Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duder

Taking it a bit too far?

Recommended Posts

The point was made that by deconstructing popular motion gfx by other studios, he drums up more traffic then he would by doing original work.

 

I'm not sure I share that view - unless I scour motionographer or similar sites, I rarely ever even know what's out there in the big wide world of fancy commercials. It may help if you are an US resident and suddenly get the hots for rehashing what you saw last night, but I doubt it would attract ignorant offshore fools like myself... And the antithesis is very much there with VideoCopilot: It has taken on a life of its own with "original" content. I tend to think GSG could do that, too, at this point and isn't dependent on copying/ reverse-engineering existing stuff. That still remains my main itch with the whole matter - Nick could do just as well with original stuff and would still have enough loyal followers.

 

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size][/color][/size][/font][/color]

 

 

All this backhanded BS slap and tickle... And the bit about being in the wrong business to be making money - shit what planet are you living on?

 

If GSG wants to offer up free tutorials on opening stuck jars of mayonaise to pump traffic to and sales for his products then good for him! Thats how a website works - and that's how you make money in your sleep.

 

Perhaps some of you need to concentrate on billing heavy instead of pontificating artistic integrity while bedroom mographing and stirring shit up on the internet. And the whole "I'm keeping it real by being a dick" line is played out - especially on Mograph.net.

 

#$#$@#@!$#@$@#

Edited by pix3l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it to pm guys, sheesh.

 

 

Hey, thanks for using a larger font to reply to my post. At least it wasn't all in caps.

 

You can bill heavy once you're Justin Harder.

 

And don't question my character. Fuck you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a cool ATT endtag the other day. It was a drop that dripped over a white sphere, like ripples. That one was fun. Was a original take on the logo. Probably already been shelved ... Oh well.

 

Oh here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ShareATT#p/c/DA62A4433DE1DD03/0/9xAJmdhQzJ4

 

 

And now ATT is going to have to incorporate T-Mobile in their logo too. You know T-Mobile owns magenta!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's more childish is you trying to call me out because I don't have a link to my portfolio. If I wanted feedback, I wouldn't ask you. Seen your work :)

 

 

Pix,

 

Who's offering feedback?

 

You're calling me childish while insulting the quality of my work. For all I know, you're the best designer in the world - but on this forum, you're acting like someone who no one I know would ever want to work with.

 

As far as the link to your work is concerned, I was simply agreeing with Vozz who pointed out that you have been mocking people while hiding behind an avatar and a link-title that's off-putting, simple as that.

 

I might sound like a dick sometimes, but I can't help it. I'd like to think that I'm a fairly nice guy, but have the integrity to stay honest. Why sugarcoat things when there is no reason to do so? We're all here to learn and grow and create things that haven't been tested yet. If you ever stop learning, then you shouldn't be in this industry. Go be a lawyer.

 

I'm sure you have integrity, and I agree, there's no reason to sugarcoat things. That doesn't mean you need to do the opposite. You certainly *can* help it.

 

You started a thread with a fairly interesting question, but changed the tone by implying that if we disagree, we aren't "real designers." You aren't keeping it real by sounding like a dick. You're just coming off as nasty.

 

Why not get back to the topic you started? Is Nick taking it too far by breaking down a logo for a tutorial? Not at all.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pix,

 

Who's offering feedback?

 

You're calling me childish while insulting the quality of my work. For all I know, you're the best designer in the world - but on this forum, you're acting like someone who no one I know would ever want to work with.

 

As far as the link to your work is concerned, I was simply agreeing with Vozz who pointed out that you have been mocking people while hiding behind an avatar and a link-title that's off-putting, simple as that.

 

 

 

I'm sure you have integrity, and I agree, there's no reason to sugarcoat things. That doesn't mean you need to do the opposite. You certainly *can* help it.

 

You started a thread with a fairly interesting question, but changed the tone by implying that if we disagree, we aren't "real designers." You aren't keeping it real by sounding like a dick. You're just coming off as nasty.

 

Why not get back to the topic you started? Is Nick taking it too far by breaking down a logo for a tutorial? Not at all.

