Hi everyone! It's been quite a while, but I've updated so many different pages now that it's hard to keep track of what's where. These last few weeks were quite hectic, but I still managed to find some peace with the weekly model drawing sessions. I have brought my laptop and Wacom along for a couple of sessions, and I have definately fallen in love with the wonderful ease at which I can pick my colors. I needed to step away from my safe-zone concerning accuracy in form and lines, and start with the realism in terms of colours and lighting. I must say I am wonderfully pleased with the result, even though I feel I can do better with more practice. It is difficult, though, the maximum pose duration is 15 mins - it really speeds up your workflow!
The above three images were from one of the first sessions I did; and where I was immensely pleased with the colour palette. The sketches were made from three three-minute poses.
These last two images were from today's session with model Maria - who actually has pink hair:) Hope you like them!
I finally found some time to work on this - my freelance work kept taking all my spare time... I have spent tedious work on the boobs-area, the hair and the face, and I also found a new enemy: SHOES. Forget the knees - SHOES are the devil. Seriously:P
It's not finished yet, I'll have to scrape the courage to start on the hands (uhoh), give her those awesome goggles and finish the umbrella - hopefully I'll find some inspiration for the background :) Enjoy!
Every once in a while, I tend to copy some of my favourite artists to try and be as awesome as they are. My absolute number one favourite is Hyung Tae Kim, a Korean artist with a knack for anatomy - impossible and exaggerated anatomy that is. He often draws his character in the most dynamic poses, while adjusting the anatomy to fit the flow. Bt not only does he excel in anatomy, his use of colour is absolutely drool-worthy. He was the artist from which I learned colour and lighting techniques.
This time, I wanted to re-imagine Penelope Pitstop (I love her Dutch translated name more, 'Pitspoes') and make give her some curves! It is still a work-in-progress, but I already love the latex feel of her suit! Enjoy, and 'til the next update:)
The sketch, you can see I hate knees...
The W.I.P. itself. I love the way the rim highlight makes the image pop.
The last week was extremely productive for me; I have written some small exerpts of fiction surrounding the Monks, allowing me to understand and feel the atmosphere thoroughly. I now have various attacks, various enemies, strategies and humorous quotes concerning the IP, all helping me greatly when creating artwork. So, without further ado I would like to present you with the following Holy Shitload of artwork:
At first another go at the Demon Faction, now in more closeup and definately to my liking.
Secondly: the Unholy Underworldly Evil Pope - Leader of Demons:
(he scared me a little when working on it at 01:00 am in a nightblack room)
And finally I've begun finalizing the art of my storyboard; below is as you can see a work in progress of shot 9 of the trailer.
And as a last mention, a second shot from the 'moneyshot' moment of the trailer: the battlefront allout clash of the two forces. I've drawn the Monk Karl (yes, for those of you who know him, he was based on Sjoerd even in the original project, and will now ever be! Muhaha!), ramming his crucifix in the Demon's marble body, to break it in pieces by slamming his unopened Biblegun into it. I've already tested it in After Effects, and it looks quite gooooood!
So if these Monks are engaging in a Holy War, against what forces do they have to stand? Of course, it will be Hell. Their Church was attacked by Demons, so now they want to break open the Gates of Hell to eradicate them once and for all. Below you can see my concept of the Gates - I am not quite sure about the colour scheme (I think I need to go fo a cliche red to avoid weird questions about why Monks would break their own church...)
The architecture of Hell is based on an old project of mine, called Theta Sins. In there, Hell is based in a large city-like Cathedral which is built hanging upside down. This calls for a challenging architecture.
But who inhabit these evil walls? At first, I designed some Demons that were tough, evil brutes - but even though I loved their design, they did not scare me. I found them too bestial and cliche to inhabit Hell.
Thus, I started from scratch and approached the Demons from my personal view on fear. These were much more to my liking, and although I still need to adjust some small features, plus design different variations of Demons, I have decided that this sketch will be my starting point. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...
As for supporting my narrative, I needed to create a (fictional) game that could support my intro cinematic. Thus, I reinvented the Last of the Monks. Quite early on, the initial idea for a game concept came to rest on a third-person Beat-'m-Up like God of War or Devil May Cry, in which you fight your way as a Monk through ranks and hordes of Demons.
This is Matthew, the (main) Monk from the LotM, who would be the main character of the game. However, after a lot of discussion and inner conflicts, I have chosen for a more setting-based approach: an RTS game. Thus, Matthew will be the standard for the faction of Monks you will play. He will be sided by ten-foot Cardinals, cunning Bishops and other holy comrades to fight this war. Below you can see a small concept of a Bible-Gun I made. I'm not sure if it will star in the cinematic, but you can understand the direction I want to take this in.
