Fine Arts Tracers!

dano · 06-05-2006, 01:09 PM

We've all gone in circles about this in comics. Apparently, the fine art world has the same debates!
Is there a difference using this method for mass media repropuction as opposed to fine art where the painting IS (for all intents) the final value?

http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2020
"These days, photo-based painting is as common as rain and just as inevitable, as younger artists such as Nick Mauss, Lucy McKenzie, and Wilhelm Sasnal take up the practice and exploit it. Yet it often complicates the public’s understanding of art and can easily put painters who use photographic aids, including computers and projectors, on the defensive. The question is: why? Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract? "

theflash · 06-05-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract? "

my personal opinion is that it's less legitimate because the artist isn't using talent, they're piggybacking on the talent of others. anyone can trace. not everyone can draw.

dano · 06-05-2006, 01:50 PM

They're obviously doing much more to the image than just tracing it. There's the whole painting aspect with color and value

Rob Norton · 06-05-2006, 02:08 PM

is it still "bad" when an artist traces over his OWN photo referrence?

Calloway · 06-05-2006, 02:10 PM

ohhh technique woooo...please, to me art involves imagination and if they have the skills to copy a picture of a house, their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that.

j giar · 06-05-2006, 02:14 PM

Must...fight..tempta-tion...to..be..pulled.... into....thread!
O.k. Just this once. It's more of a personal preference than anything. There are just so many opinions and loop holes and "what ifs" on this subject. From my own personal stand point. The beginning of the article in which the artist took the initial photo's themselves and then used that as the material..I find that acceptable. For me! Like I said, there are just to many opinions. Art is a creative process and a form of expression. And that form takes many shapes.

dano · 06-05-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that

Heh! That pretty much eliminates 9/10s of all art prior to 1860!

JasonM · 06-05-2006, 03:17 PM

Is doing a cover of a song considered "music"? If it's a cover, does that mean talent wasn't involved? If so, theres a lot of talentless musicians out there with careers steeped in covers.

Anyother way to look at it is if it takes no talent to do, then it should be easy to put to the test. Take a sampling of what are considered some decent works by photo-artists and take some random designers (or whoever) that know photoshop and set them to work. If they have a working knowledge of the program they should be able to replicate the work with little touble. If the average photoshopper can replicate the best of the photo-artist's work, then yeah, I'd have to agree it's not art.

But as it stands, I've yet to see someone with just working knowledge of PS create museum quality work.

JasonM · 06-05-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilGreenMan

ohhh technique woooo...please, to me art involves imagination and if they have the skills to copy a picture of a house, their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that.

Wouldn't this eliminate all art based on direct observation? (good by mona lisa!)

Calloway · 06-05-2006, 04:09 PM

Heh. Davinci had his own flare in all his art that distinctly made it DaVinci. None of his art is Photo realistic. Just thought I'd point that out.

Now as far as this being done before the advent of the camera...I'm pretty sure they didn't consider it art, it was done to keep a record of important people. Sue observation comes into play. Observe remember and use. Copying from a picture is not art in my humble opinion. If that were so then making rims in a cnc from a cad drawing must be art..no matter how many you make. Or copying notes from a board..that must be art...ah, making the taco at taco bell just like the picture..NOW that must be art...please. To me art involves imagination along with technique and the lack there of just shows me something I can walk out my door and see live.

JasonM · 06-05-2006, 04:20 PM

I think the best way to tackle this would be a couple simple questions. First, is photography art?

Calloway · 06-05-2006, 04:27 PM

Sure, if it conveys something IMO. I take photos that get an imagination going. Snaphots that are composed right and of things or situations that photos would normally not be taken. Of course taking the picture then painitng it seems a bit redundant.

JasonM · 06-05-2006, 04:37 PM

You're automatically assuming that if a photo was used that a painting would only be a direct translation, nothing added to the end result. Isn't it just as likely that even with a photo, that during the process (whatever the process is taking the photo and converting it to another medium) something is altered? possibly even improoved?

And what if the artist doesn't show the photo they took, only the painting, wouldn't that make the painting just as relavant as the photo, not merely "redundant"? Even if it is shown, if a depiction of a scene is art, then wouldn't showing the scene in a variety of mediums also be art? Does an oil painting of a house become less relavant if the artist does the same scene again in watercolor?

Calloway · 06-05-2006, 04:39 PM

Let me go get one of my pictures and put a dot on it in photoshop. Hell I'll just take a picture of a house, nothing special. Let me add that dot though, it'll be art! Woo hoo

j giar · 06-05-2006, 04:40 PM

See! So many opinions...so many loop holes.....so many what if's......so little time.

