What's RA / nooon doing nowadays?
category: general [glöplog]
Gods rip from other gods. Horus FTW!
RA/nooon stole my bike
but why arent there any graphics on his site? is it just my browser which sucks or are all the tabs empty?
loaderror: my browser sucks too if thats the case.
loaderror: there were loads, but they were stolen =)
Haha, priceless :D
I remember watching Ra drawing a graffiti on a wall in 1993. Spraycan art was quite new to him and he wondered how different this would be from drawing pixels on screen.
In 30 minutes he drew various things that totally kicked ass and made the other guys'graffitis look like crap. I don't recall him copying anything during those 30 minutes. I also saw various steps of his work on his computer and besides the fact that the pictures totally ruled, they were everything but scanned and I don't remember ever seeing them copied from anywhere.
Despite this Stars thing, the guy is fucking skilled, there is no doubt. 14 years later, his logos still have an influence somehow and some people keep imitating his style.
In 30 minutes he drew various things that totally kicked ass and made the other guys'graffitis look like crap. I don't recall him copying anything during those 30 minutes. I also saw various steps of his work on his computer and besides the fact that the pictures totally ruled, they were everything but scanned and I don't remember ever seeing them copied from anywhere.
Despite this Stars thing, the guy is fucking skilled, there is no doubt. 14 years later, his logos still have an influence somehow and some people keep imitating his style.
I couldn't agree more. Same with Made. Amazingly talented with only a pen and a sheet of paper. I think that the copy thing was more a learning curve for them. A good way to learn texturing, pixelling, colors, and everything like when you learn and play many piano pieces before composing your own.
You'll all have a hard time naming one graphician in the current scene that can reach this guy to the knees. True skill, as Keops says. And people moaning about gfx-copying that happened in 94-95 just don't have a clue. Times were different. So there.
True.. different times and all.
Still, ANY self respecting 'artist' (and who refers to himself like that) wouldn't copy in that way.
Oh, and not to be too cocky.. a few ppl like myself had that point of (no copy) view even in those days. (even before 94/95 - you damn newbies! ;)
Still, ANY self respecting 'artist' (and who refers to himself like that) wouldn't copy in that way.
Oh, and not to be too cocky.. a few ppl like myself had that point of (no copy) view even in those days. (even before 94/95 - you damn newbies! ;)
Yes. Cause, back then it was ok to pass off other artists' work as your own. As long as it took a long time to reproduce it accurately, you weren't doing anything lame at all. And the fact that nearly 15 years later most people still think you're the original creative genius behind those graphics? That's just really cool.
he's french as well. Enough said. Voleur! Voleur!
@Sander: hrrmmm.... awrightie then, I might make an exception here for a couple of names in the current c64 scene. I stand corrected. ;)
That said, the term "artist" was never a part of the deal back then. We used "graphician", and that term covers very different field I think. As Truck loves to point out, it's not even a real English word but more of a scene invention for the act of pixelling for demos. Google and see. To me, it has as much to do with the skill involved as the "art" produced. In the early days up until 92-93 even more so. And its only natural that you in a period of transition from works of pure technicality to works of art will have people doing both - as Ra amongst other did very well indeed.
That said, the term "artist" was never a part of the deal back then. We used "graphician", and that term covers very different field I think. As Truck loves to point out, it's not even a real English word but more of a scene invention for the act of pixelling for demos. Google and see. To me, it has as much to do with the skill involved as the "art" produced. In the early days up until 92-93 even more so. And its only natural that you in a period of transition from works of pure technicality to works of art will have people doing both - as Ra amongst other did very well indeed.
Talent or no talent, it still counts as being pretty lame in my book, if you copy another artist's work and put your name on it.
If you do it as training, fine - but don't release it with your name on it, not crediting the original artist or mentioning anything about where you got the original from.
And yes, the same applies to all who copied - graphicians (I have to agree with Truck - the scene invented this word and furthermore let me add: It's a BUTT UGLY word, too!), musicians, coders, whatever.
Don't copy and release - at least not without the consent of the original artist.
If you do it as training, fine - but don't release it with your name on it, not crediting the original artist or mentioning anything about where you got the original from.
And yes, the same applies to all who copied - graphicians (I have to agree with Truck - the scene invented this word and furthermore let me add: It's a BUTT UGLY word, too!), musicians, coders, whatever.
Don't copy and release - at least not without the consent of the original artist.
I don't know whether or not Ra actually credited the original artist.
The rant above was not directed at the actions of Ra - just a general point of view.
The rant above was not directed at the actions of Ra - just a general point of view.
RA is nowadays studying php and xml.
Yes it's ugly. I always prefer "gfxer".
Anyway, to Archmage, it's not about copying, it's about copying the work of an artist, claiming that the picture is original and that the (rather special) style is yours, then enjoying the respect you get from people who think you're way more gifted than you really are. There's a world of difference between copying fairly bland stuff, saying "it's ok to copy because I'm just a graphician not an artist", and copying really stylish stuff, saying "look at what I made".
Anyway, to Archmage, it's not about copying, it's about copying the work of an artist, claiming that the picture is original and that the (rather special) style is yours, then enjoying the respect you get from people who think you're way more gifted than you really are. There's a world of difference between copying fairly bland stuff, saying "it's ok to copy because I'm just a graphician not an artist", and copying really stylish stuff, saying "look at what I made".
