Orionblamblam said:
I suspect a lot of it is due to "ease." Back then, to make a decent painting of a concept, you had to make a decent model of it, then select the angle, lighting, etc. and then paint it. Today, to make a decent CG rendering, you still need to make a model of the concept (albeit in the computer, rather than carving it out of wood), then select angle, lighting, etc.... then hit the "rendwer" button. Render from a hundred different angles/lighting conditions by lunchtime. But with the painting, each painting was a definite effort over several man days. That which you have to work harder at, you tend to take greater care about.
I had thought about replying (to ozmosis) simply 'Good takes time while good enough is quicker.'
I'm in agreement with you Scott, but I'd like to add that there was the good versus good enough option back in the good old days. A 'finished' painting by R. G. Smith, Keith Ferris, Nixon Galloway or Robert McCall would be a work of fine art. Then you'd have works done in a more illustrative style. I'm not sure about R. G. Smith, but I know that Ferris, Galloway and McCall did work in the quicker (and cheaper) illustrative styles at various points in their careers. (Keith is still with us but as far as I know he does 'finished' work now.) In the hospitality suite at one of the Artist's Forums Keith and Nixon talked about the 'Two-Color' - Black/White/Red or Black/White/Blue - work they did in their younger days. They commented that they both had worked on the Sperry account. I asked them which one had done the Dyna Soar art and Nixon said he had.
Another difference between good and good enough could be the medium used, though I think the artist's style or ability played a bigger part. It is easy to consider oil paintings 'good' and gouache paintings 'good enough' but in the hands of the right artist, a gouache painting could look just as 'finished' as an oil painting. And, in my opinion, even oil paintings can be made to look 'good enough.' The Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum holds a number of paintings done for McDonnell and McDonnell Douglas and the R. G. Smith paintings stand out as more finished when compared to the other works.
Where the work was to be used also played a part in the good versus good enough decision. For example, High profile advertising use versus illustrations for a report. With an experienced artist, gouache paintings can be knocked out very quickly and those illustrations would look fine in the update report.
The comment about using models is dead on. I've had many "Oh yes!" moments while looking through the threads here and seeing model shots which match up with illustrations I've seen of those projects. Keith Ferris, on the other hand, works with a descriptive geometry process which allows him to develop the viewing angle from a three-view drawing. Still, as it is a time consuming process, he does many drawings and studies to be sure of his choice of viewing angle before plotting it.
To bring this back to the question of CGI Renders versus 'Art,' I'd like to point out that CGI is still a relatively young medium. Go into your local bookstore and just browse the covers - especially the science fiction covers - then try to imagine those artists working for the aerospace industry. The day will come when they or their followers will be.