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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
*nods*
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.
Absolutely. My mum used to get that all the time when she was at art school, because she had no intention of becoming a professional artist.
this comment turned out way longer than I meant it too.
Did you see the length of my rant? :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
Amateurs do it for love; if that is true then they always succeed.
Technical success is something else again.
Argh, insufficient brains.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
people have really borked ways of getting all statusy and one-uppy with each other. This is one of them.
Absolutely. And it kind of amuses me with art because I already worked through that crap with maths (which I did take Very Seriously) and I'm quite deliberately not engaging with the hierarchy with art. So it's like "Yes, you are more of a Real Artist than me. Congratulations, you win. And?"
no subject
no subject
It's also all rather surreal given I'm reading all this guff about how artists should be free to be racist or whatever, which I think is actually a meaningful issue.
no subject
(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'.
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
Oh, it's art, alright.
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.
Re: Oh, it's art, alright.
And thankyou for adding your voice as a Real Artist What Went To Art School :)
Re: Oh, it's art, alright.
no subject
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.
no subject
I like that.
Craft and art are definitely different, and worthwhile in their own ways. I must admit that while I admire craft I'm more of an art person in my own work. This is not unrelated to having the type of personality that drew me to theoretical maths, the first joke on this page is a not entirely inaccurate depiction :)