Cheating...

I newly subscribe to an artists magazine. In the first issue I received, there is a letter to the editor denouncing use of photographic reference, projectors, tracing, gridding etc as CHEATING. The writer felt that there should be no aids between the eyes & the hands (other than the mind).

It seemed to me this interpretation was pretty extreme but I know many feel this way. It seems to be a common attitude of the non-artistic layperson and many artists have some quilt feelings surrounding the issue.

I'd be interested in what you folks think.

Regards, Ross

I think, such people know nothing about the time you need to create great drawings/pictures with a computer - even with a photographic reference. They think, this good looking pictures comes for nothing within the graphic editor.

Remi

I don't consider myself an artist, but I do enjoy computer graphics.

Using sketches in making 3D models that are organic is pretty much common place. This is important in studio work as the concept artist may not even be in the same city as the CG artist and the CG animator.

As cameras get more advanced, using digital renderings to create 3D CAD is imperative if a company wants to survive and be competitive.

If one wants to be a sketch artist and/or canvas artist only, the I suppose that view is fine with me.

However, in today's world if you want to have productivity with style you will use the tools afforded to you. There are some world class artists using digital technology today.

There is nothing there that lessens the talent of a natural artist just because he works digitally.

That writer wasn't refering to digital works but more about creating art in general. I imagine the person was an artist who paints landscapes or still lifes "from life". Doing so, of course, presents many challenges and the person's position was if you can't raise to those challenges you aren't a "real" artist -- but a cheater.

With digital art it would be hard to only do things "from life". If I'm drawing a helicopter it is unlikely I can bring one to my backyard (or go to one) in order to draw it 'from life'. In general I think individual digital artists tend to deal with a wider range of subject matter and using reference materials is more accepted.

Would the person that wrote the article also consider DiVinci to have cheated because he used a model for visual reference when he created the Mona Lisa? How about many of the beautiful still life paintings created from visual reference?

Art critics and authors of 'Art' articles of that nature are often 'critical' because they lack the talent of the artist. Somehow they believe that since they lack the talent they have the right and ability to judge the art.

Not that I have much art talent myself, but I do appreciate those that have. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remi

I think, such people know nothing about the time you need to create great drawings/pictures with a computer - even with a photographic reference. They think, this good looking pictures comes for nothing within the graphic editor.

Remi

---

Thing is, watching the discovery channels, even the great artist in the old
day used that technique, they discovered it when they examined the
perspective of some old paintings, the distortions could only be
because they used the technique of punching a hole and so
letting light it and the picture gets on the wall upside down.
(so a camera technique), but they still had to colour it etc.

So it is not cheating, just using what is available.

When I was a boy, one of the neighbors who lived in the neighborhood was a fabulous artist. He entered his art in some local contests and got nationally recognized. He worked for a telephone company and was about to transfer when he got a letter from Walt Disney Studios. The Studio offered him a job as an artist to work in their movie artist section (not sure what that would have been.)

Anyway, I remember him talking about it and he said, "Drawing is fun for me and I don't want to have to make it my work." He also commented on how he took a photograph in his mind and could retain it for future use.

He also did crossword puzzles in ink, but that's another story. :D

The only way to produce an oil painting is to use canvas and oil paints.
I have yet to find an oil painting produced by 'cheating' - such as by using a computer.

>shrug< different tools require different skills. The airbrush artist is considered to be a 'cheat' by some yet airbrushing is an artform in itself as is the necessary masking.

What real diffence the digital airbrush ?
And what real diffence is the digital masking via drawing vector lines in Xara?

The brush and oil artist will not achieve the results of the digital artist and the reverse is also true - although each may come close.

We each use the tools to get the results we want.
Alternatively, we each use the tools with which we are most at home and suffer the limitations of these tools which means, perhaps, not getting the results we would like.

Quote:

---

many artists have some quilt feelings surrounding the issue.

---

Some insecure folks cuddle a blanket - I guess quilts are the modern equivalent.

Raymond, thinking of oil painting as you suggest: Let's say you have two choices. One is to pose the model and paint her 'from life'. The other way is to have a photo which you then transfer onto the blank canvas using a grid technique or a projector. It was that second method the letter writer was complaining about. The writer's point being that a 'real' artist would only do it the first way.

In digital art we have even more choices than the oil painter. Thinking of those cars some of you draw, I could take a SketchUp 3d model of a car, pose it as I like, and export its lines/shapes as vectors into Xara Xtreme where I could then colourize it and add reflections. The SketchUp approach would save time by getting the perspective perfect with almost no effort. It would save me considerable time... Would my approach be less "art" than yours if you achieved a similar result the hard way?

