Is tracing cheating?

[Gary David Bouton]

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.

[Ross Macintosh]

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>

[s.winders]

Nice Erik [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


The last woodcut is on fore shortening is it not?


Stu.

[Mike Bailey]

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.

[Gary David Bouton]

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.

[Gare]

some excellent points you brought up.

IMFFHO, art "talent" is a combination of Nature and nurture. To be really adept at art, there needs to be some genetic disposition toward art "feelings" plus a solid, positive upbringing in the disciplines of art.

sure, you can overcome a deficit in one or the other in the recipe. In fact, it's my belief that a PC can be a prosthetic for those who cannot visualize holding a real brush or pencil.

In a way, I'm sorry I dumped the word "cheating" inot this thread. Make the word "stealing", 'cos that's what it is when you peddle someone else's word as your own, regardless of how you filter or reinterpret the artistic idea using programs. Shakespeare is probably the best known their in Artistic history. Yup, he reworked other talented peoples' plays, but in the process, he invented something better written. What's the way to look at him then? IMO, he was a brilliant, occasional art thief. And history sez that there's nothing terribly wrong with that.

I encourage originality, but I do not see whay you can't practice with existing art until you get more of your own talent out there for others to see.

Just don't go crossing the artist's name off the lower right on the painting and writing your own! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

My two cents,
Gary David Bouton

[Erik Heyninck]

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.

[Gary David Bouton]

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.

[bmh216]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Can we agree that Realism in art needs to be earned, in order for the public to truly appreciate the artists' efforts? I hope so, 'cause not for one moment do I believe that the public thinks I've modeled a Realistic person in one of my compositions. Poser has too much of a "look" to its creations, MeThinks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we can agree on that. However, art is not always nor necessarily about realism. Are Poser figures realistic? To a certain extent, yes. But I refer not only to the goal of "photo-realistic" Realism, but Abstract or any other form of art. I just have to disagree with anyone who uses these figures, presents their work as their own, and offers no inkling that perhaps the image is not composed entirely of their own work.

Gary, with all due respect (and as a long-time lurker/poster in this forum) I have to say that unless someone knows your work or has seen the level of talent you display in illustration, they could believe you've modelled a realistic person. Yes, Poser has a look to it, as you state. But again, take a look at the work in the DAZ gallery. If you saw it without prejudice, you would think "amazing work, in modelling, texturing, lighting, etc.". You yourself state earlier in this thread "...DAZ makes the process of adding remarkably lifelike people to a scene." Remarkably lifelike. So, you see uninitiated viewers assume that an artist has "created" everything in his scene from scratch. I hate to keep coming back to this, but a painting was painted by the artist, no? That's why one artist signs their own painting. It is a creation of their own.

Again, all, please realize that these are only my opinions and I have no wish to thrust them onto anyone else. These are just the reasons that I will not use such models, programs, whatever you want to call them. They have their place. Use them if you like them. I personally cannot, for my own integrity. I cannot call them my own when they are complete. My little girl asks "did you make that" and I have to be able to say "yes", without hesitation or breach of conscience.

Brett

[Mark (theKeeper)]

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"