After my proposal, I have finally begun searching for inspiration for my own (personal) graduation project. This project needs to be supported by my narrative, so I thought of creating an animated cinematic cutscene for a game (that might function as some sort of trailer). I already found a lot of animated cutscenes that inspire me greatly - but I only recently found this one again - the Cinematic StarCraft II Trailer....
I had forgotten all about this, maybe because it's 3D, maybe because I haven't played StarCraft... But still this trailer gives me the shivers. I find the anatomy and impossibility of the design choices a bit laughable, but the bad-guy diehard message is absolutely clear - and not laughable at all - it's awesome. This convicted murderer is being welded and screwed tight into his space armor: he will most surely never come out of this suit again. And with the huge gun he is ready to take down the enemies one by one.
So, back to my own project. I am planning to do a retake on an older project of mine: 'the Last of the Monks'. In the (original) story, a small church in a futuristic metropolis is trying to defend itself against the jungle of technology that is trying to crush them. The five monks fight off crews of bulldozers and workmen that are trying to demolish the church. In my own graduation project, I am allowed to take a (fictional) game and make an intro cinematic/trailer for it. So, I chose to make the Last of the Monks a fictional game. I will punch up the graphics, choose a different feel (less cartoony), and make it a bit more hardcore.
The first mockup-screenshot can be seen below; I edited game-footage with some photo-reference and created this shot. This is the last church, almost being crushed by the enormous metropolis around it.
I then began writing some game premises, all based on different kinds of gameplay. Many examples I had found were based on Real-Time-Strategy games, where you build an army/base against evil forces. You send out teams/squads of people and place them strategically around the battlefield. I finally came with an interesting (first?) premise for an RTS game.
‘A monk was condemned to Hell for killing the demons that attacked his church. Now that he’s in Hell he can finally kill them all.’
You play as a faction of monks that will build their sacred base inside the deepest ditches of Hell, to rebel against the Devil himself. You build squads and sanctuaries to protect your life and conquer the forces that have destroyed your church on earth.
Sounds a teeny bit too dark for me, now that I write it like this, but I am trying to take it a bit more humorous and lightly, more of a parody (of StarCraft). I made a quick storyboard for a trailer, where you see the monk being condemned to hell after having killed a demon. Little do they know, that by sending him to hell, he can get closer to his enemies... When the gates of Hell close behind his back, his hands reach for the wooden cross around his neck - which transforms into an epic gun. 'Heaven it's about time.'
Annnnd here goes! After almost four weeks of research, I've finally found my proposal version 1.0! All my examples and animations that I've researched (and want to make myself) were so-called intro or cutscenes. Games use a lot of animated (as well 2D as 3D) cutscenes, and I now start to wonder:
"What is the added value of animated (2D) cutscenes in games?"
Also, to expand the possibilities and difficulty of this task; I would love to investigate the following: games are leaning more and more towards realism.
"How can one make the 2D animation fit with the realism of the game without causing to break the style of the game?"
So there it is! The only problem I'm currently facing, is the fact that I don't have a 'game' to make an intro for. I have been asking around for some projects, and there is some interesting stuff there - although I am not sure if students are able to create the high standard of realism that I've been aiming for in my research. I'm not sure if it's okay if I create my own (fictional) game, but then there will always be an 'assumption' instead of proven fact that the style will fit according to my research.
Pretty awesome, while diving into the concept of Hyperreality, I come across the name of Umberto Eco, one of the most profound writers in essays about hyperrealism. I wonder if it's the same dude as the writer from 'The Name of the Rose' - but I guess it is.
Anyways, the concapt of Hyperrealism truly applies here; it means that parts of this 'reality' start to overtake 'our' reality. This means, that the perfect world that is created within that hyperreality (celebrities' lives, Las Vegas, games) even more 'real' feels to us than our 'normal real' lives. The world is more exciting, more beautiful, more succesful than our own. From the moment we decide to live in that hyperreality, we already forget to live from out of our own heart, and thus creating an hyperreal world for ourselves to live in. The art I have been examining shows a hyperreal world without the imperfections (and often boring things) in our real life. People do not flee in this world, they start to see it as their own reality. (i.e. we would not hope to be living in a science-fiction world, but we do when we see the images of celebrities and models in the media).
