Production over Originality - Tools of a hack

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Albatros_Ace

Hey Tim I don't like people getting ripped off either but Ivan really can paint so don't rip on him

Ivan Berryman Aviation and Naval Art

Paul Baumer - WW1 Ace painting.

Roland DVIa Camouflage Painting

Friedrich Christianen - WW1 Ace - Attack on Submarin C.25

Gotha Painting in Progress - Ivan Berryman

Thank you for your opinion....thats what this thread is about. The critical debate about art.

I could post of other incidence of coincidence with berrymans work and other artist and published photos...cough joseph jacobs cough...but I think the 2 SPAD images say enough

So let's put aside the merit of the techniques...what about the lack of accuracy shown in a number of the works.....again... production over quality.

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Laserlloyd

I would suggest to keep this thread open to just keep it civil with out the personal attacks so we all can share and learn from this...
Lloyd...

Agreed.... if it turns out people like those works....then by all means go and buy the prints if you like them.

If someone said.."hey, look what I did in photoshop" and I saw some of the those works, I'd be like cool but if those same works looked like the work of others, I'd have the same concerns as to the value of quality over quantity.

Maybe this all means that I can just take the work of others and create renders based of the work of others without a worry of infringing on the rights of the original artist or copyright holder.

Maybe, I'll do just that. If berryman can do it ..why cant I do it with his works...or any artist for that matter? Is that practice ok...Do the people who enjoy these works agree?

Just wondering. It'd sure be easier just to copy something.

[rexee]

Hi Tim

I know in this painting of McCudden I took it directly from a well known photograph of him. I tried to do something a little different with it but I suppose I could be accused of copying. I just didn't see any way around referencing the photo.

Rex

McCudden

[Tim West]

I remember =) But you're not selling prints as original works.

Its no different than painting a Van Gogh at a museum and calling it original. Good for practice but not original. He could at least call them what they are...COPIES.

Also a skilled artist, could have taken a couple of photos and generate a pretty good likeness without exactly copying published photos from books. Like McCudden there are plenty of photos of say Joseph Jacobs, to have done something original.

I always thought artist frowned upon copying photos for which they don't actually have the right too copy....let alone sell as original works of art.

To each their own I guess....

[Tim West]

A army of many posing as one....
Flood the markets with haste....
Waste no time with history or fact...
Raping your peers is just WHACK!.....



Giggity giggity giggity GOO!

Originally Posted by Tim West

Lol, you thought one was a cg image...thank you =)

Actually they both look like paintings to me but then again most cover art for
books and comercial art paintings are done on the computer these days. This
should not be scoffed at too much as using stuff like Corel Painter it not any
easier than actually painting, you still need talent. I used to be an airbrush
illustrator and that as a profession is dead unless you like to paint T-shirts
for 10 bucks at the flee market. Anyway the guy looks like he has talent to me. MOST artist's prints are Glicee prints which are nothing more than fancy inkjet prints so to knock computer production your knocking all modern artists and thats what your getting unless you buy an original work. If your
claiming he is directly copying other folks artwork thats something entirely different and has absolutely nothing to do with computer art.

[Tim West]

CG ART IS CRAP!

Mr. Werkstatt.

I think you've missed the point. Its no big deal if someone uses a wacom pad or finger paints... Be honest and call it what it is. And yes..In my opinion, a lot of those works ..sure look like the work of others and some are even EXACT copies of photos.

So copying is ok in your mind?

[AAC Cadet Leader]

the examples just keep coming

So copying is ok in your mind?

No of course it is not why would you think that from what I said?
Working form a photo however is and a big part of the process
for most photo realists (like John Baeder for instance)and I have
no problem with that.

[karrart]

Originally Posted by Die Werkstatt

Actually they both look like paintings to me but then again most cover art for
books and comercial art paintings are done on the computer these days............ I used to be an airbrush
illustrator and that as a profession is dead unless you like to paint T-shirts
for 10 bucks at the flee market. Anyway the guy looks like he has talent to me. MOST artist's prints are Glicee prints which are nothing more than fancy inkjet prints so to knock computer production your knocking all modern artists and thats what your getting unless you buy an original work. If your
claiming he is directly copying other folks artwork thats something entirely different and has absolutely nothing to do with computer art.

Airbrush illustration won't die until I say so!
So far seven kit box gigs in this year' tunnel; another Datafile cover gig came in last night; for at least a few more days when you click on WW1 AIRCRAFT - Welcome you'll see another bit of spritz'n'spray
T-shirts?Hmmmmmmm- may have to try that. I mean on purpose- not just the ones that get dosed with spills and overspray.
Robert Karr
OLD BIRDS STAYING ALIVE - THE AVIATION ART OF ROBERT KARR
blog dealy:
RK’s Pfalzhood - Pfalz, Halberstadt, Nieuport, CAMEL!!! » RK’s Ramblings