(no subject)

[rowyn]

Cheating in Art

I've been thinking about art and "cheating" lately.

Back when I started work on a portrait of Sythyry, I used as the basis for the background a photograph of a public park in Britain. I got it from a website about someone's trip to England. It originally featured two people in the foreground, but I cropped them out of the picture. Then I drew my background in freehand with a tablet, just eyeballing the original for reference. The final background doesn't look much like the original at all, especially since I used flat areas of color, rather than a realistic style.

I've done similar things in other pictures. One of my oil paintings used the face from a make-up ad. Another was drawn from a photograph in a wild life book. The third combined the pose from a catalog with a photo from a wildlife book; I don't think anyone would be able to identify the sources from looking at the original, but I know they were there.

But in the back of my mind, I wonder about this process. Of those artists whose work is objective, probably the majority use photo references. Some of them take their own photos or have someone do the photography specifically for them. (Olivia's husband does all the source photos for her). But I think the less wealthy cull their references from books or the web. And really, how many opportunities do you get to take your own photographs of 18th century sailing vessels?

Another odd aspect of this is that my mind thinks it's all right to copy a photograph freehand and call it "my art" -- but if I traced it, that would be wrong. Even if I labored for hours on my freehand drawing, until it looked, pixel-for-pixel, like the photograph, that'd still be okay. But cut-and-pasting in the original photograph as, say, a background -- no! Bad Rowan! No biscuit! Even if the two results were indistinguishable to anyone else, I'd still think the freehand version was "good" and that using a cut-n-paste copy of it was "bad".

The latter appears to be a question of "cheating" rather than "ethics". And "cheating" in terms of "cheating myself". I learn more about drawing by doing it freehand than by tracing, and certainly more than I do by taking someone else's photo and slapping it in. (Slapping in photos almost invariably looks bad, too, but that's another issue).

But there's an ethical issue lurking there: when is it "my art" and when is it "something I copied"? Even if an exact freehand reproduction could be considered good practice, it can't be considered good art. Where exactly is that line?

I tried making a poll to see where other people draw the line on this issue, but I think there are enough variables that the poll will only be so helpful in eliciting opinions. Comments explaining your view, whether you're an artist or not, would probably be more useful. And certainly welcome. :)

"Without Permission" should be interpreted as "permission not obtained but not explicitly forbidden" -- ie, no notices in the book or on the website saying 'don't do that'.
[Poll #331999]

Comments

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

Artists are not cameras, they view the world through their own specific lens, and quite likely, are incapable of producing EXACTLY what they see or reference with the precision of a photocopier/camera.

Using another Artist's work as reference, is trying to see how they see, that's valid. There isn't an artist alive who hasn't benefitted from the millenium of artistic development, to claim they've gone from nothing to their current ability, with NO influence of any cultural evolution from cave paintings on up, is absurd.

Drawing a line, is exercising your talent. Tracing a line, is trying to be a photocopier. Don't be a photocopier, they work much faster and cheaper than anyone possibly could.

Public domain or not doesn't change the ethics. Some photographers go to great lengths to obtain a picture, so they own it, and should be rewarded for their efforts. However, making a painting off of it is your equivalent to flying to the outback for the picture; you've made something significantly different enough that you've paid for it.

Making a painting off another artist's work is cheating, yourself mostly. You're denying your Eye the ability to develop. You're also seeing 'less', the other artist has made all the decisions of what to show and not show, and this is putting you close to the photocopier range. At the least, you start being like the students that prepared work for the masters in the Renaissance.

Art is a process of distilling information about the world, to make it easier to absord. Like chewing food. Don't chew another artist's food. Photos, are making the world sit still long enough for you to work with it. The one thing they are doing for you, is translating 3D to 2D, which is why tracing photos, especially people, makes images that don't look quite right.

[detroitfather.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, it is all a copy from something in God's creation. There is not really any way of getting around that part of it.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Interesting post. You probably already know my answers, though, so I won't expound. :)

[rowyn]

Actually, I don't know your answers. Hmm. I can guess that you're not in the "always unethical to do freehand copies" camp simply 'cause one of your recent commission pics had a dozen or so itty-bitty copies of famous paintings in it. :) But that doesn't say where you draw the line on acceptable use, though I'd guess that you're fairly conservative.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's a very interesting point. When you're attempting to draw a realistic scene that involves people looking at art--maybe some people who are at a museum--is that copying or is that something else?