Allright, seeing that I've come across the fact that I do not fully embrace realism as my favourite thing, as all my prima artist examples use a realism that is further away from realism than I expected: I'm going to dive into SUGGESTION. So, here goes!
Where I had found an article about the realism in videogames, I found another one stating exactly the same thing. I guess more recent (3D!) videogames are unable to 'suggest' things, not sure how to explain this, but it's more like: all textures, area and surfaces are clearly defined to be rendered by the engine. This leaves more or less no room for any 'undefined' areas that can tickle the imagination. This is why I love 2D and not 3D. A brushstroke in itself can suggest a lot of things. A plane in a 3D environment does not.
As relative the term 'realism' might be, even the 'real-live-action' movies are not as real as they appear. Marlyn mentioned the assumption we viewers take on when seeing an actor. Knowing, that this man might be in his normal life a simple father who takes care of his wife and children, we still see the actor as the person he is playing. With this in mind, I scrolled across an article which searches out the 'realism' in Science-Fiction. Even on a movieset, which is often no real-life location, we viewers are asked to place ourselves into that location for now. We are already requested to suspend disbelief.
The subject in the following is how we may identify and how we should weigh the criteria for what is implausible, improbable or impossible enough to impair our suspension of disbelief. Almost every fiction, as already mentioned, strives to overstate and to put emphasis on the extraordinary. There are also TV series of all genres, not only comedy, that are deliberately made without continuity and hence in a way not to be taken too seriously. An extreme example is "South Park" where Kenny, with exceptions in more recent episodes, is killed every time.
But what is the special quality a televised fiction must have in order to appear realistic? It seems as if a drama set in our present world and time has a clear advantage in that it apparently shows people, places, things and situations that we are familiar with from our every-day life. We should easily be able to unmask it if the depiction were flawed. In this sense some critics even go as far as rejecting any kind of science fiction because, in their opinion, it shows an utopian world and, in particular, science and technology that deviates from what they think is correct. Therefore, already the basic setting of science fiction as something that does not exist in our world or time should fall under the category "impossible". They don't manage to suspend disbelief (or don't even attempt to). Moreover, I am surprised that so many laymen out there seem to have the knowledge in physics and engineering that would allow them to recognize fictional technology as unattainable along the lines of "impossible speeds and starships defying gravity". Ironically, the share of science fiction fans among real-world scientists and engineers seems to be much higher than among the "ordinary" population.
Despite my horrible cold I'll try and evaluate some of the findings I've done today. First, I came across an article from an University which had developed an automated method in which a 2D image could be transferred into a 3D environment.
This was a so-called Photo Pop-up. It had an annoying command-prompt program which I haven't been able to run 100%. Sigh. Ah well, I'll find that out later on. Secondly, I found this video about transferring 3D motion information onto a 2D skeleton which used a more image-like approach.
I liked both of the subjects a lot, and hope I am able to dive into them a bit more to use them for my own project.
Thirdly, I wanted to adress some aspects of realism that I have been using very often in my work. The subject concerns Custom Brushes. Many Photoshoppers use brushes with custom settings to apply in different situations. Often, you can use complete photographs to create textures, buildings or abstract works. I have done a seminar a while ago, about these custom brushes, and we went outside to take our own photographs and use them (instead of internet ones).
It is easy to use the photographed object 'as is'. For example, if you photographed rice and created a brush out of it, you would only use the brush when painting rice. This was something I wanted to experiment with: often structure is the key to recognizing things, so I gave them a funny assignment. They had to create a brush from photographed food, and then create a scene with that brush. I myself had done the assignment as well, and eventually created a deep-sea coral reef from a rice brush, flowing hills from wallnut-shells and a sea monster from a jar of beans.
The funny thing was, that the essence of 'realism' lay within the complex sructure of nature, and which you could adapt to your own advantage and purpose. Leaf-brushes are easily created and cost 1% of the time if you had to paint all the leaves by hand. And also, these images are often perceived as more real - the image complexity resembling a realism that 'hand painted' works do not quickly resemble.
I hope to be able to refine this area of 'abstract' designing with 'real-life' elements. I would love to be able to perfect the technique.