Regards, Ross

In a german book about "Painting from Photographs" the author reports about other artists who used references for their work, to name Courbet, Degas, Cezanne and Picasso. Also Macke and Zille. And besides Leonardo da Vinci there are also other artists like Vermeer and Canaletto, who used the "Camera Obscura" or other tools.

If a artist wants to create an oil painting, he surely should use oil and canvas. But if a "old-style" artist don't know the modern methods of computers and painting/drawing programs, he is limiting himself in his possibilites.

On the other side: Is this discussion not the same as "using plugins or not in Xtreme" or "creating pure vector graphics without photos/textures/..."? Someone is proud on things, he/she has reached under a strong learning curve and everything else is under level?

It's more a problem, that some of the "old-style" artists are too much proud of their knowledge, so they aren't willing to recognize their problem. I wouldn't say, they are the "real" artists and others are cheaters. Perhaps, the experience to paint from a life model is more intensive (depends on the model :)), but this doesn't mean, the art or the artist himself is "better".

Remi

"Better" is a relative term. Traditional, computer drawn, abstract, realistic, modern, classical, or a mixture of everything. Which would be better?
And how would you define "Art"?.
Cheating is using other people's work and passing it off as your own. Or using automated methods to alter photos and not admitting it.

You can see it in these forums that many tend to value more highly that which was achieved with more effort. If there's two images very similar in appearance, the artist who used a hard-work approach will get more appreciation than the one who achieved the result easily. This suggests what we value is more than the appearance of a final work.

We may say tracing over a photograph is not a issue but then we go all ga-ga over similar final images achieved without such techniques. Its like we do really feel that the tracing has less virtue. I believe most artists do use time-saving techniques but due to the expectations of others they aren't proud of having used them. In other words, many artists feel like cheaters. They generally won't discuss time-saving techniques because they know others will think less of their accomplishments. Many seem to wear a shame that makes them lack confidence.

Does it require more skill to draw/paint from life or than to copy an already flattened for you image, such as a photograph? Absolutely.

Is it more difficult to create a complex scene using your imagination, than to create something similar using photographs? Yes of course. Is it easier to use a projector than a grid? No doubt.

Am I personally more impressed by artist who paint and draw from life, than photographs? Oh, yes, much more. Do I think that artists who draw/paint from life are more skilled than artist than the ones that have to use photographs? Absolutely. But the thing is, with all the things available today (and only looking at the finished piece); it can be pretty difficult to pick out works that were done using a projector (especially with artist that use it as a guide, and add their own flair to the image (not just a clear-cut reproduction)).

Do I think it's cheating? Yeah, to a point. But what really counts in the end, is the finished piece. If the finished piece is enjoyable, it shouldn't really matter how the artist got there, no? Only looking at the finished piece - how can you really tell if someone "cheated" or not?

Artist through time have always used "aids" to get their idea/art down. Drawing using grids, and looking though meshes etc. Heck, it's even speculated that Michelangelo used clay models and light to cast shadows on the arched ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to trace the perspective of. Who knows? Does it matter how it was done? It doesn't make the end result any less enjoyable, does it?

Is there snobbery in the art world? Hmmmphhh... Is there jealousy because some things sell and other things don't? Hmmmphhh...

It's all in the end result. The pain and suffering (or the lack there of...) to get there, matters very little to most viewers. It might matter if you are striving to get into the upper echelon of the art world, galleries and museums... But "success" to most artist, I gather is being able to make a living with what they love doing, no?

Risto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risto Klint

But "success" to most artist, I gather is being able to make a living with what they love doing, no?
Risto

---

Not necessarily.
Success is achieving a goal, in accomplishing what one sets out to accomplish.

That one is paid for one's effort is an indicator that a certain standard has been reached.

Also, that one's (knowlegeable) peers praise one's work is a similar indication.

The thing is, how do you know and what defines, the goal?

Some folks will pay good money for rubbish in the same way folks will say that rubbish is quality work.

Thus, you canna win.

If success is achieving a specific goal, then you could say you are successful when you have reached that goal.

However, keep moving the goalposts, I say ... push the envelope and never be satisfied with goals reached but seek to exceed what is already accomplished.

Every person has to decide for itself what criteria have to me met for it to consider itself successful.

Most, I think, having met their defined criteria will not be satisfied and will seek to improve further.

