[Joachim]

I have been following this forum for about 2 weeks now, and I must say that there is lot that has disappointed me lately.
I have noticed that a lot of the pictures that has been posted here is not the authors own creaton. Or to say it the correct way, it's only an original drawing that has been directly copied. I don't know if this is some sort of disease that still hasn't been cured from the old demoscene or if this is something people really want ?

Anyway, I can see the reason to copy pictures to find new techniques or learn from a great artist and try to understand his or hers way of thinking. But, I can not understand the proudness of such work.
Also, I really don't see the reason why people is praising each others to do this.

Personally, I find more pleasure in watching a less good drawn picture from someone that actually tries to learn how to do something on their own.

Not to offend anyone, but this forum would have been so much more fun if this was the case.

Joachim


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

[This message has been edited by Joachim (edited January 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Joachim (edited January 27, 2000).]

[orOme]

I agree with you.

Still I wouldnt disregard reference completely. But yeh, it's often of benefit to draw with as little reference as possible.

And just redrawing stuff is extremely borin in the end. Atleast that's my experience.

[micke]

I'm glad you brought this up, Joachim.
To copy an allready made picture from another
artist totally sucks. And the most tragic part is that some actually put their name on it and get credits for it.

Like you said if there is a kind of learning method i can understand it. Another thing that appeared in the demo scene a couple of years ago was that everybody had a little text beside the picture that said "No copy",
When it many times just appeared to be a plain copy or a collage from many other sources. My opinion is that the shapes and understanding of the shapes is 90 percent
of a picture if it includes a specific motive or object, let's say a character for example. Even if a picture is copied(with the famous fancy highlights and colouring) by a person who's not quite good at creating his own stuff, it still often shines through
that the copycat did'nt have a clue what he was doing. As long as the copycat is aware of what he is doing and don't take the credit for the motive, i can respect that, cause i know many people do too.I think it's just a lame and easy way to get respect and fame (if that was the purpose).

I hope i don't offend anybody by writing this. I respect everybody's opinions on this list and i don't wanna get into
a fight off somekind because of this.

I think this can be a interresting discussion. Any Comments?

-Micke



------------------
-Mikael Noguchi-

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Suite/1615/

[zack]

I agree, too!
Drawing with reference is nice for learning.
But I rather draw a not-so-goodlooking picture without reference than using reference.
Maybe I should use reference once in a while to learn to draw....but that's another story.

Zack

[Lemur-X]

I couldn't agree more...... Not too long ago, there was a pic that was pretty much copied from one person's work....which in turn was copied directly from a Boris Vallejo painting. Without any credit given to Vallejo.....

--Lemur-X

[jasonN]

Since we're on the subject of copying and drawing from the mind etc. I'd just like to say that I actually find it easier drawing from my mind than directly copying. A lot of ppl say they can only copy things and they're bad at drawing what's in their mind. I don't get that at all.

I have SO much trouble copying things it's insane.

I think because when I'm drawing something from my mind, there's no specific definition of what the image should look like, just a basic flow of the picture, basic shapes and basic 'look'. But when I'm copying something it never looks like the original. It always looks like a piece of crap.

Oh well, I think I need to draw from life more. Just sharing my experience.

------------------
-Jason :)

JasonArt

ICQ: 24680551

[Cypher]

Is anybody gonna let me in on who's copying what? Call me stupid, but I haven't noticed anything of that nature. At least lately...

I've seen tons of influence, but not straight-up copying. Let me know...

[DarkpathImages]

I think using photo's as references is totally fine and a lot of artist's do it,
myself included. If it something you are not very familiar with be it a specific type of gun, car, animal or whatever, but not tracing it but incorperating it into your art in
your own style........copying someones artwork, putting down your signiture and taking credit for there work with no mention of them, there is no excuse for.......and is totally out of order.

Kyri

[sfr]

Well, I don't remember seeing that many copies in this forum recently (maybe I just haven't been paying attention, I don't look at all postings anyway)...

But you're of course right about original drawings being more interesting than redraws. It's a long step to go from drawing from model to drawing from mind...

Still, I'm not so sure that the use of reference is absolutely a bad thing, I'm more inclined to think that it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your interest is in concept drawing, character design etc., then obviously you can't rely on reference (and I have to say that I have great respect for artists like you and Micke who can create such awesome stylished designs from scratch).
But if your artistic interest (or "personality") focuses more on color usage for example, then using a lot of reference and models in the process might only be appropriate.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the use of reference has to be judged in the context of what the artist has been able to make of it. The average demoscene artist who just copies a colorful girl face indeed doesn't create anything at all in the process. But on the other extreme, C�zanne also painted from model...

(I should note that when I say "reference" I mean photos and such, _not_ copying someone else's art - that just sucks, I can't see much any justification for it.)

Saffron / Sunflower

[Joachim]

I think there is a big difference between using references and copy a picture.
Many talented artists uses photos and other references to study realism in light, color, or whatever.
But, you will never see like Boris Vallejo copy one of Frazettas paintings and write his name on it...though, almost every fantasy artist uses Frazetta as an inspiration source and "reference".

But, it seems like many "digital" artists have totally misunderstood the consept of using another artist as inspiration.

I remember when I was a small kid, I took wax paper on top of Donald Duck and drew on it. I see nothing different in what many of the "scene-artists" do now than I did then. And, I think it requires no more skills, just more work.

joachim

ps! I just want an exciting discussion here


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

[This message has been edited by Joachim (edited January 27, 2000).]

[micke]

I agree with SFR. He's got a really good point. Reference(photos)is never a bad thing. It's the copying of other peoples work
that upsets me.


-Mikael


------------------
-Mikael Noguchi-

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Suite/1615/

[This message has been edited by micke (edited January 27, 2000).]

[Oscar Alexander]

Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with copying one's work in order to master a certain technique... But you shouldn't go around posting it and expecting to get credit for it as well. That's lame...

[Cypher]

Mullins incorporates tons of photography in his art, but I think most of it is taken by him. He used pictures for backgrounds and skies in his early PS days... which is totally fine.

When you work as an artist and you're given a certain project to complete, your boss doesn't care at all what methods you use to get it done as long as it looks good.

And as far as copying, if you reproduce someone else's artwork, if you change any 10% of it, it's yours to take credit for. That's the copyright law. Unfair, but the law.

[B]

cypher: i believe a lot of this discussion was brought forth by the coloring in of an inked drawing, but not giving credit to the inker/penciler. also some other people have copied art from boris,. the only person to have an effective copy that i've seen was caudle,. if you go to his site, you can tell he's a big boris fan.. he's come here a few times also.

and shane btw you're a great artist, don't shoot me,.

[Joachim]

Hmmm,.

I guess this discusson was pointless...because everybody agrees with me.
Oh well, not much of a discussion, but I feel more happy about participate in this forum. .

Joachim

------------------
DonBarrum ;)
web: http://home.sol.no/~jbarrum/

[Cypher]

LOL!!!!

What's Caudle's nick on this board, anyway?

Also, Shane, that pic of princess Amidala, is that a drawn-over scan-in, dude? It better not be! Cuz I have this life-size cartboard figure of her at work, and it's exaclty the same to the last bit of detail. Even the sparks in her eyes.

Don't copy, dude!