Bursting the Blender bubble.

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

Recently I’ve been thinking about the completely zig-zaged path I took learning blender. Starting at 26 with no artistic background or knowledge of even fundamental art concepts. I had no idea why things like lighting, composition, and story mattered.

So having started as a blank canvas, I obviously grew a blender bubble. Everything I learned had to be about blender. I only used FOSS and, because no tutorial ever really taught it, I never learned the ‘why’ of art and therefore 3D only the blender ‘how’. This insular thinking is, from what I can see, actually pretty common in the community. Which sucks, because we should not just be learning 3D or even blender, but learning art.

I almost completely stopped using blender for two or three years, because the immediacy of other art forms like photography, 2d compositing and graphic design was far more attractive than the endless uphill battle that 3D seemed to require. But it turned out what was actually happening was that I was learning the whys of art and 3D. Photography taught me the absolute joys of lighting and fundamentals of composition. 2D compositing / photo bashing taught me more about blender’s node editor than any tutorial on it could. And graphic design (now my FT job) taught me colour theory, the importance of planning, and most importantly, opened the gate to the full world of visual art.

So so finally I get to my point. We need to foster a better and more comprehensive art-first approach to learning in this community. I can count on one hand the times I’ve heard a tutorial’s author explain what their looking for when performing a task and what the broader artistic fundamentals and implications are behind the decision. Or even what can artistically be achieved through performing a job one way over another. One prominent author routinely tries to haphazardly explain the reasoning behind something but ends up dismissing it as ultimately unimportant, which just reveals that they didn’t research their topic at all and only had a superficial idea of the concept to begin with. (The same author also has a habit of parroting other authors work verbatim, but that’s a whole other thing)

Tutorials in the blender community seem mainly aimed at raising the authors profile rather than actually educating the learner. And the recent ‘add disguised as a tutorial’ trend is more worrying. I get that people need to make that money, but I’m certain that if there was a less blender-centric approach to learning, there’d be more chance of blender users being able to make a living from it.

Dont get me wrong, I love blender as much as the next guy, I just don’t see as fervent an insulation in any other 3D communities. And that needs to be discussed.

sincerely
some guy who wants to be an artist.

2

Tutorials in the blender community seem mainly aimed at raising the authors profile rather than actually educating the learner. And the recent ‘add disguised as a tutorial’ trend is more worrying. I get that people need to make that money, but I’m certain that if there was a less blender-centric approach to learning, there’d be more chance of blender users being able to make a living from it.
Actions speak louder than words is true in many situations. If you feel strongly about a subject then demonstrate that feeling. There’s nothing stopping you from sharing your own ‘art-first approach’ tutorials ?

3

I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t thought about it. But several personal flaws have stopped me so far if I’m honest. Am a heavy mumbler, and tend be tangential in thought process. Neither of which make great tutorials.

Just thought I’d start the conversation

4

Maybe people are much more interested in the how, not so much in the why?
I can only speak from my perspective: when i look at tutorials i want to know how to archive an specific result or learn how to use tools. The decision why i would do something has already been made.
In that moment i don’t need an art lesson, i need the technical aspects, i know where to go, but not necessarily how i get there.
I learn better from seeing someone else doing it and than repeating it myself, rather than reading a manual/documentation.

5

So… you don’t want to work to improve. But people who train their speech, edit hours long tutorials to teach you how to use software don’t deserve silly add revenue of 4 dollars 47 cents for coulple day work (not from anyone pocket)?

6

I’m not saying that in-and-out style isnt valuable, it is. Especially if you are already experienced with how things work in blender. But it doesn’t cater for a decent portion of people coming to blender as complete beginners. Instilling a strong artistic foundation in them would certainly help them improve their skillset. If you assume everyone already has that foundation, then you are leaving a lot of people behind.

7

I dont disagree with you, but tutorials are tutorials about one subject and ofc about "How to do " .
Some goes a bit more in depth, but they are still short tutorials. In general, many will cite references ( whatever it is research, books ) Its free to everyone to goes more in depth about the “why” …

Offcourse a paid course as offer some site, who is offttly 8 to 10hours+ of videos, could goes more in depth.

If you go on a 3D visual school, they will start by the basic ( paint, photos, observation, image composition etc ) and then on the modeling, animations side. ( hence why many of thoses 3D visual schools are offtly too art school ( photos, videos,design etc ).

A lot of free open online courses provided by university exist: - MOOC are present now in nearly every country university in nearly every language. And this is a good way to learn ( without ending with a degree or masters ), but for itself or as preparation.

8

I agree, it should be great if there were more beginners tutorials that focus on the artistic side, they probably would be longer. But the stuff that would be learned from novices would be amazing. From what I’ve seen in friends starting to use blender, they follow a tutorial, they made something that looks amazing because of the tutorial, but when they try to do something by themselves they lack of the “why” thing that should get them to the “how”.

9

I agree. It reminds me of my younger year learning photoshop the wrong way by searching “how to make x” and follow the steps blindly. What more dangerous is it also leads to the mindset of “to make X I have to remember those steps”, like all the “how to draw a cat” tutorials.