Intbel, good points, but I was more thinking about professional artists. If you don’t sell – no money for food, studio rent, paints and canvases. This means that you have to work with whatever pays your bills – and the time left at the end of the day; you can spend on your art, no?

I’m sure different artists have different goals, but I would think that being able to eat is pretty important to all of them. So is being able to do your art as much as possible.

Perhaps this is clearer, being able to do simply do your art, is more important to most artists than being included in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - "cheating" or not.

Risto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ross Macintosh

Raymond, thinking of oil painting as you suggest: Let's say you have two choices. One is to pose the model and paint her 'from life'. The other way is to have a photo which you then transfer onto the blank canvas using a grid technique or a projector. It was that second method the letter writer was complaining about. The writer's point being that a 'real' artist would only do it the first way.

---

Well, if he wants to define a 'real' artist as one who uses no aids then he is free do do that and form his opinions accordingly.

Some might suggest that even he is not a reall artist if he doesn't mix his own colours from raw pigments

Quote:

---

In digital art we have even more choices than the oil painter. Thinking of those cars some of you draw, I could take a SketchUp 3d model of a car, pose it as I like, and export its lines/shapes as vectors into Xara Xtreme where I could then colourize it and add reflections. The SketchUp approach would save time by getting the perspective perfect with almost no effort. It would save me considerable time... Would my approach be less "art" than yours if you achieved a similar result the hard way?Regards, Ross

---

Not at all. I could take Sketch up 3D and wouldn't have a freakin' clue.
All tools, whether physical, manual, outomatic or electronic demand skills which need to be developed in order to get the best out of them.

The expert use of all such tools is an artform, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risto Klint

Perhaps this is clearer, being able to do simply do your art, is more important to most artists than being included in the Metropolitan Museum of Art - "cheating" or not.
Risto

---

To hell with the museums of art.
The works for such places is not always chosen according to quality.

The art world is full of people who form their opinions according to the popular art critic of the day whose only qualification is that he can tell the difference between a Picasso and Rembrandt.

There are artists today whose work is comparable to the work of the old masters but who do not get the same recognition and whose work is valued far less - not because their work isn't of high quality, but because they are not valued on account of them not being either famous or dead or both dead and famous.

Michaelangelo could have been a great artist if he hadn't waste so much of his time decorating the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel :)

I suppose one modeling in clay and other types of material in the past were dismayed when 3D CG artists took over their venue.

My Mother is a much better artist than I because she has done it longer, taken a huge amount of formal classes and is a natural artist. What I mean by natural is that she can go into a room or view an outdoor scene and decide exactly what would be needed in the way of materials and the best point of view to depict that art.

She only does China painting now. That main reason I suspect it is more social as several of her friends gather frequently to learn from each other and compare their works.

I will never forget the times on those quiet weekend afternoons, where she would take up a pencil and sketch something out in several views just for the reason of doing it and she could learn from her own experience.

She painted several children's rooms using the projector method. I suspect there is nothing wrong with that and she would say it is quicker to do it that way and the reason was to decorate the room and not to think of it as a canvas that could be put away so it could be done at a later time. The key word is expediency in that situation.

Perhaps working with dress patterns, cutting out each section is cheating as well, but I suspect that one can be more precise with the fit than eyeballing it. The concept of cookie cutting is well know and is often used by mothers to have their children cut their own cookies from dough. Are the cookies less artful because someone has used a metal or plastic cutter?

There are many Architects that have been considered Artists. They used blueprints and measuring devices. Are they cheating?

What about the pastry Chef who uses certain size pans, squeeze tubes that emit certain patterns and certain size of confections to make those fancy cakes. Do they cheat?

Art comes in many forms and maybe in the mind of the canvas artist using any tool besides the brush and paints is cheating.

If you know someone like this, ask them what they consider art. Is a beautifully done cake, a one of a kind building or a professionally done landscape less art that something that is done on a canvas?

The key and commonality here is the tool or tools used. One should not fault someone else because they use more or less tools to complete their work.

In the traditional sense, artistic ability is a talent, a gift if you like, and no amount of hard work and application will render this ability to the ungifted. Their efforts will result in more competent work, but they will never achieve results akin to the truly talented. This applies in all walks of life.

True artists, receive their gifts at birth and have no say in the matter. Of course, such talent needs development and nurturing, but it's there to use or not. Mozart, apparently, when seeing a piano for the first time as a young child, could just play it; he knew instinctively how it worked.

