Is tracing cheating?

[Gary David Bouton]

Hi Brett...

I think the REAL issue is Realism. I cannot model the human anatomy, either, at least not in a Realistic way. Poser gets the perhaps undeserving aspiring design more than half way to Realism for the price of the software.

Geez, you got me feeling guilty now! When I played in a cover group, I could do a fairly Realistic impression of John Lennon singing. And I accepted money at the end of the evening for it!

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.

School's out for the summer--

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

[Gary David Bouton]

Hi Brett..

I think we may conclude then that Poser has a limited use in realistic works, and no use whatsoever in abstract expressions, right?

I have no problem digesting this thought at all, as an artist.

And lacking children, I don't get called on my originality very often, with the exception of my extremely precocious 7 year old nephew!


My Best,

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.

[Earl]

Personally, I think Poser is meant for fun. I've never used it, so perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like something for people to tink around with. Perhaps to learn from, or perhaps just for people who don't WISH to learn the aspect of 3d modeling. I know more than a couple people who like to work with 3d programs, but who don't really have the ambition to become a guru. I don't look down at them for that.

In studios, people work in teams often times. One set of people do the modeling, one set do the texturing, etc. Perhaps that's where Poser fits in. Some people simply don't have access to a team environment, or they don't know others who can specialize in modeling. Thus, they rely on things like Poser, so they can focus on texturing, lighting, etc. But I DO think in the final piece of artwork they should say that Poser was used. Just like one would give credit to the modeling portion of their team, and not pretend like they didn't exist.

[bearsclover]

I hope everyone will forgive me for resurecting an old moldy thread. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] I stumbled upon this thread (and this forum) by accident. I was enthralled by this particular discussion of "cheating", which has some unique perspectives and viewpoints.

I merely wanted to add, I almost always assume (as someone who is pretty ignorant of 3D apps) that most 3D graphics are using "presets" in any rendering of humans. I guess I am in the opposite side of the spectrum—I don't assume the artist created all the work by themselves (unless told otherwise), I assume that in most cases, some modeling software "helped" them. Not to say that I don't think they put A LOT of hard work into the artwork (some of this stuff is absolutely amazing) but as Gary pointed out, a lot of it has a certain Poser "look". And I am ignorant enough to lump much of 3D art in together, and assume that a lot of work is done with the aid of Poser, or some similar app.

Now I feel like I've been enlightened somewhat—and I am amazed and awed to learn that more people than I realized do create lifelike figures from scratch. How amazing. But, how does a person who is ignorant about the "look" of the Poser works and the "from scratch" works tell the difference? I hope those of you who create "from scratch" make some point to let us "great unwashed" (ignorant of 3D apps) know. You deserve a lot of credit for what you do, IMO.

I also want to agree with others here that I think that tracing is a "cheat" if it prevents a person from developing solid freehand drawing skills, (if drawing freehand is something that they are attempting to do, or want to appear as if they are doing). And yes, I do think it's important to give credit where it is due—if you used someone else's preset or model, say so! No shame in that!

Many of us feel there is a marked difference in work where someone else's model is used, and work created from scratch, so we'd like to know. This is not to say that we are unable to appreciate work that used presets or models, since (as I've said before) some of this work is also beyond amazing. But still—we'd like to know.

And, in 2-D art (which is what I do), the same principle applies. I don't like having to constantly tell people, "No, I drew it myself. NO, I didn't trace a photo. No, I can draw it all by myself." It matters to me that I did it all freehand, and I want people to know that. In my opinion, there is a different dynamic and level of understanding in artwork that is drawn with a solid knowledge of anatomy (for instance) and so forth. Also the ability to draw from one's imagination (no reference or model) cannot be achived by tracing or using other shortcuts. Only drawing—and lots of it—will help an artist develop the knowledge and understand to be able draw imaginary images "from scratch". And I believe it's a skill worth having.

I feel that with the popularity of tracing these days (in 2D art especially, in both digital work and "traditional" work) that more and more people are assuming that artwork is traced! And I want them to know, that in least in my case, I did draw it freehand! I guess it's the pride in me, but darn it, I worked hard to be able to draw freehand and I want credit for that. (My abilites weren't merely some "gift" that I was automatically endowed with at birth—I filled many sketchbooks and spent many hours to get to the point—whatever that point is—that I am at now.)

[This message was edited by bearsclover on October 20, 2002 at 18:52.]

[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