![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.