Production over Originality - Tools of a hack

[Albatros_Ace]

Originally Posted by Tim West

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.

Production will always win ....always

and thats just another pile of $#!T on the the road of life everyone's got to step in it eventually you can wash it off and keep going eventually forgeting it or you can lets it stay on you shoes and mold/rot and let it bother you forever

.....or something like that ......

P.S. ...man that was cheesy

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Die Werkstatt

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.

You assumed I have issue with digital mediums...In fact, I m prolly the last person to have issue with CG artist, believe me so to move away from the technique used I simply asked what you thought about copying.

I guessing John Baeder doesn't use photos that other have the rights to. He prolly takes his own. His art is cool. Reminds me of hdri stuff. Is it digitally created?

As much as I love cg, I will say this...enhancing photos...via a program like PS, takes less talent than say the stuff that Russ or Robert does. I mean, ultimately it's tracing isnt it?

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Albatros_Ace

Production will always win ....always

and thats just another pile of $#!T on the the road of life ..... or something like that ......

P.S. ...man that was cheesy

You are absolutely right, production always rules the day it seems...much to the dismay of the artist working for stuffy producer types


May your future steps be clean and fruitful!


Now that was cheesy

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by karrart

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

You go with your spritz n sprays... Congrats on the new cover!

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by AAC Cadet Leader

the examples just keep coming

Thanks for posting the link to further this discussion, I had forgot about it and it was updated since I last read it.

Definitely more food for thought.

I guessing John Baeder doesn't use photos that other have the rights to. He prolly takes his own. His art is cool. Reminds me of hdri stuff. Is it digitally created?

No he paints and illustrates in various traditional mediums and yes he takes his own or
use stuff from the Nat. Archive.

[AAC Cadet Leader]

Art Farm


don't get me started again...

[austin08]

thats what this thread is about. The critical debate about art.

Hi all,
Are we sure about this?

The art word, capital A or otherwise is being bandied about , surely we're talking about the relative merits & competancy of commercial illustrators?

It does not really matter which medium is being used, using a significant proportion of someone elses work either as art or as illustration for financial gain is a low act . The " i changed the colour" defence wont wash.

The use of photographs by painters has existed since the invention of photography. The overriding point of artists or illustrators use of photographs is whether or not they have made better visual sense of the information contained in the photograph. The worst copy and the best translate.

Thomas Eakins used numerous photographs in his paintings but he used his own photographs and transformed them. He was a great painter.

Daryl

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by AAC Cadet Leader

Art Farm
don't get me started again...

I missed the end of that thread too...I take it you weren't convinced

After my absence I noticed a flood of WWI pieces from the afore mentioned artist. Like going from a hand full to dozens...not to mention other genres but it sure seems like a poke at the artists here....one in particular... that truly love their craft. Just a feeling....nothing more

And besides that ... the speed at which these pieces appear is amazing! I dont know of many who can do that. Maybe Mr. Kinkade and his "fill artists".

Also ,I can not think of any other artist who's art "resembles" so many pieces by other artist.. not just WWI but the entire body of work.

If I was a world renowned expert, Ginsu 2, paint-sling'in ninja, I'd make damn sure my work didn't look like someone else's.

but that's just me.

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by austin08

Hi all,
Are we sure about this?

The art word, capital A or otherwise is being bandied about , surely we're talking about the relative merits & competancy of commercial illustrators?

It does not really matter which medium is being used, using a significant proportion of someone elses work either as art or as illustration for financial gain is a low act . The " i changed the colour" defence wont wash.

The use of photographs by painters has existed since the invention of photography. The overriding point of artists or illustrators use of photographs is whether or not they have made better visual sense of the information contained in the photograph. The worst copy and the best translate.

Thomas Eakins used numerous photographs in his paintings but he used his own photographs and transformed them. He was a great painter.

Daryl

Hi, welcome to the fun!

I'm sure "we" are sure about our own opinions and nothing more. We wouldnt want to slander "a master" with claims of fact.... People here are grown ups and can look at these discussions and reviews and make up their own minds on the subject at hand.

Agreed, using works of others for gain is low to say the least. Skill might not be the problem...maybe it's imagination. For example, a S'load of people can play guitar but relatively few can write their own music.

And I just want to clarify, the medium isnt the issue. Using digital means to tweak original works of others, then rolling it out on a canvas and over painting it is. No matter WHO is doing it.

A commercial illustrator might do this but I bet who ever is paying has the legal right to do so.

With all that has been discussed it seems that people feel I have issues with the use of photos. NO not at all. I know that is were references come from and how people learn techniques. Not a problem. I've done it and will do it again....I will not skew the fact the in the pro 3D world this is common. For example matte paintings and the like. Just like we know painters do it too. I think the difference is that some of us, dont use published photos for which we dont have permission to use and claim them to be original for financial gain. In my opinion...for "a master" that is a weak approach to art.

And gosh if you're gonna do it , at least dont match the photos, pixel for pixel....cough...joseph jacobs...cough I believe that copyright applies to photos as well.

So, no problem with using photos for reference in good faith. And you said it best

The worst copy and the best translate.

I'm more concerned about the "similarities" to the painted works of established artists here in the States.

Thomas Eakins used numerous photographs in his paintings but he used his own photographs and transformed them. He was a great painter.

I just looked him up...lol, what a perv...especially back then But you're right neato paintings, that have texture and feeling. Translated very well sir! Thanks for pointing him out.