The problem with current sci-fi art/style
polycounter lvl 10
This issue has been troubling me for some time. Why it seems that about 90% of sci-fi artists seem to be stuck in 80s (sometimes 70s) when it comes to sci-fi?
I mean look at most sci-fi corridors. They look like they are either from Alien (1979) or some Star Wars movies. Why are all these tubes and maintenance panels are exposed? Why so many angles? So people walking in these corridors have something to stumble over?
Science fiction art has been an exercise in predicting how future would look if this and this happens and so on. But now it seems that people just recycle art from the past.
May be it happened because the future actually happened and it even though a lot of science fiction visions have become reality, futuristic landscapes sort of came to life in Saudi Arabia and some Asian countries only? And imagining future isn't fun anymore?
I mean look at most sci-fi corridors. They look like they are either from Alien (1979) or some Star Wars movies. Why are all these tubes and maintenance panels are exposed? Why so many angles? So people walking in these corridors have something to stumble over?
Science fiction art has been an exercise in predicting how future would look if this and this happens and so on. But now it seems that people just recycle art from the past.
May be it happened because the future actually happened and it even though a lot of science fiction visions have become reality, futuristic landscapes sort of came to life in Saudi Arabia and some Asian countries only? And imagining future isn't fun anymore?
Replies
The thing is that after a century of innovation in art, the amount of area you have for exploring in small sub-genres shrinks and it becomes a remix game instead of an innovation game. The same quantum leaps that were possible for prediction in the 70's and 80's are harder to come by.
Just as scientific innovations are harder and harder to understand. It was far easier to write sci-fi about nuclear energy and bombs than the higgs boson.
But anyway, look at syd mead and all will be revealed in a Technicolor dream-scape.
But that being said, if you have better ideas than the rest i wanna see them!
A lot of the time people go with what influenced them as a child and there are a lot of people on here who are a product of the 80s so thats the style of designs they tend to cherish deep down inside.
Like PixelMasher put it so well, we go with what inspired us in our childhood. Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3 were coming out when I was growing up, so that inevitably is what draws my attention today. Alien was before my time, so I'm not a fan, but I still respect the work that H.R. Giger put into it. It's good stuff.
When it comes to real life science, practicality comes before looks. Nobody cares if the inside of the space shuttle cabin isn't Star Wars worthy, it's got everything the pilots need.
There are plenty of "original" sci-fi artists, but mostly their work flies under the radar. Only sometimes does something come out (like District 9's guns, or Aaron Beck's mechs) which is appreciably different and widely visible, and then it is immediately fed into the industry grinder and becomes old hat in about 1 year.
Not to mention that when you do something new, people don't necessarily like it. The Bayformers designs are far off the standard sci-fi spectrum, but nobody likes them...
1) Usually exposed panels and electronics scream "machinery" and "high tech" and "important stuff being done right here" in a snap. In sci-fi flicks it helps keep the suspension of disbelief kicking.
2)It gives you something to look at.
Now regarding your view on unpractical tech I have to agree to a certain extent. I keep seeing here and in the movie industry robots, high tech suits and environments that do their very best to fill every possible square inch with detail. You'd expect combat suits to keep the electronics INSIDE and not have them sprout from everywhere. I remember being at a Webinar on Zbrushworkshops and the guy there was saying that indeed the tendency was to add too much detail everywhere. A prime example of this is the transformers movie dfacto mentions: My brain refuses to compute the designs EVEN WHEN THEY STAND STILL. I didn't grow on the cartoon show as a kid so I have no nostalgia attachment and I hate Michael Bay as much as anybody who has a modicus of self-respect for what goes in his brain but his transformers are too busy. And when they move it gets worse. I don't understand what's going on except that Megan Fox is seriously hot.
Regarding recycling tech from the 70s and 80s I'd say it's normal, most directors today come from that era, it's what they grew up with and those movies are highly worshipped from having transformed imagination of millions into well made sci fi movies. Star Wars, 2001, Alien, Blade Runner: How could you not be influenced by that? What's the alternative? The Xmen perfectly polished corridors that lead to Cerebro? Why not but putting aside the fact that it's gotta be a Roomba dream to clean up there isn't much to it. But as I said above, I have to agree that tech in sci-fi movies should try something a bit more sophisticated like Deus Ex Human Revolution. I thought that worked pretty well.
