Cheating...

[Ross Macintosh]

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

[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

[Ross Macintosh]

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.

[jamesmc]

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.

[ankhor]

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.

[jamesmc]

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.

[Soquili]

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.

[RTK]

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

[Intbel]

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

[jamesmc]

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.