messages...

As opposed to being a *complete* curmudgeon and hiding out behind the veils of the Sideshow booth and holing up in my hotel room, I'm going to try to be more social.  Any of you guys who might want to meet up with me, chew the fat, get some booze, or talk "bidness", etc, LET ME KNOW.  Shoot me a note via DA, I'll get back to you via DA or email, so include your addresses. If you don't get a chance to do so, no worries....just remember to stop by the Morpheus Prototypes booth!

So, now I recoil back into my digital hovel, bustin' my humps to get mah shizzle fizzled.  I'll see you in 3 weeks!

Sometimes, all it takes is one comment from the wrong person to poo on your day, right after you've gotten up in the morning.  Very often, this is the case when someone with less-than-honorable intentions decides to comment on some little aspect of a *finished* piece.  "OH, that vein on the bicep would do *this*, not *that*" or "your cloth looks like it's made of X material, when in reality it would be Y".  *SIGH*  facepalm.

While people are free to make such comments, they most certainly are not welcome. Nitpicking is a bad habit, and not becoming of the professional artist.  I have found that many folks who do this do *not* work professionally; and, to the contrary, have problems finding jobs.  I'm FAR from the best sculptor out there...and I mean FAR...FAR FAR....FAR! However, I've been blessed with being able to find the right job when I need it, and stay gainfully employed.  Why is that?  I believe it's due to being under the tutelage of those greater than myself, and asking why they had and kept jobs.  They never nit picked others' work, they always gave constructive criticism on the big things and never on the small  things unless prompted, and they never had much of an ego.  

When I first got out of college, I had a hell of a time finding work.  After my first job, that got a lot easier, and hopefully it remains that way and increasingly so! However, back then, when I was jobless, I started looking for excuses and came to one conclusion....it was *my* fault. I could easily point the finger at crony-ism, racism, and other forms of bias. True or not, it didn't matter.  I had to look at those who were successful in finding work and say "I need to learn that."  You can be an excellent sculptor in ZBrush, but do you know Maya, Max, Magics, Meshlab, Paraform, 3d printing software, traditional keying techniques, print tolerances, or basic math?  See where I'm heading? If you don't have work, you are *not* the best undiscovered talent! As an artist, and *especially* a digital one, you must have a broad knowledge base.  Why would anyone hire a great digital sculptor if you're always having to go and repair their meshes for a week or more afterwards, before even going to print prep?  Furthermore, why would I hire the same person with a chip on their shoulder and an over-inflated view of their own work?  If you're getting hot under the collar at reading this, or have some feelings of resentment and desire to argue with me about it, chances are *you* are one of these people....GET OVER IT.

Two things I'll leave you with, the first is a two-fer.

1) The first great professor I ever had, Tan Tascioglu, found me in the labs at midnight my first year/first computer course at SCAD after I had his first class earlier that day.  He came up to me and said one thing and walked off "This is why you will kick others' asses."  The man was always professional, but his bluntness was refreshing.  Believe it or not, it only takes marginal talent with massive investment to be successful...and a good attitude.

The second great professor I had was Joe Pasquale.  He was an old school guy who worked on Tron in addition to being there for the foundations of 3d in film.  One day in class he threw this gem out there:  "I'd rather work with a guy with average talent, an ability to learn, and is the type of guy/gal I'd like to have a drink with after work than work with the greatest artist who is an a**hole."  Indeed.

2)  In order to be true to "stealing" something referred to in my title, I present a commentary from my close friend, master sculptor (does circles around me, easy peazy), and general good guy, Tim Miller. He explains why he does not welcome critiques on his work any longer....I'll clue you in...it's not because *he* is the one being a jerk.


"I frequently get asked why I discourage critiques of my work.

All of my work represented here on dA is commercial. For each piece, I work closely with design teams, art directors, and licensors, and each piece I do is run through a gauntlet of critiques. I sculpt things the way my clients want them sculpted. The last thing I really need to hear when I post something to a site like dA is 'It would be better if only you would...' It's not my decision to make it better. Also, and I don't mean to insult most of you, the critiques and recommendations given here usually aren't coming from working artists. Working artists already understand all of this, and they know that the piece has already been through the aforementioned gauntlet.

I frequently read comments which protest that I could still learn something from blah blah blah. At the risk of sounding rude or arrogant, save it. I've been sculpting professionally for the past 14 years. That's sculpting for the special effects industry, film set production, and collectibles. I currently work with the top art directors in the collectibles industry. If they've not caught a 'mistake' in my work, don't think you have. Sorry, go feel validated somewhere else.

Perhaps its the wine that makes me sound harsh, but it's probably not. It's probably that I'm just tired of some inexperienced, puffed up 'artist' telling me that the legs I sculpt are too long. Well, the guy that signed the check wanted them that way, and I might think they look cool that way too.