The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1848 - late 19th Century) In 1848 a group of English painters, poets and critics formed the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood to reform art by rejecting practices of contemporary academic British Art. They have been considered the first avant-garde movement in art. They accepted the doctrine of imitation of nature, as central purpose of art. Instead of the Raphaelesque conventions taught at the Royal Academy, their central doctrine was that artists should seek to represent the natural world. They believed that the only great art was before high renaissance, before Raphael. He was representative of the time when painters would scarify the reality of the subject to their own ideals of beauty and morality. The Pre-Raphaelite Brothers condemned this art of idealization, and promoted works based on real landscapes and models, and paid intense attention to accuracy of detail and color. They advocated as well a moral approach to art, in keeping with a long British tradition established by Hogarth. The combination of didacticism and realism characterized the first phase of the movement. The landscape compositions were painted outdoors, what was an innovative approach at the time. The interest in the Middle Ages inaugurated the second, unofficial phase of Pre-Raphaelitism. Their subject matters were from medieval tales, bible stories, classical mythology, and nature. With technique of bright colors on a white background, they achieved great depth and brilliance. However, we can see now the curve from their immature rebelliousness, through the realistic painting of detail without idealization, to works of art that are finally more surreal than real. Their work cannot be realistic with the mythological matter and medieval tales that they chose - they can only be envisioned in the mind and do not exist outside of there. So they ended up closer to some other art rebellions - Symbolists.
Jean-François Millet Rosa Bonheur Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot Charles-Francois Daubigny Pierre-Etienne-Theodore Rousseau Ignace Henri Theodore Fantin-Latour Edouard Manet Edgar Degas J. Dalou
British - PRB:
Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
John William Waterhouse
William Holman Hunt Thomas Woolner John Everett Millais William Morris Edward Burne-Jones Ford Madox Brown Arthur Hughes Henry Wallis Frank Cowper Simeon Solomon Evelyn de Morgan
German Realism:
Georg von Dillis
Wilhelm von Kobell Friedrich Wasmann Friedrich von Amerling Ferdinand Georg Waldmuller Franz Kruger Carl Blechen Adolf Menzel
American Realism:
Thomas Eakins
Winslow Homer Francis Coates Jones James Abbott McNeill Whistler Thomas Pollock Anshutz Augustus St. Gaudens - sculptor
Even though this might not be 100% appropriate, I found it quite convenient to place this article here. It is about visual perception. I came across this article while reading the blog of James Gurney, creator of many creatures from Star Wars II and III, and author of the book 'Imaginative Realism - How to paint what doesn't exist?'
The article about visual perception stated an experiment in which visitors at a counter were first subjected to person A, and when this person had to bend down to get a paper, person B would emerge and take his place. None of the visitors ever noticed the change. This reminded me vividly of the video we saw at the lecture: the 'Visual Awareness' video.
Did you notice them? I definately didn't.
Another post from Gurney Journey's blog: Face Detection. http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/12/face-detection.html In here, he uses a camera with automatic subject detection. So, when he focuses upon a face, the camera can recognize the face and switch to 'portrait' mode. However, the camera comes up with some interesting results, as the most icon face is seen as 'portrait' and a very detailed old man is not.
I found an extensive article concerning the 'realism in animation' subject. Stephen Rowley (I believe) writes out different notions of realism in animation. He even adresses 5 'types' of realism which he can discern from the medium.
- Visual Realism
- Aural Realism
- Realism of Motion
- Narrative & Character Realism
- Social Realism
The article states clearly that methods of 'true' reality are deliberately put aside, even in live-action (real?) cinema itself, to establish their goal. He treats animation as a 'fantasy-inherent' medium because of its construction, and therefore questions its possibility of representing reality. This is exactly my area of research, both in the way the article is written and what it implies: animation (and thus: fiction) can be seen as reality in different ways.
'Real' reality is often never portrayed, not even in live-action films, where dead-time or unscheduled actions are not used and can undermine the goal of the film itself.
This still leaves me a bit short on the visual realism. Within this article, visual realism is judged by comparing its resemblance to real-life photographs/objects. How does this comply to fictional designs? How can you compare a fantasy castle with its 'real-life' object?
"Hah, this is fake!" I can hear you say. Easy, because blue toadstools definately don't exist. True, I edited the picture and manually coloured the red toadstool blue. Let's head to the next example.
Is this image fake? Possibly. I edited the colours of the bracelets, but does that make them immediately fake? They still look real, are truly woven, and have bright colours just like the other one. They still resemble their 'real' counterparts.
Which one of these two images is the real one? That's right, you only know this if you know the monastery. And even then; who says there is no other monastery built with an extra floor added? These examples touch upon man-made examples. It is always possible we could've made some monastery like that. The bracelets could've been made with that colours. Only, this also applies to nature designs. We do not know ALL about nature, therefore strangely coloured birds, new plants or other features can be seen as real just because they appear to be: the birds have beaks, eyes, beautiful feathers and wings. The plants have branches and roots, have fruits or flowers and respond to the surroundings by growing around obstacles or rustle in the wind.