06-05-2006, 01:09 PM	#1
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	Fine Arts Tracers! We've all gone in circles about this in comics. Apparently, the fine art world has the same debates! Is there a difference using this method for mass media repropuction as opposed to fine art where the painting IS (for all intents) the final value? http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2020 "These days, photo-based painting is as common as rain and just as inevitable, as younger artists such as Nick Mauss, Lucy McKenzie, and Wilhelm Sasnal take up the practice and exploit it. Yet it often complicates the public’s understanding of art and can easily put painters who use photographic aids, including computers and projectors, on the defensive. The question is: why? Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract? "

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-05-2006, 01:50 PM	#3
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	They're obviously doing much more to the image than just tracing it. There's the whole painting aspect with color and value

06-05-2006, 02:08 PM	#4
Rob Norton apprentice of the pencil Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: utah Posts: 2,750	is it still "bad" when an artist traces over his OWN photo referrence?

06-05-2006, 02:10 PM	#5
Calloway I haz cookiez an kool-aid Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 9,385	ohhh technique woooo...please, to me art involves imagination and if they have the skills to copy a picture of a house, their lack of artistic imagination prevents them from actual expression by imagining a house and painting that.

06-05-2006, 02:14 PM	#6
j giar Has nothing to add. Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Elyria, Ohio Posts: 5,968	Must...fight..tempta-tion...to..be..pulled.... into....thread! O.k. Just this once. It's more of a personal preference than anything. There are just so many opinions and loop holes and "what ifs" on this subject. From my own personal stand point. The beginning of the article in which the artist took the initial photo's themselves and then used that as the material..I find that acceptable. For me! Like I said, there are just to many opinions. Art is a creative process and a form of expression. And that form takes many shapes.

06-05-2006, 03:17 PM	#8
JasonM Inmate of the Asylum! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,702	Is doing a cover of a song considered "music"? If it's a cover, does that mean talent wasn't involved? If so, theres a lot of talentless musicians out there with careers steeped in covers. Anyother way to look at it is if it takes no talent to do, then it should be easy to put to the test. Take a sampling of what are considered some decent works by photo-artists and take some random designers (or whoever) that know photoshop and set them to work. If they have a working knowledge of the program they should be able to replicate the work with little touble. If the average photoshopper can replicate the best of the photo-artist's work, then yeah, I'd have to agree it's not art. But as it stands, I've yet to see someone with just working knowledge of PS create museum quality work.

06-05-2006, 04:09 PM	#10
Calloway I haz cookiez an kool-aid Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 9,385	Heh. Davinci had his own flare in all his art that distinctly made it DaVinci. None of his art is Photo realistic. Just thought I'd point that out. Now as far as this being done before the advent of the camera...I'm pretty sure they didn't consider it art, it was done to keep a record of important people. Sue observation comes into play. Observe remember and use. Copying from a picture is not art in my humble opinion. If that were so then making rims in a cnc from a cad drawing must be art..no matter how many you make. Or copying notes from a board..that must be art...ah, making the taco at taco bell just like the picture..NOW that must be art...please. To me art involves imagination along with technique and the lack there of just shows me something I can walk out my door and see live.

06-05-2006, 04:20 PM	#11
JasonM Inmate of the Asylum! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,702	I think the best way to tackle this would be a couple simple questions. First, is photography art?

06-05-2006, 04:27 PM	#12
Calloway I haz cookiez an kool-aid Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 9,385	Sure, if it conveys something IMO. I take photos that get an imagination going. Snaphots that are composed right and of things or situations that photos would normally not be taken. Of course taking the picture then painitng it seems a bit redundant.

06-05-2006, 04:37 PM	#13
JasonM Inmate of the Asylum! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,702	You're automatically assuming that if a photo was used that a painting would only be a direct translation, nothing added to the end result. Isn't it just as likely that even with a photo, that during the process (whatever the process is taking the photo and converting it to another medium) something is altered? possibly even improoved? And what if the artist doesn't show the photo they took, only the painting, wouldn't that make the painting just as relavant as the photo, not merely "redundant"? Even if it is shown, if a depiction of a scene is art, then wouldn't showing the scene in a variety of mediums also be art? Does an oil painting of a house become less relavant if the artist does the same scene again in watercolor?

06-05-2006, 04:39 PM	#14
Calloway I haz cookiez an kool-aid Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 9,385	Let me go get one of my pictures and put a dot on it in photoshop. Hell I'll just take a picture of a house, nothing special. Let me add that dot though, it'll be art! Woo hoo

06-05-2006, 04:40 PM	#15
j giar Has nothing to add. Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Elyria, Ohio Posts: 5,968	See! So many opinions...so many loop holes.....so many what if's......so little time.