copying someones art…?

Home Forum Chat Forum copying someones art…?

Viewing 29 posts - 41 through 69 (of 69 total)
  • copying someones art…?
  • samuri
    Member

    I’d say the only difference is you don’t need to pay a model to sit there quietly.
    The skills required after that are almost identical.

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Subscriber

    I’d say the only difference is you don’t need to pay a model to sit there quietly.
    The skills required after that are almost identical.

    I’d disagree. Theres a lot of decision making if translating a 3d scene into a 2d image. If you’re starting point is a photograph then a great deal of those decisions have been removed. Even people who draw and paint from life might also use photos as well as sittings but they’ll use dozens of photos and usually more than one sitting with their subject and they’re choosing nuances of that scene and compiling them.

    In the same sense a portrait photographer will take multiples of photographs – same sitting, same pose to get the one photograph that is a ‘portrait’ rather than a picture.

    Premier Icon kayak23
    Subscriber

    da Vinci looked at something, and then reproduced it onto a canvas. Did he copy? What’s the difference between copying a picture and copying a vista?

    That is one of the funniest things I have ever read…Where do you start answering that 😀

    As for copying a photo being the same as copying a vista, copy this…(for example)

    Art is about interpreting things and saying what you want to say, conveying what you want to convey. Copying a photograph(although the example you’ve given is utterly amazing) is hardly the same…

    MrSmith
    Member

    In loving the visually unaware I.T. NAND gate sensibilities applied to art. 😆

    The skills required after that are almost identical.

    . 😆

    Shibboleth
    Member

    Samuri – that’s a pencil drawing??!

    Bloody hell that’s impressive.

    Do you think? I have a scanner/printer that can reproduce photos to a similar standard in a matter of seconds.

    I really don’t consider this sort of thing to be “art” at all, there’s nothing creative about it at all. It’s the visual equivalent of karaoke.

    Now this is art… Someone posted a link to this artist’s work recently and the concept and execution is brilliant. And it’s all done digitally too!

    nealglover
    Member

    Do you think? I have a scanner/printer that can reproduce photos to a similar standard in a matter of seconds.
    I really don’t consider this sort of thing to be “art” at all, there’s nothing creative about it at all.

    That’s possibly the case.

    But like he said, it’s still impressive.

    Hardly anyone can do it.

    MrSmith
    Member

    Bit like autofellation then?

    Shibboleth
    Member

    Hardly anyone can do it.

    Again, I’d disagree. Working in pencil from photographs is probably one of the easiest mediums to work in. It’s mind-numbingly boring, but it’s not difficult.

    Working in oils or acrylics – or even on a Wacom tablet as Mr Stallenhåg above – requires far more skill, especially if the artist has the ability to abbreviate the image into simple brushstrokes and still maintain a sense of realism. It’s a skill I wish I possessed!

    samuri
    Member

    Well that’s a fair point and it might well be my analytical geek mind doing the thinking but I really can’t see the difference between looking at a person and then looking at a photograph of that person. How they reproduce it comes down to their technical skill and artistic drive.

    The picture of the ships and the future art above is precisely what I’d call art. Drawn from memory or imagination with the artist interpreting the visuals, brilliant. Portraits….I think most of the artists were going for as realistic as they could get with the tools at their disposal, this after all was what they were commissioned to do.

    nealglover
    Member

    Again, I’d disagree. Working in pencil from photographs is probably one of the easiest mediums to work in. It’s mind-numbingly boring, but it’s not difficult.

    So what sort of numbers are we talking about who can do pencil drawings like the one posted earlier then ?

    If it’s “not difficult” then it must be a few people on every uni art course worldwide surely ?

    Shibboleth
    Member

    Personally – and art is very personal – I think it boils down to how much you can ‘take’ from a piece that defines its merit.

    The photorealistic example posted above just looks like a photo. Someone, upon being told it’s a pencil drawing might say “wow! pencil?? I thought it was a photo…”, so it has merit to some, but it’s rather limited in my opinion. Personally, I’ve seen enough of that sort of thing to not be blown away by it.

    The work by Simon Stallenhåg is so absorbing, I have a few of his prints and I can pour over them for hours. Some people might think the subject matter a bit eccentric, but like you say, the imagination is undeniable. For me, it’s the composition, the draughtsmanship and the painterly execution that I admire, and his ability to capture an atmosphere/era, slightly nostalgic, slightly futuristic… Genius.

    Shibboleth
    Member

    If it’s “not difficult” then it must be a few people on every uni art course worldwide surely ?

    Absolutely. Although you’d probably find it far more prevalent at school/college level. If you’re a neat, accurate artist, they tend to beat it out of you at art college and encourage a looser, more painterly style.

