Red Baron's signature

[Russell Smith]

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

I know people who can do what the old masters did, and they don't use special lenses or any other methods of tracing. It simply requires tenacious practice

Here is one of those artists. Her name is Juliette Aritstides and she runs her own atelier in Seattle. I had the pleasure of meeting her last year, and i will say that she is a truly gifted and intelligent woman. She's written two books that are a must for traditional 2D artists - Classical Drawing Atelier and Classical Painting Atelier. Very much worth reading.

Juliette Aristides

[Chock]

With regard to copying original paintings, I can tell you that I have done that once or twice when I was at art college, copying the works of Turner and others. It was something we were encouraged to do. It was indeed a commonplace thing for painters when learning in the past as well, but it was rarely with the intention to deceive and it was as much about observation as brushwork.

I was once commissioned to copy a work by LS Lowry (probably twenty years ago or more), that being the 1934 painting, The Organ Grinder. He often incorporated the viaduct which runs through my home town as a feature in his paintings of the industrial northern landscape, so I was certainly familiar with his haunts. On that occasion it was a straight copy, at a smaller size than the quite large original, with no intention to deceive with regard to the origins, just being something somebody wanted and asked me to create, that person having one or two Lowry originals. Of relevance is the fact that to copy the layout, I simply drew a grid over a black and white photocopy of the original from a book, and then a scaled up grid on the canvas, and sketched it all in by eye faintly, using the grid squares as reference, before largely obliterating it with a titanium white wash, so most of it had to be painted visually once the basic detail was in place. Thus there was an initial guide to paint by, but it was nevertheless done by hand and by eye, there was no projection or lenses, or anything like that involved.

That was before computers were common too, so that wasn't an option either! Most of the real work for that was done by seeing originals by Lowry and checking out the paints he used and how he laid stuff on, as I had to emulate palette brush scratches and such. I'll see if I can get a photograph of the one I did, I see it fairly regularly as it is a relative who has it hanging on their wall, and you'll agree it's a good copy, difficult to distinguish from the original, despite having been done by eye. Trust me, you can do stuff by eye and make a good copy!

Al

[rexee]

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

Sorry rexee, but artists do care. David Hockney is full of crap. I know people who can do what the old masters did, and they don't use special lenses or any other methods of tracing. It simply requires tenacious practice. As an artist, I find his assertions offensive and they only demonstrate his lack of knowledge regarding the artistic process.

here is a good article disputing Hockney's false claims. Many similar articles can be found on the same site. ALL were written by artists.

ARC ARTicles - Why David Hockney Should Not Be Taken Seriously - Brian K. Yoder - Page 1/4

Russ

Oh boy...I should have known better...so anyway,How bout that Ivan Berryman drawing with the Richthofen signature !

BTW Al, if you used a grid,you didn't do it by"eye"...but you didn't hear it from me

Rex

[Chock]

Well, true, but the grid is essentially the same as doing the cliche artist 'hold up your brush with your thumb on it with one eye shut' to measure distances and angles between points, so it's really an extension of that technique.

If you look on that scribbled Nieuport picture I posted a couple of pages back, you can see that I've done that with faint lines between points to work out angles and symmetry, it's a very common thing to do when sketching.

I guess the point is really that Ivan is clearly a pretty good painter whatever anyone thinks, and that being the case, I'm sure he could knock stuff up that didn't draw quite so heavily on things other people had done, since I'm also sure he has a thumb, and a paintbrush. Add a couple of scale models and the world's your clam.

Al

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Ivan Berryman

Without wishing to get into a prolonged debate about how and where references are sourced, about technique and about the ethics of drawing or painting on papers signed by historic figures, I would like to offer a few final comments.

Starting with the last point, there was considerable discussion about whether or not to do a small pencil drawing on a piece of paper that had been signed by Manfred von Richthofen before I undertook the commission. It was agreed that it would be perfectly acceptable to do the drawing, provided that it did not encroach in any way upon the signature itself so that, should a future collector not wish the drawing to be present, it could be cut off, leaving the famous signature as a stand-alone memento. The signature was covered whilst I did the drawing, so as not to smudge, rub or damage it.

Nothing you can say will change my opinion of you or your art and or lack of character. Obviously you're in it for the money. It's cool. Personally I find you're methods tacky and cheap, with the MvR piece being further evidence of your values.

Someone in this unsavoury little thread proposed that I might paint on the Rittmeister’s gravestone, or something equally vulgar. This is a ridiculous suggestion that implies that I have no morals whatsoever. This was a signed piece of paper, nothing more, and I was asked by the owner of the signature to do the drawing. I was reluctant, but concluded that it was their choice to make, not mine. I knew that I was capable of doing a reasonable job and was fearful that if I didn’t do it, the customer might take it to another, less competent artist who didn’t understand the historical importance of what he was dealing with and the item might indeed have been ruined forever.

There was also the suggestion that I did not have to accept the commission to do this drawing. I could have said ‘no’. I think I have answered this one in the previous paragraph. This could be debated ad infinitum, but I realise that you have all made up your own minds about me and my work already and it was fascinating to see how easily and quickly the primeval ‘pack instinct’ kicked in as more and more damning evidence of my alleged malpractice was brought to the table. You are free and entitled to voice your opinions and I applaud your diligence.