Then, real 'appearance' leaves us at the basic principles of art, I guess. Lighting, texture, colour and for humans, animals and creatures there is also anatomy. Within architecture there's structure, material and design. And maybe nature uses organic features and laws of nature.
A while ago I sent a mail to someone with some advice about animation. They wondered if they should use realistic (rotoscoping) animation, and even though this can be quite a handy technique, I immediately found myself thinking about exaggeration. I truly love to search for the animation's leading 'motion-arcs', and exaggerate these. In our Fist of Fame Project, I even got to exaggerate them as far as I could: over-the-top being the selling point of the game. I loved this and truly enjoyed animating these moves 200% more extreme than I normally would've done...
So, when they want to use rotoscoping techniques, their exaggeration is limited to zero. Rigid bodies don't squash, stretch or over-stretch, even though their movements sometimes appear to do so. Within high-end games, this realism is no problem: we see enough complex details to comprehend i.e. mo-cap animations. When you create smaller, often 2D games, moves tend to become undefined or unclear, and need exaggeration to clarify themselves.
Above, Call of Duty and Swords and Soldiers. Where the realistic CoD would need no exaggeration to express their meaning in atmosphere or actions, Swords and Soldiers needs colour and exaggerated actions to express their meaning.
I came across an article about Realism in Videogames that states quite a few interesting facts. Not only did it mention Scott McCloud (yay, connections!), it also touched our desire for (non)realism.
"The idea of realism in art plays an important role in the media. Scott McCloud's excellent and deeply profound book Understanding Comics outlines this philosophy. In short, our brains automatically interpret what we experience in its own terms. Seeing faces in clouds is a perfect example of this. We put ourselves into the world we experience, we want to see familiar things everywhere. And we can see a man on the moon because there's just enough information there for our brains to fill in the gaps. Three dots is all it needs, and suddenly we have a full-blown human face.
But if there were an actual carved face on the moon there would be little magic or mystery. If clouds had definite shapes, would we turn our eyes to the sky as often? The philosophical implications of this run very deep, but in terms of video games, the idea is simple: a less life-like game allows for more interpretation. More realism means less creativity on our part, less of our own personality filling in the details missing between a cartoon-ish game and reality. It's no mistake Shigeru Miyamoto wants to keep Mario a cartoon; he wants us to be able to identify with him. Who can identify with a real Italian plumber?"
And the last sentence sums it all up. Mario has been and is still played for many hours of fun, and not because he is a plumber. But even though I can find myself easily within the statement of 'having less creativity' when a game is more real; I then wondered why this doesn't always account for movies? I believe 'watching a movie' is seen as an (inter)active thing for our brain; we live along with the protagonist and try to figure out clues and plots. So when we see a 'realistic' movie, we do not feel ourselves cut off from our creativity. I enjoy them just as much if not more. I think more processes are at work when watching a movie or playing a game, which might affect the way we look at realism.
Secondly, he states in the article the principle of identification.
"As video games progress in realism, the rules become increasingly like the ones we live with from day to day. Breaking those rules is still expected, but in a much more believable way. This could change as games more convincingly mirror the outside world. And honestly, who wants a game where you pay the rent?"
Even though the last sentence is a bit simple-minded, I come across this principle quite often, and mostly in a negative way. (Maybe it's me personally, but this is how I experience this). When you have to jump upon Goombas in Mario, you don't necessarily feel that you 'kill' them. They're just obstacles that you have to jump upon before you can move on. When I play a more realistic game, for instance the latest Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2, you have to shoot people. Not only do you focus on them with your gun, you actually see them get shot in the head, get hurt and fall down dead. Gameplaywise, you can still say: 'They're just obstacles that you have to eliminate before you can move on'. True, but on the moment I focus upon that person and pull the trigger, I don't feel right about it.
Above you can see a screenshot from the Call of Duty game. This is, in fact, a very infamous level in which you shoot civilians. (You get a warning beforehand, that you can skip it if you might find it offensive). This is - deliberately of course - more complex than just shooting 'normal' rebels who are firing at you and will kill you if you do not shoot them first. No, this level is about killing civilians - deliberately - even though your character plays a spy who has to 'play along' with the criminal whom he has gotten involved with. You see people scream, running away, or drag themselves wounded out of harm's way. I know games are seen as fun, and are played 'because it is possible to do things you couldn't do in real life', I still feel the strange chill as to why people would want to shoot others in the first place... Sigh. Maybe I'm just too soft to play games...