I find it quite interesting that there's an even deeper 80's revival going on right now, everybodys into NewRetroWave music and I like it :thumbup:
But it's good to notice these genre stereotypes, realization of such leads to new innovations.
On the other hand I do feel like for last decade it's become obligatory for SF films to feature places with well lit clean white walls and floors, an extra bold "desaturated blue/green" color correction, and teal holograms&displays.
I'm looking forward to any new fashion that will hopefully bring saturation back to sci-fi.
And where are you getting your 90% figure? Sounds kind of pulled out of your ass. If this has been troubling you for some time then you should make a sci-fi hallway that blows us all away with it's unique futuristic design
But for real. I don't know where you are looking but between architecture (yes, architects are artists), games, concepts, etc, there is plenty of not 90% of whatever you're talking about design.
(I have more examples but I can't spend all day hunting through my old tumblr posts..)
Here:
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/71040243120/hackerinterior-ff
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/69207993130/i-hope-life-on-earth-is-everything-you-remember
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/91743886561/todiwan-a-russian-tank-manufacturer-has
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/69207625276/cosmicwolfstorm-prometheus
http://gashetka.tumblr.com/post/78138818435/2012-california-roll-house-architect-violent
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/68182382629/kathaderon-elysium-2013
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/67870848834
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/image/67331717052
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/image/66583113865
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/image/65495098679
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/84767776076
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90299574691/eimer
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90558215906/eliaspress-concept-for-a-metro-station
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90558124406/eliaspress-office-floor-with-luxuriuous
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90558237556/eliaspress-underwater-research-station
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/86565620821/hytnnovation-kitchen-corner-by-boxetti
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/85845308161/clothesoffposeoff-i-need-to-know-where-this-is
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/87947281736
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90299996616
And heres some real life tube-y stuff all over the place.
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/83946368089/limbsa7o-edgar-martins-photographs-the-european
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/90511878531/gregwhitephotography-onboard-a-nuclear
http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/post/64161099193/2001-a-space-odyssey-eight-spacecraft-settings
In other words : Star Wars is not a Sci-Fi movie.
Any space should reflect what it's used for, lifestyle of the people and society who use it. Common tropes are used to attach and guide the viewer to the story and state of the world without needing to explain much. Those heavy industrial pipes and panels tell a different story than the slick, expensive metal clean environments, cobbled together junkyard builds, or some ancient religion's spacecraft.
Here's a fun little read I just found:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fff5e7cc-4d50-11e3-a220-00144feabdc0.html
I have nothing against the "generic sci-fi" look. I think it can look awesome if done right.
I would like to see some more innovative scifi art, but it's hard to imagine what the future is going to look like. I mean it's hard to predict what the world is going to look like in 50 years, let alone 300 years.
Also, this is being made today.
Thanks for the link.
you know that is what I was thinking in regards to submarines.
I need to be able to look at it and understand how it works, not just look at it and accept that designers cause for function; "It floats because floating is cool." Yuck. I hate 'magic' elements in future design. When things magically float, anything that has 'psy-' appended to the front of it, oddly shaped panels that make no sense, and so on. I need to see its function in addition to its beautiful form.
In the future everything is blue and we will discover the need for senseless information and graphs and hexagons everywhere
Also color is not needed in the future and all information is floating, sorry Bill Gates, but there are no windows anymore
Enough ranted
I think starwars is mainly so popular because it presented a universe
to the audience that is not all the same bland mix of techy metal, but something living and varied that people can relate to, a living universe.
From the big cities to tatooine to naboo, they all have very distinctive
architecture and inhabitants with credible culture, something nobody
else really pulls off in that scale, maybe with exception of Warhammer40k doint their own very special thing.
Edit: oh the rant begins again -.-
Then things like Mass Effect (sorry) I like the series too, tho) feel like a step backwards to the old (pre) Star Trek sheme, where 90% of all sci-fi comes from. Sure they did some great environments and styles, but if you look at the big picture, mass effect is like the epitome of generic sci-fi and while being probably PC-gamings go-to sci-fi series
This applies to most areas in culture, and the sci-fi art community is no different. However, the need or expectation for a design to be functional or livable in order for it to be original is trivial, imo.
That's a very good point: the more sci-fi is made, the more defined its status-quo become, effectively narrowing its margin for novelty.
I think one way to work around that is to filter the flow of incoming movies a bit. What I mean by that is that someone who enjoys sci-fi and science fantasy doesn't *have* to see every high production values futuristic movie out there - especially since big budget often means a lot of cooks in the kitchen and in turn, a less cohesive world despite cool flashy visuals. Skip Prometheus and Elysium, and yay for Moon and Gattacca !
