Results 31 to 60 of 255
September 21st, 2009 #31
with google sketch, illustudios, photoshops 3d capabilites.. how is this HIGHLY UNLIKELY? are u kidding me?
if u think logicially in the future its just gonna get even easier... artist back then ddint have google image searches..
Last edited by riceface; September 21st, 2009 at 04:49 AM.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberSeptember 21st, 2009 #32
People still get paid to paint portraits even though photography exists. People still get paid to animate characters even though motion-capture exists. I understand that you're upset - I've felt the same way when I've tried to animate a biped or get a likeness in a portrait and fallen short... but then I remember that somebody is paying me to do it that way because it has advantages over mocap or photography.
Saying that 3d posed models and face sliders are going to make conceptart redundant is like saying that Auto-Tune is going to make singing redundant. Sometimes the old is destroyed by the new, but often technology just expands the possibilities. Talent is still required.
September 21st, 2009 #33
Putting everything everybody said aside, Linda Bergkvist (Enayla) can hardly be called a cheater. True, there was one of her (very) old pieces that was a paintover. But honestly, instead of believing what these deviantart kids say, just take a close look at her brushwork, her handling of edges, her color choices. That stuff can't be faked. Trust me on this one, I've been intensely studying her stuff for over two years now (since I started painting). She's just that damn good.
September 21st, 2009 #34
and that person said its "highly unlikely" what the heck
September 21st, 2009 #35
September 21st, 2009 #36
September 21st, 2009 #37
September 21st, 2009 #38
September 21st, 2009 #39
Went and looked at enayla's work because I'd forgotten, and... well, yeah. If she can paint that well I don't particularly care if she's tracing over photos for the figures. True, it seems like a lesser skill to do paint-overs, but she's changing things enough it seems that I don't have an issue with it.
I don't usually like tracing because I tend to think that it doesn't really help-- you can trace the outlines of a pose and that won't teach you much about the structure of the body. Also, of course, traced art is often used by amateurs to justify art theft, especially on theft-happy communities like dA.
But the fact is that plenty of people make lots of money doing crappy or at least kitschy art (Thomas Kinkaide, I'm looking at you). That doesn't mean other artists can't do better.
September 21st, 2009 #40
This reminds me of a few years ago when all the stories about cultured diamonds came out. You can grow a real diamond for an engagement ring at a fraction of the cost of a mined diamond. It even looks better because natural diamonds have imperfections that don't exist in lab stones. I mentioned it to a couple women, interested in their reactions, and they said they wouldn't want a "fake" diamond. Despite the synthetic stone being optically superior to natural diamond, they would rather have the more expensive rock.
The point is, some people value something based on the end result. Other people value something based on how much work went into making it.
I think in commercial art, the end product is what matters. As long as the artist isn't doing anything illegal, the client doesn't care how the image was produced.
In fine art, there is more interest and value placed on the crafting and the skill required to produce the image.
The Following User Says Thank You to jhofferle For This Useful Post:
September 21st, 2009 #41
I just looked at her stuff again, and I remember the first time I saw it. I thought they were photomanips. It's a little smooth for my taste. However I don't see what she does as cheating, since I'm sure it takes her quite as long as other people to make her works.
September 21st, 2009 #42
If tracing and photomanipulation were the trick to awesome work, we'd all be awesome artists. Seriously, if tracing and photomanipulating had ever helped me to make great work, I'd totally rely on it. But the reality is, that if I want to use photos in my work, I still have to put in a big effort and my own skill in order to make it look good. There are tons of art techniques out there, tracing and collage being two of them, but they don't guarantee a good result. The finished artwork, no matter what techniques used, always betrays the skill of its maker.
And Enayla, seriously? This horse is so dead its mummified remains have gone to dust. No matter whether used a few photo-parts in some of her 8+year old works or not, her gallery clearly shows she has skill, and an amazing dose of that.
