How much of your art is "visual noise?" - And opinions on random visual cues

Join 500,000+ artists on ConceptArt.Org.

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cleveland, TN
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts

    How much of your art is "visual noise?" - And opinions on random visual cues

    Recently while watching a tutorial video, I heard the creator talk about what he called "visual noise," or random little details meant to add visual interest without necessarily adding function to the design. If I've learned one thing from observing the real world (and absorbing ideas from art) it's that form follows function, and it's a little bit disappointing to look at models and concepts in games I play and find myself wondering exactly how much of the detail I see actually matters in the workings of the world.

    When I was younger I'd be amazed at how games could present an entire world for me to experience, and my mind would reel at how many countless hours they must have spent thinking about how to build each tiny part of it from the ground up. But, if it's all for a visual or emotional hook it loses meaning in my opinion. Are we looking to actually create something here, or just trying to sell the most interesting concept and finish the job? How much of it is emotion and how much is function, i.e. how much of it would really matter if the object actually existed? If someone inside of our fictional world was trying to sell the object to consumers, would those random visual cues be important to potential buyers? Would it come off as silly looking?

    Another, perhaps more important question, is: Do designs created with meaningless doodads and shapes, which only try to look cool for the project, fare better than those based first upon function?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SE London, UK
    Posts
    529
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 147 Times in 123 Posts
    From the viewers perspective, something not having a function and not noticing something's function is the same thing.

    You don't need to know something's function to accept it as part of an environment. In fact, you're more likley to be convinced by the functionless noise, because it's that unoticed stuff that makes the real world real.



    One, somewhat related issue, that comes to my mind is how animators over animate people. It really irritates me, because it looks so unconvincing. Technology clearly isn't at that stage yet where it can simulate all the tiny movements humans make and they stick out like a sore thumb... Anyone know what I mean?

    Sketchbook | Art Blog | Portfolio

    True progress means matching the world to the vision in our heads.
    But we always change the vision instead.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ottawa, ontario
    Posts
    1,223
    Thanks
    2,692
    Thanked 557 Times in 350 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nateman742 View Post
    When I was younger I'd be amazed at how games could present an entire world for me to experience, and my mind would reel at how many countless hours they must have spent thinking about how to build each tiny part of it from the ground up. But, if it's all for a visual or emotional hook it loses meaning in my opinion. Are we looking to actually create something here, or just trying to sell the most interesting concept and finish the job?

    sorry to disapoint you O_O

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cleveland, TN
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HAJiME View Post
    From the viewers perspective, something not having a function and not noticing something's function is the same thing.

    You don't need to know something's function to accept it as part of an environment. In fact, you're more likley to be convinced by the functionless noise, because it's that unoticed stuff that makes the real world real.
    I can see that. The art's function is to be convincing, and if it looks accurate, it is. Makes sense. It still bugs me that oftentimes things which seem logical at first glance fall apart under scrutiny, like extra bells and whistles on an armored car or erroneous buttresses on a futuristic skyscraper.

    Quote Originally Posted by hunchback View Post
    sorry to disapoint you O_O
    Go think about what you've done, mister, and don't come back until you've learned your lesson.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    Jewelry is pretty. People like art to be pretty.

    Nateman, I've been where you've been, (although about art, not video games.) The modernists were zealously anti-ornament to the point of making their buildings inhuman.

    You should look into Frank Lloyd Wright's theory of intrinsic ornament, which is similar to the approach most of the great illustrators have taken, which is that the natural graphic qualities of all materials and their functional arrangement, provided they are well drawn, will supply all the ornament needed to entertain the eye, without adding anything superfluous. This actually goes back as far as artistotle's poetics.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  8. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cleveland, TN
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts
    Thanks for the recommendation, kev. Sounds like an interesting read.

    Been thinking, and I often draw little details that do have a function, though they are neither described to the viewer nor referenced from actual sources to get an immediately recognizable appearance. Those could be seen as meaningless noise, perhaps, and without any explanation, I guess they pretty much are. I'll keep that in mind the next time I look at something and think, "Those details don't really fit there."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,581 Times in 1,786 Posts
    One thing often skipped over is the fact that most "people" will attempt to decorate or adapt existing environments and devices to make them their own. This is often ignored by artists prepping commercial products like games, etc., even when the level of detail allows it. Anyone who has ever seen a Japanese school girl's cell phone knows what I'm talking about...I find it amazing they can even use the damn things with all the danglies, sequins, toys and "jewelry" hanging off them.

    I would find it quite sensible/normal for an army of mechs/fantasy warriors/random-crowd-types to have individualizing graffiti, feathers, bones, tinker toys and rick rack hanging off their "issued" equipment. It occurs in real life/battle conditions, so why not in fantasy worlds? Personalizing ornament is what makes "us" "us."

    Beyond that, overly ornate or counter-productive add-ons that compromise efficiency would be not only unnecessary but stupid, for obvious reasons.

    Kev's suggestion on Wright is a good one, but keep in mind that the man's a bit of a "personal environment" control freak, so he shouldn't be your only reference.

    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,199 Times in 1,055 Posts
    What the kittycat says, yes...

    Also, shouldn't it depend on WHAT you're designing? If it's some ornate Lovecraftian demonic opium-dream city, them slathering it with useless ornament would be TOTALLY appropriate. On the other hand, if it's a government-issued factory-built tank, it'd probably be best to keep it plausibly functional. On the OTHER hand, if it's a rogue tank piloted by Mad Max-style rebels, it'll probably have extra useless junk on it purely to make it look badass.

    And so forth...

