References for artistic purpose
"Cite your sources" and "credit where it's due".
Aside from that... well, I don't swipe from artists. I use plenty of stock art found on deviantart, because *that's what it's there for*. I have my own stock account there, and I *love* seeing what people do with my photos. I've seen everything from charcoal sketches to full on manips where you can't even tell quite what part was used from my stock, as well as basic recolors and lineart. I've got no problem with any of those. If I did, I wouldn't have put the photos up as stock.
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
Agreeing with Zek, and especially with beginning artists. While it's nice to explore without using real references for your art (mainly regarding the human form), sometimes the overall outcome of your work is that much better if you can see how people are put together in certain poses (I know limb foreshortening tends to kill me)... But yes, citations are a must imo.
Unless I am misunderstanding this whole discussion...haven't artists always used references? Now, this is a bit different from taking an image and tracing over it or altering it digitally, which is a different discussion, and which might become a crutch, but references are tools...tools that great artists have used throughout history.
Also, there was a thread about artists who use frame sketching, the circles tubes, lines etc for figure guides. I cannot imagine how this could be a bad thing. Isn't it recommended by many if not all people who teach art?
So, yes, absolutely cite references and give credit wherever credit is due, for sources, references and inspiration, but many of these things are generally tools! Tools just like your pencil, brush or digital paint program might be tools.
I've had the NEED for reference and RESEARCH as an illustrator drilled into my head from day 1 of beginning my degree. It has since been repeated by every single professor I've had. It doesn't matter what you're doing... everything has a basis in reality. Picasso was a master of the realistic human form, and because of that, his cubism was powerful. He knew what was, so then could effectively paint what wasn't.
But, yes, there is now a lot of flat out stealing out there, and its become especially easy with increased technology.
As I said in the other thread, I just hate to see learning artists completely do away with using reference and feel that not using reference ever is something to be proud of. Its not. If you want to paint a moonlit forest, go and find a way to see a moonlit forest, through photos or otherwise. Artists who do out of this world concept art for sci-fi movies still have to take the time and research aeronautics, or their designs will fall flat.
Since photography is also an art, if you do a study from a photo not specifically free for stock, credit/permission is key. Yes, there are free use laws, but such laws are failing hard in these new technological gray areas.
But should someone feel bad if they shoot their OWN reference and use that? HELL NO. That's what an artist is SUPPOSED to do. Its exactly why I have a photography requirement towards my degree. Its why I'm saving up for a DSLR. I often see a cloud formation, or light over a waterway that I know I could use in a piece someday, but no good way to capture it. Once I have a good camera, I'll be taking my own reference shots like crazy for future usage.
I use references all the time, but I try as much as possible to make them myself (via Poser or taking pictures of myself), or to confine them to a single item or area of a piece I'm working on.
For instance, I often use Poser to get a better idea of the lighting on a figure, or when I'm doing more realistic faces, use an existing image of a celebrity (chosen by the client, usually) to better get the features.
I use references for mood, light, shading. I copy other artists ONLY if the piece merits it (Classic Comic Cover), and I always give credit for both models, reference and it goes without saying other artists. I don't do the latter often but if I am doing a classic comic cover, or pose, or style, I will always post my reference. I use to use references for poses, but it's very hard to find a full figure to do what you envision yourself. So sometimes I will change limbs, add on or correct what I need from a photo, that is to say merge two together in some extreme cases. That's only worked out for one occasion, and it was a royal pain, in the end I ended up drawing it from scratch.
I have had some great success with the stock art people from DA, I always send the owner/photographer/model a private note asking their permission or in some cases saying I have used their shot. I always link their credits, and in every case will take the piece down if they ask me to.... thankfully no one's asked, and they've all been supportive to have art done.
I am a portrait artist at heart, so when I ask a client if they want a celebrity likeness, I almost always try to use one regardless, as "that" is what puts me in the mood. With my own characters however, I know them so well I don't need reference to draw them.
I draw the line at doing a copy that is spot on and saying it was all me.
I also draw the line at photo manipulation.
While I know some great photo manipulators, who can make you believe space ships have landed in your living room, those artists are very skillful at what they do. When you see a bad photo manip and the artist is taking full credit for creating something valid out of "nothing", that just makes me want to puke. My point is if you're going to use a program, use it better than well, and don't brag about turning Madonna into Powergirl... cause you didn't invent that.
I believe every artist should draw from observation first, imagination next and when in doubt look it up!
Did someone say crappy photoshop?
I own eight Lantern rings and Photoshop. That's all you need to know.