    But I’d go as far as to say that most reasonably proficient artist could produce work like that with a little practice, a lot of time and and propensity to immerse oneself in sheer boredom for long enough.

    A few of my art college contemporaries make money by doing pencil reproductions of peoples’ photos of pets, horses, even pics of them holding big fish.

    The easiest way is to print a 10% tint of the photo onto a sheet of vellum and then shade over the top. It’s not art, it’s just shite.

    MrSmith
    Member

    So what sort of numbers are we talking about who can do pencil drawings like the one posted earlier then ?

    If it’s “not difficult” then it must be a few people on every uni art course worldwide surely ?

    having spent 5years in an art school education (not a “uni”) most people would be able to produce facsimile drawings from photographs but where’s the self expression in that?
    you would be steered away from it very quickly or directed to the graphics course where there might be a need for that sort of thing.

    nealglover
    Member

    Righto. I presumed that producing pencil drawings to that standard was something a bit more difficult.

    Mainly based on a google search for Hyper Realism throwing that exact image quite a few times, plus loads of other stuff by the same artist.

    I suppose his real skill must be Search Engine Optimisation eh 😉

    Premier Icon kayak23
    Subscriber

    Portraits….I think most of the artists were going for as realistic as they could get with the tools at their disposal, this after all was what they were commissioned to do

    Not the case. Portrait artists, and Photographers are included in this, have a certain style that people want. They depict the person in a different way to how someone else might. It’s not as simple as just cracking off a piccy on your phone, or cracking off a realistic oil painting if you’re a couple hundred years old…

    Most portraiture of old, is depicting the ‘important’ person exactly how they want to be depicted, not how they are, whether that’s taller, bolder, braver, thinner, whatever. Portraiture isn’t about realism any more than any other artform… (Unless it’s Realism of course…)

    samuri
    Member

    ‘OilShop’ version1

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Subscriber

    Portraits….I think most of the artists were going for as realistic as they could get with the tools at their disposal, this after all was what they were commissioned to do.

    Well not really – even taking a photograph its quite a skill to convey the person rather than just an identifiable likeness. I find it really interesting working with my girlfriend when she’s editing her documentaries. She comes from a documentary photography back ground and she’s extremely skilled in getting a candid and honest representation of someone on film. Sometimes we want to take a still from the footage for whatever reason and choosing that still can be really difficult – people are living, breathing, thinking creatures.

    If she filmed a 3 second clip of Mr Samuri busying himself doing something then it’s a film of you, she’d be able to make you forget she was there and this moment was being captured and possibly seen by millions of people and your self consciousness would fall away and the whole honest you would be there. But in the that clip if you try and choose a frame out of the 75 photographs she’s effectively taken, thats 75 moments of you and your thoughts, all those moments look different and its really difficult to find one that speaks of the whole you.

    With your drawings you tend to work with media images so your starting point is something that is already composed, is tonally and texturally interesting and out of possibly hundreds of photos from that sitting its the one that says something about that person. For you, when you draw from it, you set yourself a technical challenge of transcribing that tone and texture as accurately as you can – and if you’re pixel perfect by default you’ll convey the same message as the photo, but in doing that that then you only need to be microscopically wrong and the person-ness is lost. However if you’re understanding who you’re looking at you can convey as much as, or more than, the photograph even if you actually draw less of it.

    samuri
    Member

    That’s the best reasoning I’ve heard so far, thanks.
    I don’t think what I’m doing is art though, it is simply copying and shows nothing more than some ability to learn technical principles.

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Subscriber

    The thing is though – as you’re doing what you are doing theres some interesting stuff happening. The Amy Whinehouse picture you posted – theres some actual drawing rather than copying starting to appear there. Theres some really nice lines in the hair, and thats ‘drawing’ – describing and interpreting hair rather than copying an image of hair.

    Shibboleth
    Member

    …but I really can’t see the difference between looking at a person and then looking at a photograph of that person. How they reproduce it comes down to their technical skill and artistic drive.

    Just reading back through this, and this is an interesting point. Drawing from life is far harder than drawing from a photograph. On a photograph, the perspective, composition etc is already taken care of – it’s effectively ‘flattened’ into the image you’re going to reproduce.

    If you draw and paint from life (I did 10hrs a week for 3 years) you need to possess the ability to ‘flatten’ the image in your own eye. That’s why you often see artists ‘framing’ a scene with their fingers or holding a brush or pencil up to the image. What they’re actually doing is plotting negative shapes against a fixed reference point – vital as it’s just as important to represent the shapes around a subject as it is to do the subject itself.

