FrozenDeath

Mostly I've been trying to draw a distinction between using reference and copying/stealing from other artists. I also thought I'd mention that there are artistic considerations as well that can influence how one's work is received.

Boris Vallejo uses a lot of reference in his work. He will often have models come in and dress up in costume to pose for a painting. A long-standing criticism of his work is that it looks exactly like that--instead of a barbarian standing with his axe and overlooking a battlefield Boris' work often looks like a bodybuilder dressed as a barbarian imagining he's at a battlefield.

Aside from the issue of stealing, if you're going to use reference you want to make sure that the resulting drawing blends in with the rest of the composition. You want to absorb the details of the reference and then state it in your own voice.

Something people might want to consider is the idea of specificity. If you're looking to draw something, say a building, and you're looking to use photoreference. How specific is the reference you're looking to use? And how specific is the relationship between the reference and the final image you're producing?

For example, look at the skater images I posted above. They are fairly generic images that were used to record a moment in time. There is really nothing that distinct about any of them, they are like dozens of other images record people skating. And the way that I've used them in my picture, you couldn't look at image and then point to any specific skater photo because there are hundreds out there that are just like it.

What would be problematic? Say you were going to do the Chrysler building and you decided to use an Ansel Adams photo as reference. Adams' photo will no doubt be saturated with his artistic values. His sense of composition, lighting, focus, abstraction etc. I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole if my goal was simply to have enough information to represent the building.

To me, you can generally see that something is a ripoff when a large amount of the source images specific details end up in the derivative piece.

As per request, I'm going to post the ref I used for my Olympic fanart competition entry. First, here's the entry:



Here is the reference used for doing the rink/background:



Basically I tried to use this image to figure out design elements for my imaginary rink that would make it plausible (rafters, lights, how the stands are situated, etc.). It also helped to look at ref to figure out the scale of the foreground and background figures and know where the judges sit.

Here are some skater refs:





I used these pics in a similar way. I needed some postures that would make it credible that these characters were actually speedskating. I picked some of the ones that were a little more extreme in order to make the composition more interesting. I didn't use any pose ref for the freak tank, or the greater devoured, or the clockwork--though I did look at screenshots for design reference.

[img] http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...ttlewraith.jpg [/img]

GG,

You probably remember this on I started a while back. If you're serious about pursuing a Zbrush version lemme know and I can talk about what's involved.

Later tonight, I'll get some of the ref I used for the fanart competition with some comments on how I developed that piece.

Wow I stand corrected.

He's pretty pro.

Chris--

You're taking that statement out of context. I said I don't call people out for copying, or showing a pattern of copying. It was having a pattern and offering up justification that there was nothing wrong with doing so. At the point I made those comments about the contest entry, he was well beyond all of those criteria. This has been a debate that has been going on for years, well before you showed up here.

Moreover this post was not meant to be about that. He is making it about that. He inserted it as part of the discussion.

What I posted was very straightforward.
1. I listed some values I think are good regarding art.
2. If you find those attractive, I offered some guidelines on how to use reference.

I welcome anyone to disagree with the values I listed or post their own different idea of what using reference involves. Nobody has.

Juggy--

You don't want to address the specific values I've listed because they're mine. Incorrect. They are widely held by artist's and educators. Those values are the core of my argument. Since you won't address them, you aren't making any substantive response to my post.

You're pointing to holes and grey area. While you're at it, you might want to consider evolution, general relativity, electromagnetism, the theory of gravity, etc. You might want to look at ANY ideas put forth by people because they all have holes and grey areas. There are still people that believe the world is flat, so the roundness of the world is a grey area as well methinks.

You say that my unwillingness to accept valid alternatives scares you. I'm trying to encourage people not to benefit from the labor of other artists in the creation of new, "original" art. What is your valid alternative to that?

This isn't a call out post. It's a case for what is proper use of reference. I promised to make this post as part of that other discussion, but it stands by itself. I don't think it had much to do with the other discussion until you made it that way.

I've explained why I would call out a poster for stealing. Do I have to write it again? And to be clear, I've never started a post trying to demonize someone else from this community. I've made comments within the context of other discussions.

Looks like now's a good time to remind you that you injected the whole "calling people out" aspect of this discussion. I made no reference to it in my opening post. And true to form, you're making it a big part of the exchange. To answer you, we are required to follow the dictates of the EULA. Beyond that, if I've seen that somebody ripped off another artist I see nothing about the nature of this forum that says one shouldn't comment on that fact. It's simple to compare two images. It's simple to respond if you feel like somebody is wrongly characterizing what you did. And then people reading it can make up their own minds. There's no need for enforcement or rules are any more levels of mediation--its a straightforward exchange.

I wrote my post to talk about reference. You seem hung up on the calling out thing. Let me say this--the only people that would have anything to fear would be people who were actually stealing. And the backlash would be other people's opinions, nothing more. And you've stated repeatedly that you don't care about other people's opinions of your work--it's not going to end your world. Lol so what's the big deal?

I mentioned you not having fun because you said this forum was "FOR FUN and not an academic forum."

You keep mentioning screenshots. This is the company's forums and they've set up this space for people to post screenshots. They've given permission. What does that have to do with this discussion?Obviously if I gave you a picture of mine and said "use it any way you like" there wouldn't be an issue with stealing.