...zzzz yawn.. What pack? Lol..the simple fact that this thread is even still open, speaks volumes for the restraint and courtesy given you. Believe me =D

As for the similarities between my work and that of others, I have dealt with that one before as you attacked me with the same images over a year ago. I happily supplied all my original references on another forum where the threads originated; the photograph used for the Rickenbacker angle for instance, and everyone seemed content. It was obvious from my submissions that two artists had simply used the same photo to gain a good angle on the Spad. It happens. How could it not happen? Get over it! They did.

I "NEVER" saw your SPAD picture Ivan.....Did anyone else here see it?????????

You presented very little to dispute anything to do with the works shown in this thread. In fact...none with regard to the comparisons shown here.

Oh Right...you and all 4 the other artist...yet AGAIN...picked the same
"photo" or "photos" in the case of the DataFile covers .. Again. Unlucky for you that everyone picks the same photos as you huh? I mean really...what are the odds?

What strikes me is the trouble that someone has taken to manipulate my painting to fit the other one. It’s been flipped, rotated by several degrees, squeezed, and undergone whatever other transformations you so expertly applied to make it fit the argument. You really have gone to so much trouble to make your weak argument valid. I have only joined this forum to respond to these accusations and, as a new member, cannot yet post images, so I can’t properly defend myself by demonstrating this point. If I could, I’d post my original reference material for all to see – and my sources are not the ones that you suggest. It is available, however, on my website.

WHAT'S THE URL?????

None of the samples were , skewed or manipulated. They were flipped and scaled using the unified scale tool in PhotoShop. Obviously some rotating is needed. Sadly for you in most cases, they didnt require much scaling at all as the sample to both images are pretty close.

Here.....try it on your own =)

Directions: Take Brian Knights Se5s....scanned directly from the Datafiles, and open them in PhotoShop.





Next do the same with Ivans Se5 piece of'.



Now flip the first image horizontally....Hey that almost nails the center plane straight off! Lol,. next rotate the trailing Se5 into position. You'll again.. obviously have to rescale the image, but if you hold down the shift key while scaling, it will scale the height and width evenly. The center plane needs very little in way of "manipulation".

Take the 2nd image..and...wait...IT'S already the in the same orientation...just a wee bit of scaling and that's it.

Cut and paste these over Ivans Se5 piece and see what happens. It's almost like those 3D pictures with the hidden image...you know the ones where you have to squint your eyes to see. Lol... fortunately, no squinting is needed to see these tricks in action.

I dont know Ivan, the result is rather suspect. And even if you did..yet again, use the same photos as another artist....dont you ever pull your head out and see what the competition is up to? And go wow...all three of my planes are the same as the one on the covers of the Se5s Datafile and DvII special. You have the worst luck with that.

I could supply similar photographic references for many paintings that have been completed by some of the aviation art world’s top artists. I could…but I wont, because it is for you to spot them and for them to defend their own corner. But, at the end of the day, is it really worth it? Does it really matter? No, of course not.

It does matter....that's the point you're not getting.

Is my art computer generated? No. I wouldn’t give it more than a passing glance. But I am flattered that you think it looks like it might be. Want proof? Go to my website and follow the links to the works in progress. See how it’s done. Alternatively, why not visit my studio and come and see for yourself? Unlike you, I have nothing to hide and no need or desire to conceal anything. Of course, I am not going to reveal my Studio address on a forum, but if any of you would like to give me a private contact address, I will offer you the chance to visit me and air your grievances in person. I will be more than happy to answer any of your questions as fully as I can – far more than I ever could on an internet forum.

Firstly....I have no problem with artist using aids and such. Even if they take 3D models, comp them and render to a canvas for later painting. It's part of their work flow. As CG artist, I rely so very much on references of all sorts. You deflect the conversation from the "FACT" that you're work looks a lot like paintings of others and say there is a Pack mentality forging a campaign against you with all it's evil minions... Like it took much effort to see the obvious. It's pretty easy for people to see and decide for themselves.

No one here, nor I has ever doubted you as painter. Or if you use photos as a reference. It's the fact that your work looks to be plagiarized. Sorry, that's just how it looks. No agenda, no scheme. You're art lacks imagination and creativity when it matches so closely , paintings already well established in the aero art word. For example...no one says "Hey...that looks like a Berryman damn it!" .. More like it's the other way around.

But, I suspect, you wont do that, will you? It’s so much easier to lambast someone whilst cloaked with the luxury of anonymity from an internet site, isn’t it? Well, good luck to you. I’m going to get on with my work now. I am amazed that the Aerodrome allows this sort of diatribe on its forum at all. It’s not constructive and is not, in my opinion (and many others, I have learned), in the spirit of the thing.

I will not be replying again, so do your worst. This correspondence is closed as far as I am concerned.

And it was rather dashing of you to invite me ...to another "country".

You know, I did email you..over a year ago about this very topic...and you never replied.

I remember this guy showing up talking about your art, and it was warmly accepted. Till of course people started seeing similarities to that of their favorite paintings. Then the spammer started getting a attitude and the S'** hit the fan so to speak. I then remember very little in the way of "proof" or "real" discussion only to be followed by nasty posts from trolls and threating emails and pm's. F'!!! that!

Again, you ruined your own credibility here, all on your own. So I doubt you'll be missed. But how about for old times sake, we make this thread the Official "Open Thread" of the art section. That way we can always remember the times we had and the way we were....

Take care =P

[Laserlloyd]

Tim,

Here is his link: His site

[Tim West]

bump...............