Anything an artist does to reinterpret an original source is part of their process. NOTHING is new under the Sun. Whether or not however that that work is something better, original in itself, or even a worthy hommage is up to either the intended recipient who will hopefully have some connection to it, OR is somehow not connected to the original enough to warrant a deja vu from a casual onlooker.
I'm not condoning stealing, but a swipe file was a term used in the 70s for illustrators, who kept photographs from magazines, etc to showcase what they needed on any given subject. I've also come across colorists who say using a reference to help build proper light and shadow is a valid addition. If you're doing an hommage based on subject and style, which I just did this week, then it's only natural to get it as close to the original as your skill level can.
It doesn't give you cart blanche to pass off someone else's style as your original style. Everyone can recognize famous sources both in comic books and certain photos. The fact that Juggy used a source is irrelevant to whether he could do it from scratch, he wasn't trying to do it from scratch. The source conveyed what he wanted to capture, and it was more expedient and efficient to use it than to start over.
It was not a photo manipulation, and it DID require a lot of skill to make it believable. People who don't draw seem to think it's as easy as any physical skill, that is not true. Sure using sources can be a crutch, but were talking about the merit of using them, not whether they should ever be used or not.
I always pick a model to inspire a piece, I have a folder called Models on my desktop, my brother in law calls it the Boob Folder, and in fact it has so many I've lost count. Sometimes it has just the right image, sometimes I can go through the thing twice and not find anything I like. And I have gone without it, it almost always depends on the subject matter. Today in that other thread about who IS your character, I saw that pic of Famke Jansen, and you can best believe I will use it for my next GH piece. It would be silly NOT to use it, as there's the client telling me, this is who I think she is... I don't have to interpret it now out of my head, I know what they want.
Hey I like originality as much as the next person. But every artist is a creature of habit, when Adam Hughes or Jim Lees draws, they do so from a mental swipe file of how to make things, they've done it so much, they don't need an actual source. They are the source... I could draw eyes all day like that, and boobs... sometimes though it pays to have reference, to make the most of that reference, and with humility, to state what you used, so that everyone can compare how far you went...
My use of stolen was probably a bad choice of words... and I wasn't thinking of the Juggy piece in this thread so much as the two I mentioned that I got.
As you say, it can go from theft to homage to just using it as a starting point to create an entirely different image altogether. This thread just reminded me of my two pieces and so I started babbling 
I just found a quote that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter
"True creativity lies in disguising your sources"-Albert Einstein,
read it how you will.
edit: should add that there is a difference between homage and theft as well.
I think the above sort of stuff is why some artists think its some badge of honor to use no references of any kind, which is just plain silly. Where will it end, exactly? If I'm doing a study of a model in Figure Drawing, is THAT swiping? If I've seen a candle in my years and then draw a candle, do I owe the candle a credit?
Are we going to get the point where an artist is so afraid of looking at anything, that they'll only do poses they can pull off in a mirror and then make damn sure to credit the mirror manufacturers??????
I quoted that bit from the tutorial for a reason:
Quote:
Here's the deal: swiping means stealing. It's like saying "it's a fine line between conning someone and ripping them off." The most value neutral phrase I can apply here is copying, possibly tracing since the copying is so faithful down to the placement of the veins and the position of the fingers. In cg that's generally described with the derogatory term paint-over, because it lacks creativity and the end result is so below the quality of the source material. Whatever the intention, I don't consider it an hommage because any point of interest in the piece draws directly from the source material. | It's a fine line between stealing and swiping IMO. |
Artists use reference all the time. This is where ethics come in to play. If you take, for example, a fashion spread and paint a costume over the model and change the background--you are appropriating someone else's work. Their skill in lighting, composition, the model's skill in posing, makeup, whatever. It happens so frequently, that people start to lose the sense that it's wrong.
Proper use of reference is this: you get an idea or direction to make a picture. You sketch it out. You refine the drawing. Then, when you are assessing what you've done
you look at reference to help correct the various flaws that may have entered in to the work. Sometimes at this point I realize "hey this looks a lot like that picture from the book I have on my shelf!" Then guess what? I CHANGE THE PICTURE OR START OVER.
