-
I saw a very relevant article in the Times today on the "Masters" and how they used photography as a basis for painting.
Aren't we, as modelers, using reference material in the same way?
Check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/ar...daysheadlines, or snag my pdf of the article.
My Best,
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
I saw a very relevant article in the Times today on the "Masters" and how they used photography as a basis for painting.
Aren't we, as modelers, using reference material in the same way?
Check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/ar...daysheadlines, or snag my pdf of the article.
My Best,
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
Gary can you try reattaching the pdf. If I try to download it I get a "broken gif" error.
I realize I could follow the link to the NYTimes but I'd have to register - which I don't want to do.
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
1 Attachment(s)
Zipping or using StuffIt usually cures the "busted up file" syndrome with the net...
see attached.
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
This thing is showing zero downloads. I downloaded it hours ago and found it to be an interesting article.
It reminded me of Randy's fairly recent thread where he noted how laypeople tend to dismiss computer graphics relative to "real" drawing or painting.
I found it interesting that the NYTimes article started off trying to explain the issue in an unbiased way but ended up making the same value judgements. -- something about real genius. I had to laugh! As if Thomas Eakins wasn't one of the greatest artistic geniuses the USA has ever produced. (If you aren't familiar with him - search his work out. His work was amazing!).
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
but as you say, Ross, in the end the writer alludes to the same 'ol thing about "genius"...
The question of whether tracing is "cheating" is up to the individual. The question is put to you very early in life--or at least was to me in grade school--as to whether when you create something others really like if you "copied" it or "traced" it...almost as if they want to find a way to discount what you've done. From this early experience came a motivation to never trace anything...so many times the question would arise, and I had to "prove" to others that I drew without tracing. To this day, I do not trace anything...but not because I think it's wrong or some such thing, but because of what everyone "expected" of me in that regard and how people, and even other kids in school, perceived it.
The bottom line, it seems to me at least, ought to be about the final result of the artwork---no matter what tools were used, does it achieve what the artist desired? It's all I care about in the final analysis...but that "stigma" of tracing is strong and I still won't do it! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=3121905805
-
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]
http://www.eyesitewebdesign.com/laundryman1.gif
Eye Site Web Design
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll
-
I also dont trace,but if I remember rightly it was through tracing I was able to improve my drawing skills to the point where I no longer need to [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Sometimes I copy and flip horizontal {cg} to speed up my creative process while working on an image,so is that tracing?,because if it was a pencil sketch of say wings I would probably copy one side and flip it and then lightly pencil in the other wing if I was sketching the whole image,and I think lots of people do this,so can we say then that with CG tracing is ok if you already have the skills and it is to speed up your workflow?
Then there is copying,copying is so close to tracing it is not funny,but most artists use a form of copying for reference material and would argue black and blue that copying is not tracing.I have heard of people who will not ever use a ruler,personally I think that is there loss and it brings us back to tracing once more which to my mind is more about elitism then it is about learning art.I dont feel learners should be totally discouraged from tracing as long as it is not relied on,but for instance there is no better way to learn to draw a cartoon when you are beginning then to trace the image over and over,after a while it becomes ingrained and you no longer need to trace anything [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
There a few artists here in NZ whose paintings have sold for a million or so,but I dont like their work,70% of the population dont understand their work or like it,so is this common place because a - these are talented artists,personally I dont think so,but that is only my opinion,so is it b - desirable because people dont understand it and want something different,or is it c- people know other people dont understand it and desire it,so therefore it is an asset which appreciates,so I believe these people would desert these artists in a heart beat as soon as thier art became not of a stable monetary value anymore,so ipso facto elitism is about money not art.
An example of what I am speaking about would be dark paint strokes on a piece of corrugated iron,and people pay huge sums for this simply because of the name at the bottom,which again ipso facto equals dollar signs more then appreciation of the work itself,which is sad [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Stu.
-
Tracing is cheating if you pass it off as a drawing by you. (guess as Maya pointed out that has been drilled into my head all through school) Tracing is a great learning tool, and should be used as such. I should note that the above is referring to tracing someone else's work.