Probably something else. Advertising, maybe. *laugh*

[rowyn]

A copy is still a copy, methinks. But a copy of a painting as part of a scene of people admiring museum paintings is very different from duplicating the original by itself. It's not just a technical exercise any more, and I think that's significant.

It also takes it out of the realm of "plagarism" and into the realm of "tribute". If I'm drawing a picture and thinking "I hope my viewers don't recognize where I took this element from", that's a far different attitude from "I hope my viewers do recognizes where I took this element from". ;)

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

If you're doing studies, then by all means copy a piece as closely as you can. That's a standard part of art training technique. I learned more by doing this and this than I would have ever done just drawing a random coyote myself. But it was done as an exercise, and I always credited it as such.

If you're doing something that you consider a piece of "your art," on the other hand, then even if you build on something that somebody else did, you've got to do something to make it your own. Don't just "change the clothes" ... change the pose, change the gender, change the situation! A reference is something you look to, not something you lift whole cloth.

My $0.02, anyway. :)

-TG

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I can't really answer this poll, since it doesn't really clarify the situation enough.

That is, I see a big difference in what I can do when I'm putting together some "art" I want to post to a web site, or otherwise proclaim as my own ... or when I'm throwing together a handout (map, puzzle sheet, etc.) for a one-shot RPG game, or when I'm practicing for my own benefit.

The "practicing for my own benefit" situation - well, anything goes there. Tracing, copying - whatever. If it's for the purpose of learning, then I see no shame in copying something else. (Now, whether or not it's worth the trouble is another question entirely.)

"Handouts for games" seems a little more shaky. On the one hand, I figure "anything goes" on one level - because I frequently blatantly rip off existing plots for my own games, as I have no plan to publish the game module at any point - but it's only because it's expected, and nobody misunderstands. That is, if I cut out magazine clippings and glue them together for a hand-out, there's no surprise. If I trace something, no big deal. Unless, that is, my players misunderstand and are forming an opinion of my ability as an artist from my hand-outs - mistakenly thinking that these tracings are original work. (Disclaimer: not that I bother with tracings. My handouts ARE original, thanks, but I often look at other work, copy designs, etc., to get the work done.)

[rowyn]

I think that attribution helps, with the "not for commercial purposes" stuff, as does making substantial changes. But I'm still iffy on the whole subject; I think there are lots of grey areas. Like collages. I don't like the idea of cut-n-pasting as "ethical" but I'm hard pressed to say that all collages are necessarily unethical. My sister did a rather cool reproduction of a famous painting of Christ and Mary, using small cutouts from a magazine. It was obviously derivative of the original painting, and it was obviously using someone else's photographs. (Usually cut-up to the point of unrecognzability). But it was still unique in its own right, and very different from either original source.

[kirzen.livejournal.com]

If its any consolation or of any help.

My mother's quite fond of taking photographs for use in her own artwork (www.geocities.com/cougarcountry2001) and using it either as reference material or straight out copying it into her artwork

She'll use a slide projector from a certain distance away, project the image onto her canvass and then trace things that are in the background, like certain trees or rock formations, even animals in many cases.

You can actually in some cases 'see' the layers to her pictures, how an animal doesn't seem to fit in a picture more because its size is strange or it's posture is entirely wrong for where its perched.

And she 'does' consider herself quite the artist, she's had a few panties sell inside and outside of galleries (once actually, right out of the back of the car as it was going -into- the gallery). She'll be having prints done soon too on a few pieces...

Myself, I've always considering it lazy and not entirely ethical, but she 'is' my mother after all, and as much as I hate my parents with a passion most times, there's still 'some' nagging sense that she deserves praise for her talent in other artistic endeavors...

*hugs*

*facepalms*

[kirzen.livejournal.com]

Paintings! Not panties, good goddess is that a hell of a typo

Re: *facepalms*

[level-head.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* And the rest of that paragraph was amusing, too. ];-)

I thought you were making a reference to Queen of Wands story.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

You can actually in some cases 'see' the layers to her pictures, how an animal doesn't seem to fit in a picture more because its size is strange or it's posture is entirely wrong for where its perched.

Yah, it's one thing to copy a photograph -- and another to copy one badly. I see that she'd done a nice job on some of these paintings -- and that others are ... rough. ;)

But there's a lot of labor involved in painting as well as drawing, so it's obvious she's got some real technical skill.

