(no subject)
Aug. 6th, 2004 10:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynCheating 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]
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]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-06 10:08 am (UTC)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.)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-06 10:17 am (UTC)