pouët.net

Droid: I would love to post just as long reply, but this isn't the place. But in short terms, we agree. Liked the "craftsman" vs "artist" -thingy.

I actually used gimp earlier. before i tried photoshop and discovered how much gimp sucked :)



This one was made in gimp. as always I never did the finishing touches. hehe. Who my reference was I do not remember :P but I guess I had one.

Zefyros: Thanks man! The feedback makes me want to continue producing vids like this in future. :)


Doom: I totally respect what you're saying and give you full credit. I've always liked your work and you have fascinating subjects.

I have tried more surreal and fantasy subjects, but I find I'm drawn to portraits and people generally, which is what I'm best at. I use my own references and models more often these days - both photographic and in person - and find it fascinating how people can be represented and how their expressions, pose, colouring etc can effect the overall mood and evoke feelings in the viewer.

But when I'm producing commissioned work and tutorials (like the example I've shown here) I have to think in more practical terms. But I find that satisfying too, and really enjoy exploring new techniques, styles, playing with different lighting and colour, and the actual craft itself.

Anyway, congrats on the Sundown pic. It's a great piece of work!

texel: i guess so

kss: do you have any new website with your artwork?

well,the one with "almost everything" (and big versions) is kss.deviantart.com


i post my last stuff with my artgroup www.breedart,org (the site had been "hacked" et totally erased like nectarine 1 or 2 years ago, and it's still under reconstruction).

kss: I remember looking at your "Underwater Fireflies" and loving it. I've just took a look again and I want to paint again :)

I had no idea you had relation with demoscene

thnx:)

i'm trying to create again as well. Reallife is time consuming...

Just an advice for people using photo-references:

Try to use the best photo as possible as reference. Illumination is very important. Try to don't use internal flash or frontal flash photos. Try to use photos with a good tonal range, never under or over exposed, photos were the volumes are clearly visible.

Using photos as reference maybe is not the best way to learn how to paint... but it is a way. So, try to use a good source. If your source photo is not good, the result (if you are just copying) won't be, and also you will need more time to learn a good way for colouring and shading.

The problem is, that intention forces me to judge your work subjectively. I have to ask myself, did I "get" those thoughts and feelings? Could there have been a better way to convey them? Also, knowing more about your work and you as a person could have a big influence on my appreciation of the picture. (Not to mention what might happen if I'd have a chat with my buddies @ #ROTFLWAREZ right before the vote.)

All that does not really match with my understanding of a fair demoscene competition. I rather judge demoscene prods as objectively as possible. In practical terms, that means it would be a no-brainer for me to vote for Wade's pic in a compo that allows it (so without originality rules).

The good news for you is, almost all compo organisers seem to share your opinion and demand original work. I guess it reflects the general change of attitude of the scene in the last 15-20 years quite accurately, party organisers are simply serving what their audiences demand...

On the other hand, art cannot exist without craftmanship, but craftmanship can easily survive without art ;-)

Wade is absolutely right.

Which creation is art and which one isn't is also in the ordinary art scene a huge discussion but also some kind of big personal point of view.

From my point of view there is a soft border between art and craftmanship, but using references is absolutely not one of the points on the list that make my decision.

Some weeks ago I were at a exhibition of a painter in the "Schloss Mochental Gallery" in my area and the paintings were huge in content and craftmanship. I had a look at them first and then talked to him lateron and then you could clearly see that most of the paitings featured his wife. And the same goes for Dali, Canaletto, Giorgione, Silvestre, van Gogh, etc. They all used references, partly even including backgrounds and stuff. Art or not?

Sometimes I use references - sometimes I don't. Sometimes I just long to do a interpretation of a photo or things I see. When doing graphics for the rapid prototyping of games or advertisement I'm mostly doing stuff without references, but that's another thing.