Using reference is smart and everyone should do it until they no longer need to. Copying or literal lifting from someone else's work is not the same. It goes back to the "thin line" comment. Stay as far away as you can from that line.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
Lol no. But imagine you did the study and then take it back to your dorm room. Your roommate has the same assignment but didn't go to class that day. So she sits down and copies your picture, without ever having seen the model, and then makes a few superficial changes in order to make it her own.
| Where will it end, exactly? If I'm doing a study of a model in Figure Drawing, is THAT swiping? |
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
What class allows you to hand in art when you weren't there to draw a live model? I get your point, but I disagree with your example here. |
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Lol no. But imagine you did the study and then take it back to your dorm room. Your roommate has the same assignment but didn't go to class that day. So she sits down and copies your picture, without ever having seen the model, and then makes a few superficial changes in order to make it her own.
|
As to the thin line, I think it's fine as long as the work is a) appreciated by your client, for being a copy. Some clients want actual copies, and they generally want someone who can pull it off... and b) done for learning purposes.
If I copy the expression and likeness of a celebrity, and add 90% of my own details, am I just as guilty as someone who doesn't acknowledge their source or change anything? I do know it's a crutch, but look a professionals like Alex Ross and Adam Hughes, they take photos of models for the same characters (Superman and Wonder Woman)... they also have distinct styles based on that process.
Tracing to me is not stealing, it's laziness. Freehand copying is not stealing to me, as it still requires some skill. I think the minute you don't defer from the source, and just copy a photo without the slightest change, then you are crossing the thin line, unless as I said before, it is some kind of study.
Also I would encourage some amount of this kind of study just as you said, until you don't need it anymore. Many painters are taught to copy a masterwork, to try and dissect some of the process in which it was created. But yes the best painters, artists leap off that style and find their own place...
Its not just painters who do master copies. I had two separate drawing courses this semester where master copy work was required for each. Its an invaluable resource. The masters are gone, but their technique is in their work. Students still can learn from the masters' hands by doing master copies.
Having said that, I don't think anyone would be able to pass off The Virgin of the Rocks as their own unique work =P
Food for thought: Michelangelo could often be found sketching copies of Massachio's Branacci Chapel frescoes
Not to weigh in on this too deeply, but I'd like to point out that the piece in question was from 3 years ago (just after I got my WACOM). I thinkthe swipe was obvious.
As was the swipe on this piece in 1994
I've never claimed to be an artist of amazing skill or anything, but what I have strove to do was improve myself over time.
If I've done that, I'm happy.
How I did it, well... I suppose that's up to me.
If you don't think that I have - you're welcome to that opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the swiping / referencing debate... I see both sides and agree with both of them. If soeone is usinga reference, they should cite it and source it. If someone calls them on it, they should fess up.
That beingsaid though, I can see where people may draw different lines in the sand. A certain debate over a certain famous Obama picture comes to mind. IMO, the artist should have fessed up early and shared a % of royalties with the photographer.
Quote:
Exactly. Which is how I feel about copying the photo of a beautiful or even an ugly model, there just is so much to learn from studying the face...
|
Originally Posted by Wassy
Its an invaluable resource. The masters are gone, but their technique is in their work.
|
there is a big differance in my mind between sourcing from reality and sourcing from someone elses illustration, sure there are things that can be learned from others but in my mind duplicating a pose is not neccassarily one of them. but again, there is a differance between a homage piece like LJ's Ironman piece and knockoff and I think the answer lies in how much is hidden. but I dont think to much weight should be put on this picture in general it is a very old piece.
I've seen another artist around, though I am not mentioning names (as I am not 100% sure and he doesnt post here) who I believe in several occasion's has actually manipulated another persons work not even drawn it again just pasted parts into a piece and has manipulated it. (I havent seen a clear example of it for a while but if I do I am blowing the whistle) that in my mind is alot worse. then taking some time and effort to immitate another picture.
all that being said and done I dont think what juggertha did in this particular instance was right, but it was a long time ago so I think that needs to be taken into account.
Quote:
I don't see the harm in it. Perhaps because we both know this is not the only style he does, and the "piece" warranted the homage. Much in the way classic comic covers are copied by countless artists who do them to pad their portfolios by saying, this is how I would have changed that had I done it. They are not saying they are the sole creator, they are saying here is my flair in this particular piece.|
Originally Posted by Eddy_Swan
all that being said and done I dont think what juggertha did in this particular instance was right, but it was a long time ago so I think that needs to be taken into account.
|
IF this were the only kind of work Juggy did, I may see a point of unoriginality being a crutch, but we both know he's capable of more. If you look at the work of Jim Lee from his early days, he was copying John Byrne. At some point in time he no longer felt the need to do that...