September 21st, 2009 #43Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- under a pile of sketch books and crayons
- Thanked 136 Times in 116 Posts
I've seen a lot of very helpful tutorials and workshops from Enayla and even if I'm not such a big fan of to girly/sugary illustrations, it's safe to say her real talent isn't tracing.
that and what Maidith said
September 21st, 2009 #44
"Is a potter fired because they used a cast?"
This is a tangent to the topic, but working from casts is sooo much harder than building freehand.
The contention we so often see here on the boards is when someone does a paintover of a photo or another artwork, AND THEN DENIES IT. You know, if you do a paintover of one of your own photos, and you then sell it, and it looks nice, more power to you. It's the lying part that gets people in trouble here.
I think there are certain things that tracing alone won't get you. For example, cicinimo. You'll never get his imagery through tracing.
September 21st, 2009 #45
So how is a game that can mimic a celebrety's face the future of conceptual art? What does that have anything to do with art making? Who is presenting these things as art? Or did you forget you said that?
September 21st, 2009 #46Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Thanked 186 Times in 109 Posts
In the old days computer coding or making a website was hard. You had to do all coding manual.
Nowadays people can just click and drag their computer program or their website together.
But that does not mean everyone can make a good functioning program or an accessible and nice website. There are tons and tons of examples floating around on the web how stuff should not be done.
And the tools these people use, well, those were made to make things easier.
Guess what, it's easier now to focus on what's important for experienced developers.
Unexperienced people can hide their lack of experience behind a fancy interface but to knowledgeable people it will be clear that it's just crap in a shiney package.
Why should things be different related to art?
As long as you credit the use of reference (if it's not your own) nothing is wrong with it.
Using tools does not as some kind of miracle make someone experienced or give him/her greater skill. Investing time in proper study and decent work does.
For some reason people seem to forget one thing.
Either you make art for yourself or people close to you for free. That's ok, you can toy around whatever you want and do things the way you think it's best.
But when you depend on selling art to feed yourself and your family it's something else.
You cannot do stuff that's too time consuming. In the end there will be bills for the house, gas, water, electricity, car, food, drinks, whatever. And those bills need to be paid. Meaning you have to produce and sell, you cannot linger around.
And if you have a job at a company your boss will be yelling at you that things are too slow and that deadlines are getting near.
Such is life. Theories about how things should be are nice but in the end reality often is very different.
And don't worry too much about the future. PS2030 will probably have some amazing features but it's a tool. Tools don't make great artists, great artists know how to use tools to their advantage.
The Following User Says Thank You to the_jos For This Useful Post:
September 21st, 2009 #47
September 21st, 2009 #48
As usual when talking about Linda, the point has gone astray.
Tracing is ok because there are no rules and plenty of master artists created methods of tracing...lying is not ok. She took photos, made them look painterly, then said (paraphrase) "Oh on this painting I started out by sketching out the form unsure about what I was going to do. Then I started to add in values that I thought would bring the form out. Once I established the form I worked in the details of the outfit and boy was it tough but I was persistent. Lastly I refined the areas of importance. I called this piece "Summer's forest".
I knew all along that it was photomanip but I didn't care. It was when she started making fake tutorials is when I started voicing my opinion. She took photos and worked them backwords to look like there was a process...that was extremly devious. It illustrated (literally) how far she was willing to go to lie to the public.
Watching a guy with the suffix "geo" post about her was painful. I knew he was right all along but man that guy got banned and flamed on any forum he posted. He was correct all along and even matched up the paintings with the photos she used to show proof...the tards did not care and simply changed the debate to " well it's still art and I love linda blah blah blah". People complain on this forum all the time going back and forth, however when people complain about Linda the argument inevitably goes to "stop complaining and go draw". Here is another one that is not Linda but is virtually the same thing.
September 21st, 2009 #49
Tracing, Overpainting, whatever - I have no problem with that. But don't tell me you did that from scratch.
