May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 3031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 05:10 pm
I've been pondering an emotionally detached objective essay on this topic for a while but now I'm annoyed so you get a rant.

So. I use references for my art. Sometimes this is a bit legally/ethically hinky, first by the simple fact of being fanart (which most of my art is) and second when I use copyrighted works without the owner's permission. This bothers me sometimes and while I try and acknowledge all my major references as well as as much as possible only using creative commons/public domain etc images I can understand the argument that I am a Bad Person or a Criminal for, say, making a parody photomanip using commercial photos without permission.

But. This post isn't about those ethical/legal dilemmas (and I don't want people arguing about them in the comments. Make your own post and link it if you must)

This is about the accusation that it makes me a bad artist. Not just that it shows my lack of talent (no argument from me on that) or that I have no taste (a subjective judgement) but that it makes my creations not real art.

For example I had two different people rant at me for doing a manip of an out of copyright painting and one has reported me to DeviantArt. I didn't think it was against the rules of the site, and if it is well fair cop from the POV of the management (they have to draw the line somewhere) but what I don't understand is how offended these people are.

Assuming they're not equally offended by crappy fanart (because if you object to fanart on principle then DeviantArt is probably not the place for you) what harm does it do? The artist is dead. I have acknowledged the usage, so it's not plagiarism. It mostly gets across the point I was aiming for and made me and other people happy (I am alas not that good at manips so it's not that effective. But noone's ranting at my pictures with bad perspective etc).

I've seen similar objections to other sorts of "insufficiently original" art. Much of this is to do with those ethical and legal questions I'm not addressing, but the objections definitely go beyond that. And there is an insistent voice in the back of my head telling me that, for example, this image combining three images by other people, all used with permission isn't really art.

Do these people object to lolcats and macros? What about photo manips? Collage? Or postmodernism? Taking a pre existing image and adapting it slightly to change the context is a valid form of art, and changing the image too much makes that sort of artwork less effective. You could argue that I did a poor job but you could make the same argument about most of my more "original" art, the fact that I suck doesn't invalidate the attempt. Using references to add texture or get poses right etc has less artistic merit in and of itself but if the resulting image is effective then I can't see how it's bad.

Now, my understanding of art theory is fairly shallow. My parents both went to art school and I grew up around a lot of art books and discussion but it's not something I've ever studied properly myself.

Still, my opinion is this: art is about personal expression for the artist and creating an experience for the consumer. The former is noone's business but my own. The latter doesn't necessarily depend on how the art is made. If I have an image in my head and I get it to come up on someone's screen in a way that creates an impression in their mind not dissimilar to the one I was aiming for, then that's a win, and it's art.

Using images which I have no right to can have ethical and legal concerns.
Not acknowledging what I've used means I get more credit than I deserve.
Relying on other people's works rather than doing the gruntwork myself can blunt my skills and make it more difficult for me to create the full spectrum of art I might otherwise be inspired to make.

But the art is still art. It may not be entirely my art, if I haven't been very transformative then the original creators deserve as much if not more credit than I do. It may not be very good art if my transformations haven't created anything very worthwhile from the individual components. But it's still art.

What I want to know is: would they prefer the art didn't exist? That the idea not be expressed if it cannot be done so without relying on someone else's work? Have they encountered any art theory post about 1950? Because ALL art relies for it's interpretation on the art that has gone before.

Separate to the value of the art as an object is the criticism of the artist.

I get the feeling people think it's cheating. But: cheating at what? Art isn't a competition. I'm not in this to make people like me or make money or impress everyone with how talented I am(*), I'm in it to get the ideas out of my head and into other people's. I have limited energy and talent, why should I have to create a less effective work in service of some arbitrary and pointless dedication to "originality"?

Which is not to say originality and doing things from scratch don't have their value for both artistic and practical reasons, and it's important not to become so reliant on shortcuts that you can't do things any other way. I always keep an eye on what skills I've let get rusty and make myself focus on them for a bit. And I think an artist who, say, paints a monochrome painting from scratch deserves more respect for their skill than one who screenprints it on from a photo. But the second artist isn't bad.

Plus of course there's the question of being a Serious Artist. If Art is your Life then you should go to art school and do lots of figure sketches and landscapes and colour studies etc regardless of whether or not you feel like doing any of them. And to a certain extent that's true: those exercises really do help you become a better artist, and if you want to be the best artist you can possibly be you probably need to do them (I mean to do more of these things myself). Similarly, relying on shortcuts may make a better piece of art per unit of energy expended, but it means the best art you can make will probably be worse than the best made by someone who does everything themselves (since they have more choices and control) Though of course "using shortcuts" is not the same as "making a transformative work".