During our meeting, the word 'uncanny valley' was also mentioned. This negative area between experiencing something 'human' (real) and something 'almost' real can be experienced as uncanny. I sought out the article on Wiki again, and this was quite extensive, actually. It had a lot of resources which I would love to investigate further. The article begins by stating possible scientific explanations as to why we feel repulsive to (especially) almost-human robots. These judgments usually take place on a subconscious level, where expectations play a role. Though, upon reading further, I came across these design choices that had to be evaluated when you wanted to create a life-like robot. These especially interested me.
1.) Design elements should match in human realism. For a robot to give a more positive impression, its degree of human realism in appearance should match its degree of human realism in behavior. If an animated character looks more human than its movement, this gives a negative impression. A robot may look uncanny when human and nonhuman elements are mixed.
2.) Appearance and behavior should match ability. In terms of performance, if a robot looks too appliance-like, people will expect little from it; if it looks too human, people will expect too much from it.
3.) Human facial proportions and photorealistic texture should only be used together. A photorealistic human texture demands human facial proportions, or the computer generated character can fall into the uncanny valley. Abnormal facial proportions, including those typically used by artists to enhance attractiveness (e.g., larger eyes), can look eerie with a photorealistic human texture. Avoiding a photorealistic texture can permit more leeway.
So, the first statement applied directly to the Guild Wars' Intro. The graphics were expectantly real. So if the movement falls behind, we experience a negative feeling. To close this interesting topic off, I found this picture on the internet, stating exactly what the 'uncanny valley' is.
Right before I started this research I saw some posters in our Game Lab at school from Game Art students who had to place their artwork and the work of their idol(artists) inside a big triangle. It took me a while to figure out the basic meaning of this triangle, but then I finally found this small poster who had copied its source: 'Scott McCloud's Big Triangle'. In McCloud's book 'Understanding Comics' he explains the visual triangle in which all visual works can be placed. The three 'points' of the triangle are defined as follows:
"Reality", "The Picture Plane" and "Meaning"
Reality stands for resemblance to our present and visible reality. The Picture Plane divides a recognizable photograph from a resemblance towards a more abstract collection of colours and shapes. Meaning hovers from a picture to a concrete word: an understanding.
Firstly I wonder how more complex designs relate themselves to this triangle. These are created for characters, but I wonder how it would relate for an environment. Secondly, I wonder how fiction (in comparison with this 'reality') places itself in this triangle, or if it should be placed differently.
Last Wednesday, we had a meeting concerning our EMMA Field Research. There, we had to state our field of research. Seeing that I do not yet know what field I am gonna jump into, you had to state your interests and findings. (See other posts) So, I stepped into that meeting quite blankly, no clear view on my possible subject(s). When we discussed things, however, (I skipped TF2), the statement was quickly made that my interests were all circling around realism. This quickly became apparent when we looked at two small movies I had seen. One was the Guild Wars 2 intro, and the other was 'The Tale of How'.
When I stated my finding that the Guild Wars 2 intro was not so good; I gave the explanation I had found a year earlier: the image would've been too complex to animate properly. But then, they gave the example of 'The Tale of How'. How come, that this animation was 'good'? It was definately a complex image, no doubt! And even a hundred times more intricately animated as well... We wondered at that, and then Sandra came to the conclusion that it might had everything to do with 'realism'. The 'Tale of How' all moved and animated beautifully - yet absolutely not realistic. The figures had weight, allright, and a proper anatomy, but their representation was flat, and the environment continually stirred with unseen winds that moved everything that could move. The movement on screen was a magic itself. The Guild Wars intro, however, was presented in a world more tangible and recognizable than How's. We could see and recognize mountains, monsters with human elements, flowing water (and no moving curls like How's), and a more filmic approach. The animation, however, was too cropped up - too minimal to be seen as real in comparison to the very real graphics. All my examples, my interests and even (I realized later) my own animations evolved around realism! So - that would be it then!
And yeah, the first thing I did was typing in 'Realism' in Google. And, alas, I ended up at the Wikipedia page 'Realism (Visual Arts)'. I scanned through the article, which was not all too inspiring, except when I read the the following sentence:
"In the broadest sense, realism in a work of art exists wherever something has been well observed and accurately depicted, even if the work as a whole does not strictly conform to the conditions of realism."