Tracing a photo you took and then painting that tracing is a somewhat different matter. The entire work is yours. You capture the image onto film, with your own view of the object. Then transferred it to another medium. While this may be grey area, I think it is ok.
I akin tracing, to using someone else's model in your 3D scene. Nothing wrong with it, but I think it should be noted that the model's were not yours, and give credit to the artist that created the model. For that reason I very rarely used pre-made models. I model everything my self.
This is all just my personal views. Art is to subjective to be so ridgely defined. I would not reject a piece of art that I liked simply because it started out as a tracing. I would simply admire it for its on beauty. I would however hold a higher opinon of an artist who did everthing freehand over one that traced, providing everything else was equal. For I feel it takes more talent, so therefore I would admire the artist more for his hard work.
--Randy R
-
My comments that follow aren't directed at anyone. I include them only to add to the discussion...
You guys write of being instructed at a tender age that tracing things was bad. That's probably true of most people - myself included. Who taught us that and on what authority did they have?? The idea permeates our culture. I think it is all tied up in the silly concepts our culture has about talent. It is incredibly popular to see talent as some 'God-given' ability. (Many of you probably believe you are talented even if you won't admit it - it isn't politically correct to claim talent: It amounts to saying that you are better than others. That you are a chosen one). "Talent" weeds out those with special God-given abilities from all those who are just wanna-bees. For many, it would seem, the badge of being described as talented by others drives them "appear" so. With God-given talent it isn't necessary to trace. Photographic references aren't needed either. The popular culture and view of artistic talent supports this attitude. Consequently many "artists" either have a deep aversion to such things; or do it, but hide the practice for fear of being thought of as some kind of fraud. Many artists have vast collections of reference clippings, and own slide projectors, opaque projectors, and now digital cameras for reference purposes.
In the article Thomas Eakins was 'exposed' as having used photographic references. The fact is he was perhaps the most brilliant perspectivist the world has ever known. He could, without any doubt, have painted without using photographs. The guy was one of the most technically perfect painters ever. His composition and perspective were incredibly studied aspects of his work. Incidentally, and significantly, Eakins believed (and preached) that practically anyone could learn to paint as well as he did if they had the right instruction and motivation.
Why did Eakins use photographic references? Why not is the better question. No doubt it was easier and lessened the time needed to create one of his realist paintings. I suspect the final result mattered to him far more than the route to it. I rather doubt he ever thought his using a photograph was cheating as he would have been well aware that he (and others too) were capable of painting the same scenes without them. His work had an agenda. That agenda wasn't to prove to others how talented he was. The final painting is what mattered. Photographic aids likely just helped to get the painting finished sooner.
Sooner equals more great paintings. What's wrong with that? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
Nothing Ross,theres nothing wrong with that [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
So it looks like the people who brought this fraud angle in were simply jealous of his talent,reference or not.I would also asume that if it was not about photo reference the same people would find something else to moan about in his work...tall poppy syndrome.
Stu.
-
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]
-
Ahem! Ross I think using a photo as a reference vs. using a photo to trace are entirely two different things.
Photos used as a reference are sometimes the only way to go. Say you are doing a portrait of a celbritry or head of state. If you are lucky the person will maybe have time for a few sittings and the artist has to take mega photos to "refer to" to complete the picture.
As far as actually tracing I cannot pass judgement as to it being cheating, but it sure does say something about the artist's lack of drawing skills and lack of ability to really see what you are looking at and trnaslate that onto paper or canvas.
-
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
-
For instance, using a plugin to get an effect you could not do yourself with your graphics program. You are cheating yourself of the ability you might gain by learning to do it with your own skills.
If you are practical and goal-oriented, that might not matter, only the results. I feel I cheat myself of gaining better drawing skills when I trace, but I will often do it anyway for expediency, because I enjoy the other aspects of creating art more than drawing.
http://www.eyesitewebdesign.com/laundryman1.gif
Eye Site Web Design
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll
-
You use the graphics program you bought are you cheating yourself because you didn't code the program yourself? Of course not.
Traditionally painters had to manufacture their own paint. When you paint using tubes of purchased paint are you cheating yourself? Of course not.
