[CwStone]

I really cant stand it when peeps trace images and call it their own - i just cant stand it. If you cant make a pic without using your own imagination or at least through free hand then u really shouldnt be displaying ur work, IMHO. I only think tracing is justified if u already can draw at an impressive level, but if u can draw that well, then u probably wont want to trace anyway. So, my theory is that tracing really has no place for an artist - u start off actually drawing, and when u get good enough that u would be able to trace without getin burned by the online community, u probably just woudlnt want to. I know i wouldnt. I just dont like tracing. I just...ghhaa.

And furthermore, dont give me all that "as long as it turns out good" stuff, cuz i know that when i make somethin completely from scratch, then some guy comes out with a traced and color picked picture and treats it like some incredible thing, and gets praise for it, i feel jipped.

And one moore thing: I read through most of these replys and it seems as tho some of u were treating drawing from a photo as a reference not freehand. IMO, as long as u are drawing on a blank page, with nothing underneath it (except somethin sturdy) and nothing to physically guide you in ur drawing, then i consider that freehand. Even if ur looking at a photo. So long as what ur looking at is away from the page.

ps. If i seemed harsh at all its cuz im writing this at three in the moring - I stayed up all night to watch this thing on ebay, right? And then, at the very last second, as im thinkin im gonna win, some ****** comes along and bids literally a cent higher than me. A CENT! Can ya believe that shyt?!
_________________
-Chase

[bearsclover]

[bRyaN2003]

I'm basically new here, so i say Hello to everyone...i was indirectly directed here by Mr. Robert "Lunatique" Chang..so a big thanks to him..alot of creative minds here...i'm glad i was able to lurk for so long...

In regards to this tracing issue, many people mention ethics, and being cheated..

Not everyone believes in the same code of honor, or follow the same rules..it's a matter of perspective, for some tracing is downright wrong, for others, it's acceptable, and some don't care as long as the finsihed product is tight...

I completely disagree with tracing/swiping other artist, that annoys the hell out of me..i know someone who does this and goes to FIT, he sweeps work from other websites and passes it as his own work..

Now poeple like Tim Bradstreet traces photogrphs, his own pictures mind you..he uses models directs them, sets the lighting, uses props, to create the image...he then traces the pics he creates and inks them..does that make him less of an artist..hell no, if you click to his website, you'll easily see that his design sense, is right on...and has his technique down..and it takes him about 14 hours to create a finshed piece...

Be mindful that the world does not rotate around a set code of ethics, nor will it ever..

[CwStone]

Yea thats a good example of when tracing is acceptable, even a good thing. I think that whenever someone traces something thats already theirs (photographs, drawings) then its fine. Ive done this a few times in the past.
_________________
-Chase

[antx]

togusajr: You might be right that the tracing of the skull could be better, but again: the skull itself is not the subject in this piece. More than that: a better and more precise traced skull would not match the style of the rest of the picture. So don�t let this fact drag your attention off of the whole picture. And if it still bothers you that much, I don�t say you should try to like it (I wouldn�t do that myself), but why not accept it?

All: Imagine aliens visit earth and it turns out that they go even a step further with their art and paint/draw everything blindfolded, because they say looking at your work while making it is cheating. You have to know all the strokes you did on a piece to get accepted. Would that make all of us cheaters? Where is the limit? There is none cos that�s not the point in art.

Skill is not everything that matters. Even if many like to get fascinated by the artists skill while looking at his art. I like to do that too and I also feel disapointed if pieces turn out to be not just the result of pure skill as I thought in first place, but that�s no reason to get mad on the artist and call him a cheater. He�s just doing things different and who says that my way it the right one?

All that said, I just want to make sure that is is not about those who just trace something with no own effort and then pretend they didn�t trace.

[fukifino]

[maxetormer]

The tools are not the only important thing, the idea it is what drows me to the art, do i love a good freehand tecnique as well =) , the greatest artists of the world were great because:

the ideas they had on theirs heads
+a very good tecniqe
+ useing the tools at hand
all to make their vison real.