In short, remember what your mama taught you, 'If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all'."


Thanks, Tim.  I stole this without your knowledge this morning....I'll tell you later.  Always better to ask for forgiveness than permission, no? lol!



Have a great day, ya'll!

*This is a brief (by literary standards) essay regarding my observed bias against new mediums in the art community. It covers the beliefs and opinions as I have observed them first hand and in online discussions. It's merely my attempt to shed more light on the tendency of some in the "old guard" to willingly accept or even experience new media to any substantive degree before passing judgement on it's worth as an artist's tool, or even impugning those who use the new media and call themselves artists. In this case, it's the specific use of the term "digital sculpture". I don't consider the essay finished, per se, but rather something I plan on adding to and amending over time.

The art world is a constantly changing landscape, and there's a non-stop roiling and boiling of both ideas and opinions regarding methodology. Artists are always finding new ways to express themselves, often with newly developed media and tools. Sometimes these tools are pure outgrowths of the artist community; yet, sometimes they are the product of either artists co-opting technology and methods from other fields, or better yet, co-developing new tools with those in entirely unrelated professions. For a time, this new media is often scorned and looked down upon. "It's not "pure", "traditional", or even "fine art"" is often heard being bellowed through the halls of art communities, college campuses, and especially on the web. More times than not, there is always a bumpy transition period when a new technology, tool, or media is introduced. This; however, usually gives way to broad acceptance if the media is found to have more advantages than disadvantages when applied over the broad brush stroke of time. The debate and racket never entirely dies down, though; at least not for a number of years or even decades. The problem with the detractors lies in how they handle themselves, and if they end up alienating themselves from a segment or even a majority of their community in the process.

One area where I see this occurring first hand in the new media is digital sculpting. The term "digital sculpting" is what is most often assigned to describe artists, and I do refer to them as artists, who utilize an entirely new set of tools built around the platform of personal computers. In particular, the software package ZBrush is most often what is brought to mind when the term is used. The bias and prejudice lies in the idea among some that it's not true art, fine art, or even considered work that is created by an artist. By a number of those steeped or biases for what is currently considered "traditional media", this new format and toolset is barely considered a bastard child of fine art, let alone having anything in common with "fine art".

From a technological perspective, ZBrush (and a number of other similar software packages) are merely the evolution of a tool set and technology that began over half a century ago. What began with punch cards and UNIVAC in an effort to create tools that could calculate rudimentary algebraic and geometric equations in an effort to better define the world around us has led to, ironically, and organic use of that which at its core is mathematical. From those early "supercomputers" that took up entire buildings to house the equipment, they have been refined to fit on a desktop, in your lap, or in your pocket. Along with the advancement of the hardware, massive advances in software have grown concurrently. From merely solving equations which are now high school calculus fodder, the software progressed to being able to visually present the results of solving these equations in a 3d format on a screen. Early examples include CAD (Computer Aided Design) programs which were initially utilized for engineering and architectural purposes. People were now able to design and test their ideas in a simulated environment before it ever became a reality. The profession was forever changed. Once this new tool was unleashed, massive advances in hardware would allow the software to progress in kind, oddly enough growing at a faster rate, and conversely putting exponential pressure back on those who made the hardware to push forward even harder. This is what leads us to today, and to the modern day digital sculpting software package.

ZBrush represents the most popular digital sculpting package in the world, to date. It's many tools and features mimic those of a "traditional" sculptor's tool box. The application and use of these tools and features has even taken on a physical tone since the widespread implementation of touch sensitive peripherals such as the Wacom Intuos and the ever-impressive Cintiq. Both the Wacom pads and ZBrush were direct outgrowths of artists recognizing the potential of a new media being born right before their eyes, yet not being used for any "artistic" purpose. Pixar, Disney's recently acquired animation studio, is to be credited with a lot of the heavy hauling in progressing the tech from CAD to ZBrush with their popular animated shorts and full-length animated features. They lead the spearhead of both co-opting the technology for their own use, and eventually leading the charge in opening up the new media by showing its benefits in real world application of the arts. Many other studios quickly popped up after this initial salvo, and the genie was out of the bottle, the new media was here to stay.

Pixologic's ZBrush merely represents the most advanced permutation of this drive to build a more real-world and familiar "traditional" experience around the method of creating artwork digitally. The omnipresent downside to doing art digitally had always been the fact that there is no "direct" interaction with the medium, and no remotely tactile way to integrate oneself with the pieces that were being created. The advent of Wacom's pad technology bridged this gap to a large extent, but the greatest leap had to come with the actual visual interaction with the work on the screen. Hardware technology had to grow to the point of having processors that handle billions upon billions (and even trillions!) of computations per second in order to handle the level of mathematical geometry necessary to even accurately visually describe the basic human form, let alone fine details such as skin and textile textures.