When Andy Warhol created powerful art using photo-mechanical technology was he cheating? Of course not.
Some things we do may feel like "cheating" because we know others may be deceived by the results and incorrectly assume we did something we are not competent to do. The process makes us feel like frauds. That comes down to how we see 'talent' and how comfortable we are with ourselves. For many artists it is a constant struggle with their egos. Artists are notoriously insecure or egomanical - Sometimes alternating between both extremes. Again, I think the reason has to do with the culturally pounded in fallacy of "talent" that shapes us from our first childhood creative endeavors.
The whole paradigm is based on the exclusiveness of creative ability. Our culture highly values creativity but sees it as a magic gift to be packaged and controlled. In contrast, I believe creativity is a basic human trait - one that is to our great detriment, repressed by cultural influences in the vast majority. It is sad.
If you set aside society's expectations - and don't give a damn what you think others think - then concepts of artistic cheating fall apart, for you at least. Cheating requires a perpetrator and a victim. If you don't make a victim of yourself, or of those who view your art, then there is no cheating. Such an artist has freedom to create unencumbered by creativity-deadening influences of society. Such an artist doesn't cheat - even when doing things others perceive as cheating.
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
for learning and performing music...think about all the works that are played that are not of the performer's own composing...there may be some variations and differences in style...but people don't get after you for playing another's composition...
Why is it so different for children to practice drawing by using examples to learn from? I don't know how it got started, but the "tracing is bad" is entrenched in the schools. If you take up music you are spared this treatment...I escaped via piano... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
---As The Crow Flies!---
Maya
-
1 Attachment(s)
I've gotten some static from XARA purists in the past about using my own modeling work as the basis for a drawing.
Now, is it cheating if you trace over what you yourself created? The bottom image was done in XARA and I deliberately rendered the models in wireframe to create a visual difference here as an example.
Cheating??? Hmmm???
My Best,
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
If you feel in your own heart that what you do is not pure -mind I don't talk about a standard you have to live up to or some crap you learned "on the road" by sheep, wolf, dog or sheperd, then don't do it. Simple as that. But if you feel it is pure, then let them squak, talk, babble and be jealous. No-one can tell anyone else what to do with her/his life before his/her own life is as clear as a limpid spring.
http://www.photoshopgurus.info/forum...ine=1019851685
-
your models and use of Xara could be considered any sort of problem!!! There is some sort of "rule" I guess that the Xara Gallery wants just 100% Xara-created images posted there...I haven't seen this "rule" written up but it would seem that's the general feeling. I have used several aps together on lots of things but felt I couldn't post them there because they weren't "all-Xara" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] and the others and moderators would not like that.
Your creations, no matter what techniques you used, are your own---if the image doesn't create some sort of copyright violation (there's a messy topic!) then who cares what you used!!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
---As The Crow Flies!---
Maya
-
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Cheating requires a perpetrator and a victim. If you don't make a victim of yourself, or of those who view your art, then there is no cheating. Such an artist has freedom to create unencumbered by creativity-deadening influences of society. Such an artist doesn't cheat - even when doing things others perceive as cheating.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure that I agree, Ross. Cheating on an exam might make you the victim and the perpetrator. But as to "if you don't make a victim of yourself, then there is no cheating", that I find hard to swallow. If I take a superb human model that I found on the internet (I cannot model people, at least not yet), load it into a Lightwave scene and render it, I must, by my own honesty and integrity, inform the viewer what I have done.
Does my informing them remove the "cheating" aspect? Yes, I think so. But, what have I accomplished from an artistic standpoint. I have been honest to myself, and yet produced something in which I can take no pride. This is primarily why I will not use pre-made, ready-to-use models in my work. I will learn to model them myself, for my own peace of mind. This is why I cannot bring myself to use Poser (again, no offense to the Poser users out there). Did you ever think about that name, and what it means? POSER. What is a Poser, in modern vernacular? A fake, a fraud, someone trying to live up to something they'll never be (Oh God, I've lit the flames now [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ) Not that it refers to the users of Poser, I just think the name is a bit funny considering its' use in modern jargon.
