I really admire this artist

[FlameDragon]

I dont know if deviantart links work on here, but lion83.deviantart.com is so outstanding!! I want to be able to draw that realistic someday. I especially admire how well he draws the hair, whenever I draw it I just draw a few lines and do some darknening so that it somewhat looks like hair. Something that needs to be worked on alot

[Stoat]

Ohhhh...OW! FD...dude! Don't!

This guy is painstakingly reproducing photographs. Moreover, they are photographs which -- as I'm guessing he doesn't have access to Jessica Alba or Johnny Depp -- belong to somebody else.

He's done a fantastic job of mimicking a $49.95 inkjet printer. Isn't there more a human can aspire to?

[jim b]

I want to be able to draw that realistic someday.

then why dont you? just get a black and white photograph and copy exactly what you see. not much creativity involved.

[FlameDragon]

then why dont you? just get a black and white photograph and copy exactly what you see. not much creativity involved.

I know it's not the most creative, but it still seems remarkable to be able to recreate a photo that well. When it comes to the artist I admire the most though, you guys probably know already since I've mentioned him enough times ;)

[Farvus]

Even better would be to do exact copy of photo, scan it to computer and print on photo paper of the same size :).

[Stoat]

Oh, I think that would be dangerous, Farvus. Like holding up two mirrors in front of each other and wiggling your fingers.

I think the exercise would probably suck your soul out right through your eyeballs.

[Kresh]

Gotta hand it to the guy though, he's got some excellent graphite control and patience to do these. I'm envious of that!

Only gripe that i have is that he's wasting alot of potential. He's spending more time duplicating rather than leaving his own mark.

[``Bea]

I think the artist can still be admired for their skill.. sure, it isn't "art" as we know it, and I do prefer work that shows far more soul than this, but wow this artist demonstrates just what the human can do. And I do think it is something to aspire to. If I could reproduce something as perfectly as that, I would love to know what art I'd make on my own!

[Elwell]

Easy.

[Arshes Nei]

Why not just get a Charles Bargue book and do the exercises, you can then end up doing the same thing :P

[Brendan N]

Ewell beat me to it.

[FlipMcgee]

The animator of this IS the deviantartist to watch.

by Ben McSweeney aka inkthinker, using easytoon & photoshop

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4262/messronincliphalfsizeuj4.gif

[subversive-imaginati]

You want to be a human Xerox machine? Anyone can copy a photo with enough patience and use of griding. It's not like it's a complete mystery, I knew someone who did a beautiful photo real piece of work, he wasn't an artist normally and had never drawn before but he copied some photos painstakingly in pencil and just kept working at it until it was at the same level as the link you showed. Guess it just goes to prove, if you're willing to spend enough time on something, then anything is possible.

[Flake]

I really admire this artist

Then you need to look at lots more art and set your standards a tad higher.

[Elwell]

I think it's worth learning how to do this, if it's what you're attracted to, just to break the mystery. And it's not like the observational and pencil control skills you develop aren't applicable to other things. But trust be, in the hierarchy of drawing problems, this kind of thing is really, really basic.

[seba_boi]

I'm amazed how he keeps them so clean... I'm so messy with graphite pencils...

[Burtzum]

If I could reproduce something as perfectly as that, I would love to know what art I'd make on my own!

It would depend. Many students' best work is their graphite still lives or master copies. When it comes to making things on their own - dealing with composition, dealing with color, working from imagination - suddenly their art looks childish because everything isn't already done for them, ready to transfer over to the blank sheet/canvas. There are many people who can do great paintings of still lives, or figures or landscapes from life but when you ask them to create from imagination or to take a pile of references and construct an original composition, suddenly they revert to making childish looking art. Copying from photos rather than life, and only in black & white, would handicap you even more. If thats all you ever do.

[Idiot Apathy]

I think it's worth learning how to do this, if it's what you're attracted to, just to break the mystery. And it's not like the observational and pencil control skills you develop aren't applicable to other things. But trust be, in the hierarchy of drawing problems, this kind of thing is really, really basic.

Couldn't have said it better myself, well I can't say much in general very well.

Anyhow, for those of you knocking "copying" - understand that the tools you need for more "creative" pursuits must be trained somehow and "copying" is a damn fine way of doing so.

[Extollere]

He's done a fantastic job of mimicking a $49.95 inkjet printer. Isn't there more a human can aspire to?

/thread

[Barts]

yeah that stuff doesnt impress me at all, wow he can render something
for a bazillion hours

[Crash]

kind of funny how people get the oooh aaah's when someone copy a photo of a cast face and how people get their pitchforks when they see someone copy photos like this.