So, is art only for the truly skilled, I don't think so. What a dull place the world would be if only the extremely gifted were allowed to express themselves. Many people, like myself, feel the desire to create and whilst missing the inherent talent, will look for ways through which they can express those creative desires. This, I suggest, is not cheating, rather a use of available means to help mitigate one's shortcomings.

Is the art created by a true artist better than mine? Absolutely, I am in awe of their abilities (except for those idiots, and the bigger idiots that support them, who seem to win the Turner Prize every year).

So, I think that the editorial of which you speak is missing the point. Art, or perhaps a better phrase would be 'creative endeavour', is for everyone not just the elite.

Bin reading this with interest


what counts is the artwork
cheating is nicking stuff
saying that other people are cheating because they use different methods is pretention

gets a good discussion going though...

If you look at the work of an artist such as Vermeer. He used a form of 'camera' to project an image onto the canvas which he then traced. In fact many artists have used similar techniques to lay down the basic structure or composition of interiors or still life images. It was possible to do the same with landscape projecting an image into a darkened tent.
A slightly less 'cheaty' method was to draw on a gridded paper or canvas while looking through an identically proportioned grid which simplifies getting the proportions in a drawing right a great deal.
Tracing a photograph using tracing paper or a pantograph or now on a computer using vector or pixel software is just a development of the same idea.
Nothing to do with cheating really while at the same time being a very definate cheat.
Derek

I would say that it is an aid, not a cheat.

Projecting an image will give you a fairly accurate outline to start with.
The rest is up to the artist.
In the commercial art world that practice is common.
I worked in a commercial art studio from 1993 -1997.
We painted murals for hotels, casinos, private residences, etc.
The murals were painted in the studio then shipped to the site for installation.
I wasn’t one of the top artists, but rather an apprentice who was responsible for preparing the canvases, painting backgrounds, blocking in shapes, textures, faux finishes, varnishing,etc.
Many of these projects are huge (as large as 12 by 125 feet) and require a lot of manpower to get them out the door, so it really isn’t case of one Artist painting a picture, but rather one project Artist directing and overseeing the work of many Artists.
Anyway, projecting images was one of the techniques used to expedite the process.
Very useful for setting the preliminary shapes and proportion.

Here is a link to the studio so you can see what I was up to:

www.dbamurals.com

- Andrew

I would agree with what others here have said about using aids such as photos, tracing, camera obscura etc. They are not cheating under normal circumstances.

Having said that, the ability to draw from life is a very valuable skill for computer artists to acquire, even if they don't use it all the time. It helps develop the ability to see line, design, and composition in the real world and lay out this 3-D vision on a flat surface in a convincing manner.

Also, I find that a tremor in my hand makes it harder for me to draw on a slippery tablet than with a pencil on a piece of paper.

To my way of thinking, drawing aids like those mentioned are only cheating if they are used and then the work is claimed to be freehand i.e. the intention is to decieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanstancliff

Also, I find that a tremor in my hand makes it harder for me to draw on a slippery tablet than with a pencil on a piece of paper.

---

Alan, placing a sheet of paper of a suitable texture upon the tablet will probaby solve that particular problem.

I think Doc nailed it, intent to defraud is the premise that precludes the concept of cheating.

Cheating? It's difficult to come up with a definite answer, because it’s not easy to draw a line between what’s cheating and what’s not, for the same reason why it’s so difficult to explain talent or art.
Even when you do consider something cheating, you could ask yourself who’s being cheated; the viewer or artist himself?

Unlike the majority of the artists who seem to prefer references (don’t ask me why), I on the other hand prefer to use no direct references, whether it’s a photograph of even drawing from “life”. I find “carbon copy art”, because that’s what I call it, pretty unexciting and not only as an artist, but also as a viewer.
I want to create something out of nothing and have full control. Sure, that’s not an easy road, but I do like the challenge and really dislike copying from references, like for example working for 30 minutes on a mouth just to get that likeness right…sorry, I find that boring. In that same amount of time I could have created this unique expressions in the eyes that made the face really stand out.
I respect it when someone makes different choices, I just happen to have totally opposite ideas.

Well tracing an object is not the same as drawing it on paper just from looking at it. I think to draw it freehand requires some talent.

I do think if you drew it by hand and then scanned it and traced your own drawing then that would be acceptable.

have I traced photos ? Sure, and I have done a few from hand drawn sketches and some work I do totally without reference except for what I see in my mind.

I do have a little more admiration for some of the cartoonists here that only use thier sketches that have been scanned and dont use photos. To me that is more of real art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a4hire

cartoonists here that only use thier sketches

---

its a hard life ;)

That is funny - very good! :D

Ta