And no, I wouldn't call out a kid for copying Jim Lee. My kids copy stuff all the time because that's what children do. If that kid went further in art, I'd expect that people would start teaching the importance of creativity and originality.

Hard to pick this month.

1. Scooter
2. Pyro
3. Shia

I don't think anyone has a problem with actual copying as a learning tool. Obviously studies of masterworks are a core part of much traditional art education. If it's clearly labelled and not used for profit, I don't think people necessarily can complain about it unless its a photomanip or direct trace or something. Part of copyright law involves fair use for educational purposes. If I'm writing a scholarly article, for example, I can include samples from other people's writings as long as it adheres to certain guidelines about length and the proper format for citation is followed. Note that this does not include modifying or adapting the source for some other purpose.

I personally don't include studies and whatnot in my gallery. Simply because, as you say, I want everything in there to be "my own."

Yes, there are situations where copying is valuable. There are situations where creativity and originality are not actually given much priority (e.g. some types of commercial art). Also art movements that are very referential and sample a lot (Pop art, postmodernism, etc.).

Context in art is important. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in New york once and was near a sculpture called Gift by Man Ray. It's a flatiron with tacks glued in a line down the center of the ironing surface. A woman came up with her son and started complaining about how that wasn't art. The irony was that Man Ray produced that piece as part of the Dadaist movement, which was anti-art and an attack on the extant art traditions of the time.

I laid out the basic values section of my post in hopes of keeping it clear what kind of context I'm actually commenting on. Pretty much the normal context people experience here or on DA.

I've been meaning to make this post for a couple weeks, and the other morning I saw another example of somebody lifting from another artist, so I'm going to jot some thoughts down here. Maybe it will serve as the basis for thoughtful consideration.

Any discussion of art can quickly become complicated and subjective with different definitions of what art is, based on different things that have happened in different contexts. To try to keep things simple, I'm going to offer some basic assumptions that I will be using. Basic values regarding my own art and that of other people:

1. That I value creativity.
2. That I value the skill and knowledge developed by artists to produce high quality work.
3. That I understand a large part of an artist's work is making choices about how a subject is represented.
4. That there is very little that hasn't already been done by someone else. Originality in creative fields isn't about always producing something never before seen. It's about an artist taking their knowledge, skill, perspective and influences and approaching a subject in a way that makes it fresh and distinct to them.
5. That there should be truth and understanding to how images are created, especially in the digital age, because without that understanding, points 1-4 quickly become moot.

So if anyone reads this and disagrees with any of those points, this post isn't likely to be all that meaningful. There are people who feel entitled to take any image and use it any way they want, regardless of how the artist feels about it. Personally, I don't find that attitude prevalent or acceptable to people with a strong investment in supporting the arts or developing as an artist.


So what is using reference? Say I had to draw a car. Maybe off the top of my head I could scribble some generic looking thing that passed for a car. Now if I was asked to do a specific kind of sports car I wouldn't be able to. That's where reference comes in. No artist can be expected to have accurate knowledge of everything they may need to draw. It's not much different than an author that is writing about a certain place and time. In order to make that narrative more compelling and believable, the author will probably do a lot of research to give specific and details to make that scene believable.

Ideal reference would be drawing from life. If I needed to do a sportscar, the best thing would be to sit down in front of one. The reason this is the best situation is that the car isn't filtered through someone else's perceptions or aesthetic choices. It's in the raw and I just have to use whatever skill I have to translate it into art.

Drawing from life is going to be impractical most of the time, so the next best thing is going to be photoreference. This is where it starts to become a bit dodgy. First of all, many photographers don't want people using their work as a basis for something else. Secondly, if someone has taken a picture, they've made certain choices about framing, lighting, perspective, color, etc. When you use their image as ref, you incorporate those choices into your own. Personally, to avoid this I will either shoot my own reference, or use multiple images from different sources so that I have the information I need but it's not tied down to a specific set of values.

The worst type of reference to use is the work of other artists, and this is the sort of thing that leads me to post on the subject. When a big name artist like Adam Hughes draws a character, they are taking the what they've learned about real world anatomy and filtering that knowledge through their artistic perspective and personal taste. If you use them substantially for reference, there is no way not to inherit some of these qualities. If you're careful, you can learn from their example and not be a knee-jerk imitator. But you need to be actively drawing in other ways so that drawing like them isn't a "natural" way.

Taking it a bit further, some people think that if they copy another artist and admit it, that this is "using reference." It's not. It's simply copying or just flat out ripping off another artist. The reason is that so much of the quality of the derivative piece comes from the artist being copied. You get people saying that they "swiped a pose" from someone else. Usually this means that they took the pose, the sillhouette, and a large part of the original anatomy. In other words, the things that are hard to draw. They are swiping the original artist's ability and then making superficial changes. It's disingenuous theft and I see it a lot.

Reference is a really good thing to use to improve your work. I just hate to see it when people are confused about what that is. Or worse, don't care. In my opinion, people should be using reference almost constantly if they can to produce better work. But the way they should be doing it is by deciding what they want to do and then fleshing out that idea as much as possible on their own. Then, when they've reached the point where there are problem areas that are beyond their ability to visualise/address--they get reference of those specific areas and use it to improve the quality of their image (and learn the anatomy, etc.)

That's a far cry from seeing someone's finished work and duplicating elements to skip over the burden of actually having to develop and flesh out your own ideas.