Wait is this you? Cause it's not attrocious, plus you're not saying you invented this...
I'm about to do a sketch of a half female face, half tiger head... try doing that without ANY reference. |
No two headed... but thanks for the input...
In darkest night,
By glow of LCDs,
These lines I shape to make ladies.
Let those whose eyes they do please,
Visit my DA account to view galleries!
I have to use references, else I'd never get done. I also get lots of ideas from other people's work. To me all this is part of the creative process.
not going into this too deeply as I think I expressed my opinion fine in the other thread
stock photo referances are fine, anything you photograph/create yourself is fine. anything else and your skirting the edge.
I think it's the 'skirting the edge' part that everyone seems to have slightly different takes on.
Dr.Destiny wrote this on the subject, and I thought I'd share it on this thread.
I no longer subscribe to CoH, but still wander over to the boards there to have a look around, especially when I've just done a CoH based pic. When I went in recently, I was shocked by the reaction to your using a pic for reference. Every artist uses references. Alex Ross couldn't produce anything without his extensive use of photography. Vermeer's use of a camera obscura to trace real life for his paintings is well documented. Joe Quesada has recently published a blog on his use of photo-reference for a cover ([link]). I have a filing cabinet FULL of reference pics. I think it shows more in the art of those who don't use references, and to their detriment. In the Renaissance, an artist's apprenticeship consisted of copying the masters and colouring in their own master's work. I can't post on the CoH boards to offer support, but I can send this. Jonathan (DrDestiny) |
As a non artist my general feeling is that so much depends on so many variables that it's next to make any hard and fast rules for what I feel is appropriate or not. I'll have different standards for someone just trying to learn than I do for someone who makes their living (or even just good pocket cash) or art... Different standards for someone doing a fan piece intended to just be entertaining to the people on a games message board than I would someone who is looking to sell posters of their work.
One of the few hard and fast rules I can think of is that one shouldn't hide what they used as reference. I don't mean it has to be stamped onto the art of, god forbid, a list of everything they looked at when dong the art added in fine print underneath like some kind of insane warning label... But one shouldn't be afraid to say the piece was inspired by so and so or that I snagged the poses from piece of art X by so and so... And most importantly, if called on and asked, it should be stated where it came from...
The closer one is trying to make the art to mimic the sources or references then the more need to state what those sources or references are... But if one did a line drawing out of their head and then looked at a photograph by some famed photographer just to get an idea of how a flashlight's beam lights up a flowerbed (silly example) then I wouldn't really think the photographer would need to be credited... If they were looking at that picture the whole time doing the art, then ya probably...
All in all, I think it all depends on how much the artist makes the final result "their own" as opposed to how much it really reflects or mimics the references.
Culturally speaking, copying other people wasn't an issue until the development of print and the eventual establishment of copyright law. Shakespeare lifted from tons of other people, as well as incorporating the improv of his actors. When you look at the work of an old master, you're generally looking at the work of a team--attributed to the master.
Copyright was developed so that creators could be rewarded for their efforts without the work just being stolen and copied for someone else's gain. This discussion got shifted on to whether its right or wrong to use reference, which is silly. Of course it a good thing to use reference. The issue is copying, and or stealing.
Let's say I do a still life of an apple. When I draw the apple, I represent the apple visually based on my individual undertanding and artistic ability. If someone comes along and literally copies my drawing, they aren't just copying an image of the apple. They are copying my decisions about how to voice things (what kind of lines to use, where to put them, etc.). Could somebody use my apple as reference without ripping off my image? Yeah I suppose, but why do it? Get an apple, or photo ref of an apple. Copying another artist, in the best possible light, is like having someone else predigest your food. In a harsher light, it's stealing. You're using their solutions and directly adapting them for your problems.
What about photography? Is it ok to use photo-ref from sources that weren't intended to be stock. I think yes if you are using them the way you should use ref: to understand the forms you are trying to represent. I would use photo ref to do a celebrity likeness, for instance. But to understand the person's physiology, not to copy. If I need to make a character look like someone, I'll gather a bunch of photos from different angles and use them to help me realize the image I have in my head.
Borrowed interest is a useful concept to think about in this regard. Say you find a photo that has a hot woman, in hot clothes, in a hot pose, and professionally lit and shot. So you use it as ref for a picture of your superhero. How much does it look like the original? How much of the coolness factor stems from the original? If someone can look at it and immediately reference the source image, I would consider that a failure.
