[pierre]

I like painting images like this. This is for a client - not finished yet -, although I would still paint images like these if only for fun. Very sweet and affectionate .

Photo ref for the heads.

I admit I used the smudge tool on this one, just some areas. I almost never use it, but if used properly, I believe it can be a great asset.

there is a high rez on the webpage.



I did some color sketche for my "knight" project. Rdgraffix's color work on my initial sketch inspired me to turn to warmer colors.











I don't know if any of these image links will work since crosswinds don't allow image linking directly from other servers than their's

------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah

[opticillusion]

Very sweet!

Here's your link to the high res, because the thumbnail you had isn't linking to the bigger one: http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah/digitalpaintings/digitalpaintingsim/kiss.jpg

The kiss is very moody and highly realistic. Even the high res looks good. The glow of the lamp through the hair is just right, and the proportions look good. The only thing that jumps out at me is the position of the girls hand. It looks a bit like she's scratching him with her thumb. Other than that, the pic is beautiful.

The next two sketches look like an abstract something that I can't make out, but the position of the horse and knight in that last one are really looking good. I can't wait to see the finished one! The warmer colors work, especially like the highlights on the horses head.

Nice work Pierre!

------------------
Metavisuals.com

[Jason Manley]

sorry kid...I dont believe it.

[Nightime]

It's a terrific image Pierre

/me hands out flame-resistant suits for this thread

JJ




------------------
JJ / Nightime
http://members.home.net/jeremy12/web/

[ceenda]

Jason Manley: Eek! I hope we're not going to have this debate again.

The pic looks good pierre, though there's something about the colours in your pics that always seems a bit... I dunno, cold & flat? How about doing some pics with lots of greens?

[Frost]

Jason Manley: http://www.sijun.com/dhabih/ubb/Forum2/HTML/005058.html

Pierre: The kissing couple image looks good, but, I don't get the purple-ish unitone blob in the center abdomen of the girl... it seems very odd and colorful compared to her very unsatured face... just my 2 cents. Otherwise the people look great!

[ZakatH]

It sorta looks like the girl has put her thumb into her lover's arm :P

[Jason Manley]

no flame war intended...sorry...just bothered with this kind of thing.

I am honestly just disappointed after all the discussions we have had about this kind of stuff...especially not owning up to cut and paste tracing of photos and leading others to bad habits.

this only sets a poor example for the less experienced and talented younger ones.

Learn to draw and paint. Photo dependency is a crutch and not a strength. Once it is no longer a crutch than you are ready to use photos again...then you won't be used by your photos.

I see a lot of young talent on these boards. I see people hungry for information on being a better artist and on learning to make art. I also see art that has wandered too far off the path of creativity and only leads others poor work habits and a lesser understanding of the fundamentals of making images....my advice...draw and paint from life as much as you can...draw from your imagination and draw from the masters that you admire the most. Only then will you begin to shine.


Jason

[FatPenguin]

"....I also see art that has wandered too far off the path of creativity and only leads others poor work habits...."

But who are you to decide what is 'too far off the path of creativity'?

Pierre has shown on at least a couple of occasions that he is prefectly capable of painting without photo ref.

When he does use photo reference, you can by all means say 'i don't like that' but you have no right to say 'that's bad' or 'wrong'

there should only really be two reasons for creating art. either you get paid to do it, or you enjoy it. apparently pierre gets paid to do this stuff, and we can only assume he enjoys it, therefore can be absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing.

[Intuos]

Yes, I'm a "newbie". No, I haven't posted anything of my own yet. And no, I probably don't have the right to an opinion... but here it is anyway :P

I have to say that I agree with Jason, and I don't really want to go any deeper than that. Accusations aren't productive, but I feel what Jason said was. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it seems that a lot of you guys are of the opinion that Pierre's work is completely legit, and that's fine. I happen to be of an opinion that is polar opposite. Like Jason said, there are a lot of "hungry" new talents visiting these forums, and like he, I don't feel that they should be mislead.

Anyway, I have a feeling that my words aren't going to mean very much until I post some of my own work. I'm staying with my brother for a bit while the builders finish our house. Once I get settled I'll be happy to post some work for ravenous critique

Just to get you guessing... I do work professionally in the gaming industry, and chances are you have seen my stuff I will reveal my identity as soon as I have some hardcore proof to back it up, seeing there are a plethora of detectives in these forums. I just don't want to present myself as some 14-year-old overpainter in desperate need of acceptence.

Whoa, I'm rambling, someone shoot me. My point is that I agree with Jason. Excuse my mindless babble.