I'd still be inclined to think it lazy, myself. >:)

Yeah

[kirzen.livejournal.com]

Its made me think many times about actually getting her to show me some brush techniques, find myself a larger canvas than normal, and employ the sort of technique she uses.

With a few interesting shots from a zoo of the animals there, and a few carefully selected background pictures, I could almost certainly put together a very respectable painting... without knowing anything at all about perportion.

It, vexes me because I know she has a -lot- more skill than her art gives her credit for... but, that's my mother in a nutshell really...

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Tough answers, a lot of me kept wanting to say "well sometimes..." I think so much of it depends on what the purpose, how much of the work is used, and now much you change it.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I mainly consider photographs and the like usable as reference materials; that is, they're just there to give you an idea of what the original looks like, or how the body might be positioned in such a way, but they have to be filtered through your artistic sensibilities. That is, they're composed, colored, etc.

If you just change the colors or add a bit here or there, you haven't done anything significant to the artistic properties of the picture. You aren't showing your style, you're borrowing someone else's vision.

There are, however, exceptions. Certain kinds of backgrounds-- skies, parks, seas-- are 'generic'. There's not usually a great amount of artistic vision in and of them other than their prettiness, which is innate to the subject and not to the art. I wouldn't feel so bad about using a photograph of a park to generate a random park background, as I might if I used a very specific and unusual vantage point of a cathedral interior or exterior for a background.

Or, in short: it's all in what you bring to the picture.

[rowyn]

I'd consider the impact of what you're using, too. The cathedral is a good example -- if it's the whole background. But if you're doing a drawing of a cityscape and want a cathedral on this corner of the street, then whether you copy from a photo or make up your own isn't going to have a huge impact on your painting. (This all assumes that you do a good job of incorporating elements -- ie, get the shadows going in the right direction and so forth. Doing this badly is another entry. ;)

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

Some thoughts follow. I'm going to actually look at things from the perspective of copyright and liability and the like -- the things that a photographer worries about when he takes photographs and wants to use them or sell them in various ways. Myself, that matches up pretty well with my ethical believes as well. YMMV.

In copyright law, the actual photograph itself is copyrighted. That specific photograph. That means (obviously) that you can't make copies of it. Easy enough.

If you use that same photograph as a guide to go to the same location and take the same picture, you're perfectly within your rights -- you are creating your own work, not making a (literal) copy of someone else's. Same deal with using a photograph as a guide to take another, similar photograph of another location. You're not making a copy of their work, so do whatever you want.

If you take a photograph of their photograph, then you're reproducing their actual work, which would generally be a no-no.

Now, this doesn't completely match up with artistry -- e.g. if you use a photograph as a reference, and attempt to reproduce something freehand, would that be illegal (or unethical)? Generally, no -- you're producing an interpretation of the scene presented in someone else's work. I think the easiest way to tell how close you are to 'the line' is this -- if the photographer were to see your drawn interpretation of something, would they immediately recognize it as their own photograph? If not, it's fine.

Using someone else's work directly -- even if just a portion of it (e.g. sky) is generally a no-no.

It's worth noting that how the resulting work is used is also part of the consideration -- if you're making works for your own use, and maybe to show to friends, but never anything further... sure, copy all you want. You may be cheating yourself out of good practice, but you're not behaving unethically.

As for who you need permission from... it varies. The one constant is that if you're going to use photographs, you need the photographer's permission. Only he can tell you whether or not he has secured whatever other permissions are required for you to use their work in whichever ways you want. Sometimes they have (e.g. stock photo agencies), sometimes they haven't (e.g. your local newspaper).

From the photographer's perspective, permission works like this: If the photograph shows recognizable private property, or recognizable people, you need the permission of the owners of the property, or the people in the shot, to use said shot commercially. Public property or unrecognizable people don't need permission. (At least, in general. There is actually some public property that has a privately-held trademark on it, which is a whole different ball of wax...)

Again, use matters. Generally, it's considered ok (and fair use) to use recognizable people/things in photographs that won't be used in a commercial context... e.g. If you're a dentist, you can put up in your office a photograph of the Sears Tower that you took -- It's not related to your business, and you aren't going to make any money (directly or indirectly) off of it. The same wouldn't hold true, if you owned some sort of photography store and displayed the same photograph in the front window...

(continued)

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

So, the really short version of all this is... if what you're doing doesn't produce an output that is recognizable as the original, you're generally in safe territory. If you're just doing things for your own amusement, you're generally in safe territory.