 

I'm not looking for a lesson in manners, Dave. But thanks for offering.

 

If you're feeling like the tone of my replies are implying that if you disagree you are not a real designer, then I cannot help you in that department. It was not intended to come off that way.

 

Let's continue talking about the topic and not questioning each others integrity. Deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for a lesson in manners, Dave. But thanks for offering.

 

If you're feeling like the tone of my replies are implying that if you disagree you are not a real designer, then I cannot help you in that department. It was not intended to come off that way.

 

Let's continue talking about the topic and not questioning each others integrity. Deal?

 

Deal.

 

I can see you're really passionate about this - and honestly, this discussion has made me think about these tutorials in a bit of a different way. That's not to say I don't like 'em, but I can agree that I get more use out of them when the work is focused on a technique and not recreating something.

 

I think there have been enough counterpoints here to show that there are indeed shades of grey (bad pun intended!). ou asked us to post our thoughts, and there are already 7 pages of them! You have some valid points, and while you may see this as black and white, it's pretty clear that not everyone here agrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size][/color][/size][/font][/color]

 

Perhaps some of you need to concentrate on billing heavy instead of pontificating artistic integrity while bedroom mographing and stirring shit up on the internet. And the whole "I'm keeping it real by being a dick" line is played out - especially on Mograph.net.

 

BS

 

I bill like a mofo, do quite well, and in fact its the bedroom mographers that is nicks audience and what this thread i think is a reaction to

 

its the way of thinking that it seems to present... not problem solving but quick thrills to be blunt

 

I keep writing reactions to this thread and not posting them, because in a way also this is about anonymous folks on mograph.net colliding with the folks cultivating an online presence - this is probably the future - and who has more of an online presence than GSG - in this case, this week, on the backs of prologue design

 

i feel like there is something good about anonymous users... and how many people frequent here and out of respect dont even post - thats even more stealth than anonymous posting

 

i feel like this is a referrendum on GSG's result oriented teaching methods - not chris, monkey or simon - and the hordes of surface level talented bedroom mini-me's clones that seem to be growing like mold in this nook of the internet

 

i dont think france and israel, to pick a few countries, have this problem. have you seen the student work coming out there? dayummmm

 

nick, keep simon, chris, monkey (and mostyles i wish) involved and its all good - sorry to pile on the crit, but its only fair. ive seen some reels get shredded on GSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if his thread has gotten completely out of hand, but it certainly has been entertaining.

 

One of the reasons I like Mograph.net is the mods let the threads run their own coarse without trying to restrain them.

 

Sometimes a good shit-storm is exactly what is needed to clear the accumulated dust off an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is pure gold to the seth godin follower i believe nick is.

since being remarkable is key in marketing, he seems to be doing an outstanding job.

 

the arguments in this thread are free quality research on perception of his brand.

takes some skill to bend it all to his advantage, but the potential is all here.

 

would love to hear his and your thoughts on this.

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. How's it? Still readin this thread huh? Me too. I mean, i peed, but then i came back to it. It's long. Thought maybe you could use a recap since it seems to be frequently sliding off into bitchslaps and dick measuring as internets are wont to do. And then I'll make a point afterward!

 

1) GSG seems to be interested in learning engineering by taking watches apart. He also seems to really like teaching. I don't know if he's good at teaching, but taking watches apart and showing people how they're made is a fairly useful technique for teaching people engineering-type stuff. And for people who like that, well that's probably pretty fun.

 

2) GSG's audience probably thinks it's pretty fun. That audience is probably a collection of lots of different types of people, some who are watching to learn the tools, some who are looking for a design education, and some who are just interested in impressing friends with whizzy stuff.

 

3) There's a growing occurrence where teachers are saying, "Wow, look, this is how you build a Rolex watch, isn't that cool?", and all the kids agree and learn something in the meantime, but then some of the kids go out and make crappy knock-offs and sell them to people as Rolexes.

 

So what's the problem here? Is it that GSG could and would show people how to build a Rolex? No. I mean, that's pretty cool. I'd watch that. Well then, is it that kids are learning how to build watches? Meh, not really. I mean, if they just want to build watches, they can do that. Although'd hope that most of them would take the knowledge and go off and build clocks or engines or spaceships, cuz watches are only good for so many things... and also because SPACESHIPS!