Once the hardware began to catch up, the software companies were already on the spot, with initial offerings such as Lightwave, Maya, and 3D Studio Max. These still lacked the tactile experience of clay, but were a milestone in the technological progression of the medium. Now, there is the proverbial "balls out" race going (most definitely NOT a dirty term, look it up!) between the software and hardware manufacturers to achieve mind boggling realistic detail in the digital sculpting medium. The interaction of the artist with their digital sculpture is now closer than ever to that of the tactile experience of working with clay. Digital clay can be set to have visual and "physical" qualities of whatever "traditional" medium is preferred. Shaders, or "matcaps" now allow the artist to see their work in a very realistic fashion, even going as so far as to be able to digitally paint their work to see how the piece will likely look when brought into reality via any one of a number of 3D rapid prototyping machines.

A technology that is still woefully behind the curve (but improving every day) that is necessary in order to bring these digital sculptures to a reality is rapid prototyping. Without these "printers", there can be no physical manifestation of these artistic works. There are a number of different technologies that allow the bridge to be made from 1's and 0's to reality, yet I won't cover each individual iteration of the technology here. It is not pertinent to our discussion, only the end result. As it does not concern the artist in any direct fashion, other than knowing basic simple rules of slight changes in sculpting technique to make up for current shortcomings, that discussion is best left for another time. However, what is important to know is that this is the foremost bottleneck in an artist being able to accurately usher their digitally sculpted piece from their hard drive to physical reality. Fortunately the technology is improving at an ever increasing rate, and whereas 5 years ago the retention of fine facial wrinkles on a final output from one of these machines was a pipe dream, has now become a welcome reality. The hang up with the process remains that there is still, even in receding amounts, a need for physical refining of a piece once it is printed. If at all possible, this is a phase that is best left to the original artist to handle as long as it is economically feasible to the artist and the entity doling out the contract. However, in most pipelines, it has been found more beneficial to maintain a small group of those who can use their finessing skills to make sure that the original intent of the artist and digital sculpture is maintained through the print cleaning process. However, the need for this service has drastically decreased over the past 5 years, and within another 5, I personally believe it will be virtually non-existent.

At this point, after having covered the natural progression of this new medium, it's prudent to cover the prejudice and bias that has accompanied its' inception, practice, and increased usage over time. Like with any introduction of a new method or technology, it has its detractors that use familiar arguments against it. As mentioned before, the most frequently used are "it's not true sculpting", "it's not fine art", and "those who use it are not artists". This is not to say that one who portends one actually ascribes to the others, or that one can only have one of these arguments. These three just best sum up the broad swath of antagonistic feelings towards the medium.

This expression of prejudice, antagonism, or antipathy towards those using the digital sculpting medium is not unique. It has accompanied most all new media for as long as man has created. I believe this to be, at least in some part, directly related to how the human brain separates the areas that are widely attributed to housing the art and math centers....or right vs. left brained. This is not going to be, by any means, a commentary on the intelligence or intellectual capabilities of artists or mathematicians...or those who at least trend in one of those directions. It's been well known for centuries that the art and math (aka science) communities have never gotten along. Yet, ironically, they have most everything in common when it comes to putting pen (or digital stylus!) to paper (or pad!). Those who are art minded (read: right brained) feel that the emotional or subjective side is what steers them in their work and creations. They often have little regard for the math/science community when it comes to matters of creation or the "heart" as it relates to the act of creation. It becomes even more obvious when matters turn to debates of a more social nature. Those who are hard core science minded (read: left brained) tend to fall back on what they consider logic and hard "facts" to describe the world around them, the most extreme elements looking at the practice of art as a more-or-less useless exercise of existence. As I've mentioned, the irony comes in that they both overlap more than they diverge.

Possibly the most popular and successful artist of all time, Leonardo Da Vinci, was (for his time period) a master of both the right and left side of his brain. His quest was creation, and his tools included those on both sides of the argument, a paint brush as much as a compass, and even what has been recently been discovered to be an opaque overhead projector. Yet, few on the right brain side of things dispute that he was an artist any more than those in the left brain camp object to his status as a scientific inventor. Why is this? I believe it lies in the fact that true creation is inherently neutral, in its ideal form utilizing both sides of the brain; however, the nature of man is to divide as its the path of least resistance in any ideology. Da Vinci often showed, even with the limited level of mathematics that existed at that point in time, that even in the most organic state of things, math and science hold true when the undertaking of creation is taken on. There is definitely room for injection of spirit or emotion to varying degrees, more so in "fine art" and in little supply in "industrial design"; however, the same rules often apply. The golden mean may be the most pleasing proportion to the human eye, but there is plenty of science and math to describe why it is so, and why we're programmed to trend towards these "ideals". The same can be applied in varying degrees to the human body, nature, and the universe at large. Math and science are only supporting and reiterating that which we know inherently as second nature.