If a work does not strictly conforms itself to these 'conditions', can it still be called realism, then? What are these conditions? I scanned through the internet some more, until I came across an article from Conceptart.org, which was discussing methods of different art types/schools. 'Construction' vs. 'Realism'. Even though many different views and opinions were expressed in the article, the basis would evolve around this: should one learn to 'observe' to purely copy shape and form into the most perfect sense - or should one learn how to construct the (i.e.) anatomy, be taught the inner workings of things so that one can construct them easier/with no reference? The most interesting question arose somewhere halfway across the page: concept artists sometimes had to draw from their imagination for their projects. Objects do not always visibly or tangibly exist to draw them from sight. This posed the following question to me: 'Can it still be realism if one is drawing from imagination?' So, can it still be called 'realism' even though subject matter is fictional?
This I discussion was extremely interesting, (and I haven't even read 10% of it all) where definitions like artistical expression, object reality and imaginative (from memory) design were laid down for discussion. I have no clear opinion about this, myself, but I would love to know more about this 'realism', and then especially towards fiction: can fiction be called real? This sounds a bit dangerous to me, though, as I mentioned the escapism before, I tend to have periods in which I want fiction to be real. Maybe it's time for me to figure out how real fiction really is...
When seeing Team Fortress 2, I somehow see them perfectly fit for a 'Saturday Morning Cartoon'... I would just love to see the animations (like 'Meet the Spy') and the characters star in their own show! Only, handdrawn of course. Sounds like something I ought to try out...
Anyways, to give an example of the phenomenon: Happy Harry Toons made an intro for the 'Saturday Morning Watchmen' cartoon. Absolutely hilarious, you can just feel the series come alive!
Ah well, I will just post things all out - you never know when you might need it. I remember a statement made within one of our lectures, stating: 'subject matter often evolves around personal obsession'. Now, I might be too obsessed about some subjects... (*cough* Devil May Cry anyone? *cough*) but one of which I am still craving to research more thoroughly: Team Fortress 2.
Team Fortress is all about 2 opposing teams (RED vs BLU) trying to steal each others secret documents, or controlling each other's territory. Despite their almost identical fundamentals, both teams have very different visual cues. The RED team uses a more wooden, (redneck) architecture, where BLU uses octagonal (clean) factory elements. These cues are bleeding throughout every facet of the game, especially the colouring. And this is where their colour fundamentals hop in. Like Marthe Jonkers' paper about colour usage in games, Team Fortress uses pictorial and psychological colour effects to their advantage.
For example, one's eye is often drawn towards areas with highest contrast and complexity. Therefore they designed their characters deliberately to suit gameplay needs. Besides the obvious visual cue: friend or enemy? (Blue or red?), they placed the area of highest contrast at chest level. This way, you could immediately see what weapon your enemy is carrying. Secondly, the 9 classes in the game were designed in such a way, that even without lighting (silhouettes) you would be able to identify them.
And finally, their definition and rendering of the meaning 'character' in games is truly awesome. They each give the character a distinct silhouette, a stereotypical element (often based upon a country's prejudices), and extremely well done animations. One of the creators at Valve stated once that, the word 'classes' was being more and more replaced by the term 'character'. And if a character truly has blended in with his gameplay-wise self, then I think you have struck gold. And lastly, the voice acting deserves to be mentioned, as I often find the various sentences (which so adequately describe the character's personality) hilarious at times.
To further expand my first post about Concept Art, I would like to talk about the term I have been using for myself to describe this phenomenon: Concept Art Animation. In my second year, I already researched this subject quite a lot. It came from a more simple point of view: I wanted to translate the designs I love the most into motion. I made a few experiments with this, and quickly came to the conclusion that drawing individual frames would greatly distort the viewing experience. The painted frames would often differ too much to provide any visual clue about what was happening on screen. So, I translated this into an easier concept: multiplane images. All the images I loved (usually movie and game concept art) all had enormous depth and atmospheric perspective. So, I began translating known concept art into multiplane animations: pans. To experiment a bit with the possibilities, I also made a few zooms, but they were a bit harder to execute.
What I found was quite beautiful! I found that the translation of 2D artwork into a moving image enhaced the image's initial feel of depth and immersion. This was due partially to the fact that digital images make use of transparency more often and more easy than the traditional glass panes. This transparency fades the clear defined layers of perspective, and blends them into an almost single view. Secondly, the addition of 'time' to a still frame really gives the work a heart. So when I finished my paper about that subject, I left it at that. How horribly shocked I was when I found out that games started to use this method with their own concept art! They used it in cinematic scenes, where their art was even animated! It hardly took time to find out their trick: After Effects' Puppet Tool. A classmate of mine uses it often, and sometimes with surprising results. I used it for a couple experiments in my group project, and was awed by the possibilities. (I think I even talked Ronimo into using this..! Hah!;) Now, more and more games try to use their enormous source of (unused) concept art, and translate it into fast and useable animations to enhance their product. And, in my opinion, with great success. The liveliness of the images and the graphic quality truly marvel from your screen.
