Hiya! Hiya! Hiya!
nowadays, people want to see quick results and learning things like anatomy and perspective are considered too hard....
I'm not surprised that in future there are more art books or art courses which cover something like "how to use photos in a responsible/efficient/legal way" etc...which you do not expect in the past....
Last edited by _ J; February 27th, 2012 at 02:31 AM.
Possible copyright infringement aside, the artwork produced by some comic book artists through tracing celebrities and porn faces looks so bad it would actively discourage me from buying their comics, and at the end of the day, isn't that pretty much the final nail in the coffin?
is still rather pissed off. Oh and, stolen royal clothing DLC.
Is it too late to start hating on Bill Roper?
WE NOW live in a time were Technology now allows ANYONE with a weekend understanding of a computer art program to produce in minutes works of art that rival those of any of the masters in art in human history. and the average non artistic type either cant tell the difference or just plain doesn't care.
The debate isnt "is it art" or is it ethical, the debate is are you ready to except that as artists we have been replaced by machines that grant the lady that bags your groceries the ability to make what you practiced a life time to learn do in seconds on her smart phone during her lunch break with the right app.
If you say " oh haha we are not quite there yet with the technology" My reply to you is, really? give another year... everything points to complete artist replacement and inevitable bypass in this VERY VERY near future... we have machines that have replaced the car manufacturer, we have machines that automatically generate original music based on algorithms we have machines that replace teachers,drivers,pilots,soldiers, record labels and publishers, we have computer network that is eliminating newspapers all together and even in this last year net-flicks has closed down every single video rental store in my city the list goes on and it goes exponentially faster.
Telling someone to enroll in one of the many above mentioned art classes is the same as telling someone to learn the abacus if they want to get into web design. its not going to be relevant to the next generation of youth, and they already know it. those of use that draw free hand are soon to be no different then the guy in the American heritage museum who shows you how to make butter in a churn, sure its kind of cool, slow and impractical but its nothing more then a glimpse into how things were done long before computers and machines did it for us.
Don't believe me?.. its already becoming more about what software you can operate and who you are friends with then whats in your art portfolio these days, how fast can you get the image done for the least amount of money, our industry and lively hood is nothing more then getting an oil change at wall-mart while you shop.
Greg land, Salvador, ect are not the exception, they are the reality,... that is the "now" and I wouldn't waste time hating on them because their future is and will be one were the artist is not celebrated or respected but just a some guy hitting the corresponding keystroke waiting to clock out so they can go home, no pride in their work, no individual style, nothing that separates them from anyone else, and they know it.
This is a program that kind of achieves what you are talking about
But I don't think endless photomanips will replace all the current art jobs.
Oh, dear, Select...that's wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It speaks to a profound misunderstanding of what an artist does.
Or, to look at it another way, to the extent that what you say is true, it has been true getting on for two hundred years, since the invention of the camera.
Select, I think you are being a bit sensationalist with your claims. Machines excel at rote activities. They can't think for themselves. All computer and machines can do is carry out programmed commands inputted into them by users. If you've ever seen anything procedurally generated, you will understand how it just cannot compare or hold up to something manually designed or made.
Er, Select, you do realize that the internet has people behind it making it all happen, don't you...? That it is, in fact, MADE of people's actions and interactions? That it is not actually a giant machine and very little of it is truly "automatic"?
Without people, the web would be nothing.
And I won't even go into the question of machine-generated art, obviously you have no clue what's entailed in a real art or design job. Even engineering, for that matter. Or architecture. Sure, in theory a machine might be able to spit something out that seems superficially competent, but for something to actually work for it's intended purpose, which is being seen/used/lived in/bought by people, you need the judgment of actual people at some point. Machines don't have critical thinking or taste. They also don't understand people, and what people want.
Last edited by QueenGwenevere; February 27th, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
Just to be clear here...it's okay that a photographer gets their copyrighted image taken, but not okay if an artist gets their copyrighted creation taken? I'm not being facetious, I think it opens up an interesting point of discussion.If he were swiping other artist, that would be a different story.
My experience of photographers is that they are touchy as HELL about intellectual property issues - no doubt because their stuff is so easily, frequently and carelessly stolen.
I think in the age of Photoshop, it's getting harder and harder (and more meaningless) to decide where photography ends and illustration begins. I'm coming around to a "screw it, does it look good?" mentality on the issue.
I still dont understand what your view on this is Stoat.
You said you have frequently traced images in your work, but condemn people who do so.
I also asked whether this makes Durer less of an artist for using a camera obscura, to which you replied that you had no idea what my point was... and then said
"it has been true getting on for two hundred years, since the invention of the camera. "
So is tracing ok or not?