-Intuos

[CapnPyro]

It has the look and feel of a romance novel, which as far as Ive known are almost always photograph dependant (fabio, anyone?) so i think it really fits with the style. if he posted a tutorial on how to do it that way then i could see your cause for concern..

-Capn

[Jason Manley]

well mr penguin...I guarantee that we would not hire or pay an artist whose portfolio consists of art that is "too far from the path of creativity and toward the direction of bad habits"

I see portfolios come in to Black Isle on a regular basis. Companies like ours thirst for artists with a strong traditional background and who can draw as well as paint...artists that understand light and form and space and color and content/idea as well as the relatively easy to learn programs. A portfolio of Photo Copies will not get you a job here. It wouldn't even get you a call back. Maybe it will elsewhere but it wont get you to the point of being able to use reference to the level of Mullins or to the point of Frazetta.

It is important to learn structure, value, space, composition, idea development, creative development, color theory, and art history at a very early stage. The wrong path is one that avoids the struggles it takes to understand the subtle foundation of image construction and idea development in favor of the easy way to paste together an image for the sake of impressing the naive.

It is like doing cover songs rather than writing your own music....there are clubs that will hire a cover band...if you want to be in a cover band than so be it..as long as you enjoy it...however I feel that if you have talent and soul that you should push for your own understanding so you can create your own music...a good cover band will never compare to Eric Clapton or Beethoven...It just depends on the kind of artist you want to be.......do you want to be a cover band at a local bar or do you want to create beautiful music for yourself and or the masses. when you can create your own music then go make a cover song...that way you will shine and actually have enough creative control to add to the music....and have a bit of you come out as well.

I agree that it is about enjoying what you do. That is first and foremost. You are right in regards to that.

I say what I say so that the younger more impressionable artists know that if they want to make it as artists that there are ways to do it. You can be a hack and get no real respect or you can take the long road and earn respect for what you do while enjoying the process...as well as becoming creatively free without crutches.

that is what it comes down to. do you want to be a hack or do you want to compete with the masters who you yourself admire. There is a lot of talent on these boards...I would rather see the talent pushed to greatness rather than toward disappointment.


jason

[Scorchmon]

So, how exactly are you supposed to learn structure, value, space, etc. if you don't use references in the first place? I don't know about you, but I only improve when I use references. Otherwise, I'm just drawing for my own enjoyment without any attempt to improve my abilities.

[yoshi]

quote:

---

draw from your imagination and draw from the masters that you admire the most. Only then will you begin to shine.

[/B]

---

I dont exactly understand how redrawing or copying master paintings increase one's abilities.. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to take a painting and rebuild it, use different shapes for example and use colors & lighting from a painting ? That would force an analysis. Sorry if that sounds ignorant.

[Jason Manley]

that is a good question...

if you copy a master painting you can understand how they made that painting (if you have a very good reproduction) you can learn about color, edges, value, form, light, space, paint texture etc...I have done many and all the really good artists who are my friends have done the same. I bet mullins has too.

using the masters is fine too...but doing an exact study is like learning to play Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor. If you can play that then you can play anything.

jason

if you have to ask then you havent done a good master copy. I learned to see form and space in my paintings from doing those....I also learned about layering color and about subtle edges and expression. ...all are important things....you will learn others if you do it...maybe even some of the same.

[Jason Manley]

You learn about space, light, form, surface, color, mood, and reality from working from life as well as from doing master studies....photos are flat. they are distortions of reality.

we dont see like cameras see. Cameras see in a depth of field. Our eyes see in a focal area within a depth of field. The old masters were amazing at understanding how we all see. I have studied enough master paintings and worked from life enought to recognize this understanding in other artists work. It is something we look for in artists work who want to work with us here at black isle as well. That is why it is so apparent that the above image is photo reliant...the way that it falls together is confusing to the eye and distorted in terms of color and space in the same ways that photos are. It may be pieced together from many phots but because of the constant reliance on photos the image structure has the same faults photos do...that is the danger of photo reliance...not truly understanding what you are making.

I realize that reference is important...however...if you work from life and remember how light works (all the properties of light) and learn all your anatomy and how to layer space so it reads pictorially...as well as learn color theory and how to create form then you will have creative freedom to work on your most important ideas. I dont discount using reference at all...I just discount all reliance on reference...if you work from photos and it comes out flat and lifeless as well as uncreative....then dont be surprised.

If you know that you should work from life as much as you can and draw out of your head as much as you can (once you can build forms with simple overhead lighting etc..) then you can create whatever you want...with very little reference...the reference can then be used to push your imaginitive stuff to a higher level.

michealangelo didnt have a camera...neither did raphael...sargent didnt rely on a camera...they all worked from life...and memory.


jason

you dont have to paint like them...just use the same theories as they do to construct images....they helped write the "programs and code" for visual art...use them and you will become stronger.

[yoshi]

Does the above apply to digital as good as to traditional painting ? [edit] copying master paintings...

[This message has been edited by yoshi (edited November 03, 2000).]

[kardis]

I rather not go into the politics of art. I simply wanted to say I like your work Pierre, hope to see much more - with or without photo reference.

-Kardis

[yoshi]

Jason Manley:
what do you mean by drawing out of your head ? Drawing directly what you see with your mind's eye or working something out on paper ? I find drawing from head and looking at the paper to be impossible, too confusing.

[Jason Manley]

it applies to both.

period.


drawing from your head is possible of you understand what Bridgeman says and does in his figure books.

I would not be able to draw or paint out of my head if I had not done so many master copies as well as spent a lot of persistant time drawing and painting from life.


when I draw out of my head I start by working out general forms and things like pose, light direction etc...the key is to work in sketches at first...doing small thumbnails and gestures can help too.

I draw out of my head in the same way that i paint from life...general to specific.


I always have to work it out...that never ever changes...sometimes I can see it ...other times I have to work with marks and shapes that I put down to push and pull my picture to what I want it to be...it is like having a ball of clay and sculpting the idea out of it...the same goes for paint and color and value.


jason

[Rinaldo]

While I would warm to what jason is saying it has little importance to what pierre does, or want's to do. He can draw, he has prooven it and he can do whatever he likes. as long as there is no fabrication or advice to photo ref.
If you look at an old masters painting it looks "real", much more so than a photo. I think spooge often goes on about photo vs real life. there is a lot less detail in a photo, it burns a lot of the information out especialy in the shadow areas. (is that right?)

There are a whole lot of artists who are totaly dependent on their photos. it is a very bad habit to get into. especialy if one is not learning from the photo. it is much easier to draw from a photo than from life as well.

But seeing as Pierre said that only the heads were referenced I don't think it is doing anyone a favor to get into this debate in the way it has been started. There is no right and wrong, only oppinions. whenever we all start to talk about it someone starts shouting. I would agree with jason that the pic does look "photoish" (if that's what you were saying) which can or can not be a bad thing depending on the viewer. I hate it personaly but it is marketable and while bashing the theory is a worthwhile exercise I think that it is being done in an aggressive fashon which is only going to cause blind argument. No one listens to someone who tells them they suck.
Jason is giveing some fantastic information here but I doubt that the people who would benifit from it are going to listen.


Pierre- it reminds me of a romance novel, or some pulp cover. I don't really like that sort of thing but anyway. I can tell that there are problems with it but I'm not experianced enough to rationalse or verbalise them. it has that "photo-taken-in-a-set-with-bad-lighting-and-then-painted" feel. I can admire it from a consumer point of view but not so much from an technical artistic one. with that said there is no doubt a lot of skill involved in doing this. the concept is nice as well.






[This message has been edited by Rinaldo (edited November 03, 2000).]

[jasonN]

At first I didn't understand. I didn't realise the difference between real life and photos. But after reading all the posts carefully I can now see it.
In this last week or so I've begun to try to learn more about lighting. Thanks for posting Jason, your advice was very helpful. Rinaldo, your post was very interesting, it cleared up a lot.

-Jason

[yoshi]

Jason Manley:
Thanks for replies. I;ll take this oportunity and ask about that: http://www.classicalrealism.com/ASCR_home/ateliers.htm Do you have any opinion on those shools in general ? Do they offer most desirable, optimum training ?

I was very glad to notice that sketching digitally with large brushes resembles sculpting. It differs from drawing on paper.

[Jason Manley]

the program is hundreds of years old and has been taught like that since the beginning.

I wanted to go really bad. I even visited and applied there. Unfortunately I had to go to an accredited art school with an aid program instead. My painting skills suffered because of that. I had to take history classes and other stuff instead of painting...but that is not a bad thing either.

To be honest...if you just make up your mind to learn to paint then you just need to find one teacher at any school who knows how to paint well (ask to see their work) and study under them. Then just DRAW DRAW DRAW ...all the time. alll the time!

It really depends on what you want to do with your art too.


jason

[Rag]

Jason: michealangelo didnt have a camera...neither did raphael...sargent didnt rely on a camera...they all worked from life...and memory.
Cameras weren't invented at the time of Michealangelo, but who's to say that he wouldn't have loved to have one at his side. But let me tell you of a wonderful artist who used photos extensively, Norman Rockwell. Rockwell would bring in his subjects, dress them, pose them and then photograph them, he then used those photographs as reference. And until you reach the status of Rockwell, degrading someone for their use of photos goes for nothing.
And for the business end of art..Is it what the client wanted? Apparently so, and in business, art or otherwise, if it is what the client is wanting, it doesn't really matter if you used photos or drew the damn thing in the dark with your feet. They are happy and you are paid.
This gets into the whole art for artsake argument. If you want to create something for your own personal enjoyment, do it however you choose, but when working in deadlines and pleasing the client, you don't do what you feel, you do what they feel.
I always remember that there are NO rules in art. Duchamp pulled this off by displaying a urinal with his signature scrawled on it. What art that was!....oh boy



------------------
I don't believe in born talent, only born desire. The rest is all work.

[Jason Manley]

dont even bring up duchampe...hahahah...Ive got to pee just thinking about him. and that isnt exactly what I am talking about...I am talking about drawing and painting ...not shock art.

asa far as Rockwell goes...the difference is that rockwell could draw....and damn well too.

ROCKWELL WAS NOT USED BY HIS REFERENCE. HE USED IT.

he understood form

he understood color

he understood anatomy

he understood light

he understood composition

he understood visual life

that man could draw anything.


he didnt just copy his reference...he improved it in expression, color, life, mood, form, space, and creativity.

michaelangelo has the best form of anyone from his time. I am sure he would have loved to have a camera too.

but.... he learned to create form and light and space and design and composition by studying great art before him and by drawing and painting and sculpting from life. I guarantee he would not be used by his reference...his stuff isnt flat nor would it ever be. I also think he would prefer to work from life so that the information is not distorted and lost by a camera lens.

I am not nor will I probably ever be anything close to rockwell. But I do know that rockwell learned the fundamentals of art and so did Lyendecker (lyendecker learned from bouguereau who preached working from life and learning to draw and paint accurately).

Salvador Dali would say the same thing...he was quoted as saying that first an artist must learn to master form and space and color before reaching to anything else.

Dali used extensive photo reference as well.

but...he could draw and paint too.

too much photo reliance leads to bad habits.

I will say that over and over.

It leads to distorted images (if that is what you want than so be it)...if you can draw and paint already than I say that is a creative choice....not a crutch.

ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IT IS ABOUT CREATIVE FREEDOM AND CHOICE. If you are stuck using photos and cannot do without then you are not free to follow your fullest inspirations or to create. If you can create without...then you are free to use your reference...

rockwell was free...so was bouguerau..so was frazetta...

It comes down to not practicing bad habits early in our artistic development. It comes down to hard work and a dedication to do things right. What those things are is up to each of you. Using a crutch and not learning to draw and paint will only hinder your ability to create.

if you dont want to learn to draw...if you dont want to understand light and space and idea development or composition...then these things dont appy to you Mr Duchampe.


see you at the toilet.


Jason

[Rinaldo]

Very well said Jason. Normally the "but the great masters would have used a camera" argument is something that stops the thunder of anti ref. (hehe). What you said makes things clearer.
I think that the important thing is that a lot of the things that in the beginning make our art look better when we are unskilled are bad for the artist overall. The basics need be learnt first. Things like ref are good for the ego because all of a sudden you don't put out shit any more. It�s like an addiction, a "high" if you will. All of a sudden things are looking good and you're not sure why, and can't really control it. Then if you head back to learning, things go from looking good to shit again. It is hard to come down from there and start learning again. I see a lot of those fantasy art books where some guy has a kick ass sketch and can obviously draw but they don't seem to be able to break the habit of using the ref. everything is a routine, and with deadlines there is fear to maybe go out on a limb. I really doubt that using ref is that much quicker anyway, after the photo and the tracing/copying. Seems more like a comfort blanket than anything for a lot of artists (from my experience anyway). Some, like Rockwell, know how to use it, others seem not to. As with everything it's not the tool or technique, but the person using it and the way they do so.

All MHO of course.

[BooMSticK]

I've always said: steal, crush, destroy.... just get the job done....

;B

[coconutmonkey]

Jason I think you're being one of the more arrogant jackasses this bored has seen and It's sad seeing you come from the profession that you are in. Pierre is a damn good artist and he's already proven to this entire board who didnt believe that he drew the images he did. You have no right to come on and thrash his talent like this and you're pretty concieted by thinking you're an authority on everything that has to do with art.

[micke]

Uh-oh! I can smell a flamewar comming
I'm not taking part in it.
Boomstick: I believe in that too
It's weird what deadlines make people do

[This message has been edited by micke (edited November 04, 2000).]