But…what if art isn't your life? If being The Best Artist You Can Be isn't your over-riding priority? If you're only willing to put in a limited amount of effort into any given piece and your art overall?

Does that make you a worse artist than someone who takes their art Seriously? Probably. And?

Speaking for myself: I spent twenty years of my life training to be the Best I Could Be at something (pure maths) and I reached a higher pinnacle of achievement in that area than I am likely to in any other field, and I was still only…ok. And it didn't really make me happy, mainly it made me so utterly stressed my body broke down and now I'm too sick to do much but draw crappy fanart. If I put my heart and soul into becoming the Best Artist I Can Be I might, at best, become moderately popular within fanart fandom and maybe make a few hundred dollars a year. And then I would probably die from the strain(**). No thankyou.

I ranted about this already but: there is no neat dividing line between hobby and art. Art is mostly a hobby for me, and I fully admit that that makes me Not As Good An Artist as most Real Artists. But it doesn't make what I'm doing any less a valid Thing To Do, nor does it automatically disqualify my art from being Real Art. Some people do cross stitch, some people make model trains, some people write poetry and I make not entirely original fanart.

Very similar arguments partly explain why I do fanart more than original art (eg its easier and a valid form of expression in and of it's own right) But also it's just what I'm inspired to make.

Oh, and in case it's not clear: Yes, I am a lazy artist and I make "unoriginal" manips etc. But I think these two things are somewhat coincidental, one can lazily make "original" art eg 100 identical crappy paintings of your front garden, or one can be a dedicated, trained, hardworking, talented artist making transformative works eg Roy Lichtenstein. I just happen to be in the intersection.

(*)Full disclosure: I am I admit in favour of making money and having people like me and be impressed with my talent, and they're certainly things I have gotten out of art at various times. But I have tried not to get any of those things more than I deserve.
(**)Ok, maybe not die. Just become bedbound for the rest of my life.
Tags:
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 10:04 am (UTC)
I think there is a notion in fandom that thinks of an artist in a traditionl, romantic way that ignores all art theory since...the turn of the century or thereabouts. Many famous Russian avant-garde artists used stuff from magazines, collage and even garbage (though in a installation) as materials for what they wanted to express it. Fandom also seems to be harder on fanart than fanfic: if you're not good, really good, you shouldn't inflict it on others.

I also think that enjoying art just as a hobby is a very healthy thing to do. That's what I do with Tuba: I went to an arts high school for it but I didn't love it enough to make it my main focus, so now I only play in Wind Ensmble in college. Perhaps the attitude in fandom is extrapolated from real life: if you're not near the very top, it's not worth doing because the only reason you could want to do it is to be the best and if you're never going to be that, what's the point? It's a ridiculous view that should die off.

*romantic both in the sense of idealizing and the movement. Also, this comment turned out way longer than I meant it too.
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 10:32 am (UTC)
You acknowledged the painting use and it's out of copyright so I don't know what their problem is. They can go jump!
Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 08:39 am (UTC)
IAWTC.
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 12:22 pm (UTC)
I didn't read your whole argument, but it seems like you were reasonable. Those people were being sillypantses.

I currently have the urge to get good at photoshopping so I can mix up Australiania-type images with punk attitudes icons. So stuff like taking a picture of Uluru and photoshopping a graffiti'd 'This is England' slogan on it. Looking at your picture has made this urge stronger just FYI. I have no idea if anyone other than me would find this hilarious. My point is though, I think manip art (though preferably when it acknowledges its sources) is a perfectly valid and important field of art and I am jealous of your ability at it.

Also, all things considered, _everyone_ should object to post-modernism. Just on principle. :P
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 03:11 pm (UTC)
I so wish I had the spoons to comment sensibly on this. I don't think there is such as thing as bad amateur art. It might be poorly executed, or deeply offensive or unattractive, but I'm a great believer in the artistic merit of ideas. Professional art can be Bad Art if it tries to attach value (monetary or reputation) to a piece that doesn't measure up to that standard.

Amateurs do it for love; if that is true then they always succeed.

Technical success is something else again.