Concerning Enaylas work - i don't know nothing. What she did or did not. It's hard or me to accuse people of something that I personally don't know.
September 21st, 2009 #50Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Thanked 115 Times in 99 Posts
What made her so good was the thought she put into her paintings, that is what she was all about - emotion, wonderful stories to go with pictures, symbolism. Honestly, there are people out there painting pictures similar to hers, with similar technical skills, but their pictures are dead because they are so caught up with the technique that the actual story part is left out. And as far as I am concerned, it is the 'thought' part that makes the artist, not their technical skill.
One more thing about Linda. She said more than once that she used celebrity photos in her early days to learn, and that she made a lot of mistakes along the way. Just read her Meet the Artist thread, it's all there.
I have more problems with people who cheat by using ACTUAL parts of more-or-less famous images of great artists in order to gain popularity, jobs or whatever else they may be after.
September 21st, 2009 #51
Riceface: Consider this your final warning before I perma-ban you. You were banned for 2 months for being rude and making tons of threads similar to this one, and I was hoping you'd learned from that experience, but it seems you didn't. Stop whining and complaining so much about what others do and focus on your own education for a bit, and try and listen to people instead of calling them stupid when they try to discuss matters seriously.
September 21st, 2009 #52
The Following User Says Thank You to KarylGilbertson For This Useful Post:
September 21st, 2009 #53
Riceface, look on the bright side. If the world is unfair and people are cheats and liars, then it's not your fault if you don't succeed. So what if you have the social skills of a rabid mongoose and a remarkable talent for putting your foot in it. That's not the problem! No sense trying to change the things you can control if it won't do any good anyway, right?
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
September 21st, 2009 #54
The only rule in the book is to respect other people's copyrights. When I was young and naive, I copied a lot of references from magazines, and a bit from the internet (copied, more than traced....) and you know what? I LEARNED stuff. Now I try to shoot all the references I need (unfortunately, I don't own a menagerie, planes, ships and everything that exists, so I still rely on some refs from other people) but I'm much more aware of other people's copyright.
I know Linda copied magazine pictures when she started, but as far as I know, she now works with her own pictures and she can damn well do whatever she likes with it. Did you see the small tutorials she makes of eyes and lips and hair? No amount of tracing can replace the understanding she's showing there.
September 21st, 2009 #55
September 21st, 2009 #56
Name calling...Rob Liefield was/is shown no mercy but Linda can't be discussed? please...Check out the dismissive and rude remarks in his thread
Bashing an artist like Rob or Kincaide is fine until you voice a harsh opinion about an individual that has positional friends. BS and not fair I say.
BTW...does she even paint anymore? It seemed like as soon as these issues came up publicly she stopped painting. I haven't seen any new work since 2005 or so.
Regardless of how I come off, I still understand and acknowledge what skills she is using in her images. Her composition/coloring is fantastic...just be honest and you'll be loved.
Lastly in regards to the whole "her "cheating" doesn't affect you...get over it." What other industry is that philosophy accepted? Photomanip psuedo-paintings are/were the "steriods" of the digital art industry.
September 21st, 2009 #57
did u warn the guy who started a thread like this 4 years ago? or am i being singled out.
September 21st, 2009 #58
In case you hadn't noticed, this site is here to help you out and offer you advice and critiques to get better and reach that level -something that you and only you can make happen, and not by complaining and trying to lower the bar.
If you'd meant it to be a discussion, you wouldn't have written your first post like that nor would you have ignored almost everything anyone said in here by only answering to a few specific things you manage to get a grip on.
As for the 'stupid' part, it wasn't taken literally from your post but that's basically what you say with the way you reply and the language you use in there. You tend to insult people with your posts and pretend not to notice it or play innocent.
I suggest you change your approach on these forums into a more positive one, stay out of the lounge and the art discussion section for a year or two until you actually have something to add, and stick to your art for a while.
September 21st, 2009 #59Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Thanked 115 Times in 99 Posts
September 21st, 2009 #60