- This topic has 12 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The term “Flame operator” has always bothered me. “Flame artist” is much more appropriate. Flame operator makes it sound as if it’s merely a case of pushing some buttons to make things happen, like riding an elevator or driving a pickup truck. Anyone can push buttons, but only those with skill and talent can make something truly special.
Pay my rate, you can call me monkeyboy. Its not what other people title you, but how you see yourself.
I think that both “titles” are equally valid. I have worked with many different teams over the years and have come across, and worked with, both Flame “Artists” and Flame “Operators” and, in my opinion, it is not the title that changes – more the mindset.
As an example a Flame “Operator” will be given a chroma screen and pull a perfect key but the end product, the finished shot, may not be compositionally strong. The approach is a technical one with a concise understanding of the process involved but, perhaps a weaker eye of the composition than the “Artist”. An “Operator” may rely heavily on the technical process to get them through the comp – rather than placing their priorities on aesthetics. It is more of a “pushing some buttons” approach, to use your analogy.
A Flame “Artist” relies heavily on Flame as a tool to aid in aesthetic achievement. Less concerned about the technicalities of the process the tool-sets are used with an understanding of the aesthetic process rather than a technical one.
Before I open a can of worms I would like to heavily stress that I do not believe that we all slot neatly into one of these titles that the industry has bestowed upon us. I have worked with some extraordinarily technical artists who lean equally on both the technical and artistic strengths of Flame. However, I do believe that you can teach someone to become an “Operator” of Flame but you cannot teach them to become the “Artist”. This is an achievement that is a result of a passion of the job, a willingness to experiment as well as an unteachable talent and eye for composition.
I couldn’t agree more that a title doesn’t change the person doing the job nor does it change the way that you do it. It just doesn’t matter if you love what you do.
@alatteri 25206 wrote:
Pay my rate, you can call me monkeyboy. Its not what other people title you, but how you see yourself.
nicely said!
I go between both terms. I tend to refer to myself professionally as a “Flame Artist” and personally as a “Flame Op” which has more to do with how I view the term “Artist” than any indication of my (or others’) creative potential.
I realize it’s industry standard to refer to anyone remotely competent with a given software as “Artist”, but I have a hard time with the idea that what we all do for a living is even remotely similar to what Picasso, Michelangelo or Klimt was up to.
@andy_dill 28113 wrote:
but I have a hard time with the idea that what we all do for a living is even remotely similar to what Picasso, Michelangelo or Klimt was up to.
You mean that doing a pack shot on a box of laundry detergent is not art!?
🙂
— X
If you doing like artist, people will call u artist.
@Xavier 28128 wrote:
You mean that doing a pack shot on a box of laundry detergent is not art!?
🙂
— X
Haha. Maybe we are all the eventual vision that Marcel Duchamp had when he was thinking about ready-mades. I suppose in that context it’d be fitting.
do you do work for third party clients, on their projects, in a commercial endeavor (ie for money) on commercial tools that you didn’t build yourself ?
wake up sweatheart you’re no artist !
@aneks 28147 wrote:
do you do work for third party clients, on their projects, in a commercial endeavor (ie for money) on commercial tools that you didn’t build yourself ?
wake up sweatheart you’re no artist !
My opinion, we are more closer to “artisans” than “artists”.
totally, I think people have come to de-value the role of a skilled artisan. That is what I always tell juniors and people looking to get in. At best, you are a skilled craftsperson in the film industry (or if you do commercials then….. meh)
Be proud of that.
I don’t understand the level of insecurity that drives threads like this. It’s like calling the person who makes your lunch at Subway a “Sandwich Artist” …. which they do !
hi
what i think is that in our early stages when we have just started working on flame or smoke then we are called operator as our studio doesnt expect skilled jobs from us
like when i was a trainee on smoke i had to do sound slap n v v basic work of changing astons
but as my command on smoke/flame started speeding and as i became more n more fluent on it then i exxperimented a lot………..
read other artist setups everyday…
and then i was able to do qyality comps n edits
n then i started getting good indipendent jobs n then i EVOLVED GRADUALLY FROM AN OPERATOR TO AN ARTIST…..
so its just a matter of time……..
but we all must go thru it….
cheersIn a weird way the word “operator” carries more weight than “artist”. Anyone who is convinced of their own creativity can self apply the term “artist”, but “operator” indicates an actual skill.
But at the end of the day, the label’s moot. People either like you and your work or they don’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.