My biggest problem with sci fi art is in that characters all have to have glowy bits. I realise there a reason for it in games (..so you can distinguish the characters in low light etc) but in films...
"make him tactical black"... but also put a red light across his face coz it looks badass, but he'd be very visible in a dark room... "shoot the red bit!"
Anyhoo, i'll just refer to this awesomeness and say again. "I love pipes n shit"
http://www.peperaart.com/
Compare that to military or industrial use, and things are built for function, and built in a way to be quickly repaired.
If anyone has ever been in a shipyard, warship or a oil rig they will see exactly what I mean. All of the inner workings are exposed like they are in sci fi stuff. Also warships are incredialbe complex machines as well as today's spaceships which include the same design principals.
A good thing to see in sci fi design is people to take into consideration the different look of public/residential desgin vs industrial/military design.
That's exactly my point - if the only selling point of a movie is to "look cool as feck", then of course the world building and believably are bound to be mediocre. Nothing new here ...
http://io9.com/nasas-new-spacecraft-will-have-a-star-trek-like-cockpit-1613903846
I've always hated noisy design. I like being able to see the alien, or room, or vehicle, or whatever it may be. I'm so glad to see thing relaxing, and becoming more visible, yet realistic. If that means the designs look like throwbacks to the 70's and 80's, then so be it.
First, 90% is just a figure of speech. I know such random numbers irritate people a lot and when you want to learn something on the internet you have to post something wrong and PEOPLE WILL CORRECT IT. That's the very thing happened in this thread.
It didn't occur to me that maintenance should be carried out so the more things are exposed the better. It's obvious but I totally overlooked that. Also there are some good examples of art direction out there like Deus Ex: HR which very thought out, looks futuristic and yet plausible so it's not all that bad definitely.
I personally grew up on Aliens. I saw that movie like 40+ times. So when I post my first sci-fi corridor it'll be as generic as it could get
Thanks for all art links, my tumblr feed will grow a lot.
Looking back I laugh at myself because what I do is really as generic as it gets and it takes a lot of effort (and art director's guidance) to make it look not like boring shit but somewhat fresh and pleasing to an eye. I'm yet to produce something good on my own without art director's input but I'm trying (may be I'll post something this week for everybody to critique, hehe).
Still somehow the topic of this thread bothers me a lot. I overanalyze every sci-fi design I stuck upon and at first I'm
I've skimmed the thread for some inspiration and I found this piece to be the most inspiring for me - http://present-n-future.tumblr.com/image/67331717052
It doesn't use standard shapes that everybody associates with sci-fi but everything about it screams sci-fi. That's what I hope to achieve someday.
many skills that go beyond the qualifications of a regular 3D artist and naturally you will have problems with that.
Thats is fully the concept artists job, and it can not be expected that a 3D artist can make acceptable AAA sci-fi designs when concept artists have to learn this over many years. Most of the concept artists that make good stuff have very profound knowledge about architecture, history and or industrial design.
Here is a great example of exeptional sci-fi design:
Just look at the varied modern and older elements used. It is crazy but in realms of plausibility. Very futuristic and modern but grounded in today. You could write Year 2025 or Year 2500 on it.
All the good sci-fi designs (such as Alien, Star wars or 2001 per example) are very close to reality. They use things that are mostly plausible, grounded ín human cultures and relatable, only secondly full of fancy shapes. Average or generic sci-fi designs such as Star trek or bunch of parts of mass effect use just crazy shapes and elements that have no function or base in reality.
Humans would never build like that. It makes no sense. Same as humans will never use duocolored hologram interfaces in the future.
There's a very simple reason why 80s and other nostalgic stuff works so well:
We are built to process information.. and doing so results in a pleasure response. Now the more we have to work on a piece of information, the further it gets down the neural passway, the more pleasure it generates. And it just so happens that information, that's related to emotions or related to something we know generates the best response. (atleast regarding visual information)
Now that's probably not the whole story.. but yeah I can imagine it's generally easier to sell known designs and IPs.. than trying to invent something new and sell it to an audience.
That's probably also why designs should be grounded in reality.