    We’re used to seeing images flattened nowadays, in print, film etc, but look at pre-Renaisance art to see how difficult it was for artists to interpret the 3D world into a 2D image. There were one or 2 freaky artists that had an ability to meticulously reproduce exactly what they saw (Van Eyck is a good example) but most artists really struggled until the basic rules of perspective were unraveled and the study of anatomy became commonplace.

    but most artists really struggled until the basic rules of perspective were unraveled and the study of anatomy became commonplace.

    But wasn’t a lot of the new perspective art of the Renaissance done with the aid of camera obscuras? So its sort of like painting or drawing over a modern photograph.

    Shibboleth
    Member

    Some was, but there are many examples of “naive” perspective art from the early Renaissance period, like Masolino’s “Banquet of Herod”.

    He worked out that if you paint a flat elevation with a single, central vanishing point, you ended up with a suggestion of perspective that had, up to this point, been unattainable. We see it as naive, but at the time it was ground breaking.

    Nowadays, we all learn the double-vanishing-point technique that didn’t appear for another century or so…

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Subscriber

    We’re used to seeing images flattened nowadays, in print, film etc, but look at pre-Renaisance art to see how difficult it was for artists to interpret the 3D world into a 2D image

    True up to a point – but theres a question of whether they were looking to represent a 3D world as fact. We’re used to a single viewpoint, single perspective, single moment representation of the world. When you’re in a life drawing class, squinting and winking and framing the view with your hands and scaling with your brush you’re trying to contort your experience of the world to mimic a camera, a static viewer with one eye, a set focus and a frame. Because lens-made images are so ubiquitous in this era any human made image that is similar to a lens made image seems to us to be more ‘real’ but its quite a stylistic representation and our own experience of the world isn’t like photographs – we’ve got two eyes, our gaze and focus changes all the time, we’re moving, things are moving, time is passing, we know what the other side of things look like, we know where we are, we know who those people are, we know if the scene looks different today than it did yesterday.

    Earlier artists weren’t as concerned about making a photo-like image because a photo-like image was alien. So a painting could contain all the things they know about a scene rather than all the things they could see from one point at one time. Even something like a still life was often an impossible scene, they might have all the seasons in them – spring and autumn, flowers and fruit – those things couldn’t have been on the table at the same time so they’re telling a story about something else, rather than than ‘look how well I can paint an apple’.

    Shibboleth
    Member

    I think there’s a much wider topic that you’re touching on there Mac, namely that the ‘reasons’ for producing artwork have changed, mostly due to the written word now fulfilling a lot of the roles for which art was traditionally used.

    But I think it’s fair to say that since man first daubed mud, blood or charcoal on cave walls, we’ve been striving to freeze a moment in time for others to view.

    It fascinates me to watch my nephew’s/niece drawing (age 3-6) and it’s easy to recognise the naivety of early art in what they produce. And I’m sure their skills will grow as they’re taught certain techniques, and as they become used to seeing flat images.

    Obviously, there have been movements like cubism to address the single-viewpoint issues, but an enduring theme that seems to run through all art is the desire to record things the way we see them. I don’t think that’ll ever go away…

    CountZero
    Member

    da Vinci looked at something, and then reproduced it onto a canvas. Did he copy? What’s the difference between copying a picture and copying a vista?

    The thing is Da Vinci didn’t ‘copy’, he painted a ‘representation’ of a person; you have no idea what the lady actually looked like, you have no idea as to whether the painting is an exact, life-like reproduction of her likeness, or ‘copy’, if you like, no-one does. It takes great skill to paint a picture that is a proper likeness of the sitters, just look at paintings from the early Elizabethan period, and compare them with later paintings; the early ones make the sitters look rather odd, rather strange eyes, etc, but later ones render the sitters in such a way as to make them look like someone you’d recognise in the street.
    From 1450-1535:

    1498-1593:

    samuri
    Member

    Oh I’m not denying there’s a lot of skill involved but your point almost proves mine. That they endeavoured to make the pictures look more and more realistic, albeit with the customers ‘make me look good’ requirements taken into account.

    I do have to say though, I have found this entire thread jolly interesting. It’s especially perked up in the last few posts.

    unfitgeezer
    Member

    Ive enjoyed all the posts albeit a little out of my depth !

    Think I should stick to fixing bikes for a living…anyone wanna buy an original !

    nealglover
    Member

    Let’s see it then, whatever it is ??

    yunki
    Member

    Sorry to reopen this but I felt that in light of the way the debate has taken a turn for something of a more intellectual nature than usual then it would be prurient to include this video for your thoughts and constipation..

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uEp2ABxL74[/video]

Viewing 29 posts - 41 through 69 (of 69 total)

The topic ‘copying someones art…?’ is closed to new replies.