Will there ever be a keyboard and computer [that will allow someone to] hit "return" and instantaneously brand a network or commercial?
Upon reading the "Your Shot" article about the future of broadcast design (SHOOT, 5/2, p. 4), I was struck by the almost blind, utopian belief in the idea that because 3-D technology and hardware are becoming cheaper, they will liberate and unleash the true potential of broadcast design. If this were true, the world would be a better place for not just broadcast design, but 3-D design as a whole. As a motion designer, trained architect and an academic, I have heard this argument many times. My experience says otherwise.
While it is true that technology has become more accessible to the masses, this does not always translate into more sophisticated design. I have taught 3-D design and animation for the last 10 years at many colleges in New York. What I find in the normal experience of a first-time 3-D student is that they are enamored—almost blindly—with the technology. I call this the "wow" factor.
Few students learn to see beyond their technical achievements. Most advanced 3-D software programs are difficult to learn, and extremely rare to master. The majority of students are so concerned with the understanding of the tools that they lose perspective of what an idea can bring to the subject matter. They value technique over creative self-critique. Sadly, the idea and intention invariably get lost in the process. A successful project is ultimately the proper balance between the idea, technique and context. This concept is what a good teacher can bring to the student.
Just because one can make anything happen in a 3-D environment, should one always attempt the impossible? [Perhaps] restraint is sometimes the better route. As a broadcast design house that also specializes in 3-D, we are inundated with reels from potential artists seeking employment. The vast majority of what we receive, after viewing, goes straight to the trash. It is not for lack of energy, nor enthusiasm, nor technical aptitude; it is because the reel usually lacks the breadth of experience and the knowledge to discern good design from bad design.
If you are attempting to light a CG scene, it is important to understand the fundamentals of stage lighting. Just because someone uses hundreds of lights, it does not make it better. If one has an understanding of how to use key lights, fills and edge lights, one can properly light a scene with as little as three or four lights, and in arguably less time. If you know how to animate in 3-D, does that mean you understand how to brand a network or commercial? I would say no. Just because you can model a building in 3-D, doesn’t mean you’re an architect.
Broadcast design is a field in which many divergent arts converge. The more you know, the more you realize how much more you have to learn, especially when it comes to motion design. Technology can facilitate this, but in the end, the human element prevails.
In other words, no matter how fast processors get, or how technologically savvy 3-D software becomes, in the end it is always what the end-user and team can bring to the table. We are quite conscious of this in ourselves and in our work. The software and computers that a shop uses is rarely the deciding factor in why a client chooses to go with a specific shop. It is almost always because that design shop has a great reel.
We do get the usual client responses during the bidding process—they know a kid right out of school in his parents’ garage who can do the job for a quarter of what we want to charge. As far as I am concerned—great, go with the young kid and that new computer if you feel he or she can accomplish what we can do with our staff, knowledge, experience and track record. These are the intangibles that I feel make a broadcast design shop stand apart from the rest.
So, if one day there is a keyboard and computer [that will allow someone to] hit "return" and instantaneously brand a network or commercial, you will not find us using it!
