On the third (and final) day of the Art Leadership Roundtable, I was inspired to throw a particularly difficult question to the attendees. How did the role of Art Director differ from your expectations before you found yourself in that role?
Naturally, the follow-up questions would be to explore what was learned as well as the surprises that were encountered. Ultimately, my goal was to demystify the role itself while at the same time shedding light on potential surprises in leadership.
Candidly, I think the audience was a little surprised by the topic and a bit hesitant to share at first. Nevertheless, we were able to dive into the topic by first talking about failures (either personal or observed).
The first attendee to share their experiences talked about failing to notify the creative director of the project as they were making decisions/changes. Naturally, this resulted in some lost trust between the two individuals. The team had been developing a "vertical slice" prototype of the game. However, due to lack of communication, the prototype was declared a "miss" as the objectives had not been properly aligned. The attendee shared that, in hindsight, they should have been communicating their intent and providing context behind the decisions that were being made. Through time, trust was reestablished through improved and more consistent dialog.
Another participant shared their experience in going from being a solo artist to heading up a team of artists. Their expectation, going into the role, was that they would automatically be the center of communication. The reality was that they were not. In response, this person spent time identifying who were truly the "nexus points" of communication of the project and building relationships in those areas. They also identified that tech art was a useful source in the communication pipeline as they are a natural bridge between disciplines.
After that, another attendee pointed out one of their own surprises in the Art Director role. Until that point, they had not realized how much effort would be spent on "presenting upwards." In short, they were not prepared for having to present their ideas to Execs and CEOs. Performing this kind of work effectively requires learning to sell a vision. On their path to improvement, this attendee sought mentorship from other directors within the studio.
One topic that also generated a good chuckle from the roundtable was the realization of how much time was spent in meetings or engaging in project management activities. This wasn't intended as a direct criticism of meetings, but rather that how many meetings were necessary to attend in order to maintain awareness of all of the moving parts of a project. While we did touch briefly on delegation on how others leaders can help, the revelation was focused on how much the art director was required to project context behind the decisions the art team was making. In addition, the person expressing these revelations recognized that they had to communicate as much outward as they did to the individual artists. Ultimately, they recognized that their role is about avoiding situations where individuals are required to "fill in the blanks" or come to their own conclusions without context or prerequisite knowledge. This communication was also integral in maintaining visibility.
Another attendee wanted to share a specific experience as it relates to relinquishing content creation. Most individuals realize as they move into leadership roles that they have to sacrifice the time that previously would have been devoted to content creation. This attendee wanted to share the revelation that you need to relinquish a lot more than just content. Rather, this person suggested that you focus primarily on the things that you must do or the things that only you can do -- and then develop a strategy for delegating the rest. The general consensus from the attendees was that delegation is a constant act of balancing priorities combined with the realization/acceptance that some things are just going to "fall off the list."
Related to the previous topic, another attendee expressed their own surprise by how much "chaos" there is in project leadership, and how much the art director is expected to react to various changes within the pace of development. This individual expressed that a large volume (~75%) of their day was spent coordinating and communicating with the creative director and other team leaders. In response to so many questions coming their way, this person reasonably assumed that all of these things was their responsibility. In hindsight, they recognized that they should have been delegating more to seniors and leads. This is a common thread across many years of the leadership roundtable -- the recognition of the sheer volume of "other things" that must be addressed which no one perceives prior to finding themselves in the role.
Another attendee pointed out that their biggest surprise was recognizing how much the role of the AD can impact the individual holding that position. The individual in that role possesses a large amount of responsibility. As such, they are often at the center of critical decisions and are often assailed by a "bombardment of complexity" where one decision can have impact in multiple areas. As a result, the person in this role often faces decision fatigue. Furthermore, the role often struggles with the work/life balance as many responsibilities have to be tackled outside of office hours, especially when meetings become too frequent. A number of common solutions were voiced, including allowing oneself time to solve problems rather than always trying to resolve issues immediately. Also, if you are giving yourself more time, you also work harder to project reasonable deadlines for yourself. In addition, it was suggested that the AD partner with an Art Manager to allow themselves to focus on content, while their partner focuses on the team.
As the topic of the Art Manager had just arisen, we pivoted slightly to discuss this role in more detail. The original question was about whom the Art Manager should report to. One attendee worked in a studio where the Art Manager reported to the Art Director. They shared an office, and the Art Manager (despite being a direct report) was given an equal voice. In this scenario, the Art Manager can clearly be delegated greater responsibility and (to an extent) more authority. In contrast, another attendee had experience with Art Managers who reported to Production. In that scenario, the Art Manager is more responsible for the schedule and the team, rather than the content directly. Also, in that role, the Art Manager is more able to respond to problems the Art Director might be creating (and can solicit feedback from the bottom-up). In short, individuals may feel more comfortable expressing concerns to Art Manager if they don't report to the same Director. Regardless of how the reporting structure is established, the general consensus was that the Art Manager should work in partnership with an Art Director who knows their own strengths and weaknesses and builds a relationship that caters to their own abilities.
At this point, an attendee voiced one of my favorite topics of the roundtable: how to deal with fear (especially for those new to the art director role). I love this question. At this risk of putting words into someone else's mouth, I feel like I need to provide a little context here. We don't talk about "fear" enough in this industry. All of the comments about the AD role (responsibility, chaos, work/life balance, pressure, impostor syndrome, etc.) can be contribute to a fear response. Unfortunately, fear can undermine both problem solving and creativity -- there's actually a lot of social science that backs up this. If you're interested in learning more, I suggest David Rock's SCARF Model.
The attendees offered a number of suggestions from personal experience. One person suggested investing more time in introspection -- carving out part of your day for reflection and consideration. The intention here is to train the brain to think before acting. Others suggested that the strength to manage the fear comes with experience. Lean into the experience rather than recoiling. One could imagine this as developing resistance to fear through exposure to the triggers. However, there is still the adage of knowing oneself and knowing when you are ready. One attendee strongly advised that "acceptance" is a crucial component; one should accept that they are learning and that they can and will make mistakes. Naturally, one should also hope that there is a support structure in place to enable learning and development.
Lastly, one person added a comment on how, as the art director, to adapt to the fear of the team. One should be prepared and be confident in their plans. One should learn to minimize their negative language, and learn to communicate in (reasonably) positive tones. Another attendee strongly advised that, when dealing with team fear, not to project invulnerability. If you set an expectation of infallibility, it will be that much harder for the team to accept changes when mistakes do happen. Finally, one should know that the tone of direction can and should change over the course of a project (for example: from an exploration tone to a decisive one).
The topic of fear in leadership could probably fuel another full roundtable. However, there were still a few people who had expressed interest in voicing questions, so we moved on to their topics.
One person asked how, as a Lead Artist, one can go about growing their knowledge of business/management. This is a good question as most artists come from an educational background focused on craft. The first response was that, a Lead Artist likely already has a strong baseline, which in turn contributed to that person being selected for the role. Nevertheless, there are still numerous resources available to grow your skills. One attendee recommended books, while another recommended mentorship from more senior staff members. Another attendee advised socializing with the directors when possible, and they also pointed out that alcohol can help the conversation. Rather than creating a list of books this year, the idea was that you should start with the people first and then work towards the literature. There are volumes of information one could explore on this topic, but getting the input of the people would help ensure that you're reading material is in alignment with your studio and your culture.
The final question of the day came from one attendee who wanted to know how much artwork was created when others entered the art director role. The first response came from an art director at a small studio. This person had to transition from a role where they might be called upon to do anything art related and, within the new role, couldn't devote as much time to creating art. They struggled with delegation at first. With time, they learned that managing could be rewarding. However, they spend significantly less time creating art content, even at a small studio. One art director indicated that they still have time to do art work periodically. However, they try to pick up the least desirable work from the team, preserving desirable work for others.