I mean, if you cant personally go to the US military to get an M16 to photograph, isnt it ok to gather a bunch of images off the net to use as ref?? I think thats ok personally. So long as what you make is more than what you used, that seems creative work not just ripping someone else off and hoping to benefit yourself from doing so...
The image in the OP wasnt a mindless edge-finding exercise anyway, he artisically interpreted a photo into a line drawing, choosing line placement and weight with considerable skill.
Is your suggestion he should have found a more obscure image to trace to "cover his tracks" ironic or what?
As for the purported use of a politicians face as a model, whats the actual problem with that? its not infringing any copyright..
Personally Im amazed so many grownups read superhero comics, but thats a seperate issue.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; February 27th, 2012 at 12:19 PM.
1) I'm an artist and I like to look at good art for inspiration.Personally Im amazed so many grownups read comics, but thats a seperate issue.
2) I'm a fan of fiction and comic books are just as good as any other media that delivers a story, depending on the team in charge of it.
3) Nostalgia, of course.
How are comic books any different than any other kind of storytelling device (movies etc)? Some are bad, some are good. But there is nothing wrong with the way the story is delivered to the reader.
Im open to being convinced about comics; I really enjoy Allan Moores ones like Miracle Man and Watchmen and Top 10 because theyre well written and scary, but these ones where Spiderman teams up with Thor or whatever, they can bite every inch of me
"I'm sure you eat some food that I find deplorable or enjoy movies that I find boring."
i do have a terrible addiction to eating live monkey brains while watching CCTV footage from empty industrial estates,
Hard to respond to your post when you keep changing it while I'm typing. Cut a mustelid some slack.
Yeah, actually, a photo of a politician DOES have a copyright. That's what the whole Shepard Fairey lawsuit was about. It boiled down to, who owned the copyright to the image he overpainted? The photographer, who didn't mind it being used, or AP, which did? Fairey shot himself in the foot by lying about which image he used, so he settled.
Ethically, if you have the rights to an image, trace away. Artistically, it takes enormous chops to make it work. Most tracings look crap.
As for me...I was doing illustrations of firetube boilers and the ever-popular cock-and-ball valve. And cheesy one-time-use business graphics. Alas for me, there's a gigantic artistic gulf between what I did and painting fairies or environments or mechs or whatever.
To put it plainly, the sort of shit I did for a living, it mostly just didn't matter.
I'm so scared of the copyright police. I hope they don't waterboard torture me...daily... if all I did was trace perspective lines, crowd silhouettes, and the occassional color palette rip.
Help me out Google! Help me out! Google images like meth...it's helping me and paypal get rich but worrys me too much that I won't make it into Artist Heaven.
"St. Paul sez you go to hell for tracing the underside of a BMW."
"To put it plainly, the sort of shit I did for a living, it mostly just didn't matter."
Hey Im completely with you on that, most client-facing crapola never goes past the development team and no one could give a shit.
I used to do loads of bodykits, accesories, alloy wheels, styling options, headlight revamps, interior options, and whole concept car development programs etc etc day in day out and tracing over the existing one in order to get all the proportions exactly correct without having to do any hard work was literally a no-brainer... i take your point about the image being copyright too.. although Im amazed a trace or study of a photo can be called an infringment.
Not the mention the sarcasm is ignoring most of the issues people have brought up. No one cares if you are using Google to help you with your perspective , silhouettes or palette.
This is why it's usually a smart idea to avoid direct copies of photos that might be copyrighted if you don't have the rights to copy them. There's always a chance that someone will find out, and then you'll have to deal with the fallout... (Plus, if you become the center of a copyright shitstorm, it's not gonna help your reputation at all.)
Obviously the more high profile your work is, the more careful you want to be. People throwing together comps for in-house use or something like that have less to worry about than someone making an image that will be seen by millions. And if you're just a student copying something for personal practice, nobody cares... (Unless you go and post your copy online and try selling prints of it...)
Actually, I adored my job, zx (may I call you zx?). My boss was cool, I had a TV at my desk, and I got to do everything from props for films to designing a board game. But I sure did churn out a lot of worthless pitchers in my time.
"My boss was cool, I had a TV at my desk, and I got to do everything from props for films to designing a board game. But I sure did churn out a lot of worthless pitchers in my time."
The rough with the smooth, for every sweet concept car or MMORPG game character theres 5000 accelerator pedal options or plant textures or coffee cups that need doing. cest la vie... (in unison) LA VEE!
My mother died from heart attack 8 years ago.
I hope you'r folks are fine and well. "Cuz losing a parent is a very sad experience to go through.
Meanwhile I'll just do my best to use my google image hunting and photo tracing skills to make sure my baby girl wont' go hungry or cold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)