Argh, insufficient brains.
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 03:39 pm (UTC)
Not just fanart. A while back, [personal profile] angiereedgarner was having pretty much this exact conversation about reference images and artists and non-artists policing/shaming about them. Most of the discussion is in the comments.

I'll say here what I said there, but I'll say it much shorter: people have really borked ways of getting all statusy and one-uppy with each other. This is one of them.
hl: Drawing of Ada Lovelace as a young child, reading a Calculus book (Default)
[personal profile] hl
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 04:18 pm (UTC)
I saw this same discussion about fic (or one very similar), stories that are based on a movie (say, JA fanfic, but based on Sleepless in Seattle -- actually, I think that is an actual story) who use the plot of said movie, and some or most of the dialogue &c. It was all very much RAGE, and PLAGIARISM, even though the writers always disclaim it (that is, detail what they've borrowed). It was a bit bewildering, for me. I totally get not wanting to read it if you've seen the movie and it would bore you, but... why the anger?!
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 04:33 pm (UTC)
It's remix art, properly credited and not for profit, therefore I don't see a problem. I can understand why it may be against DA's rules, but I can't understand why these people get so worked up about it. I think they are being pretty rude and holier-than-thou.

(I could go on for a while about it being a feminist re-appropriation of traditional imagery of chivalry and the medieval era as idealised by men of the Edwardian era escaping the emergence of more modern notions of society and gender, using the lens of popular culture and specifically a similarly but less exclusively male-oriented violent video game that repackages the same romantised view of the medieval era for a new generation also looking to the past to escape the confines of an increasingly alienating present. Would that make it art? :P)

Well said. The point went over that person's head, but they do seem to have an extremely narrow view of 'art'.
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 05:55 pm (UTC)
I kind of feel like I ought to make some kind of comment but all I can think about is, "Why is this even an argument?" Photobucket

I can only guess that some people are in that stage where they don't have any confidence in their own abilities and thus need to throw sand at others or something?
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 06:01 pm (UTC)
i think you did a lovely job on it, and i adore the new version.

re the rants, i think it's about status, really. some folks are more about status than having fun, and sometimes the people who;ve spent the most money/time fall into that group.

i've seen photographs rant at someone who didn't go to photography school daring to call themselves a photographer (in my book if you take photos, you *are* a photographer. it's kind of the definition. you may not have a degree or you may be terrible at it, but still. my 5 year old niece is a *wonderful* photographer and has won blue ribbons. she has FUN.).

i looked at the da rules, and faq 8 says public domain art can be used. so i suspect bitchinblack may be doing the status watusi.

i would be very surprised if da took down the work -- not only is the orig public domain, but you acknowleged the source and exactly what you changed.
Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 01:05 am (UTC)
I don't talk about art much but you've drawn me out.

I graduated art school. I studied Art Theory. Art is what I Do as a more than full time job. And this is what I've concluded.

Art is *intent*.

You've made a series of conscious and unconscious decisions that have led to the amusing alteration of an existing artwork.

Therefore, what you do is Art. It may not be as difficult or challenging as starting from scratch but it is Art.

The silly people might as well say that photography isn't Art. But that act of framing that bit of the world you've chosen to frame, choosing the shutter speed and filters, those are all decisions to catch a vision that you wish to share.
Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 06:54 am (UTC)
My pleasure.
Thursday, July 8th, 2010 11:42 am (UTC)
Someone (possibly Spike Milligan, but possibly not) once said that if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly - in other words it is worth doing even if you do it badly. I reckon this is right and gives all the cover that is required for anybody who wishes to make art or prose or music or anything else in an amateurish fashion. It is not written in the heavens that we have to do things well or even to the best of our own abilities, all that matters is that we enjoy doing them.

And I think the definition of art does need to be separated out from the craft aspects. Something can have zero craft input (like many modern sculptures which the artist frequently has no hand in constructing) and still contain a significant art component. The art is about thought and ideas and communication. Craft is about the skill of representation using different media.

On the other hand, I do note for myself that I actually value the craft aspects far more than the art aspects. I'm not all that interested in other people's ideas as represented in a static medium, but I do appreciate a high level of craft skill. This makes me very much a traditionalist when it comes to art. And I find I sometimes get oddly cross at modern art as a result. This isn't the place to go into exactly why I have such an emotional response to modern art, but I suspect it is one aspect of the same phenomena that is leading people to be rude about your manips. Perhaps the simplest thing to say is that art evokes strong responses, but some of them are negative.