[FlameDragon]

Then you need to look at lots more art and set your standards a tad higher.

I never said he's my favorite or most inspirational artist, just that I am amazed at his ability to even do faithful reproductions. He really put in alot of effort to get the details down to the dot and make it look very realistic

[creatix]

It is art to someone right? It is amazing work to someone isn't it? Ok, so its not amazing to you. The entire concept of judging someone else's personal taste and what they admire and aspire in any harsh way simply because it is not how "you see it" is kinda immature.

Sure, you don't have to like that sort of art. Hell, you don't even need to consider it art at all. To almost blatantly say "Dude you like that art? Are you a fucking retard?" is kinda wrong...

everyone should leave their ego's at the door when viewing art on an ART forum.

[Stoat]

In a word, bullshit.

I never signed on to be non-judgmental, so back up for a buttload of judgment. People who painstakingly copy other people's photos and call it art really piss me off. If you want to copy your own photos, it still isn't anything I recognize as art, but at least it's not theft, as well.

[ciots]

boooring!

[egerie]

ahahaha Stoat I nearly choked on my coffee there.

crash : because drawing from photos suck. You don't learn as much from it as if it was from an object in front of you.

FlameDragon : You will. Listen to what was said before and grab a Bargues book and do the same. If you want to have oohs, aaahs and butt pats, go ahead and copy magasine pictures... And by all means post on DeviantArt!...

[wassermelone]

kind of funny how people get the oooh aaah's when someone copy a photo of a cast face and how people get their pitchforks when they see someone copy photos like this.

Because Bargue drawings are seen as a learning process for the artist doing them?

And drawing photo real Lindsay Lohan is the end goal for the artist doing them?

[Arshes Nei]

kind of funny how people get the oooh aaah's when someone copy a photo of a cast face and how people get their pitchforks when they see someone copy photos like this.

A photo is usually edited to become asthetic to an audience, which is the art of photography, it may cause distortions and airbrushing in the light source, making it difficult to learn from. This depends on the photo and I'm not totally saying you can't learn from copying it, you can and I don't knock it but it just depends on what steps you're going to become whatever kind of artist you're looking to be. Your progress is your own, and everyone telling you who and what to admire is not going to change it and may actually mess up any paths you take.

When I mentioned Bargue, you're learning to properly judge distances, light source etc to create form. Cast Drawings are exercises in understanding a 3dimensional shape IN FRONT of you (where photos are a flat form and often manipulated for commercial/aesthetics for their customer base), and understanding how light effects the image. The exercise is usually done in a certain way so you're not getting a ton of different light sources that diffuse or interact with another.

I actually was tested and was told I have poor depth perception, so I had to learn other ways to judge planes and learn how to see as an artist, not just what problems I had visually. I just think that Bargue has more to offer than the artist you mentioned. It's my opinion and again goes back to how you want to progress as an artist.

[s.ketch]

But can he draw from his imagination? Also, photorealism is for cameras.

[corky13]

I admire that he has so much time to do such things.

[Jason Rainville]

At least his observational skills in working from photo-reference would be MAD if he decided to do any creative work.

Anyways, if he likes what he's doing, good for him. He's got some great technical ability. But that's about it.

[FlameDragon]

Bargue, I still have the CD of his! When I went to life drawing the first time, the instructor burned a CD of Bargue for me.

[Seedling]

It is art to someone right?

And it's copyright violation to someone else.

[FlameDragon]

And it's copyright violation to someone else.

Rob Liefeld should be sued then if he outright said he ripped certain scenes, poses, etc off of other artists, shouldn't he?

[Blue Severin]

lol you brought Liefeld into this? Muckraker. As said before, this guy's got great technical skill, and he could get around copyright with the whole "I copied these as a statement about copyright laws." I've seen photographs of photographs that used this modern art mumbo jumbo talk to get around stuff like that. Copying from photos is great for practice, and can be seen as an art form in itself if you take the photos or use them to compose your artwork. Here is an artist that is very respected on CA for her dedication, commitment and skill: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36962. Because she's leaning in a fine art gallery direction instead of concept/illustration, is that less of an art? It's all relative I suppose. But I think he's just copying movie stars for fun as a hobby, if that's what you find enjoyable, then grid and render away!

