Is tracing cheating?

[bmh216]

<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

[Ross Macintosh]

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>

[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"

[dalel]

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.


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

[gidgit]

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

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

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

[bmh216]

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

[Ross Macintosh]

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

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

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

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

It is a shame...

Regards, Ross

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

[s.winders]

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


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


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


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


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


Stu.

[Gary David Bouton]

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.

[Erik Heyninck]

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!