Taking it back to basics.

[Elwell]

For most would-be artists, not using reference is a far bigger problem than using reference.
And when I say most, I mean most.

[Nezumi Works]

It's really odd seeing the attitude that the truly advanced can use reference because they're good at it, but beginners shouldn't because they won't be. Well how the hell are you supposed to learn how to properly use reference if you don't make it part of your process as a beginner?

I can't use reference as well as Norman Rockwell. I also can't draw as well as Norman Rockwell. Both are skills that I need to learn if I ever hope (possibly a vain hope, but it's worth trying) to be as good as Norman Rockwell.

[MidgardSerpent]

You said "Most".

Now if you have "seen many" that's your anecdotal opinion.

So do you have some kind of actual evidence or are you just pulling some invisible math because you've seen people in your lifetime that have used reference incorrectly and now it's become "Most" ? It comes off as a qualifying statement of truth. I'm saying it's not.

You're right, it's an opinion, you can disagree with it, but you can't claim the higher ground by flatout saying I "have it wrong" for believing what I said.

Saying there are many artists that know how use reference might be true, but it's just as subjective as saying that there are more artists that don't. Your opinion holds no more weight, and is no more factual that mine. Putting up a link with a handful of artists that do know how to use it, is meaningless. One could easily counter that with a 100 examples where they don't.

[vapour]

You're right, it's an opinion, you can disagree with it, but you can't claim the higher ground by flatout saying I "have it wrong" for believing what I said.

Saying there are many artists that know how use reference might be true, but it's just as subjective as saying that there are more artists that don't. Your opinion holds no more weight, and is no more factual that mine. Putting up a link with a handful of artists that do know how to use it, is meaningless. One could easily counter that with a 100 examples where they don't.

Even if so, dont you think in those cases where they don't know how to use it using it will make them learn how to use it over time aka learning just the way it is with almost everything ?

Did you ever notice that most of the connon misconceptions about what is cheating in art come from people who are not actually artists ? "OMG he is tracing his own linework! OMG he draws from a foto! etc."

Funny thing those guys who are actually artists tell you the exact opposite. The more of those misconceptions about cheating I tossed out of the window the more it helped me advance. Now Betty Edwards want me to use a picture finder wich gave me this " Isn't that cheating?" sensation. Well who is gong to know better a newbie like me or a gal who used to teach students for years with great success?

[Archduke]

I disagree. You can usually notice when works are referenced, they are often distorted because the image in the artist's mind is conflicting with the reference. Good artists can spot referenced works, usually artists who use reference are pretty bad.

The hell kind of statement is that? All art is referenced. Whether you're putting down a line because of what you saw two seconds ago or two years ago. On top of that I'd say pretty much every great artist throughout history outside of the realm of abstract art as has used direct reference to create there works.

If you don't learn from looking at real life reference then you're only going to learn by copying someone else's abstractions of real life like people who draw chibi or whatever other cartoon style.

All art is just an abstraction of real life how much your artwork reflects your own unique style heavily depends on how much you draw/paint from observation.



What lame ass cheaters.

Real art:

[Scale]

Also worth remembering:
http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_...-F00634?page=2
There are things which are simply impossible to get without a reference. Some of the grestest artists in history missed this one about horses just because they couldn't "freeze" a horse in motion to understand all the details, while a film can.
And what about wingbeats in birds? Insect bodies? Sea depths? The other known planets?
Don't think just of human poses, the need for reference becomes obvious when you try to draw unusual things.

[Arshes Nei]

You're right, it's an opinion, you can disagree with it, but you can't claim the higher ground by flatout saying I "have it wrong" for believing what I said.

Your opinion holds no more weight, and is no more factual that mine.

I can. It's much harder to draw without reference than with. You build a visual library.

Most artists that use reference aren't skillful enough to really integrate and mold the photo into their own work,

This is simple because it actually depends on how one uses the photo. If I have never seen a type of fish in the sea, I'm sure not going to be doing life drawing of that kind of fish. I'm going to look at a photo and get what I need from it.

It was already said that there is a difference between referencing and copying


So yeah, I'm gonna nail you for backing up a fail statement with another statement of fail.

[Elwell]

A lot of posts in this thread suffer from the toupee fallacy:"I can always spot a toupee." No you can't. You can always spot a bad toupee. A good toupee, by definition, is one you can't spot.

[alex_86]

Done deal. Nothing beats toupee logic