    Granted, sometimes you have to make up something that looks plausibly functional without having the slightest idea how it actually functions... I mean, how exactly does a time machine work? (And if you know, and can build one, can I have one?)

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    4,834
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,567 Times in 753 Posts
    In architecture when building has more details than it is necessary, it is often the case that they were used to hide the previously made design mistakes. For example bad proportions of facade are picked and the building looks too heavy. Instead of fixing the proportion architect goes for adding some stuff that makes it slightly more bearable. Something like this is usually sign of weak design skills. It is actually harder to make building visually pleasing just for it's true function and nature.

    Of course concept art is much more daring but I don't think that's always a bad thing. Everything depends on a project and what you're designing.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North (Canada)
    Posts
    1,180
    Thanks
    382
    Thanked 416 Times in 201 Posts
    I'm sorry for not posting anything of value but....

    THIS

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    MY WEBSITE: PaintedSky.ca
    MY SKETCHBOOK: Ook's Book - Karyl Craves Your Approval
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KarylGilbertson For This Useful Post:


  15. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,199 Times in 1,055 Posts
    THAT!

    Quote Originally Posted by Farvus View Post
    In architecture when building has more details than it is necessary, it is often the case that they were used to hide the previously made design mistakes.
    Really? Aren't extraneous details more often about making a statement?

    I mean, take your typical cathedral, do you really NEED all that just to house some priests and hold masses? No, the whole point of the thing is to look impressive. It has to say, "House of God, here! Be in awe!"

    Ditto with most palaces, mansions, fancy townhouses, etc. The ornament is usually there to say either "I HAVE MONEY AND POWER" or "This is an IMPORTANT building!" or something along those lines...

    It's like fashion. If people wore clothes purely for functionality, we'd all be wearing those Chinese Mao uniforms or something...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    4,834
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,567 Times in 753 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    It has to say, "House of God, here! Be in awe!"
    I'm talking about using too much detail as a sign of design mistake. When someone shoots for something simple and ends up with completely different result. It's not like using ornament automatically make the design bad. If you use it consciously, want to make a statement about detail or it's important necessary part of project then there's nothing wrong in using it.

    As for the "I have money and power". There can be ornaments but you can also go other path and show that by using well put together high quality materials.

    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere
    If people wore clothes purely for functionality, we'd all be wearing those Chinese Mao uniforms or something...
    Well. Architecture is far, far away past that period. Modernism ended maybe fifty years ago .

    Last edited by Farvus; August 5th, 2010 at 03:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,134
    Thanks
    8,227
    Thanked 5,581 Times in 1,786 Posts
    KarylG', why does that kids sneaker have tires?

    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North (Canada)
    Posts
    1,180
    Thanks
    382
    Thanked 416 Times in 201 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilaekae View Post
    KarylG', why does that kids sneaker have tires?
    You ain't know? All them kids is doin it that way these days

    MY WEBSITE: PaintedSky.ca
    MY SKETCHBOOK: Ook's Book - Karyl Craves Your Approval
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to KarylGilbertson For This Useful Post:


  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,527
    Thanks
    6,808
    Thanked 348 Times in 275 Posts

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by KarylGilbertson View Post
    I'm sorry for not posting anything of value but....
    THIS
    Someone pls teach me how to render this in tone using pencil.
    If I can make an accurate render of this sort of texture etc., then rendering rocks, trees, grasses, bushes etc. would be jokes to me.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,700
    Thanks
    2,671
    Thanked 5,926 Times in 2,380 Posts
    QUOTE=Xeon_OND;2827156]Someone pls teach me how to render this in tone using pencil.
    If I can make an accurate render of this sort of texture etc., then rendering rocks, trees, grasses, bushes etc. would be jokes to me. [/QUOTE]

    The problem with rendering this in tone only is it is a color picture. By that I mean most of its charm and interest is derived through all of the colors on the truck. Some Pictures are color pictures some are tone pictures even, though they are in color.
    The way you could make it a tone picture is focus on the textural qualities of the truck by using pattern in place of color to give the busy feel of the color. Like this Harry Clarke pen and ink Drawing

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    leeds, england
    Posts
    649
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 173 Times in 106 Posts
    Oh wow ive never seen hands drawn like that, sweeet

    dan's sketchbook


    The ssg with no name.. for now
    NRX - Frasermct - Walid D - The wannabe Dr, Mr Phil - Dilated
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    or random little details meant to add visual interest without necessarily adding function to the design.
    on the contrary, I think those visual noise for the sake of aesthetics does add to the function of the design. (unless, like ilaekae says, they're counter productive). They give it character.






    If you put that same noise in places like these however, where the whole point is to strip everything down to their function, I think it might be counter-productive





    so it depends on what the goal may be

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to nauvice For This Useful Post:


  25. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,074
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,157 Times in 1,705 Posts
    I should point out that little fun details demonstrate the joy the artist is taking in the work, and this joy will be transmitted to the viewer... provided the composition is a good one and the joy of detail doesn't causes a claustrophobic feeling... like some outsider art has that leaden obsessive compulsive feel to it that disturbs rather than enlivens the piece.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  27. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    For solid drawings i would look into book from Gottfried bammes - Der Nackte Mensch.

    There's no english version of this but the drawings are pretty awesome.

    To memorize all the names and where each muscle attach I would get some medical book for that tho.

    Does anyone know some great medical book that concentrate only to the Muscles and bones?

    Nervous system and all the internal organs and their functions isnt really needed.

    Good knowledge of anatomy is a plus for example character modeling for some more realistic animation.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •