[IO_Error]

Ok, First, Fallen, love all your work, and your most recent work. Incredible.
I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about; Art is literally defined as: The controlled objectification of feelings. So if I find a photo I like, and reproduce it in a way that evokes a new feeling, or shows the image in a new light, That's Art, regardless of how similar it looks to the first photo.
Ofcourse you can get into the grey hazy area of plagiarism, (ripping, copying, tracing, whatever), artistic ethics etc, but it really doesn't matter what anybody else thinks anyways. You're all much too quick to point fingers and yell, "that sucks because you copied it." I've got a question for all of those divine godly minds who claim that everything should come out of your head and directly onto the canvas: If I were to go out and shoot a bunch of photos of things I liked, things I wanted to include in a painting, and then used those as reference in my artwork, can you consider that "not even mediocre," or "crappy because you copied it from a photo?" IMHO, we have way too many cocky newbies here, who lack the fundamental art knowledge to make the judgements they're making. Do yourself a favor and give your posts a bit of thought before you make irrelevant comments like "How long did it take you do draw THAT" followed by a link to the photo you wasted your time hunting for.

Just my *very long* 2 bits,

-=I/O-Error=-

[Visigoth]

I think that's exactly the point that alot of artists here have been trying to bring forth; There seems to be an un-written rule between artists, of how far to go when using photos or not. The more experienced the artist, the more they'll realize that the more reference you use in a piece of art, the better the piece will turn out. This does NOT mean, the more you trace a photo, the more people will like it. It means that you can accurately portray a tree, if you have one to look at while you're drawing it. It means you can draw the veins popping out of a particular muscle on Conan the Barbarian because you have a photo of a bodybuilder to look at. This doesn't mean you're copying; It means you're using resources. When I read on 3D Palette about people accusing Danny of tracing all his work...I looked at the evidence, and almost shouted BULLSHIT outloud. Sure; He uses models as reference. Hell -- Why not? So do I! All the art you see on my webpage (the scans from my sketchbook) Were done from either photographs of models that have posed for me, or live models. Does that mean I copy? No. It means I have the ingenuity to use the resources available to me to better my existing talent and make the piece more attractive to either myself, or the person viewing it. Plagerism? I think not. Artistic representation? Yes.
On the subject of Threnodizing: That, I believe is blatent copying/plagerism. Leaving JPEG compression artifacts visible? Oh come now; If you're going to do something...Do it right! If you're going to trace something, at least make it look like you DIDN'T trace it...Jeez...
I think the reason the term "Threnodizing" came about (as Loki has already mentioned I believe) is that Threnody did not supply a page of art that he could not have obviously copied. When I say that, I mean other pieces that have obvious artistic representation of something that has meaning to either the artist or the artist's viewers. When I mention this, I'm sure to ruffle some feathers; And I'm not trying to specifically offend anyone...But I think that Loki, Micke, The dude that does those awesome Conan covers [*apologizes for forgetting your name*], Joachim, and countless others on this board know exactly what I'm talking about. It's an unwritten rule that every artist knows, regardless of what background you come from. When someone violates that "code", then they get jumped on. That's why posts such as the last half-dozen on this board have been so controversial. People that think they're the shiznit cross the line in an attempt to be better than the next guy, or make an astounding first impression. And they fail. Miserably.
With that said and done...I think I'll conclude by saying: To the "threnodizers" out there...Develop your own style instead of plagerizing someone elses. This doesn't mean that other people's styles can't inspire you; It means don't fucking rip them off and call them your own.

~{V}~

------------------
Oh god my eyes!

[synj]

What I don't think you take into consideration is how cocky it appears to say "ooh i've been here longer so you have no right to criticize".

And to answer your question, no, imo. The only problem I had was it was someone else's artwork being nearly reproduced and labelled as his own. Photographers have intellectual property rights too you know. In my eyes that is plageuegegogeeouism.


------------------
-synj
http://www.synj.net
Ridiculously good stuff.

[Visigoth]

That's exactly what I'm saying; And no -- I haven't been here very long, but I'm pretty damn sure that every _artist_ (and I do not use the term loosely) will agree with me. Of course photographers have intellectual property as well! They're just as much artists as someone who paints a picture while looking at still life. That's not what I'm trying to debate; I'm making the point that it is OK to use photo reference; It betters your skill. It is not OK however, to trace that photo to a T, and then call it your own. See the difference? Thank you.

~{V}~

------------------
Oh god my eyes!

[Affected]

If you ask me, reference is ok: You can't remember how every muscle on the human body looks like and functions, for example. Even straight off copying (Not tracing) a photo is OK, if it's for practice. For full-blown pieces, though, I think people should make sure they try to convey smoething of their own. A painting, no matter how well done, that is a simple copy of another piece or a photo conveys nothing the original piece doesn't. I rarely use photos by other people as reference for this reason, except when practicing technique, anatomy etc.

------------------
Affected

We do not have freedom. We have rules and oppression and where the oppression is less visible we believe to have found freedom.

http://affected.xs.mw

[Joachim]

Hmm, I don't know if this was pointing to the post I wrote to the threnodizing thread. . . But, what I ment was that I think it's sad that so many artists just finds a picture in playboy or whatever and thinks, "hmmm, that picture has got a lot of nice contrast and colors, I think that can look really detailed and fancy if I just copy the whole thing on a computer". But, indeed it's just everyones interests to do whatever they like, but the sad thing is that so many here seems to get the idea that this is sooo impressive and so very difficult, therefor the right thing to do. But, the fact is that it's far from the most challenging thing to do, but it's a lot easier to make it look good. And, by keeping this attitude, it's very hard to learn much new every time you're doing a new piece of art....Like spooge said in the threnodizing thread "I don't understand the pont. Just look at the picture instead", which is so true. Offcourse there's a big difference when doing some or a lot of the work yourself, but using reference while working out the piece. But, as I've noticed, many who does a only copying and then will have to finish of parts of the pictures themself, it usually shows that the artist don't actually understand how to do the rest, because of lack of own knowledge.

Anyway, I don't want to point to any artist in particular, I just hoped to open a few eyes But, if people in this forum totally disagree with this mentality, then it's fine by me. I don't really care, but I think it can be really good learning for every artist to try to actually understand what you are drawing, and this is not what you are doing by doing a blindly rip off from a photo, even though you can feel that it looks more impressive since it's easier to get some good results.

But, like I said, eveyone must do what they like, and I like everything as long as it has something that captures my attention.

Blaaaahhhhh! forget this post

------------------
Joachim
web: http://home.sol.no/~jbarrum/



[This message has been edited by Joachim (edited April 04, 2000).]

[yoszi]

Ioerror,

Yes, i think that most copied images do suck. I judge a picture by concept/composition/color. what's wrong with that ? If you have fun copying images by all means do it. Fallen asked for an opinion i gave it to him. I said that there's noting wrong with using reference but there's a difference between copying everything and using reference materials as a guidance.

I don't have a problem with anyone copying, you seem to have a problem with conceiving in your mind that picture can be done with little reference and look great. No divine intervention required.

[Xcal]

I think the bottom line is that it's all personal opinions. Some people think portraits worked off of photos are perfectly fine. Some think it's not. To each his own. I don't see much point in beating each other's head with the issue.

It also has to do with what kind of art interests you. I like fantasy and sci fi, with emphasis on character design. I've seen some people who could do ultra realistic sketches of famous people, and get a whooplah of "Oo's" and "Aah's". Do I think they're all ripoff artist's for using Photo references? No. Frankly, I don't judge their integrity or professionalism. I either like their art or not. I think the important thing to remember is that we should not be so self-righteous as to judge people's skills, talent, or their character based on the work they produce. That is taking opinons a little too far. I think objective opinions are eagerly accepted by most artists, personal judgments based on whether the critic likes or dislikes one's work is not so easily accepted, as it is no objective. Here's an example. Don't tell someone that they are a crappy artist because they only draw comic book characters or pinup girls. You don't know what they can and can't draw. People have a ton of talent in a ton of areas, which you may not be aware of. It all boils down to mutual-respect and objectivism for fellow artists, whether you like their work or not. That's a requirement to work in the industry, without it, you'll be doing freelance work the rest of your lives.

I'm not accusing anyone, or judging anyone, but simply stating what I believe.



------------------
XCAL
http://artofsin.com/

[yoszi]

eh, what's wrong with doing freelance work ??? I would prefer that than working full time (8*5 each week) for some company where you're just a small(insignificant) piece of a bigger mechanism.

I would say that the opposite is true, you got to be good to make it on your own.

[Xcal]

Freelance work is great, if you could achieve the amount of security and steady pay that working for a company brings. Unfortunately, many freelancers out there don't have that, and if they did, they'd have to expand to meet the workload, which means you'd be working in a team environment anyway, which is the point I'm making.


>>"I would say that the opposite is true, you got to be good to make it on your own."

You need to be damn good to make it at all, whether you're on your own or not.





------------------
XCAL
http://artofsin.com/

[hennifer]

btw, it is quite possible to memorize the human body's muscles, and how they function. it just takes a lot of practise.

working from a model is definitely easier tho.

[IO_Error]

Well..I'm not sure I made myself quite clear when I started this thread..

I'm completely against copying a photo to a "t" and calling it your own. and I don't appreciate condescending comments like "you can't concieve how good artwork can be created without reference". although thats a much milder statement, thats exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. Everyone (including myself) just needs to stay off the damn soap box and view each other as equals.

I am against people who have done it themselves going to great lengths to point fingers and post the original photos with futile statements like "you ripping copying faggot," or "I can tell you copied that, you suck".

Like Xcal said, "you either like their art or you don't". And it should be simply that. Unfortunately with the growth of this forum we have to take the good (great advice, technique and style tips, fantastic artwork postings,) with the bad, (mongoose, threnody, newbies that like to bash as opposed to critique)

[yoszi]

IOError,

are you referring to me ? I never called anyone a faggot. I posted the original photo because i was curious about what position will other's take. Call that probing. It won't happen again, i will restrain myself from making any similar comments in the future not because i'm wrong, but because some ppl here can;t comprehend the idea of making original images.

And yes, from your initial post appears that making an original image is close to impossible. You also don't seem to notice the difference between copying a tree and face from a photo (that is (c)).

"you either like their art or you don't". I'm afraid this is not so simple. Someone who doesn't draw and is oblivious to what;s going on can take that position. I draw and it matters to me ONE HELL LOT if picture is not original. Is that so difficult to accept ?

I dont give a fuck what you appreciate or don't how about some appreciation of my position.

Finally, do you copy from photos ?

[spooge demon]

There is a large coffee table book out now about 19th century artists and the exploration of camera usage. I can't find a link to it; I don't even know how to search on such a strange topic.

Of course they mostly took their own photo reference and changed it quite a bit. Eakins was the most literal, but then he was very mechanical in process. I have seen photos by Sargent, Mucha, Waterhouse that were worked from to produce artwork. So if these guys meet the criteria for real artists, then real artist "cheat," I guess.

I think those who duplicate photos are pretty early in their artistic development. It is a great thrill to control one's media finally, and duplicating a photo is a good test of this. But where do you go from here?
The art comes in what you include and exclude, what you exaggerate and what you leave out. It takes years.

Drew Struzan is a poster artist who uses a Lucidagraph to trace photos and paint and draw from that. I find his work amazing; I can tell his drawing ability is awesome. He could draw them freehand if he so chose, but he is a commercial artist, and time is money. What I like about his work is the art, his decisions about what to do with the material.

Don't be fooled by technique-it is so easy to be caught in that trap. I cringe when a well meaning person say "looks just like a photograph." Anyone can learn in short order to copy shape for shape.

My training an Industrial designer taught me to render realistically what does not exist, by learning general principles of perspective, value and structure. It has been a really fun technical challenge to try to make the unreal real. I use photos all the time, but not to copy from, but to analyze and to derive general rules of appearance from.

Exposure latitude is one of many dead giveaways that a photo was copied. Unless you learn more about photography and it's limitations you won't even know how it is limiting you.

[Zephyros]

Spooge is right, one must strive to master all arts. Water flows to lower places. If we didn't have a base to start from we would still be drawing on cave walls. There is a major diffrence between "the basics", and plagerisim.

[Fallen]

If one had their own fancy camera and a live in model they would take their own pictures for reference, but until then, one has to make do with what they can. The one thing people are missing is the fact that even if something is painted based on a photo, it's still PAINTED by them, therefore i would still consider it art. It still takes skill to recreate something. All these people on here saying they can draw without reference don't even realize that they are indeed using reference...reference from life itself. You are all inspired by something, be it a anything from a cool tree in the park, to a cute girl at the store, to tonights episode of Star Trek. Your taught in school and art classes to use reference. The nude model is a perfect example. A nude person is brought into the class to be 'reference' for the duration of the class....they don't bring them in for you to take a quick look and then usher them out again.

------------------
Transcend.

www.giveintosin.com

[Joachim]

Hmm, I'm afraid that people will hate me for whatever I write about this topic. I don't want flamewars or big discussions. But, in some way I find this thread a bit interessting

Fallen,
I can uderstand what you are saying, and I partly agree with you
I think that if you are capable of observing something outside and then go home and draw it, it actually means that you've managed to analyze, understand a increased your knowledge. But, usually that is very difficult, at least to go home and pick out the exact lightning, colors, etc from something you just have got inside your head... and, this requires a lot more from an artist than copiyng from a photo. But, what I mean is that there's so many here that finds a photo copied picture more impressive than doing it that way, since all the light and colors are realistic and correct, but still it is very easy to copy a photo to a drawing as long as it is no personal inerpretation of the image (just to make this clear, I am VERY impressed of people who can use photo reference to analyze colors, light, etc to make their own art better, like craig does...-so that's a totally different ballpark).
But, when doing a total copy, it seems like people get more obsessed with the detailing instead of learning the fundamentals. Hmm, I hope this does make sense to anyone else than me ?!?

And, as said earlier, I say this only in hope of trying to get a few or as many as possible to focus much more on learning about drawing more than trying to impress people at this forum with photo realizm from copying photos. If they personally don't get to learn more each time by copying, it's is actually a bit waste of time (unless you get paid of course .

just to say this, "I like everyones work" and it has nothing to do with me not liking to watch a copied pic, cause I do. But, it's more for your own sake.
Hmm, pretty long post, sorry ! I don't mean to write so much because this really doesn't mean that much to me. ....But, I guess it's just to easy writing about this topic

sorry, I won't say more about this.




------------------
Joachim
web: http://home.sol.no/~jbarrum/

[Muzman]

spooge spaketh the truth.
I'd add to what's been said by saying I don't care what people do mostly. Art is too broad to restrict. (as pigeon mentioned, there's a modern artist who repaints great masterworks upside down and calls it art. And good luck to him.)
As far as this forum is concerend i think the issue is honesty. You can literally do anything graphics wise here, and that's how it should be. Problems only should arise when there is a serious attempt to pass an image off as something it is not.
Do whatever you want, only don't deny it.
(incidentally; not telling people how you did it doesn't count as denying it.)

[Joachim]

Well spoken Muzman....
Wish I was better in english, then I could cut down all my nonsens to those few lines



------------------
Joachim
web: http://home.sol.no/~jbarrum/

[Chapel]

I agree with spooge and muzman. I think spooge said it best with "I think those who duplicate photos are pretty early in their artistic development. It is a great thrill to control one's media finally, and duplicating a photo is a good test of this." Something I think everyone is forgetting is that the reason we come to this forum is to learn. (atleast that is my reason). Which also means that we are still in the learning process. I know I dupe stuff all the time, but its so I can learn the process or possibly how the artist thinks. It's just like when we were babies. You didn't just start walking.. you saw someone else do it first. (one day I hope to run.. metaphorically speaking.)

------------------
-Chapel
Brian Reber
http://www.geocities.com/chapel_t9/

[giZMo]

every single dot i make, helps me to get better and better. I�ll be in training as long as i live.
it doesn�t matter what i paint and from where i paint, as long as i do paint!...
..and i definetly can�t avoid getting better

trying to make rules is nothing but wounded vanity.

giZMo

[IO_Error]

Yozni, I wasn't referring to anyone specifically. This isn't about Fallen's thread specifically either... and the obscenities really aren't necessary...

I realize you don't care what I think and what not, and you shouldn't. And yes, I've copied from photos before. I don't yet have the skills to produce the results I want without a bit of photo reference.

Thank you spooge and muzman for your thoughts on this... I couldn't have said it better myself.

[This message has been edited by IO_Error (edited April 05, 2000).]

[aquamire]

I have only rarely used photos for referrence, although I find I should do it more often. This is because, well, I dont have a model willing to work for me all day long. So, is there really much of a difference between painting a model in real life and painting one from a photo? I do suppose it depends on if you took the photo or not. Lets not forget referrence has been used since the dawn of art. I personally, strongly believe that photo referrence is good for learning how to paint various subjects as well as learning how to use color.

------------------
/Aq

[DawGe]

In such cases as you are talking off...even though one may use an image that was made or taken by someone else there is always room to add your own detail to it. I just went a did q quick piece using photos to hopefully illustrate the fact.

http://www.dzdesigns.com/projects/misc/biztest1c.jpg

Theres a good 10 photos there .. I don't pretend to be great but I do my own thing and sometimes that includes using others photos to get there. I don't think theres anything wrong w/ it as long as it does show that the artist added his/her own idenity to the project... thats my peace..

DawGe

[yoszi]

I guess my opinion and estimation of what's good are severely damaged by years of watching demo scene gfx (the reason i didn't get into drawing/painting is because i really thought that they painted those images, haha, while i couldn't do a simple sketch).

[Visigoth]

Aquamire:
As to the differences between photography and live models -- Using a live model is great; There is nothing like asking the model to shift her weight just slightly to get a little bit more (or less) defined shadow depending on your lighting...etc
I love working from live models; It helps me get the form down better on my art...
If that's cheating; Then Michaelangelo and Leonardo were cheaters as well. =P

~{V}~

------------------
Oh god my eyes!