[FlameDragon]

lol you brought Liefeld into this? Muckraker. As said before, this guy's got great technical skill, and he could get around copyright with the whole "I copied these as a statement about copyright laws." I've seen photographs of photographs that used this modern art mumbo jumbo talk to get around stuff like that. Copying from photos is great for practice, and can be seen as an art form in itself if you take the photos or use them to compose your artwork. Here is an artist that is very respected on CA for her dedication, commitment and skill: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36962. Because she's leaning in a fine art gallery direction instead of concept/illustration, is that less of an art? It's all relative I suppose. But I think he's just copying movie stars for fun as a hobby, if that's what you find enjoyable, then grid and render away!

Hehe sorry. That Liefeld thread here got me riled up at what Liefeld does. Anyway, emily's really good!!

[Blue Severin]

heheh dedication and commitment are pretty much the same thing. reiteration I guess.

[lavhoes]

I could see myself doing this maybe once or twice, just to get my tonal control chops up as an exercise, but the difference between this guy and me is that I would move on to other things. If this is where he could see his final destination in art being, then hell, more power to him, but I know that if I spent the time and got to where he is I'd be looking around and asking myself "well, now what?" And then I'd go back to drawing three-headed lizard chickens.

[Barts]

i could see myself drawing rather than writing anything in this
pointless thread!!!!!!!!!!!
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
///damn

[subversive-imaginati]

It is art to someone right? It is amazing work to someone isn't it? Ok, so its not amazing to you. The entire concept of judging someone else's personal taste and what they admire and aspire in any harsh way simply because it is not how "you see it" is kinda immature.

Sure, you don't have to like that sort of art. Hell, you don't even need to consider it art at all. To almost blatantly say "Dude you like that art? Are you a fucking retard?" is kinda wrong...

everyone should leave their ego's at the door when viewing art on an ART forum.

Tell me when did art become inviolate and something nobody can criticise? When did being on an art forum come to mean that people shouldn't express opinions about certain things?

This sort of attitude really irks the hell out of me "But it's art?!" So what? Doesn't make it good art. Hell when did art become everything and anything? Just because the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between someone's bed and art doesn't mean that having standards is bad.

One doesn't have to have an "ego" to have standards. There's nothing immature about saying that in art terms copying a photo is hardly up there on par with the greats.

Personal taste is just another word for "someone liked it", just because it's someone's personal taste doesn't make it good or even worthwhile. After all people like Elvis portraits on crushed velvet, doesn't mean they're any less tacky because they're liked.

[_Mario]

And it's copyright violation to someone else.
Or it could be that it does not fall under copyright violation if the country where it was created does not have the same copyright restriction as most countries have (like the Berne Convention)

Or it could be fair use (or similar other similar regional exemption) for someone else if it used for teaching or research (or other allowed purposes).

[subversive-imaginati]

Or it could be that it does not fall under copyright violation if the country where it was created does not have the same copyright restriction as most countries have (like the Berne Convention)

Or it could be fair use (or similar other similar regional exemption) for someone else if it used for teaching or research (or other allowed purposes).

Not that I'm a lawyer but in my experience the pictures were probably taken in the U.S since they're famous celebrity publicity shots and the physical location of the server also would play a part. A derivative of a copyrighted photograph published on a site which is physically housed in the U.S? is more than likely to be a violation in my experience.

Fair use is a very narrowly defined defense. Teaching provisions only apply to actual schools as far as I know. The main other provision would be parody which doesn't count in a copying case since a parody is a comment on the original piece not a straight up copy of it. So fair use would probably not apply in cases of copies of celebrity photographs.

That said each case is individual but truth be told a lot of people who copy photos of famous celebrities are violating the copyright holder's rights because more often than not they're producing derivatives of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder.

[Flake]

Or it could be fair use (or similar other similar regional exemption) for someone else if it used for teaching or research (or other allowed purposes).

I'm pretty sure "fair use" wouldn't include selling prints of one of them..
http://www.deviantart.com/print/1684467/

[Stoat]

Yeah, my understanding of it is that the original copyright holder nearly always prevails. It's just, people seldom sue in the absence of money to be gained or a point to be made. That guy down at the mall selling his drawings copied from photographs of celebrities is simply skating under the radar.

It's my experience that photographers are especially sensitive about rights, incidentally. Maybe they're hyper aware of it, having to get signed releases from people all the time.

[ODISAP]

Cmon guys, I know you are very jealous of this guy

Why would someone just take a helicopter up a mountain instead of climbing it?

[Orunitier]

^ That was sarcasm, right? Right? ... :S

[ODISAP]

no im serious

[**Matt Is On**]

that artwork is incredible!! i want to become that advanced too...