Back to the point, I don't think my son is "cheating" by tracing, and he does learn alot by repeating the strokes of someone with a much higher skill level than himself. I was just pointing out that I can always tell that the work is something he could not have done (yet) without tracing, and he always lets on that he did in fact trace, and I can really tell he takes no pride in a tracing of someone else's work. If he draws something nice himself, he will hang it on the 'fridge and show it to Mom and be very proud of it. Fundamental difference.
As to music, I grew up playing guitar, and of course you always learn others work before ever attempting anything of your own. Those with prodigal talent often spin away from this very early, and begin writing their own compositions at an early age, but most of us must toil with copying the work of others for a long time before reaching a skill level that allows improvisation or composition. Many bands make a nice living coming as close as possible to the sounds of the original song. These are called "Cover Bands", and for good reason: they're simply "covering" the music someone else wrote and performed. Cheating? Naw, they're just trying to make a living, and have a little fun at the same time.
Maya said "people don't get after you for playing another's composition". Think about the Hip-Hop stars that sample others music and use it in their own songs. People get after them (namely copyright attorneys!) But that's not to this point, and is only an observation.
As to the Xara X Forum, I hate to say this, since I used to frequent the forum often, but there is a bit of snobbery going on over there. If it's not Xara, 100% Xara, designed, made, drawn, created, textured in Xara it's not "allowed". God forbid you import an EPS or another file. This attitude is just detrimental to the creative process. Not everyone over there is of this view, obviously, and moderator Gary is seemingly open-minded, but there are those who will ignore/flame anything that isn't 100% Xara. Their loss, I guess.
I see I've rambled on enough here. Very interesting thread. I hope I haven't offended anyone, I'm just expressing, as they say, "my 2 cents".
Brett
-
I don't know what xara purists Gary refers to. Throughout my involvement with the Xara Forums there has been no rules, official or otherwise, regarding xara only. There has been efforts to have the postings relate to Xara.
There have been vector purists who for reasons of their own try to do their xara images without the use of bitmaps. Sometimes their chatter on the subject might well make others feel that other forms of drawings are less welcome. You know how I have been posting xara images that make extensive use of bitmaps & filter effects - nobody has had the nerve to tell me to cut it out because it isn't "real" xara work. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Gary's Xara image is 100% xara (not that that matters). His importing an underlay created in another program should never have been considered unethical by anyone. Gasp --- Next thing we know we'll be considered cheaters if we sketch out our ideas on paper as we plan our designs! The whole 'cheating' thing is a weak concept - anything that isn't completely spontaneous has the potential to be called cheating. Looking at a live model - that would be cheating too if we expect artists to just intuitively "know' their subjects without reference. (We all have seen those who boast that they created their work without any reference pics or model - the implication being that that gives the work added significance - or perhaps an excuse for its lack of brilliance).
Laypeople do not understand artistic creativity; yet, they are the audience for most art. When we create art we are exposing something of ourselves to outside scrutiny. Our vulnerability causes us to internalize our perceptions of the expectations of those laypeople and have it influence our decisions. Seeking affirmation and approval is a very strong motivator, affecting even those who try to shake off its shackles to experience artistic freedom. Even when they don't want to be, artists are members of society and can't help but be affected by its values and culture. The laypeople's ideas (however illogical they may be) about artistic "cheating", impact on the perception of almost all artists. It is a staightjacket! Seek freedom by challenging your values. You may not break free of them but are likely to know more of yourself and others.
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
Great discussion here guys, i love it! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
I must agree with Ross's views here.
I don't trace myself, but then again, i don't do a lot of pencil'n'paper drawing anyway.
The only thing i can add to this from myself is that i believe in the final result. Whatever method(s) it takes to produce the 'vision' that a person has (notice i didn't say "artist has") is perfectly ok.
When i have a mental vision of something i'd like to create... noone but myself has the right to tell me how i can go about producing that vision, using any type of medium i like. That's just not right. You can't put a governer on art -- something that comes from nothing.
It's all fine and well to "study" the techniques of an artist... but definately NOT acceptable to "judge" that artist by his chosen techniques. Judge the artist by the final rendering of their vision. Art is not an academic subject. Art is meant to inspire, and move with emotion.