This is why I never display my practice pieces I do from photographs and other's work. Even if you state, as Juggy did in the original posting on dA, that you copied it, it'll will sooner or later find it's way somewhere without that info and you'll be accused of passing it off as your own.
You learn a lot of from copying both old and new masters, but I personally always find it more of a chore. The fun part is doing your own stuff with improvements that you've picked up from it. I do enjoy drawing statues in museums, though. They're perfect models, always standing still 
I don't know if this is the proper use of the term when applied to art, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: plagiarism. In an academic setting it can be grounds for expulsion. Professionally, it's grounds for getting fired. I'm pretty sure people get banned from the major digital art sites for getting caught doing this.
The "source" artist did not give his permission to have his work copied and modified in this way. I'm sure he worked his butt of for years to get to that level and would not want people using his art as stock material to trace and cobble together in a new image.
None of us should want that. Calling it an homage is a weak excuse. An homage would be taking the idea behind that image and restating it in different visual terms, not copying it literally and slapping different costumes on the figures.
I don't think this is typical for Juggy's work. It's an old image I think indicative of a developmental stage. Nevertheless, understand it for what it is. If people get nothing else out of this thread, understand that this is not ok.
Btw, yes copying masterworks has always been a staple of art instruction. That does not involve modifying the work and putting your name on it.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
distancing this from juggertha in particular, I believe this has gone beyond just juggy's old pic but more onto the subject in general, I agree with FD in any sort of professional environment that would not fly, there would be no benefit of the doubt, your A$$ would be in the can. there just were not enough changes to the image to be a homage. I have a fairly good example of a homage in the comic book world
http://alexgarner.deviantart.com/art...-Alt-110013380
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0...-the_super.jpg ( which is also a homage itself to a degree)
there is the tying elements of the large women in the background and the buildings though destroyed here to conjure old memories but that is where the similarity ends, there are new sorts of figures in the foreground etc, deadpool's comics have had several homages of spiderman issue 1(couldnt be bothered googling them, but they are a great example of a homage), it can get a little hazy in comicbooks sometimes there will be homage images that are exactly the same character layout etc only rendered by someone differant in style but they are of the same character etc and comic label itself produces that.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that yeah, in comic books homages happen, but they are done by artist's working officially on the characters. under the folks who own the rights to the characters. in this instance, there is no harm done as there were no plans to profit from the image, but should the same situation have happened without any consent where money was involved you could find yourself naturally with a lawsuit on your hands.
its like playing a guitar and swiping someones amplifier, because yours is not loud enough. that isn't a homage to the amplifier its stealing. they worked hard to get that amplifier why should you get it easy? ya know what I'm saying?
I really shouldn't post when I've been up 30+ hours
to be clear: the two works I referred to were not Juggertha's nor done by him.
the situation was this:
I sent an inquiry letter for three commission pieces to an artist on DA. This artist is not on this forum (far as I know). The artist jumped right into the first sketch while I was waiting to see if he had room for me or not. (I've since started either not including references in such inquiry notes or provide all info...)
So, the first sketch wasn't really what I was looking for. I Rolf the artist it was ok though and stated what kind of poses I was looking for in the other two. The artist decided to do entirely new lines for the first sketch and asked exactly what poses I wanted for the other two... I searched and found two images from comic characters similiar to mine, sent them to the artist and said "something like these..."
The final images were exactly like those.
I love them. The art is awesome, the poses totally fit my toons, color is great... Awesome pics.
Still, there was the expectation the artist would put his own spin on them rather than do replica poses but with my characters...
The artist has a full gallery of amazing work, I've no doubt he can be 100% original. It could have been frustration over the first misunderstanding or possibly language issues since English is not his native tongue...
Anyway, I love the pieces, like I've said, but when this thread started touching on the topic I recognized it as something I had thought about recently and started babbling. I should have been clearer from the out go that my instance had nothing at all to do with Juggy.
And as I was trying to say but not have been clear on, I believe the question of stolen or not, copied or not, alright or not depends greatly on the reason it was done and the intended use of it once done...