This discussion began to sucks since even "people that have no clue how to paint at all" devilish the use of references and made even great scene designers turn their backs on the scene because of these quarrels. I know quite some artists in other fields of art and when discussing this topic with them they just laugh their asses off. And they're damn right, because afterall there is the often used term of "friendship" in the scene and it was there from the beginning. In this case this should clearly mean: Leave out all personal dislikes or sympathies or antisympathies for a certain person and all envy and similar shit and judge the picture, judge it's entertainment value - possibly it's wow-value like I call it - and be happy that the scene motives people to do such things.

Just my 2 cents.

Which is the only way you can judge anything that isn't a purely technical achievement like the non-design-related aspects of code, and even then the scene mentality is to think less of a coder who does all the hard bits with middleware, or by prerendering animation as opposed to doing realtime effects.

A good artist understands and will take the subjective experience of the observer into account as well as he can. If you will, that's part of the challenge, making something others can relate to.



No, sceners have it right. For competition purposes, of course you need restrictions like "no copies". It's like not allowing Timbalanding in music compos. But even without the competition aspect, your artist friends are kidding themselves if they think taping a photo to a canvas makes a painting. It's only what the artist adds to his work that makes it worth more than the source material. Even those artists who refer to themselves as "repainters" etc. always try to emphasise that they're "reinterpreting" the original, or "translating" it to a new medium, because they understand perfectly well that a perfect copy is perfectly worthless.

And professional graphics work is completely different from art. Unless you're a professional artist, then it's more complicated.

I assumed that (and believed that it's clear and doesn't have to be mentioned) and I think all scene artists (and ordinary artists) using references also do this:

Adding something or interpreting or changing it more to what they see and feel.

i think credit is a factor though. if i remix a tune, i call it a remix, even though every remix i've ever made is very different from the original. typically, scene graphicians don't mention their reference at all. why not? i've never quite figured that one out. i mean, if the image clearly is a copy from some model photo - why not say so? surely it isn't always so obvious (when is something a copied original and when is it just inspiration), but for the obvious cases i say credit where credit is due.

to avoid pointless discussions with clueless no-copy zealots...

no copy!

:)

I think that's actually a fair point. Obviously when copying photos of celebrities, the source is quite obvious, but when it comes to copying other artists, catalogue models or stock photos, then yes, maybe there should be more need to credit the sources where possible. I didn't do it in the past, but I do now...and I'll even get permission of the model/photographer first. It's surprising just how accomodating and supportive most of them are.

Also with scene parties becoming more commercial, being sponsored by legit companies, then I understand their need to be strict on copyrighted material. Especially when there are still people overpainting scans.

That much I agree with, but if the references are your own, I don't see any problem whatsoever. It's a matter of combining photography skills with painting skills, both of which are legitimate artforms.

The annoying issue for myself and many other artists/graphicians are when people say "It uses references, therefore no talent was applied". It's like telling a coder "you used DirectX, therefore you did nothing significant" or telling a musician who uses 3rd party samples that his tune is ripped. I guess this is why artists get so defensive about this no copy debate and why it's raised so often.

Just to show I am capable of working without photos here are a couple of "no copy" pics.

The first was done with no reference material at all, but the style is quite generic and it lacks the intricate detail I like to use in my work.

The second is a fantasy portrait I did for a close friend. It’s not a pretty subject, but there's a lot of personal symbolism in there.

speaking of nocopy etc: i find the idea of sketching/speedpainting (as concept art) very intriguing. i've always admired people who could come up with a rich, compelling and unique image out of thin air within an hour or so - and i always wanted to get into all this, but since i don't have a background in 2d (apart from texturepainting here and there) this meant starting from scratch as a total newbie. oh well... anyway, a couple of month ago i finally decided to go down that road. i've created a blog where i post my 2d babysteps every other week (aka: whenever i find the time to practice some more).

-> http://www.pixelz.de/blog
c&c (and advice) more than welcome!

this is how i imagine the cattle from "ghostriders in the sky":

reference != copy

it's how you use them. shapes & colors can be given other
attributes. That's your job.

Reminds me of "The last Unicorn".

hehe, yes indeed!

here is a 16 colors atari st low-res (overscan) version with a few more details added:

Oooh, I love it :)