All the previous negative comments are personal opinions
only. No matter how you created this work it's still art in
my eyes. I know there are alot of artists out there who
wouldnt agree with that statement but here's the thing:
1. How many artists are on this site who simply use stock
images, Photoshop filters and tutorials, add some tex-
ture work and a little blood and then use the burn tool
to create shadows so all the images look like one crea-
tion? And how many of those images get lots of com-
ments and favs ? So all of you who create that way, are
you creating art or just combining images in the style-of-
2. Do you really think your work is any better creatively
than this person's work?
3. How many artists are on this site who take someone else's
line drawing and then color it in ? Are you not a real artist
because you didnt draw those first lines yourself ?
4. How many artists use Poser or some other program be-
cause you're not willing to put time and effort into learning
how to draw the human figure? Do you consider yourself
creative artists or not ?
** I guess that's enough...sorry but there are probably only
a few 100 percent do-all-their-own-work-from-scratch
artists on this site. ( And I'm NOT one of them ). And
they dont get DD either, LOL
thats exactly the problem... this was from a gridded photo, a photo that he didnt take. the proportions, composition, lighting, model, emotion, etc... all of those aspects were present in the photograph and merely duplicated in this "digital painting"
I respect your point. What I'd like to know then is this: how
do YOU define art? What makes one image any better than
another ? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I really want
to know. I ask this question because as an artist who uses a
high proportion of stock images and then recombines them
( based on an original initial idea/emotion I'm trying to cre-
ate ) thru the use of color, composition and filtering I consid-
er what I create to be worthwhile art. I think this is a subject
worthy of debate. Thanks for your response......you are ob-
viously passionate about your art as well.
I honestly dont believe that the definition of art is the issue here. But rather, whos art is it?
I think any artistic credit is owed to the photographer that took this photo, not the guy who decided to recreate it as accuratley as he knew how in black and white.
You're free, as is everyone, to do whatever they want to please their artistic desires. If one can satisfy those desires by simply taking someone else's photograph and changing it ever so slightly (not to say that theres no art in subtlety) then good for them. But they, like anyone creating anything, are subjecting themselves to criticism. And it's only logical to expect that the criticism be directed at their short-cutting method since we cant critiqe the lighting or shape composition that literally belong to someone else.
I'm not opposed to stock photographs being used for inspiration or even reference for pose, gesture, expression, etc... but copying it directly is not art. It may demonstrate technique, if anything.
Excellent and well-written reply ! Thanks for taking the time
to share your thoughts. I think you summed the issue up
very well when you wrote, "And it's only logical to expect
that the criticism be directed at their short-cutting method
since we cant critiqe the lighting or shape composition that
literally belong to someone else." and "... but copying it
directly is not art. It may demonstrate technique, if anything."
The only thing I might add is that for some of us (who wish
and have a need to be creative ), the skill sets to paint may
never be there but the emotion certainly is.
I just cant help but speak up when the aspects of the art that are praised are the ones that are evident in the photograph, and merely coppied here. The fact that the photograph wasn't even linked by the artist is the biggest problem. If that had been the case, and everyone was still shouting about how great this "painting" was, we could just brush it off on the viewers for not reading the artist's comments.
And folks, if you take a look out the right side of the browser, you'll see a digital painting that looks exactly like Badly Drawn Boy.
"It really does look just like him."
"That guy is everywhere."
And just so you know, we'll be giving you the thumbs-up in approximately 3.5 seconds.
and while we're on the topic, i think this is a beautiful drawing that deserves better comments. *hugs badly drawn boy* i love the shading you did on the hand, and the cigarette's ashes. m-hmm! good good work.
Put the two pictures next to each other. You can't just paint over this and expect the same results. My mom makes a living as a portrait artist using similar methods [albeit with a pad and pencil, no digital tools involved], and seeing all these negative comments just kinda shows that there aren't many people who can appreciate this kind of stuff, or the effort that goes into it.
Awesome job, tweaknik. You really added something to a picture that originally did not have much to say for itself other than "Here I am." [thumbs up]
all this contraversy reminds me of a contemporary artist, i forget his name... he paints photo-realistic canvases of landscape photographs (not sure if he takes the photographs as well), and there are many people who don't think the work deserves to be hung in a gallery because of his process. and i find it all so silly, because if one looks at the work, there's undeniable beauty and talent.
your work is envy inducing, just read some of the... haters', for lack of a better term, words: 'why does this get a dd and my work get ignored?' but envy inducing is a good thing.