Dang... i'd love to dig right into this, but i have too much other stuff to do! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
"The lessons to be learned, are found along the path of your journey, not at your final destination. That is only where you will rest, between lessons"
-
This is such a great discussion!
I have learned that in art, photography and writing, that it pays to copy other good artists, writers, and photographers, to learn how and why they did what they did. This is a standard learning technique, and a person learns what they like and don't like, and slowly develop their own style.
Once I found my style in my disciplines, I began to use any means at my disposal to achieve my creative vision. Nothing was "cheating", as long as I captured my vision. That is the fun of art!
The methods became less important than the final creative product, for me.
I still wish I had better drawing skills, and I know I won't improve those skills by tracing.
http://www.eyesitewebdesign.com/laundryman1.gif
Eye Site Web Design
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll
-
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]
-
gidgit, I would consider that more of a "tool" than tracing. You aren't following curves that someone else has made. Not exactly freehand, but hey, I wouldn't call it cheating. If I were drawing it myself, I would never worry about the circles being perfectly round (my work is never about perfection [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ).
I may have been misled in my interpretation of the attitudes in the Xara forum. After all, I haven't really frequented it in the last 6 months or so. I have always been a lurker there, and some of the work is fantastic, but I just used to get an air of "if it ain't Xara, we don't wanna see it". Gary's example scares me a bit though: if he cannot use his own freakin' creations in his own work, that borders on censorship.
I will continue to create as I always have: ideas from my own mind, undoubtedly influenced by countless images I've seen, but my own in that I haven't used anyone else's work in any way in my images. (Not true: I've been known to borrow a texture or two--don't tell!)
Brett
-
'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>
-
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Ross..
The XARA purists I refer to aren't even on this forum--I got email a couple times because my work in XARA looked so realistic, and then promptly got slammed when the writers learned that I used a 3D app as the basis for the composition...in essense, they were pissed that THEY couldn't do what I did using only XARA.
...which to my mind is like getting pissed that you can't create an oil painting using felt tip markers.
I think it was Erik (this thread is sooooo long and interesting!) that said if you victimize no one, then it's not cheating; specifically, cheating yourself.
Okay, here goes another spin on the topic: the REASON why I used the piece I posted as the basis for a XARA drawing is because I knew it would take too much time to model the piece to completion. I'm better at XARA than I am at trueSpace---why torture myself? The REAL "vicitimization" would have been to strap myself to the noble and painful MYTH that if it's not 100% conceived, sketched, and finished in one application, then I am a "poseur", and not an artist. "Poser" is interesting, and I think it requires a fair amount of talent to make figures that express what you want. The program can be misused as an "instant people factory", but that's no more art than using a cookie cutter on dough (even the shape of the cookie cutter was designed by someone else, no?
No, I think that the term "poser", for its recently found bad connotations here on this forum is far better replaced by the term "pretender", for it is the wannabe artist who turns to such rubber stamp tools as a font that is made up of drawings, modifying stock photography by running the Dry Brush filter over it in Photoshop and calling it their own, or any preset-filled program that a "pretender" uses and then calls it their own art.
These products I speak of are assistants to the mature, competent designer--and not "push button art".
Somebody go out and get a velvetine painting of Elvis real quick [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
The attached used Poser version one in what I thought was a novel way. Yes, Poser started out as a figure rendering program, although it had stick figure and mannequin mode.
My Best,
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Nothing you can do that cant be done, nothing you can sing that can't be sung, nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be, it's easy...(all together now):
This is a woodcut made by the world-famous Albrecht Dürer, made in 1525. No-one will doubt that Dürer is an incredible craftsman...
The series is called "Underweysung der messung" or something like "How to measure".
I have more like these wanna see'em?
Have fun, forget this "yes but" crap and be creative!
http://www.photoshopgurus.info/forum...ine=1019851685
-
1 Attachment(s)
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.
http://www.photoshopgurus.info/forum...ine=1019851685
[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.]
-
Nice Erik [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
The last woodcut is on fore shortening is it not?
Stu.