There is a lot of grey area to this. Sometimes its unclear on whether something is theft or copyright infringement until it goes to court. But if artists take a hard line stance on this, they help protect themselves and other artists. Generally when people consider doing something dodgy they look around to see what others are doing. The less permissive the community is, the less likely they are to lift.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
I think it's the 'skirting the edge' part that everyone seems to have slightly different takes on.
Dr.Destiny wrote this on the subject, and I thought I'd share it on this thread. I'm not an art historian, but I've heard of many 'masters' copying other 'masters' - any art buffs out there able to confirm or refute this? |
EDIT: Oh! Also, to further the point, MASSACHIO intentionally used a canon Venus pose for his Eve in the Expulsion from Eden panel. The "modest Venus" (seen in such pieces as the Classical Greek Medici Venus and later in Botticelli's The Birth of Venus) posing was used to great effect in showing how Eve was newly aware of her shame in nudity. The Renaissance came with humanism, which was intricately tied to renewed interest in Greco-Roman literature and art. Masters from this time studied those old classics, and intentionally used those same poses to hearken back to the Classical ideals.
So yeah, using poses from past work ain't new, duckies.
I think there is a difference between copying as a technical exercise and copying as plagiarism.
If I copy something Alex Ross has done in an attempt to understand his use of lines, or a Rembrandt painting to get a better idea of how to imbue a work with a sense of light, and I advertise it as such, then my intentions are clear. This is a piece for learning purposes.
That's what the old masters would do. Duplicate to learn.
If I am copying someone else's image and representing it as my own, then that's plagiarism. This doesn't often happen, but you see it sometimes. I've seen more than a few "original sketches" on Ebay or DA that are just someone copying the lineart from an Adam Hughes drawing. That's theft, straight-up.
In the case of Jugg's piece it's an admitted pose swipe with the colouring as the point of the piece. To me, that's a learning exercise, and as long as it's represented as such with the attribution to the original, all's well. (I think the issue in the previous thread stemmed from the piece being posted without a link to the DA page where the pose credit was given.)
Where it gets more confusing, is when things are homages (especially if unstated) or "inspired by" because you start getting into determining intent and so on.
Concrete examples of rip offs, courtesy of Rob Liefeld:
After you check out that slideshow, read the justification written by the religious group:
http://xfamily.org/index.php/Which_C...the_Artwork%3F
Specifically the "copying art is not new" part. Notice that one of the justifications they make for the wholesale theft of other people's art is--use of reference.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Again, copying to learn is a mainstay of traditional art instruction. But generally, you do a replication of the existing work where you replicate it as precisely as possible in order to learn technique. At which point you designate it as a study. The main art school in Florence is filled with thesis projects where the students replicated famous sculptures.
But these studies are exact replications . The degree to which they resemble the original is the objective standard for how well the student has mastered the technique.
This isn't the same thing as a paintover, where you use some aspects of a work and change others to suit your goal.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Reference is a reference. It's not copying or tracing. Doesn't matter if it's an illustration, photo, or real life. I think the copyright laws are very good, so if it is legal it is ethical. I'm sure exceptions could come up, but mostly the law has it and all the different scenarios covered.
Anyone who says you stole or treaded a thin line because you referenced is being pompous.
As for the masters, many used camera obscura for their paintings, which is a fancy way of saying tracing. It boils down to projecting the image onto your canvas so you can put down the lines quickly.
And yes, many masters had teams helping them, and they got the credit, but the argument is that it was their vision. Andy Warhol did this too, well after copyright laws were established, and it's his name on his pieces. I'm sure many others before and since have.
Again, copying to learn is a mainstay of traditional art instruction. But generally, you do a replication of the existing work where you replicate it as precisely as possible in order to learn technique. At which point you designate it as a study. The main art school in Florence is filled with thesis projects where the students replicated famous sculptures.
But these studies are exact replications . The degree to which they resemble the original is the objective standard for how well the student has mastered the technique. This isn't the same thing as a paintover, where you use some aspects of a work and change others to suit your goal. |
((Oh, and I'm not saying that was the case in my piece from 2003. That, as pretty much everyone knows, was done to work on my wacom painting skills.))
If you're still reading my rambling, I thank you for your time and consideration. I love you Juggy, and the Dr. too (amazing work btw). I sure I'll get some heat from this opinion, but it's just that...an opinion. I was merely fed up with this whole discussion, and figured I'd throw in my pennies.
|
Another thread was recently high-jacked regarding this discussion, so maybe it's best to put down some thoughts here.
What are you thoughts about referencing photos, screen shots, and other pieces of art?
What are the lines you draw? (ethically, not physically. lol)