One person indicated that the question itself had a problem. The problem was that there is no practical way you can create art and lead at the same time; you have to sacrifice content creation. Rather, the question should be how do you accept that leading is more important than art and yet still carve out "creative time" for yourself. If you can't accept that leading is more important, then you should probably be considering a different role. However, if you need the time to creative time, they suggested that art directors carve out "office hours" in their schedule so that they have dedicated time at their desk.
Another attendee indicated that the type of creation also changes in the art director role. The art director is responsible for the macro vision, so the majority of their creation time should be devoted to clarifying or correcting that vision. Naturally, the vision is delegated through the leads to the individual members of the team, but the at desk time should be focused on the whole picture rather than a single asset/element.
Regarding the topic of office hours, one person posited the question of how to best deal with an absent, or "ghost," art director. It was clear that this person was simply unavailable most of the time to provide feedback. The simplest response from the group was to re-clarify the goals of ownership. If the art director is unavailable, who can respond in their stead and what authority do they have. Obviously, the art director could leverage leads or art managers in a number of different ways. However, in this particular instance, clarification of roles and responsibilities was missing.
Thanks once more to everyone who attended the Art Leadership Roundtable. I hope to see many of you again next year.
Speaker Evaluation
Art Leadership Roundtable: Day 3Thursday, March 3 at 10:00 AM
Room 120, North Hall
------------------------------
Total Headcount: 95
Roundtable Session Ranking within Visual Arts Track: your session is ranked 10 of 14
Roundtable Session Ranking within GDC 2017: your session ranked 192 of 435
Session Totals (This Session)
| ||
Response
|
Count
|
Percentage of Responses
|
Excellent
|
17
|
63%
|
Good
|
10
|
37%
|
Poor
|
0
|
0.00%
|
Terrible
|
0
|
0.00%
|
Comments
- Keith did a great job facilitating this roundtable. Awesome conversation was generated. I am a Lead Tech Artist and I found it tremendously helpful in gaining insight in working with Art leadership.
- I saw another table introduce a speed-round with a short topic like "what's one thing you learned in the past year you'd like to share. you have 30 seconds, go" - it's a great starter for a round table as it involves lots of people and quickly gets everyone energized. Useful also at the 30min mark
- Great conversation today!
- A very good session, well organized even though the form is elastic and can be chaotic. Everyone had their chance to speak and discussion was calm and specific. I get a lot of useful for me informations
- Lots of useful information being shared, but with how many devs were attending with very high levels of experience, I can't help but feel that it might be more useful to compose the room/session as a series of smaller roundtables distributed with a mix of devs across experience levels, and then have any particularly strong lessons/insights get broadcast across the whole session. One of the most valuable experiences for younger devs at GDC is just being around and getting to talk to vets, and when you've got a roundtable that large I think you find that only devs with mid-level or higher experience are comfortable talking or asking questions. If you break it into smaller subgroups all part of a larger session you can have far more conversations going simultaneously, put less pressure on the new people so they can be more comfortable speaking, and maybe even allow some degree of specialization within the roundtable, e.g. one circle is dedicated to progressing your career and the differences between being an art director vs art lead, one is dedicated to discussing technical art techniques and pipeline etc. The format itself of having devs of all experience levels gathered in a room to talk freely on a specific topic is great, it's what many people come to GDC for. But I think you should bump the session time up to an hour and half, and subdivide the room into groups so that the density of conversation can be much higher. As it is now, all the roundtables I've attended lose 1/3rd of the session time just to waiting for mics to get passed or people not wanting to talk over each other.
- Interesting that the issue of "fear" seemed to take up about 70% of the discussion. We clearly need to give our art leads better management training... Having the two CAs to help with microphones was really useful.
