'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>