Is tracing cheating?

[Ross Macintosh]

'poser' was originally advertised. It was touted as a virtual version of those traditional jointed wooden posing dolls that were standard issue in painting studios. If I'm not mistaken - the original Poser actually looked like the wooden versions. Poser evolved into something more. We know some people consider use of poser generated figures in art to be cheating.

Such dolls have, no doubt, been used by artists for ages. It wouldn't surprise me if there were art teachers who viewed their use as cheating. Similarly, use of projectors is a fairly common aid - their use even more likely to be seen as cheating. It is not unusual for painters to grid off a photo and use a corresponding grid on the canvas (or computer screen) to aid in reproducing the image. No doubt most laypeople would perceive that practice as cheating. Carbon paper is sold in art supply stores as an aid for more quickly transfering images --- cheating tool? Mechanical pantographs are still sold for the same purpose - they were once a very common instrument in artists studios. Computers can now be used by artists to develop & visualize complex geometries/compositions (as per Gary's example). That visualization is prepared as an aid in the production of a final work.

Use of any such aid can be seen as "cheating" because they represent a shortcut. "Shortcuts" are really what the NYTimes article was about. Clearly "tracing" and plagerizing someone else's work is unethical. My comments about cheating earlier in this thread were directed at the shortcuts issue. I suspect the use of 'shortcuts' varies widely amongst artists. The purist who likes to pass moral judgement on such things could likely condemn something in almost any artist's techniques: "He doesn't even mix his own colours!" While being critical of that may seem rediculous today, there was a time when artists had to prepare their own paints. No doubt the early users of purchased ready-to-use paints were criticized as cheaters.

Is the photoshop user who adjusts the brightness of their image a cheater because they have used a shortcut? If they were 'really' good they wouldn't have needed to adjust such things - adjusting brightness is a shortcut because it avoids having to start over. Of course they are not cheaters. Artists have always used aids and will continue to do so. They might have to hide away in their studios and avoid discussing their techniques - so those who seek to dismiss their accomplishments will have a harder time. In a sense that is exactly what artists have done for many years - hide.

It is a shame...

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[Gary David Bouton]

Brett--

I think this thread has gone to its logical extreme, and must be reeled back.

It's cheating if you take someone else's work, steal someone else's thought...in short, I feel Erik had hit the nail on the head: If you feel what you are doing is pure in your heart-you're on the right track.

I shamelessly, therefore, use parts of Poser models in my work, because life is too short, you know? Computers are indeed labor-saving devices, as were apprentices during the Middle Ages who served artist masters by painting in the boring parts of a painting.

I cannot, and do not wish to refute your posting, Brett, because a lot of it is absolutely true. But I don't get the "Bach" reference. Isn't it really what you DO with your self-expression, if it indeed pure? I play Bach and I also play the Beatles' songs on my guitar, and I make no pretenses that what I'm doing is original. It's just that I have a song in my heart and someone else wrote it. What's wrong with that, aside from taping and selling it?

Art was meant to be shared, and this sharing goes on every day, whether we, as artists, realize it or not. I have an album of unreleased original classical music I wrote and recorded, and anyone is free to play it. Dave Seigal designed the typeface Tekton and it's used millions of times a day. You could examine this right doen to: if you didn't wind your nickel strings on your guitar, then it's not totally original music you make.


Other people are involved whether one likes it or not in the process of creation. I need my publisher, or my writings would earn me zip income. Buildings must be built as a collaborative effort, or the architect has nothing to tout around except blueprints.

And DAZ makes the process of adding remarkably lifelike people to a scene. Don't think of it as an application, okay? Think of it as a clip art catalog that you are free to modify and encorporate in your design work.

Enough of my hot air...

Peace,

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.

[gidgit]

Well, there is more to tracing than I had originaly considered...for instance...in the challenge I have just recently posted in the gallery, I drew the circle for the sharky freehand and upon finding out how much I suck at drawing freehand circles I traced around a lid cover for the baby dino and baby rhino marbles...This is a form of tracing and I don't feel too badly about doing so [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img], and I would suppose the same logic could/would apply in a situation that saw a draftsperson using "french curves" etc...

as for Gary using his own worx for another perspective...I thought that that was just a part of the whole...process that is...heck, I find myself using a 3D app many times when creating something that will end up 2D... many times, depending upon the object in mind, it is just plain easier to do things in this manner...

What ever worx for ya, so long as things are "right" if'ns ya know what I mean [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Erik Heyninck]

And because we Europeans see nudity as natural: (besides: I don't suppose there's more of her left than a skeleton by now...)

When early nineteenth century's romanticism invented the superhuman creature called "artist", they reduced the inspired craftsman to something the bored bourgeosie could base their shallow daydreams on... I have photographs Mucha used, just like there are photographs Delacroix and Degas used...

Hey: we love when we play...break those rules that limit you. Do it. Now.



[This message was edited by Erik Heyninck on June 20, 2002 at 14:48.]

[This message was edited by Erik Heyninck on June 20, 2002 at 14:49.]

[This message was edited by Erik Heyninck on June 20, 2002 at 14:50.]

[dalel]

It was to reinforce the need to develop a good eye and drawing skills, and to not be dependent on mechanical aids.