-
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
-
So this makes Titian a designer? Remember that when Emperor Charles Quint of Habsburg wanted Titian to paint his portrait he did not go himself but sent another painted portrait instead?
Ahhh, and all the paintings made by the sons, grandsons and sons in law of the great Pieter Brueghel the Elder are designers because they re-used their forefather's themes?
If I had to start again and had to study anatomy for the first time, I would LOVE to have this Poser4 with this DAZ Michael with the muscle texture. You can turn it around, see how the muscles bend etc in 3D...
I agree that I would not feel really comfortable with those "characters" because they would lack a foundation, namely: my inability to create one myself. (Fractal generators give me the same feeling: they make me feel tense because I can't write my own formulae.)
BUT it would give me the extra energy needed to attack the problem and do something about it. Too much art nowadays is based on what hasn't been done yet because the proud human mind always wants something new so as not to get bored. And it gets bored because it never ever observed something as it is, but only as it already knew it. It collects knowledge but art has got nothing in common with that. Knowledge is the surface, art is the ocean.
About Poser II: I know an incredible artist ( www.studioronin.com Christopher Shy) who simply states that he can't use a 3D app, so he uses Poser for his figures.
Besides: I challenge anyone to trace a black and white photograph and then to shade it with a simple pencil, with Photoshop or Xara or Illustrator or Painter. I say unto you: if you are not able to visualise the underlying structure of a skull and the muscles, the tissues and hairs you won't be able to get an acceptable liking.
Guilt and Pride, two concepts that will limit you forever and ever because they cling to ego. And when ego is involved, Inspiration is hiding in another galaxy. What we desperately *need* to find back is the ability to work together like the guilds of medieval times but then charged with the electrifying energy of contemporary life and its dazzling possibilities.
http://www.photoshopgurus.info/forum...ine=1019851685
-
The poser program I have leaves a lot to be desired. The models look pretty screwed up and are not suitable to just plug into an image, They are bald and naked, the hair models really suck, so does the clothing. It usually takes a lot of work in a paint progam to fix one up. Getting a realistic looking pose is not as easy as you may think it is.
-
Let me pleasae qualify what I posted earlier.
A "push-button art" program could be Poser, Xara 3D, CorelDRAW and its clipart collection (any clip art collection, to be fair), and the Gallery Effects filters that come with Photoshop. Oh yeah, and the autoclone feature in Painter.
All of the above can be used by a non-artist to create interesting stuff to inkjet print and then post on the refrigerator.
By "skilled and mature", I mean that I, and others, don't use the presets (remember when every picture from Bryce looked the same? That sunset with the mountains? Presert #23?), but instead take a look at the porgram's features for what they really are. A helpful shortcut here and there. Isn't computer graphics supposed to be a symbiosis where the artist saves time and agony by "plugging in"? If not, I'd best go back to my charcoals! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
As far as Poser goes, I invite everyone to try to do an animation, with sound track using the phonyme base Poser offers. It's not as simple as a program that generates plastic-looking bald people! I'm doing a little animation these days, specifically 3D animation, and I WISH I had a program that would help me track the camera while things animate--to get a realistic camera move while objects are moving.
All I'm trying to say is that it can be as hard or as simple as you make it.
Check out
http://www.daz3d.com/pages/gallery/gallerymain.html
to see what creative, skilled people are doing with Poser and DAZ (the model supplier now).
My Best,
Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isn't computer graphics supposed to be a symbiosis where the artist saves time and agony by "plugging in"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I agree. I think "saves time and agony" does not equate to "uses someone else's model". Sure, it saves "time and agony". But I personally cannot consider it "my" work if I do that. And yes, alot of people can and do lip-sync in various 3D packages using their own models. I can't stress enough that this is simply a personal opinion, and has no bearing on what others wish to do with their talent. I have said it before: I cannot model humans. Therefore, I do not use them in my images. If I were a painter and had difficulty painting humans, I would paint something else. I play guitar, but can I play Bach? No. So, I don't. I follow my "talent" (as it were) where it leads me. This is the only way to preserve the integrity of my work in my own conscience.