Above, the intro trailer from the game Anno 1404 (truly beautiful graphics, by the way, and I believe the art is even made by the company from an ex-HKU-student (Floris Didden)). And below the intro from Guild Wars 2. Where Anno would not need more elaborate animation, the Guild Wars' animation is at times truly poor. Sigh. Game industry still has a lot to learn...
Currently I feel a bit down these days - and often when this happens, I find myself longing for escape. I often find this in movies (or animations) where you can dream away into their worlds without a care. This escapism, as I would probably describe it, is something that has intrigued me. More personal than as of why people would want to escape from this world (I can think of enough reasons why). What intrigues me most is the flight into a fictional world. How come we truly can dream away in a world filled with fantasy and non-existent creatures? If we would see an immense castle or wizard's tower - how do we decide to believe in its existence? So: how come that we define the visuals in those world as 'real'? When is a fictional design believable? Especially the visual part is what interests me - the translation from visual fiction (often also impossibility) to (human) belief.
I have an example which I want to state here. It is, cliche but still true, the Lord of the Rings. I truly dreamt away at the movies. Of course I did not believe that Middle Earth existed, or that any of such place could be reached in our current world. It was the immense depth with which this new world was presented to me, that made me believe and especially: understand.
Above you see two pictures of the same statue presented in the third and final movie the Return of the King. There, Sam and Frodo pass a large statue of once a human king, whose head has cruelly been chopped off and replaced by a crude version of the head of Sauron. This visual cue, horribly over-dramatized, speaks volumes. Not only about the (political) message, but also the visual signatures of the cultures involved. It is a rough yet carefully detailed statue, presenting a stately king and radiating the familiar human authority. The eye, crudely made from scrap material shows with what methods these creatures rise to power. These visual cues all contribute to world called the Lord of the Rings.
I find it intriguing to find hundreds upon hundreds of these small cues, each telling a story of their own and thus all telling the story of the world they represent. I love searching out visual cues for design choices that enhance the world they are placed in - rather than leaving visual design purely as visual entertainment.
So, what would be the first term that'd come to mind when talking about my interests? Right: Concept Art. It is a wide and varying term, used throughout many different visual projects.
Below you can see some random examples from my image folder, each showing different designs.
The topmost is from the latest 3D Disney movie Scrooge (A Christmas' Carol), then a picture from the game Guild Wars, another Disney design from Sleeping Beauty and finally some concept sketches from Disney's Mulan. (Truly, I've chosen too many Disney movies...) These images all represent work made in the conceptual phase, where the first visuals are made to finally converge into a single (coherent) style. However, within these hundreds upon hundreds of sketches, I often find a few outstanding ones that capture all essence of the movie/game in a single frame! And very very often, the style that is chosen for that single frame, often differs greatly from the style that will become the 'final style' of the project! One of the most striking examples is the Pixar movie Ratatouille.
Above you can see the concept art that has been made. Very lively, scribbly, but an extremely direct visual style. Below, you can see a render from the final movie. There is nothing scribbly! I find the often 'clean' end results very disappointing. I have discussed this subject with quite a few people, and even though I haven't done extensive research as of yet, many came to the conclusion that the concept art would've been undoable to translate into a moving image. (Which would also communicatie to a large audience, and keep their attention for 90 mins). This is definately a possibility. However: Pixar went a step further with their concept art to prove that their translation into a moving image would be no problem at all. The end credits. My jaw just dropped when seeing these immensely characteristic mice, which personalities did not translate on the 'clean renderings' as good as these cute little animations. These credits were a joy in itself, showing that the very essence, the very core of the ideas that have been (especially) present in the very first sketches - could be brought to live!
In my personal view, Concept Art is regarded as a blueprint for the final product. If there are such capturing and different (!) sketches in the beginning, what is the influence of them on the final product? So what does Concept Art say about the final product? Seeing that I also enjoy the ever-expanding field of videogames, I can ask the very same question here as well. However - both animation and videogames' concept art need to undergo a certain translation before it can be used in the final product. It is this change, and this translation that I am currently interested in. Both the translation from idea to concept - or from concept to final product.