Incidentally, it doesn't really matter who the original creator is, it matters who has the rights to assign the rights of a creation. If the original creator is dead, but someone (or some corporation) owns the rights to that creation, it doesn't change anything, compared to when the creator was originally alive.


One last thing... if a work is in the public domain, that means the original creator no longer has a copyright, and that the work is public property. This means that you can essentially do anything with such a work that you'd like. Other than posting a public domain image and saying that it's your own original work, you shouldn't fret about using public domain works in any way that you'd like. That's the whole point of the public domain.


Hope this isn't too incoherent to be useful. :) Incidentally, if you ever need wildlife references, let me know, I've got an ever-growing collection of photographs building up these days...

[rowyn]

Thank you for your response here! I was quite curious about the legal side of the equation, but opted not to address it in the post, in part because I figured few people would know the legal grounding of the subject. :)

Incidentally, it doesn't really matter who the original creator is, it matters who has the rights to assign the rights of a creation.

This is one of those areas where I think "ethics" can divurge from "law". One example from a different medium: Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings wasn't copyrighted in the USA when it was published in Britain. (I think this is in part due to problems with the copyright laws of the day.) A number of US paperback publishers printed editions of the LOTR without consulting Tolkien or paying him royalties. This was perfectly legal; he didn't hold a copyright on it in the USA. But it was still highly unethical.

Similarly, I think Michael Moore's use of "Farenheit 9/11" as the title of his film, even when Ray Bradbury had objected before release to it, was sleazy. No, Bradbury doesn't have a copyright on the phrase and Moore is under no legal obligation to respect his wishes. But ignoring them was tacky.

Now, if a creator knowingly assigns all right to an image to a company, then it's both ethical and legal for me to obtain only the company's permission, and ignore the creator. But I think there are cases where the copyright holder has obtained those rights in an unethical manner -- and in those cases, I think the ethical choice is to consider the creator's wishes (even if legally, I also need to consult with the holder).

[octantis.livejournal.com]

In general, I don't think there's anything wrong with using photographs as reference for drawing. Often times, it's the best and/or only reference available to an artist. It might get a little shakier if you make an exact replica of the photograph, especially with someone's likeness in it, and try to sell it or something.

However, I believe the important thing is in how you draw it. If you trace it, obviously, you learn very little, and you already know that. I would go on to say that if you draw it line for line, you're still learning very little, even if you freehand it. It's still just a copy, but with an excercise for your hand thrown in. Learning, training both the hand and the eye, comes in reconstructing it, in recognizing shapes, colors and perspective cues to build a replica of the object you're seeing. Ideally, once you became good enough, you would be able to draw the object in the picture from any angle, in whatever conditions.

I think it's process that sets the distinction of a product of an artist's filter on the world, her view and imagination, versus a copy.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

While the subject of the appropriateness of appropriation has been a subject of hot debate for many decades, the general level of acceptance (and what I teach in class) is that it's okay to use another artist's work for two purposes: learning how to draw or paint using the piece as an example (and this can include tracing for those who's ability is a little weak) and to create a new piece which comments on, or changes the meaning of, the original piece. In the former case, the student cannot claim the piece as their own work; it's just a study.

I don't see much problem with using a photograph as a quick and dirty model (for poses, expressions, light values, etc.) so long as the end result is substantially different from the original. In terms of the concept of originality, what's the difference between using a photograph and using a live model?

[blacktigr.livejournal.com]

Being both a photographer and a visual artist gives me a unique perspective on this.

My photography is my most developed Art skill. It is the only type of piece of mine that truly looks "done" to me. I take great care in doing shots of a place, sometimes going back to the same place over and over until I get the picture I want.

Do I think that copying the aspects of my backgrounds would be okay? Yep. You can use the same rules as I did--rule of thirds, contrast and lighting, etc...and make a lovely composition that resembles mine in virtually every way.

Do I want someone taking my photo and slapping their character in it? Nope. Not without my express permission.

I work at a copy center these days. I see how many people want to freely redistribute an artist's hard work, and it makes me want to cry.

I've also done a lot of thinking/changing my thought about gridding and tracing. I once believed that it is a step in an artist's development, a tool to gain competence with a pencil so that you can move to an independent level.

I now believe that sketching from life is that tool, and that while tracing might be a stop on the way, it's really handicapping yourself and your hand/eye coordination. This is why some people never get past line art and basic shading. Because their eye isn't learning to see differently.