I do agree that in oder to get to be an eficient artist u have to be albe to
draw very VERY good on freehand, you will never be perfect that is only an ideal every body fails to do somethings even the best.

But when acuraccy is the most importat thing, references are just something that all people needs becase NO BODOY is perfect; some people need more refs. to achive certain things, some use less, but we all have or will have to use them .

This is for those how wanted to know how old this discussions is, read this extract i copied and pasted here, this was one of the first things i learned on my art class. (the copided stuff it is below all this rambling)

So tracing it is an old like hell tool, and many old masters used to trace as well. 0_0

So i guess that it all comes to middle ground, use what ever u can to make the image you have on your head, the best you can with the tools at hand, actually every great artist uses tracing (even Criag Mullins)

http://www.goodbrush.com/hirez_pgs/ff/cty53/cty53_block.JPG

http://www.goodbrush.com/hirez_pgs/ff/cty53/cty53.JPG

and i think he is a great artist the diferece betewen him and some other artist is that he does not hide the way in wich he works (and he is very good at freehand) , he is honest so i don�t mind that he has used a 3d block model, actually he was pretty pragmatic and smart by usign the ref 3d model, so ethics and honesti does matter, actually it is the thing that matters the most.
well that is all, read out the text below if u did not knew this, it will really sorprise your self, it is amazing how trick some old masters were ha ha.

( the full data is on this page: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/cameraob.htm )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The firsts pragrafs:


The Camera Obscura (Latin for Dark room) was a dark box or room with a hole in one end. If the hole was small enough, an inverted image would be seen on the opposite wall. Such a principle was known by thinkers as early as Aristotle (c. 300 BC). It is said that Roger Bacon invented the camera obscura just before the year 1300, but this has never been accepted by scholars; more plausible is the claim that he used one to observe solar eclipses. In fact, the Arabian scholar Hassan ibn Hassan (also known as Ibn al Haitam), in the 10th century, described what can be called a camera obscura in his writings; manuscripts of his observations are to be found in the India Office Library in London.

n the mid sixteenth century Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615) published what is believed to be the first account of the possibilities as an aid to drawing. It is said that he made a huge "camera" in which he seated his guests, having arranged for a group of actors to perform outside so that the visitors could observe the images on the wall. The story goes, however, that the sight of up-side down performing images was too much for the visitors; they panicked and fled, and Battista was later brought to court on a charge of sorcery!

Though Battista's account is wrapped up in a study of the occult, it is likely that from that time onwards many artists will have used a camera obscura to aid them in drawing, though either because of the association with the occult, or because they felt that in some way their artistry was lessened, few would admit to using one. Several are said to have used them; these include Giovanni Canale - better known as Canaletto (1697- 1768), Vermeer (1632-1675), Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792), and Paul Sandby (1725-1809), a founding member of the Royal Academy.

Though some, including Joshua Reynolds, warned against the indiscriminate use of the camera obscura, others, notably Algarotti, a writer on art and science and a highly influential man amongst artists, strongly advocated its use in his Essays on Painting (1764):

"the best modern painters among the Italians have availed themselves of this contrivance; nor is it possible that they should have otherwise represented things so much to the life... Let the young painter, therefore, begin as early as possible to study these divine pictures...

Painters should make the same use of the Camera Obscura, which Naturalists and Astronomers make of the microscope and telescope; for all these instruments equally contribute to make known, and represent Nature."
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[maxetormer]

dunno if some one tried to read this while i was fixing the above post.
Some of the links i used were worng now they are ok sorry for this extra post and all the inconveniences. this is a good topic bw
_________________
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race.Sorrow is the contrast of happines then sorrow is some how the esence of happiness + =

[maxetormer]

i been thinking abut the motif than some person might have to trace before been good at freehand, and this is my conclusion.
In case ther is any doubst no i have never traced a photo, and the thing is that i think i have never done that, because i think that, no photo machs the images i have on my head %100 ( ps i think it is pretty boring to trace, there is not challenge).
So i have to create things form scrach only using photos as referece to see if i am not doing things wrong, tracing imo it is for when you have LOTS of experience, it is not wrong if you are good, REAL good on freehand drawing.
I guess it can help you to meet some deadlines or as i stated above if you really need perfect acurracy and u feel you can not do it any other way.

this thinking i like, some teachers at my school think that by doing this kinda of drawing u improve your observation skills regarding color value, and propotion of objet too.
i think that it is good as well:

[BobbyD]

I agree with CwStone.

Craig Mullins is the man. Follow his good ethics.

I think that the best thing to do is be honest with your work. People will find out eventually if you trace, and will think less of your work.

The Photographer is also an artist... (I am one too) If you trace or do a paintover for composition/proportion/perspective or whatever, I feel that you need to either show the image, or site the photographer, preferably both. If you did a colaborative work, you would probably want to be in the credits.

I have traced for a quick project, that wasn't "art" basically making a photo look like an idea, and inserting products into the scene freehand. It was a learning experience since i'm not too used to rendering in PS, and didn't have time to come up with my own environments. In that situation, i feel that it's ok since i was not acting like i came up with it all from my head.

I think that tracing something then rendering it to learn rendering is ok, but don't act like you did the line drawing. why not just practice color on one of your own pieces? Same with copying someone's style. I wouldn't trace their work and their style, that would be a waste of time. trying it out on your own sketches is fine, but use it and others to come up with your own style.

I have mixed feelings about using the grid method to copy a photograph to do art... I sorta feel like it's tracing because it's so much faster/easier to get the correct proportion and details. Any other comments on that?

[bearsclover]

Re gridding:

I think it's a great learning tool. I also think it is invaluable for blowing up an image for a large mural or painting. (I mean, a REALLY LARGE mural or painting.)

I think that gridding is really helpful, but after a while, if thats' all an artist can do to get an accurate image (barring tracing) then that is probably a problem for them. It becomes sort of a "crutch."

I've been in classes with students who gridded (or traced, for that matter) and I usually ended up finishing my assignments before they did. (It depended on the nature of the project, though.) I think the reason I finished before the tracers and the gridders was because I'd practiced drawing so much, I'd gotten very confident with it. It wasn't so much my refusal to trace that made me "faster," it was the overall confidence I gained from all that practice, practice, practice�something most of the tracers and gridders didn't do.

Of course, like mentioned here before, the artist who traces but does such AWESOME work (great composition, great line, great color, great concepts) is going to be awesome no matter what. They should feel no shame in the fact that they traced�but they should not conceal the fact, either. I've think we've seen some artists cited on this thread that are awesome and trace, and I think we all agree that they are still awesome.

Getting back to gridding�it seems like such a big hassle. But I think it's fine for the newbie artist, I really do. It gives them some confidence, and it really can help them learn to draw, as long as they use the grid as a way of "preparing" them for freehand drawing. (Like, perhaps make the grid squares larger and larger after a while, so there is gradually more "drawing" and less "gridding" going on.) Kind of like training wheels. That's a great learning tool, I should think.

But to grid, grid, grid, every damned thing, forever and ever? To never be able to do anything without gridding first? Wow. What a huge pain in the ass. What about when they want to draw from life? That would be almost impossible. (Not quite impossible, but such a huge pain that most wouldn't do it.) And what about quick sketches or drawings done from ones' imagination? The grid isn't going to help there.

I see gridding as a useful tool, but after a while, I think most artists should start to regard it as a time-sucking albatross of a technique. All those squares squares, squares. Blech.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

[Light]

I'm back. Well, I don't post here often because the moderators were not fair to me, and a lot of people with their herd mentality ragged me. Basically, forums like this are not really the best place to have intelligent discusions or get professional level critique.

So, if any striving artist here really wants to be succesful then I suggest not to post work here or listen to much that is said here. There are only really 3 possibilities. You are not good yet and will get ignored. You are OK and have a chance to get really good (like me) and will make someone mad, and the herd will rag you. You are pretty good and the herd will worship you, and you'll listen to it and be fooled. So, thats why I wont be posting my art here.

But, ok you want to know my ideas on art and tracing? This is quite lengthy.

First, ethically we must see what other great artist are doing. Boris Vallejo, and Sorayama Hajime both trace their works. Now, it is true that they can probably draw pretty well and they might trace to save time. But, a big reason they trace is to make the work better. It's like you can see Boris sketches are quite cartoony compared to this paintings, and thats because he traces. Many artist copy and use 3d models or pre-built works too.

So then legally you can trace or copy anything so long as you own the copyright too it. I've seen countless artist make photographs and then trace and paint them, and become quite succesful professional artist.

And, really if you want to make the best works then this is a fast track at getting good especially if you want to do portraits or things like that.

The issue of tracing to me is not a big issue because its not very hard to copy if you practice it. I've even done copies from repeated memory exposure and the people here ragged me, and claimed I traced it. So, that is quite funny. And, its reallly easy if you copy with something in front of you.

But, it can get even easier if you copy and make a few measurements. I rarely make formal measurements because that makes it even easier. But, its common to use a pencil or make a few hard measurements (common among professional artist).

So, imo traciing is easier and more effecient then copying, and copying is easy too.

The broader question regards what an artist IS or should be, and what art is.

I've defended copying many times. Historically the old master's copied, and most of the artist people envy today are just copying. And they aren't nearly as good as people think they are (imo). I could name names but I'll not -- especially since the names would encompass most of the good painters working today, and of the last several centuries.

Most people say they copy to learn technique or something. And, this is true but people also copy because it is easier and they cant do what they want to do without copying.

People who copy will sometimes complain about tracing. Yet, when a person posts a copy here then people will often times want to see the original to see how good he/she did and how close he came to the original. Its funny to hear begining artist talking about proportions or trying to get the nose or angle of the face right because that has nothing to do with making good art.

And, I also have to think that in these cases tracing is more effecient, and better so why not just trace? Ah, because for beginning artist copying is hard especially if they are too stubborn (like me) or too ignorant (perhaps others?) to use basic measurements.

Of course, the general argument to this will be: but if I copy something I'm able to embue it with a special quality or make it my own.

And, to that I say rubbish!! You are not that good. The only reason your copies don't look the same as the original is because you are not perfect. You don't know how to make it look exactly like the original or you are too lazy. Ok a few people may do this own purpose but its extremely rare.

Style is generally created by accident or as a method of working technique and not generally as a conscious effort. Thats just the way it is for better or worse.

So, what have we learned?

Both tracing and copying have precedent among great artist
Making an original (C) painting by tracing is more ethical and more legal then copying another artist's work which can't be copyrighted or called original.

Yes, I said that. There is a greater issue at stake here. If you know about the PC/amiga demo/art scene then you will find many top quality copies of famous artist especially Boris Vallejo. These works will never achieve the status or worth of the originals because they aren't the originals.

The worth of the art will depend on how original it is and its quality. So, basically if you want make art that has more worth then I suggest not copying especially (C) photographs or known artworks. Instead, I'd suggest to trace your own photographs or copy your own models and make original worthwhile art works that people might just value. So just based on the art value artist should do more original works. If you copy something photorealitically then I might be impressed with your technique but I'll collect the original instead.

Ah, yes I said original and this goes back to what an artist should be. We are living in an age where originality, and uniqueness are valued more. At least, I value originality and originality implies creativity. The truth is that many artist aren't creative or original but that doesn't mean you can't be original or creative. And within the scope of originality we have many things we can be original with such as style, motive, etc, etc, etc.

But, basically a lot of artist want to think they are original and creative, and this is quite rare among artist. This is why so few artist get to the top level.

So what are my basic point to summarize so far?

Tracing and copying both have historical and current precedent. Both can be legal, and ethical.

Original works of art no matter how they are created will be valued more then copies (whether the technique was to use sight-copy, trace, or grid).

Many artist want to be creative and at least think that they are original but this is actually quite rare.

-----

Of course, not all artist really care about being creative or original. These are the ones who value their technique and craftsmanship more.

Personally, I'm working on doing artwork without copying or using reference because I feel that visualization is the most powerful thing an artist can have. I value creativity and originality and want to do the most original works of art possible. I think visualization is another cornerstone of the great artist, and what seperates the lesser from the greater and so I spend a lot of time working on visualizaiton.

There is another thing about copying or tracing maybe even more important then being original. Tracing doesn't permit a lot of freedom. Copying doesn't really permit much freedom either unless you are say looking at a model sheet and generating new poses/sketches or only loosely copying. And it is true that just having a 3d model in front of you or a maniken can make it easier to make figures or things or just a photo of a face could be used for details. If you copy in such a loose fashion or just to find say how a uniform looks or something then you can far but very few people copy in this fashion because it takes so much work.

Anyway, so if you want to have more freedom then being able to draw from imagination or visualization is the most important thing, and tracing nor copying will give to you. But, its possible to do good works from tracing and copying too.

I guess the main thing in my own personal opinion is make good original artworks especially since so few people do that. Of course, if your technique isn't good then they wont be valued and you wont impress any people here but if you keep working on it then maybe you will get good eventually.

If you have to take photographs and trace then that is okay too.
If you do good works then you might be able to sale them and make a lot of art collectors happy. The only people who might question you will be disgruntled artist.

I agree it is important to be honest about technique though or else you are lieing.

Also, I'm approaching this from a fine art/fantasy art perspective. If you are making models for a game or doing advertising or etc then the issue of being original or making new artworks versus copies obviously doens't apply and basically those types of jobs are more technical in nature.

[jr]

maxe:
that's not called tracing fella.

everyone else: (let me sprinkle some more of what's been said already only using humor we can all appreciate and perhapes have a chuckle at.)
tracing or no tracing. a shitty artist makes shitty art. see if you gave a typewriter to shakespeare he'll write the sequel to hamlet (rosencrantz revenge! this time it's personal!) but if you gave that same typewriter to a monkey, he'll defecate on it. sure some people would consider that high art. Can that poop and auction it!

as for the ethics of it, well, if you can do something and YOU think it'll make it look better, why the hell not do it? i mean, would superman ride his bike to save lois? i think not! he'd fly! personally i try to stay away from too much tracing because i find my work doesn't look as well when i trace it, that's a personal thing. proportionally it helps alot but i have this nasty habit of flattening things when i trace. i find alot of you guys on this thread have this puerile attitude about tracing or even about photographic reference. they're tools to your final product. If any of that stuff makes you a better ARTIST we'd have alot less monkey's crapping on keyboards, oh i'm sorry , i mean wacom tablets 6x9.


_________________

[Light]

Hmm, I said most everything I believe. But, part of the the feelings artist have about tracing or copying deals a lot with the world we live in.

I mean, a few hundred years ago an artist might have felt more like a photographer or a historian then a "creator". Well, today we have photographs and things, and artist have already went to modern.

I doubt a court room artist even thinks about these discussions, and a portrait artist is not likely to have many considerations either. But, pesonally I'm desiring to be a digital fine artist with an emphasis on fantasy so I care more about FREEDOM.

Another theme we hear a lot is 'an artist can do whatever they want so long as they prove they are better then me'. It's kinda funny really the logic involve in that. I guess it's "he's payed his dues so he can trace but NOT YOU -- you can't even draw". Of course, the artist who says such things is thinking 'you are making a better painting then me and I'm better then you, and thats not fair'. And it is quite funny if we think about the logic in this or the logic in saying "work on copying so you can eventually trace or draw without reference or something". It's all quite funny.

But, I guess a big thing is how an artist wants to work and what he wants to do. I've a lot of visualizations for good paintings and I want to do these paintings, and I'd rather be able to work without having to have a model or reference, and I think that if I don't visualize then my painting will suffer anyway.

That's probably the main thing to me. And, I don't want to be reactionary (ie I dont want to react to the paint.. I'd rather control the paint). I guess I'm bordering close to the very difficult idea of creationism, and it is difficult to be succesful this way. Of course, for me if I do achieve creationsim then I might then accept reationism but I don't want to be reactionary any more. (ie reacting to the process of painting, and making it good vs starting with an idea and accomplishing that goal).

But a lot of the ideas many of the artist express against tracing or copying is basically some representation of the EGO. Basically, an "I'm better then you thing and how dare you make a better painting then me". Its NOT FAIR. Ive fallen trap to this too, and its funny.

The other thing is that with cameras, computers, and photoshop artist are searching more for what makes art valuable, and what makes an artist good, and the purpose of art.

Personally, I like the idea of what Brom states about how he likes the fact that some of his artwork is completely unique and original. And, also, he is one of my favorite artist. But so is Sargent, and Hals.. And I know that they must have basically copied.

Also, there are other questions about "what is fair". It's like a lot of beginner's think that Julie Bell or Boris Vallejo can do sketch out a finished drawing that is really clear and perfect. No, in fact they are very messy at first just to get the basic idea and proportions.

So, what you are seeing is not really their skill level but how well they know their process.

Beginners work on technique and skill. Professionals work on process. And masters work on vision.

If I'm not succesful with just painting from visualization then I will go find some model and pay her/him and do whatever it takes. I'd rather make paintings that might be valued then not just because I was too stupid to use the tools available to me. But, I still think I can gain a lot from working on my visualization skills so I'm still not decided if I really need that yet. But, sure I will make good art no matter what.

Also, you know what the difference between an artist and a performer is? An artist doesn't give a flip what the critic thinks so long as the artist sees his/her work truthfully. A critic can only give anayltical judgements to a true artist but he can't make value judgements. But with a performer, if the goal is to please the audience then the critic can make both value, and analytical judgements. I want to always be sure that I remember this difference.

Of course, an artist hopes that some people will gain enjoyment from his work. And he hopes that someone will eventally say "you are competent" even if they dont like his work.

And really there might be some greek idea of immortality that artist who want to do really good works cling to too. But everyone is different. For me art is about undeniable truth even if its all an illusion. Escher seemed to think about the same ideas except his truth was more of an intellectual sort, and I can't believe that none of his works ever made significant use of colors but colors are more sensual matters, and I guess it never entertained him.

Also, If anyone get a chance then see some master works in real life. They are much better then the best digital copies you will get. I've still not seen a sargent in real life but hope too eventually.

Also, it might be a good idea to work on sketching since a lot of problems can be fixed easier in that stage. I think artist come in 2 sorts. Those who are good with lines and those who are good with mass. Like Craig is of the second sort. I'm of the second sort. And some are good with line. But, I still believe that its a good idea to work on sketching if you want to get good because its too easy to get lost with painting. I like Mullins work, but I think that most artist will be more confident if they are able to master the line drawing. His technique involving laynig down colors and things as the start is good for painting but quite dangerous unless you are really good (because it invites reactionary process. basically, a beginner can find a lot to like in this method without making progress with any clear goals).

Basically what I do is work on visualization, study old masters, and sketching. I don't want to go back to painting until I master sketching because I'm better at painting then sketching and I believe that I'll be better painter if I get my sketching solid. This one thing Brom said too, and it makes sense.

[maxetormer]

[BobbyD]

Light:

Your views are good and well thought out. Sketching will no doubt help your painting. I too work on visualization, studying the masters, and sketching.

Here you quote:
"I suggest not copying especially (C) photographs or known artworks."

When a photo is taken it is Copyrighted. same with art, and anything creative. Some works are more well known like you said, but all creative work, when it's created, it's copyrighted.