I have done some pretty good art by tracing, and doing that saved quite a lot of time, but I feel better about my art if I draw it freehand, because I can practice my drawing skills and keep them honed. (Such as they are.) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


Eye Site Web Design
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

[s.winders]

Ok heres a new angle [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]


If using reference material {something I do often} could be observed as cheating,does that make any reference material we can remember which is in the grey matter placed on paper or in a 3d viewport cheating? Because really one is just a step away from the other.


It seems to almost be boiling down to a form of censorship.


I agree with Brett about using anothers model,as I also would say in the finished image I had done so for the following reason.I believe if I use someones elses work {I dont mean Poser} and dont say so,I am dishonoring their hard work in creating it in the first place,and I am reinforcing to myself it is something I am not capable of creating.


I think with Poser and say Vue esprit for tree generation that everyone knows that these programs are designed for this purpose,and that the user pays for a licence in order to do so,as they do with any prog.Personally I almost feel sorry for artists at say ILM etc when someone asks for say a space ship,the artist then has to design a realistic space ship that does not look like any others they have seen before in movies,in print,or on TV.I think if anything ever reduces creativity in the arts it will be because of copyright law.For instance how often have you thought of say a subject and imagined a design in your head and then realised you cant really do it because its been done before or is copywritten.


Stu.

[bmh216]

Ross, I understand Poser better in the context of a "posing doll". But people have turned it into more than that, and not always do they admit that the model is not their own. Modelling humans is very difficult (for me at least) and complex, and using a pre-made model in that fashion reeks of plagiarism. It is someone else's model, even if it is packaged in a nice GUI that allows you to pose, move, animate, etc. Yeah, I know, royalty-free, yada yada, but I won't use them for that very reason. And, I don't consider that merely a "shortcut". A shortcut makes my job easier, it doesn't do the job for me. I could drive screws with my bare hands if I really had to, but ahhh, someone invented the screwdriver. I can use it without guilt, and still look at the deck I built with pride. Subtle but significant difference.

Gary, I didn't mean to attach a "bad connotation" to the Poser name. It has its' place. I just don't like un-credited use of it. The term "poser" is used by todays' youth in a "poseur" sense. In their jargon, a poser is someone who is attempting to be something he/she is not. I just thought the name kind of rang true to the concept, at least in the "plug the model into a scene and call it your own" sense.

You state "These products I speak of are assistants to the mature, competent designer--and not "push button art"." Which products do you mean? With all due respect, I lost ya a bit there. Also, I draw a (fine) line between "designer" and "artist". The designer might use elements of others work by necessity of their occupation, with total integrity to the "design". The "artist" is on his own. His choice to use/not use elements created by others is his own. I personally cannot use "pre-fab" to create an image and then shamelessly call it my own, without noting my use of (what I consider) someone else's model.

Gary, your image is nice. I like the composition, I like the concept, all very well done. However, if it were my image, I would have to note to whomever may give me credit for it that "I used pre-made models for the humans". Just my personal opinion. But the concept, execution, etc. is all your own, so the work you've done shouldn't go unnoticed just because of the use of Poser. It's a double-edged sword.

Enough rambling, (sorry so long), let's make art!

Brett

[Earl]

Personally, I think Poser is meant for fun. I've never used it, so perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like something for people to tink around with. Perhaps to learn from, or perhaps just for people who don't WISH to learn the aspect of 3d modeling. I know more than a couple people who like to work with 3d programs, but who don't really have the ambition to become a guru. I don't look down at them for that.

In studios, people work in teams often times. One set of people do the modeling, one set do the texturing, etc. Perhaps that's where Poser fits in. Some people simply don't have access to a team environment, or they don't know others who can specialize in modeling. Thus, they rely on things like Poser, so they can focus on texturing, lighting, etc. But I DO think in the final piece of artwork they should say that Poser was used. Just like one would give credit to the modeling portion of their team, and not pretend like they didn't exist.

[gidgit]

Hey, what a great thread...

Tracing, copying, cloning, what have you... all permissible, providing that the source is not obtained via theft...

That said, I believe there are still basic guidelines which a good artist will adhere to and that set the good apart from the not so good...

IMHO, the end result must reflect it's own unique perspective...

Having said this, I would suppose that much depends on what the end result is to be...

For instance... you take a royalty free stock photo, apply some cool effects thus changing such into a grafx of sort that will be used on a page providing a theme to the particular subject of said page... this is utility art at best, and will never be looked upon as classic art form...

on the other hand, you create, using a source and/or from the mind, a masterpiece too good to simply be deemed as utility art...well, it is open to scrutiny and interpretation of the beholder just how this piece fares...

I would suggest that the more pure the source, the greater the value placed upon worx created...

It is ultimately up to the artist to have integrity, ethics... the worx should eliminate the need to question... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[bmh216]

There are times when my son will bring me a picture, and I immediately say "you traced that". He always fesses up, but just looking at the picture I can tell it was traced. I know his level of drawing skill, and the tracings surpass it. Easily seen as "cheating", and he thinks so too.

What about Andy Warhol? Did he cheat on that Marilyn Monroe pic? Or is that just "pop-art"?

This discussion could last forever [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Brett