{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Art and Stuff
7/5/2013 10:33:37 AM
3
Hypothetical Question for artists out there...
Would you rather have a piece that you did on the cover of a game but this piece is done by you that is less talented OR have a piece that is sort of obscure but have yourself be ten times as talented?
I can't really get the wording right because I'm brain dead half asleep right now but hopefully you get my meaning.
Less good than you are right now piece on game,magazine etc. cover everywhere or extremely good better than you are now piece on something more obscure.
-
I'd definitely want to be the more talented individual. When I draw, I do it so that when it's done, I can look at my paper and say, "Holy shit, I drew this. I've got something I can truly say I'm good at."
-
To be honest I think I'd want to be making commercially viable art sooner, so I'd choose something "less good" in something big that pays well. The "extremely good" choice would be very tempting, but its not much use to me if I have no way of living off it, and that difference in skill would be made up in time anyhow.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Durandal: 7/5/2013 10:49:20 AMSo essentially what you're saying is would we rather have more talent or reach a wider audience? I'd have to go with the obscure/more talent option. If you're good, then you will naturally start reaching bigger audiences, and you'll get more work. Plus, normally people don't look up artists unless they're interested in art anyway, so doing a cover can nothing to most people. You'd have better chances of reaching art directors by publishing work in Spectrum or Expose, which only the best get into.