Tutorials seem easier to follow when they start with showing me the map rather than holding my hand and lead me through the ways.

10

If it’s about the “art”, I’d say the tool is rather irrelevant. The Blender “community” has the same issue with its art as every other CG community: You can’t really take it seriously. It’s 99,9% juvenile and escapist stuff. Who could name a single rendering that is of any reknown in the “real” art world? I can’t. I’m sure the Utah teapot is in there in some form, as a historic footnote. There’s no “Mona Lisa” of CG, nor is there a “Guernica”.

If I could name a single “Blenderartist” who would be recognized as an (outsider) artist by “normal” art people, it would be Ace Dragon, though somebody deeply involved in CG probably couldn’t see his work in the same way.

So, that’s my advice to the “community”. If you want to be serious artists, grow the fuck up. Drop your robots and your superheros and your childhood comic book fantasies and try to figure out for yourselves what makes Picasso, Van Gogh or Dali relevant and what makes 99.9999% of CG art irrelevant to art history as a whole.

11

You can’t expect 3D tutorials to teach you how to become an artist, no matter the package. That may seem harsh to hear, but it is the truth. I get that you focused on Blender and open source tools, since I’m somewhat of a FLOSS purist myself, but that shouldn’t stop you from looking up topics about art fundamentals. Most importantly, to become an artist you have to learn how to see, as in not only recognize what you are looking at, but how and why things look like they do. Just as a writer has to read a lot of books, you need to watch a lot of art, images, movies, reality, etc., and analyse why something looks good and why it “works” (both objectively and subjectively). It is not up to a Blender tutorial to teach you that.

It is good that you picked up photography and other disciplines, as it helps you see better, and especially as a 3D artist you need as much cross disciplinary knowledge as you can. It is of course better to learn this sooner rather than later, but the learning never stops and there’s always more knowledge and experience to be had. Again it is not up to a (newbie) 3D tutorial to teach you this, just as a tutorial on 3D printing doesn’t teach you how to model and create the specific thing you want to print.

I also don’t get why the Blender community should be better at fostering this art-first approach more than it already does. You as an individual should strive to reach your goal to become an artist, and realize that there isn’t a quick formula someone can provide to you. There is every opportunity to search and learn, gradually, about art fundamentals, no matter the source. You say that this community is insulated in this regard, but I say you are the one who are insulated, by limiting yourself. Please don’t take this personally, but blaming Blender and the tutorials you watched for your zig-zag path and the bubble you’ve been in, is a bad excuse. If you feel there is a gap in Blender material discussing what you have since learned, again you have the opportunity to do something about it - no spoken words required. Don’t expect someone to do it for you, and don’t expect someone to become an artist after watching/reading such a “tutorial”.

Good luck, and keep striving!

12

BeerBaron; Personally, I think the 99.9 percent metric is a bit exaggerated (like what is often seen in your posts).

However, you are right in that CG work contains piles of car renders, realistic human portraits, generic creature renders, untextured sculpt work, model turntables, mechanical objects to showcase hard-modeling techniques, interior room designs, generic building models lit by the sun, spaceships, ect… Eventually, one might simply zone out of commenting on a lot of work because it feels very similar to hundreds (or even thousands) of images you’ve seen before.

In some cases like arch-vis, one could even perhaps put together a checklist that people claim to follow when creating the scene and discover it was partially accurate. To be fair though, it’s possible that it only becomes harder and harder to be completely original because of the exponential increase in the total artwork posted to the internet (especially as free and very low-cost software like Blender bring powerful creative tools to the masses).

13

Beerbaron, as someone who studies humanities, and who has to learn what makes Picasso, Van Gogh, etc, relevant… That’s kinda cruel.

There’s a wide difference between what we call ‘autonome art’ and just mere art fundamentals, and studies on the way how Autonome Art movements behave suggest that they are also commercial, but they rely on the artist having a good art-dealer. This subject has amongst others been studied by Arthur Danto, as well as Pierre Bordieu, each with very different interpretations on how this works exactly. I would not suggest that we should head this discussion in that direction, because frankly, I have had one to many “What is ~Art~?” discussions.

The topic is about technique and fundamentals.

14

As for photography being (arguably) a superior medium, allow me to consider the idea that working in CGI can create an entire world of artwork that is very difficult to impossible with photography (even if the final image is an amalgamation of multiple photos).

With photography, you are limited with what is physically possible in the real world, you are also largely limited to what is often seen in the real world unless you decide to spend a fortune on materials to build a sort of set. CGI allows you to have the realism brought by photography with impossible ideas (ideas that you can’t find in real life because they can’t be done).

Of course, the only limitation here is that works that seriously mess with perspective (like with Escher’s pieces) can still be quite hard to do, but can theoretically be done in Blender and Cycles through shading and modeling tricks and compositing (such as placing invisible walls that light can’t traverse).

15

I don’t think so, I could’ve added even more nines at the end.

Eventually, one might simply zone out of commenting on a lot of work because it feels very similar to hundreds (or even thousands) of images you’ve seen before.

If amongst all of these unremarkable things, there was something that made a real impact, maybe I would change my mind. I rather believe the culture surrounding CG doesn’t actually capture the “right people” or maybe it poisons their minds, perpetuating the idea that they never need to leave their comfort zone to be “accepted”. They stay infantilized, indefinitely.

That’s cruel… and?

There’s a wide difference in understanding between what we call ‘autonome art’ and ‘commercial art’, and studies on the way how Autonome Art movements behave suggest that they are also commercial, but they rely on the artist having a good art-dealer.

Commercial or not is not the distinction here. It could be the distinction between “art” and “artwork”, but like yourself I’m not interested in a definition of the term art. You’ll have to understand what I’m getting at when I point out that CG has practically no foothold in the art world, even though in theory it should be an exceptionally powerful medium.

16

If it’s about the “art”, I’d say the tool is rather irrelevant. The Blender “community” has the same issue with its art as every other CG community: You can’t really take it seriously. It’s 99,9% juvenile and escapist stuff. Who could name a single rendering that is of any reknown in the “real” art world? I can’t. I’m sure the Utah teapot is in there in some form, as a historic footnote. There’s no “Mona Lisa” of CG, nor is there a “Guernica”.

If I could name a single “Blenderartist” who would be recognized as an (outsider) artist by “normal” art people, it would be Ace Dragon, though somebody deeply involved in CG probably couldn’t see his work in the same way.

So, that’s my advice to the “community”. If you want to be serious artists, grow the fuck up. Drop your robots and your superheros and your childhood comic book fantasies and try to figure out for yourselves what makes Picasso, Van Gogh or Dali relevant and what makes 99.9999% of CG art irrelevant to art history as a whole.

Is that a statement or an opinion? You aren’t the arbiter of what’s considered art Beerbaron. And neither is anyone else. I can find value in a broad range of things other than that very narrow definition.

I’d never encourage another person to drop anything they enjoy doing. Regardless of how I feel about it personally. I say bring on the comic book art, robots, fantasy and what ever else pops into someone’s imagination. I don’t really care how they got there either. What methods they employed or whether or not they followed established workflows.

I think there’s value in learning why things work from an artistic point of view though. And those are things you can learn without having to touch a single blender centric tutorial. Most of them, at the moment, seem to revolve around the technical rather than the creative. But that’s an unavoidable aspect of CG. At least for now.

And why do you think CG should have a foothold or be taken seriously by what you consider the art world? If “they” find no value in it, that’s their problem.

17

Yes, I used the wrong word there, whcih is why I edited. But this is also why it is cruel, because you’re expecting people to investigate something that is going to result in ‘cause politics’ and ‘van Gogh and Picasso had great art dealers’. CG does have some foothold, but you’d need to be reading the right magazines and stuff. CG art is not gong to show up on the TEFAF, because it is data, not somethingthat can be held with a single copy and stuff. The MOMA on the other hand does have it’s own servers for conserving media art.

18

Is that a statement or an opinion? You aren’t the arbiter of what’s considered art Beerbaron. And neither is anyone else. I can find value in a broad range of things other than that very narrow definition.

I haven’t defined art. It’s not really my opinion that 99,9% of the showcased artwork falls into the categories I mentioned. It’s something you can check for yourself, on this website or on CgSociety, or on Artstation… and those are the places for CG art.

These are my standards. I can’t take this stuff serious and I don’t see the art world as a whole take it serious either. I can absolutely understand the appeal of these topics. I can appreciate the technical finesse. At the end though, I see it rather as talent wasted.

I also understand your desire for “inclusivity”, but I refuse that as well. Art is conflict and it always has been. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have moved from what it was 1000 years ago. There was no Picasso 1000 years ago. There needs to be development and it won’t happen without breaking things.

If you want to comfortably stay in your bubble that’s fine with me. If you asked for my advice, I’d say you need to get the fuck out. That’s about it!

I don’t understand. You can exhibit CG art just like paintings, not just conserve it in a vault.

19

Nobody said that, why do you bring up that argument? As DeadParrot found out, photography can help you learn lighting and composition in a fast and gratifying way, as well as help you recognize a good motive when you see one. That knowledge can then be applied to other mediums. And if we are only considering stills, a drawing would be superior to 3D, since 3D requires a ton more technical skills and time to realise your imagination.

@Macser
Well said.

20

If you want to comfortably stay in your bubble that’s fine with me. If you asked for my advice, I’d say you need to get the fuck out. That’s about it!
Don’t tell me what I need. I don’t have a clue who you are. And you know even less about me.

Do you always talk to complete strangers like that? I didn’t ask for your advice. And given the way you express it, I wouldn’t. I’m not sure what bubble you’re talking about. I’m well aware of the sites you mentioned. And others. I just don’t agree with you. If you can’t get your point across without being combative, maybe it’s not as well formed as you thought.