I don't care one whit if a 5 year old uses tracing paper to copy an image and then runs to mommy excited about his drawing...
I do care if a professional artist mimics anothers work as exact as possible and tries to pass it off as uniquely their own.
In between, for me, there are lots of shades of gray.
The above described scenario is the one I meant when I said in my first post that I've decided I have no problem with it. There was money involved but this guy isn't making a living off of doing such mimics, there was also probably the language issue which may have had him thinking it was exactly what I wanted and there is no using the pieces for publication or wide distribution or the like... I just see it as a fan piece using elements from two things I'm a fan off, this game and comics...
Quote:
As an 'drawer', I agree. But my photographer friend would strongly disagree. |
Originally Posted by Eddy_Swan
there is a big differance in my mind between sourcing from reality and sourcing from someone elses illustration.
|
For me, I'm not so sure about some of the lines. If a photo ok to reference? What if I take the photo? What if it's a generic photo? A famous photo? - I'm not quite sure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Projectionist
This is why I never display my practice pieces I do from photographs and other's work. Even if you state, as Juggy did in the original posting on dA, that you copied it, it'll will sooner or later find it's way somewhere without that info and you'll be accused of passing it off as your own.
|
/shrug - it's hard to always know where you get something from.
That being said though, if someone 'reminds' you of it... no need to deny it or battle it. Just say, 'yeah, that's where I got it from' (if you did).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
I don't think this is typical for Juggy's work. It's an old image I think indicative of a developmental stage.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eddy_Swan
its like playing a guitar and swiping someones amplifier, because yours is not loud enough. that isn't a homage to the amplifier its stealing. they worked hard to get that amplifier why should you get it easy? ya know what I'm saying?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Btw, yes copying masterworks has always been a staple of art instruction. That does not involve modifying the work and putting your name on it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Caemgen
to be clear: the two works I referred to were not Juggertha's nor done by him.
|
No problem man... But definitely wanted to be clear on the whole story as I don't mean my comments to harm anyones rep, specially not someone they weren't about at all.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be having this discussion when the original posting of the image said that it was more or less copied -- that's TA's bad for not linking to the original posting (which sounds like he doesn't have access to, since he's unsure of the date), and several other people's bad for ASSUMING that Juggs hadn't sourced his inspiration.
Art is based on copying others until you find your style. If you don't believe that, you have never sat in an art class.
PERIOD.
End of story, let's move on before this gets into some big huge kerfuffle like has happened several times in the last few months. We dwell on things too long and people's feathers get ruffled because as the discussion stales, people voice their opinions again and again and again and each time they voice it, it gets a tad more confrontational.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Yeah, originally I cringed when I saw that TA had posted that image. NOT because it was a pose swipe, but simply because it was so bad.
Then I cringed again when some people were making an issue out of it. I thought about getting all defensive, but then three things happened
1. Most people realized that it was a very dated piece, and they saw that it was more of a exercise in learning.
2. I shrugged. Heck, I know what I got out of that piece... and I'm hoping I'm the better for it.
3. No one really tried to make this personal. And I appreciated that.
I think that this is a discussion worth having... but I'm not sure if these are the boards for it. Perhaps, we should have a discussion about this in regards to referencing screenies, photos, and art in another thread.
This has been too much of a high-jacking.
I'm making it personal NOW!
You smell of swiss cheese and regret, Juggertha! What do you say to that? WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT!?
uh ... I logged on briefly to see this piece and tried to follow the thread, but ............. it appeared to disappear .... *** backwards down ... up ... sideways .. and then ... I took an aspirin ...
The Juggy pwns TA is a nice, nice piece. Great perspective ... powerful to examine.
As for the rest ... um ... pshaw ...
Posting in a dramah storm that I didn't create.
What do people think of something like this? Curious how people feel about citing the reference directly on the art itself.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Quote:
mmmmmm .. pass the crackers .....
|
Originally Posted by The_Foo
I'm making it personal NOW!
You smell of swiss cheese and regret, Juggertha! What do you say to that? WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT!? |
Couple of my favorite pieces basically had the poses stolen from other works.. I've mixed feelings on it when the art is being done for profit but since they're not done for publication or wide distribution or anything I think I mainly fall on the "I'm ok with it" side of the fence.