 

Alright, well clearly the problem is the dumb ones with a weak moral compass who don't care or know any better than to call themselves designers or animators and then proceed to sell knock-offs. And that IS a problem, not just for them in the long run, but for us in the long run because it undermines the value of being a REAL designer or animator. Clients (studios aside) don't necessarily know the tell-tale signs of some kid selling knock-off design. What they DO know is that that kid says he's a designer. But when that kid fails to meet expectations, and the client goes "we paid a DESIGNER how much for this?" then we all get lumped in. We all suffer the loss of perceived value of what we do. And our rates are very much a case of perceived value. Once clients start believing that what we collectively DO just isn't worth that much, regardless of how they reached that conclusion, we're kinda capital-F fucked.

 

One thing that would probably help quite a bit is if tutorial-based teachers openly/publicly considered what their tutorials were actually for on a regular basis. Wouldn't have to be anything like a disclaimer cuz no one likes that shit, but an overall sense of purpose behind the tutorials would kind of redirect lazy minds to consider what they should and shouldn't be doing with this knowledge. And lazy minds are really what we're talking about for the most part. People who wanna steal are gonna steal. But when A. Kramer says "I made some orbs that sit on a table all cool n shit, and now I'm gonna show you how YOU can do it..." it just.... well it can sorta sound like he's handing you a recipe that you can put in your recipe book. And lazy minds take that book and say Look, look at "my" recipes. All that really has to happen is that teachers of this sort adopt the attitude that they're not divulging recipes to be squandered so much as they're using projects as a platform to teach you the ins and outs of something. The goal should always be empowering people to be creative. They need knowledge to realize their own projects, and this is one step in gaining that knowledge.

 

Goddam i'm long-winded. Sorry. I hope you got through that without a pee break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE THAT MOVIE AND THAT SCENE!!! Thanks =)

 

@ everyone else.

 

I honestly believe the only people that should be threatened by this type of content are those who are lazy and don't want to develop themselves.

 

I mean lets ignore design for a bit ( for simplicities sake). Purely technical, I can teach person X everything i know about Cinema4D, lets say in a month, some really intensive course. But I will still be more valuable to an employer than person X is, because i've been using it for a while and because i can come up with solutions that are not in the manual or in a tutorial. And that's what people pay money for.

 

Im guessing similarily, if you're a designer you get paid for coming up with solutions, not for having a bag of tricks you turn to at every occasion.

 

i mean check this out:

there is an absolutely awesome audi piece there. If you just copy it now, its worthless, but because the guy came up with the idea, that's why he go paid that one time. if he just keeps selling the same idea to multiple clients he'll stop getting paid.

 

You get paid for your ability to generate new stuff that doesnt already exist.

 

I personally love what GSG is doing, because its teaching more AE guys c4d so they can do the simpler stuff, and then when they need someone who can do more complex stuff, they call me in.

 

And the more AE guys learn Cinema4D, the more work I have. :lol:

Edited by vozzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just see GSG's stuff as a way to reverse-engineer stuff that caught his eye, and being a busy guy, he plays the hand that he's dealt. If it was a choice, I'd rather Nick do high volume of things like this than do fewer tutes because he was spending his time trying to cook up custom stuff. He can kind of toss these off. And do people learn? Yep. Then all good. It's not like he's presenting it as his own work. Nick has so much capital in our world that he'd have to throw kittens in the river before he'd be on the dark side.

 

And he's not charging like this guy, who gets the Joey Park, Alasdair Wilson, Jorge Amado and Danny Yount's Sherlock Holmes animation by Prologue completely retarded-like, and wants 9 bucks a month to teach you how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although people shouldn't immitate tutorials but at least I find that less offensive and dangerous than people actually using projects from envato , IMO this is what is ruining the business .. the 0.99$ projects being used on air and in the industry .

people who immitate these tutorials are at least learning something and doing it on their own , while people using templates don't learn anything and don;t even bother to change anything about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...