[Blahm]

fuck this guy, if i ever see him on the street we gonna get into some gansta shit, boie!

[Blue Severin]

I used to climb mountains, but I decided that's for saps. Helicopters are way quicker man. Haha suckers, I've been to the top of 50+ 14k foot and taller mountains, and I didn't have to take a single step.

[sweetoblivion314]

But can he draw from his imagination? Also, photorealism is for cameras.

drawing from your imagination isn't everything.
Also super realistic drawings can be done for many reasons and you do learn a lot by doing them.

Hell when did art become everything and anything?

1915 with Duchamp and the Dada movement

[Max Challie]

Man, do I hate 'artists' like this. Not people who rip off artists, but people who use (particularly undetailed) media to paint the most realistic paintings. People who use media to try and impress idiots by painting extremely detailed paintings because they think it makes them and their ego look impressive. People who use watercolours to paint flowers that look exactly as the do in real life. You might as well just take a photograph, it's so much easier. This is far from creative, and doesn't add anything new. How is it interesting?

fuck this guy, if i ever see him on the street we gonna get into some gansta shit, boie!

lawl. I'm actually loling right now, physically. That was awesome hilarious.

[Mitchell]

if you want to admire someone with a "realistic" portrayal of figures/people, how about you admire some of these guys who can run circles around mr.deviantart:

Jacob Collins
Carl Dobsky
William Whitaker
William Bouguereau
Sargent
Anders Zorn
list goes on...

I think you'll find a lot more "life" in the works of these gentlemen.

[_Mario]

Not that I'm a lawyer but in my experience the pictures were probably taken in the U.S since they're famous celebrity publicity shots and the physical location of the server also would play a part. A derivative of a copyrighted photograph published on a site which is physically housed in the U.S? is more than likely to be a violation in my experience.

What if the copy was created somewhere where it were 100% legal to do so and then uploaded to an US server? I don't know how that would work but the whole thing is not that easily to put in a right/wrong box. This is just in theory and not really related to the given example.


I'm pretty sure "fair use" wouldn't include selling prints of one of them..
http://www.deviantart.com/print/1684467/

Well duh, fair use does not include the right to sell prints because that is not what it is about.

But my comment was more generic. I didn't really look if the person was selling prints which, by the way, would be legal if the person who is selling the prints were either the creator of the original photo (and had a model release if it were needed for the photo) or had a license to do so. And again this is just in theory as the chance that the average deviantart member has made the photo (or has licensed its use) is rather slim.

It's just that very generic and simplifying copyright infringement comments have a tendency to create this artists'-rights-get-abused-all-the-time-and-we-are-victims-and-need-a-self-help-group" crowd.

I know that it (copyright infringement) happens often and people get angry and feel defenceless because a cease & desist letter doesn't solve the problem in some cases (although a DMCA complaint (to the ISP/web space service) can work when you are the copyright holder if the ISP/server is in the US).

I just thought (when I was writing my original post) that it can be good to know that sometimes there is another point of view.

[Stoat]

What if the copy was created somewhere where it were 100% legal to do so and then uploaded to an US server? I don't know how that would work but the whole thing is not that easily to put in a right/wrong box. This is just in theory and not really related to the given example.

No, it may or may not be easy to put in a legal/illegal box but it is EXTREMELY easy to put in a right/wrong box.

[subversive-imaginati]

What if the copy was created somewhere where it were 100% legal to do so and then uploaded to an US server? I don't know how that would work but the whole thing is not that easily to put in a right/wrong box. This is just in theory and not really related to the given example.


Since the copy in question is of a publicity photo for a celebrity? It would almost certainly belong to the US company responsible for managing them and/or a magazine, those are publicity photos not paraprazzi photos taken of the celebrity on holiday. So there is little to no chance of the photo being outside of copyright law. Celebrities and their companies are not in the habit of giving away publicity photo rights. Unless the guy actually took the photo himself or has permission to copy it? It probably isn't his to copy.

The countries that haven't joined the Berne convention? Are places that are quite literally the back of beyond, most of them don't even have internet access.
Countries who signed up to the Berne convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Berne_Convention.png). The ones that are outside it? Are the grey ones, as you can see there are very few and many are some of the poorest countries in the world.

Regardless of where the copy is created though, once something is uploaded to a server physically located in America it falls under American law, so no matter where the copy was made, if it's an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted photo and has been republished on a server based in a country that has copyright laws? It's a copyright violation. For the copies to even be remotely legal several highly improbable scenarios would have to take place.