@Dzibarik that room is not practical at all ^^
While I'm all for functionality in design to add a sense of believe-ability, I think you also have to be fair and acknowledge that a large part of architectural history is divided among different schools of thought and while form tends to follow function in a lot of modern architecture, and as especially seen in something like Bauhaus where it's all about pure functionality, there have also been periods such as Late Baroque and Art Nouveau where many of the forms can be argued to be purely for aesthetic and grandiose purposes. And then you have something like the favelas of Brazil that are just so organic and cluttered yet still amazing to look at. UI is also something that greatly changes from developer to developer, just look at the variety of websites and how operating systems keep changing from gradients to flat to busy to negative-space to messy floating tumbler-styled grids.
I think probably the most interesting designs in fictional worlds are the ones that don't necessarily choose one particular style or the other, but have an organic combination of contrasting designs, adding to the feeling of it being a world with its own evolved history.
Contrasting designs and different schools of thought are the spice of life
But that's fine cos SF isn't only about predicting what future will be like, it's also a form of fantasy.
Which is why there's place for games with very realistic designs as well as games with strange impractical designs. At its roots sci-fi was full of grandiose visions that probably seemed ridiculous to many of contemporary people.
But perhaps some wanted to believe in that strange magical future so badly that they would ignore the obvious issues with designs of supposed future technology.
And I think nothing really changed in that aspect, except that we've been fed with so many similar visions of future during last decade or two that they became really boring to look at.
@Deathstick this is clearly true too. But all those eras built upon a logical foundation and added their special touch and impressions. Also the more standout things like rococo are ornaments, and ornaments are an universal element. Other stuff like old japanese buildings have their shape because of how they are built. The big wood planks and thin walls etc. Star wars gave each race their own architecture. Tatooine was built out of clay. Ewoks built their houses in the trees out of wood. It makes sense in context of the environment. Also this approach is terrible underused. Everything is always metal.
@Blaisoid
Well im not sure. I think it partially strongly depends on the skill level of the artist. While high end artists often do very varied sci-fi designs,
the starting artist pretty much do all the same edgy blocky sci-fi style from my experience. There seems to be this "default" sci-fi of which you eventually grow out of it (probably as you say, too many similar impressions leading to this), and I think those shapes and this simple visual language is easy to grasp for everyone, thus we see it naturally occur so often. Then the strong artist will find better designs while the majority will keep it as a basis, at least thats what I think is happening.
Listen to any gumroad tutorial on character design and concept, and you're going to head a LOT of "Okay so I'll put this up here to balance out this side and repeat the shape from his leg, maybe this is a filter or an energy pack. And then I'll remove this sharp edge here to help things flow, so maybe now this isn't metal, this is like a cape or something."
There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion, thats just the reality of art vs. actual use. Its necessary, frankly, to help games (particularly) and film get their visual point across without having a character demonstrate how something works.
____
Then you think about something like the big dog robot, which looks utterly alien with its skinny legs and top heavy sacks, and no neck or head. That design came about from necessity by engineering design - trial and error. Nobody was really going through the artistic qualities of its silhouette readability. And frankly, in a game, if you saw it from afar, it would look weird as could be and not immediately apparent - if you showed it to an art director they would go "Where's its head?". No art director is really gonna listen to an artist go "Well some barely visible sensors and pin-hole cameras hidden mostly in the fabric dont necessitate a head...." Because the art directors job is to make sure that the viewer immediately understands what the thing is. Compare it to a hulking robot dog from a game, with easily readable cylinders along its spine like batteries or pistons with a camera for a head or something, coming at you from across the map, and its a much easier to understand form that a person automatically knows is a robot dog.
To me anyways, my favorite artists and conceptors use examples from real life engineering to aid their designs, but keep it easy to read.
_____
The times where the design vs. function thing actually really does annoy me is when the 'futuristic' design obviously, obviously limits the functionality of something.
Battlestar Galactica, for example, 'sci-fi'ed' up their tablet screen and books by cutting off the corner, which is incredibly stupid because it adds no functionality and actually decreases the objects useful space while making it harder and more bizarre to manufacture.
Or robots with exposed batteries.
_____
Frankly the future is going to look a lot more simple and minimal than how we live today. The trend is compacting things and stripping away mechanical parts, and augmented input methods. Fashion will always be trend based and unpredictable, engineering will always be need based, and architecture will be remain a function of material, volume, and style.
Also from a gameplay point of view, having certain things exposed also helps with gameplay elements such as finding weakness on enemies, or gas line pipes. Sure, smooth and clean areas, objects and such has it's place, but it's just not...fun imo.