Gary, I looked at the gallery at DAZ, images of the month to be exact. I saw some nice work. I also saw alot of "Terrain-app-generated-landscape-with-Poser-model-plugged-in" type images. Some of the images include only the naked Poser model with some image processing in Photoshop. This, at least to me, is not art. I would be ashamed to print this and present it as my own. If I were painting, could I paint a simple landscape, have another artist paint the difficult curves and nuances of a human, follow up by painting clothes on the human, and call it my own? I would, by necessity, have to credit the other artist. This is what angers me when I see individuals post images that are clearly making use of pre-fab models. Yes, Poser allows alot of variation in the animation process, boning, etc. Does manipulating those options make the character one's own?
I use Lightwave. It depends heavily on plugins to do its' magic. I am not at all opposed to using tools towards ones' ends. I use alot of plugins, but none of them says "press this button and a perfectly executed wireframe of a difficult to model object will appear". Sure there are primitives available, but that is a shortcut to something which is very simple to make, and save you the time of making a box point-by-point. This is the (my) distinction. I will model what I need, only for the fact that when it's done and people ask "is that your work?" I can honestly say "Yes, it is".
Erik, I'm sorry but I think you misunderstood my statement. I did say the line between designer and artist is a very fine one. Professional designers are rarely on their own (jens is an exception) and have to integrate the work of others into their design. That is all I meant, not that someone using anothers' "themes" would make them a designer. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, Poser would be very nice to study anatomy, so that one could learn to model it themselves. Not to plug the model into a scene. I hate to keep driving this point home, but Poser models have their place. It is not in art. I have seen beautiful renders created with the app, but I give the creator no credit, because they used a model that isn't theirs. I might say "nice texturing" or "good job on the clothes" or "hey, nice landscape", but it lacks all artistic merit once you haven't created it yourself.
Are paint-by-numbers art?
Brett
-
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.
-
Wow...long thread. (I just tried to catch up on all of it this morning). Well, I just wanted to say one thing that caught my attention.
It's concerning Brett's point about Poser. I've seen some great things created with Poser - and I've seen some horribly over-used images created with Poser. There have been times, when I looked at an impressive piece of art, that I could not tell that the person was from Poser. It looked that different. Then, of course, when I learned the person was from Poser, I quickly lost interest. I'm not against people using Poser. As Brett has pointed out, modeling humans is an incredibly tough task for any 3d modeler. I've used LightWave heavily for 7 years or so and I'm still not happy with my human models. I probably never will be.
However, I must agree with Brett on his point. For my own personal uses, I could NEVER feel good about what I create if I used other people's models. Even packaged models from 'royalty-free' programs or what-have-you. If I can't create it on my own, from scratch, I feel my creation is a fraud. I even go as far as not using any textures made by other people. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
However, I don't look down on the use of these programs (such as Poser). Some people simply don't WANT to learn how to model humans, etc. And that's fine. When it comes to 3d, most people cannot specialize in everything - and that's totally understandable (I say most, because I still strive to master all aspects of the realm - as unrealistic as that may be).
-
Gary,
I was referring to my limitations: I cannot model humans (yet) and I cannot play Bach--therefore, I do neither. There is nothing wrong with playing Bach, or Beatles, or any other music someone else has written. But, isn't it understood by anyone listening that you are not playing your own composition? Is anyone fooled that this is your own work? This is the issue I have: individuals who use Poser in their work without mentioning that they didn't create the model themself. I'm not talking about an architectural rendering in which the human(s) are incidental to the scene. I'm talking about compositions that rely on the Poser model.
I am always impressed by a good anatomical human model. Those who can model humans amaze me. I have attempted it, with limited success. Maybe in time I can create such models, but until then I will continue to go where my level of talent takes me, and refuse to use someone else's talent to get there. If I were to collaborate, that would be a different egg altogether, as everyone involved would receive the credit they deserve.
Hope I've made myself clear; I wasn't comparing playing Bach to cheating.
{Edit}
I just noticed this, and it is relevant to this discussion:
http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...1&m=7201992815
The defense rests, your honor.
Brett
[This message was edited by Brett H on June 23, 2002 at 12:25.]