This is where we delve back into the idea of ZBrush and digital sculpting as just a varied expression of creation. Sure, it may have a different set of barriers between the artist and the digital clay medium as opposed to the "traditional" sculpting elements of clay, wax, and stone. But it also has its fair share of benefits over the others; such as "undo", precision measuring, and larger than life mastery over a medium that has much fewer boundaries than a physical medium. It's an "unobtanium" of sorts. It's merely another tool in the toolbox, and should never be considered to be anything more, and definitely not less.

Other, more baseline biases against new media have their roots in more common aspects of the human condition; reluctance to change, concern of wage loss, and fear of loss of perceived value at large. As with a significant portion of changes or additions of methods and tools, especially as it relates to the fine art side of things, this is rarely the case. If scrutinized with a left brain mentality, art has rarely been this way.

No one looks at the pantograph illuminated manuscripts done by medieval monks as illegitimate, nor do we look at the pantograph contraption with disdain. The pantograph copies are usually indiscernible from the "original". Both are and outgrowth of the creator's touch, and are valued equally due to the master's necessary involvement in creating a final product. However, many of these books were not venerated as art at the time, even though they were highly treasured possessions. Only after long expanses of time passed were they elevated to "fine art" status. The same mentality is applied by current detractors of digital sculpting to the digital sculpture-to-printing process. The idea is put forth that the machine is actually doing the sculpting, not the artist. The machine is merely an automaton designed to replicate data created (or input, in the most primitive of terms) by the digital artist. How this possesses any major degree of separation from the pantograph eludes logic. Perhaps that is more of a "long view" example than the changing view towards digital sculpting, but pertinent nonetheless.

The concern over the potential of lost wages is likely the only worry with merit in those who deride a new medium. The strict adherence to what is art and what is not; or in this case, what is sculpture and what is not, is what leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Very few artists have ever had the pleasure of just creating art for art's sake, they all have to eat. Even those artists who we consider the masters of old, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Bernini, et al; were the commercial artists of their day, and those who were most successful were those who were able to master the new tools without sacrificing the makers' mark. Those who refused to keep up with technological developments had to either progress or be left behind, even if it were only in a small sense. Many were lesser because of it, unfortunately. Mastery of another tool doesn't mean that is the only tool that is used, or used to any preordained extent, just that it is understood in both benefit and detraction.

The most fundamentally understandable concern is loss of pertinence to one's profession. I understand this both on a existential level and on a professional one. It is a feeling that doesn't only cover the ever changing world of my profession (as I originally started as a "traditional" sculptor, yet quickly transitioned to digital) but also every aspect of my being. I have a feeling this bubbles up in everyone's life to some degree, with artists being on the spearhead. As what we do is judged, more times than not by the public-at-large, by the final result in a subjective manner, it is directly connected to our idea of personal worth. Few others are open to rejection in such a large manner. Most struggle with this in familial relationships, a slim majority have this experience to such a large degree in their personal lives. What matters to us all is even more pronounced to the artist. We need to have a sense that what we do is both accepted and matters; we have a need to make a mark on the world so that they recognize that "Hey, I was HERE." When carefully handled and put in perspective, reluctance to at least accept a potentially and objectively assessed change in one's life or professional methodology is what leads to folly and downfall.

The toolbox of the artist has always been in a state of flux. So should be the mind of the artist. Generally, those who have met with the most success are those who embrace the idea of the ever-changing tool set, in addition to accepting the inherent advantages and detractions of each. To retain the idea that a new way of creating art is not legitimate due to preconceived notions of what "real art" is goes against the core of being a "right brainer", an artist, and open mindedness in general. Time will always change the nature of the tools, but never the heart or mind of the artist. To cut off a group who decides to take up and embrace the new tool or method only serves to fragment the community at large. This eventually segregates many to the potential dust-bin of art history should the tide of opinion sway overwhelmingly and the new way of doing things be vindicated in the long term. However, there is one thing that has never changed no matter how much time or technology may separate one artist from another; that the act of creation is the only name of the game.

*As a side note, I *highly* recommend studying the life, times, methods, and work of Da Vinci and Bernini specifically, and how they were able to successfully navigate the seas of change as it relates to their work and practices. I also feel it pertinent to suggest reading "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Beaudrillard. It has a more-than-direct correlation to the broad based argument for accepting new media as reality. A concise overview can be found on Wikipedia (not my most trusted source for information, but valuable in a summation of the book, nonetheless) here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacr…