[Twacle]

Good day people of the forums.

This, in my opinion, is a very hot topic, especially on the internet. Is there a line between getting inspired by looking at other peoples work and copying ? I personally think there is, but the bigger question is WHERE ? Where is this line, how can you say the work only inspired you an d be sure about it ?

??????????????????????????

Post your opinions and don't swear at other people beacuse they have different ones.

Thanks

[Pat]

In a learning environment like this forum, I think it's cool too emulate what you see. You can learn from all the different styles and approaches.

When doing your own work for presentation (something you're claiming is your own) is where, I believe, the line is drawn.

I think the process follows these 3 stages: emulation, synthesis and invention. If you find yourself inspired by someone else's work, one or two pieces later you're still going to be preoccupied by that other person's interpretation. Don't post this work... because your contribution to the work is somewhat minimal. You're in the emulation stage, attempting to understand the new work. Once your understanding grows, you begin to integrate the techniques and direction with your own skills and thoughts. This is the synthesis stage and the work done here is a in a gray area. Post with caution. Finally, when you've internalized the work and begin building on it --taking it places the inspiration work didn't-- you're in the Inventing stage. Understanding this, if you work something long enough, you can make it yours. And by all means, when you're inventing, call it your own.

-Pat

[Jabberwocky]

I knwo from my exp. that there are tons of people who inspire me and I mimic to learn. After so long I find what I like about each and form my own style from what I like from all these tons of other artist.

I also think we've had this talk like along time ago. And someone said something about that everyone learns by copying someone elses work... or something like that.

But I feel the copying comes into play when you stop using it for learning or just flat out copy it.... copyright infingement things *not too liked here*

[Jezebel]

Personally I feel like its ok to copy all you want, just don't go posting the images on your website and calling them yours. I used to draw from cartoons, comics and art magazines ALL the time. Trying my hardest to mimic the styles I saw, it was always fun and I think it was good practice too. But I didn't go around bragging on those pieces or anything, just kept them in my little sketchbook.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with mimicing elements of someone's style, it is ok to be inspired but I -don't- think its ok to try and be just like someone. This is because it can both irritate the person you're copying and it can slow down your growth as an artist. It's always more fun to experiment and do thinks on your own anyway. Take what you've learned and push it farther.

[Gort]

Pat's three stages - emulation, synthesis and invention - are good logical and supporting elements for the argument of copying. Copying, or emulation, is the best way to learn the process of how something is done; when you copy, you learn - you learn by doing it. Now let's say you've copied and learned: now comes the part of synthesizing what you've learned into your own style of work. You have to let go of the style you've copied from and develop your own. Analogously you've borrowed someone elses car to learn how it's built and driven; now it's time to build and drive your own car - a car that is you - not the one you borrowed.

Copying is a problem when you can't let go of the style you've copied, or it's a problem when you try pass stuff you've copied off as your own.

[[Shizo]]

In music also, more than anything you first learn from some music style or person that you like, and do something similar. For example if Prodigy were all deaf, they wouldnt have produced the rock/techno/rave crap that they have.

[LinaBo]

I agree with Pat, here (and anyone else who agrees )

what I'd like to know is, what is the general view on someone copying a photo almost exactly. I know it takes some skill to do, not very much. but calling it original work? even if it's one's own photo...it's having the camera do almost all of your linework and shading and colour, all mapped out for you in advance, right? isn't the point of reference pictures to be a general reference, like for an effect, an angle, a texture, a pose? shouldn't there be at least some degree of modification on the artist's part, to denote creativity?

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: LinaBo ]

[[Shizo]]

My opinion? Why bother painting over (or even if you dont paint over directly but still looks same as reference, unchanged in any way) because there are easy filters that you can use to make a photo look like drawn stuff.
Thats why old sk00l atari-type graphics scene died out, people started using reference.

Now take a drawing of done with a photo and a drawing done directly from imagination, and tell me which one you'll judge artistically higher.

[Probus]

i feel a little approached by the discussion about tracing a photo. Maybe you�re not seeing the learning value it could have for a beginning artist.
I feel like after tracing that rebecca pic, that i have a much better understanding of what it takes to paint a realistic drawing.

of course, my attempt was far from good, but it made me see exactly what kind of colors are used to paint depth, highlights and shadows.

maybe i shouldn�t have posted my attempt, but i still don�t feel like it was a complete waste of time to do.

[Gothic Gerbil]

I think you should do your next one monochromatic, so this way you'll better understand the values that go into highlights and shadows. Colour is secondary to value.

As to the use of photo reference and live models, it is the artist's interpretation you see of the scene, not the photograph, even if they paint it as photorealistically as possible. So it still merits value. There is creativity and artistic value in pure photography as well you know. And unless you're a master of the subject matter the drawings you do directly from the imagination will not be as strong technically as the ones you use a reference for. If you say that you didn't want realistic proportions to begin with then there is no point in the drawing from reference versus drawing from imagination debate anyhow. Anyhow, if you are distorting the proportions/perspective when drawing from imagination if you know your subject matter well it will always show instead of the perspectives being completely by accident. Though I know that that can work too from time to time, but your consistency won't always be there. I type so much on here mayhap I should consider going into teaching instead, blah!

[[Shizo]]

Generally i wouldnt call it original. But there is no hard line because it can be somewhat original or almost completely original even with use of photos. Cause i saw some drawings where reference was used just to know how, for example, the light will emit from a lamp to illuminate a face. And other 'drawings' which war simple paintovers, that's good for learning, of course, but calling it original - no.

[LinaBo]

Yes, I was refering to 'paint-overs'

[LinaBo]

I am misunderstood. I fully see the value in using that as a learning technique, I do it to some extent, myself, but notice, from my previous post:

quote

Quote:

but calling it original work?

I have encountered some people, who, despite having the photo reference right out there for all to see, still claim that it is original work and not actually copied from the photo, despite the fact being blatantly obvious, usually on the basis that one or two very minor details were changed.

[Twacle]

Hey, can you say Rembrandt wasn't a great artist because he used to study the subjects of his painting before actualy painting them in the studio ? What i mean is, if he had to paint a duck, he most likely would have studied one before painting it, right !?! I don't like copying a picture though. That's just stealing from the camera, at least in my opinion it is.