From now on, I think all coders should acknowledge ALL of their sources too. If they use any DX features, they should credit Microsoft. If they use any line routines, they must credit the first person to code a line on computers. If they use any kind of shading or texture mapping effect used before, they should credit the original authors. Afterall, they're copying other people's stuff, and their interpretation doesn't qualify it as original or art.
Fair is fair!
Fair is fair!
From now on, I think all pouet users should acknowledge ALL of their sources too. If they use words, they should credit the original inventor of those words. If they use sentences, they must credit the first person who wrote the same sentence many years before. If they use a kind of punctuation, they should credit the inventors of punctuation. After all, they're copying other people's stuff, and their interpretation doesn't qualify it as original or art.
Fair is fair!
Fair is fair!
![[self-ban]](https://content.pouet.net/avatars/intro.gif)
Ok, be seeing all you Danish pioneers, autonomous creative giants and original artists later! I'll just be off talking to the wall for a little while.
Quote:
If they use words, they should credit the original inventor of those words.
a good start would be by crediting antichrist/g*p for inventing the word graphician (according to http://www.c64.com/scene_display_interview.php?interview=148 )
Archmage: I think the issue isn't so much the rights and wrongs of copying, it's how it's dealt with. I couldn't care less to be honest if a demo has a well pixelled copy of a picture or even an outright scan (of course a good original piece is worth far more).
But if you do that, you should somehow make it clear, and not just put your name on it and keep quiet. And if you don't (or even if you just forget to add it to the nfo), and everyone praises you for your great skill and imagination, you definitely shouldn't just accept all the credit.
But if you do that, you should somehow make it clear, and not just put your name on it and keep quiet. And if you don't (or even if you just forget to add it to the nfo), and everyone praises you for your great skill and imagination, you definitely shouldn't just accept all the credit.
psonice: I certainly agree that that applies for today. As I think everybody does. Besides, what I'm trying to say is not about the rigths or wrongs of copying at all. My point is exactly that this does not apply for the time in question.
The case here is that you have a bunch of people whining about copying done at a point in time when copying was the norm - without the whiners having the first clue about this fact. In the early 90's it was all about how well you put your pixels on the screen, and nobody fucking cared about where the picture came from. You could have two different graphicians copying the same damn Boris picture, and their work would be considered as two different pictures and evaluated on the basis of technicality only.
So, being an obvious oldfuck here, I'm just trying to provide some info on how the scene worked back then - whereas people here keep pushing the same post-95 plagiarism accusation onto a reality where it simply does not apply. The graphicians did not try to pass the works of others as their own. They simply wanted to show superior pixelling skill in a time when scanners were scarce and techniques where still in development.
And so, in order to concentrate your pain and to spare you all any further disappointment in discovering the real artistic origin of the graphics you so adored in that very special and nostalgia evoking demo you just rediscovered: IT WAS COPIED!!! PIXEL BY PIXEL!!! WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!
The case here is that you have a bunch of people whining about copying done at a point in time when copying was the norm - without the whiners having the first clue about this fact. In the early 90's it was all about how well you put your pixels on the screen, and nobody fucking cared about where the picture came from. You could have two different graphicians copying the same damn Boris picture, and their work would be considered as two different pictures and evaluated on the basis of technicality only.
So, being an obvious oldfuck here, I'm just trying to provide some info on how the scene worked back then - whereas people here keep pushing the same post-95 plagiarism accusation onto a reality where it simply does not apply. The graphicians did not try to pass the works of others as their own. They simply wanted to show superior pixelling skill in a time when scanners were scarce and techniques where still in development.
And so, in order to concentrate your pain and to spare you all any further disappointment in discovering the real artistic origin of the graphics you so adored in that very special and nostalgia evoking demo you just rediscovered: IT WAS COPIED!!! PIXEL BY PIXEL!!! WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!!
That's 1998 of course. ;)
About Ra, I think his "unique style" makes a lot of people today assume he drew his own pictures. And I don't believe he was judged too differently in the early 90s. What makes this:
stand out is all thanks to the original artist. The style, the colours, the shading, the texture, all of it. The thing is, Ra is considered one of the best graphicians ever, and he was well respected in his time for his pictures. But if you try to ignore the very awesome style of the pictures (which isn't Ra's), his technique isn't actually special at all.
As for early 90s people generally being ok with pictures being copies, sure, and if you have a look at a few of the "speed paintings" on Youtube, you'll see that it hasn't changed much. But even if nobody questioned the origin of Ra's graphics, he still largely owes his reputation to his source material.
"his technique isn't actually special at all"
I very much have to disagree. When Ra started doing his stuff, nobody in the scene had ever seen anything like it. The reaction was not unlike the reaction to Uno's stuff. And, being a technique fetishist at the time, I was much more into his pixelling skills than his choice of material. I used to swap gfx with him, and when he sent me one of his earlier AD&D copies (the skeletons in the leaves that can be seen in Arte), I was stunned by his skills even though I couldn't care less about the picture itself - as I had seen it many times before.
I very much have to disagree. When Ra started doing his stuff, nobody in the scene had ever seen anything like it. The reaction was not unlike the reaction to Uno's stuff. And, being a technique fetishist at the time, I was much more into his pixelling skills than his choice of material. I used to swap gfx with him, and when he sent me one of his earlier AD&D copies (the skeletons in the leaves that can be seen in Arte), I was stunned by his skills even though I couldn't care less about the picture itself - as I had seen it many times before.