I've seen a few better know artists produce pictures quite closely based on other commercial images. Royo, for example... http://d4.img.v4.skyrock.net/d4d/nim...s/35872722.jpg
Royo is better known than Moebius? Tragic...IMHO.
"Contrary to the belief of the layman, the essential of art is not to imitate nature, but under the guise of imitation to stir up excitement with pure plastic elements: measurements, directions, ornaments, lights, values, colors, substances, divided and organized according to the injunctions of natural laws. While so occupied, the artist never ceases to be subservient to nature, but instead of imitating the incidents in a paltry way, he imitates the laws."-Andre Lhote
Web, FineArt, Sketchbook
I never suggested he's not a good artist. Its just probably not the most creative one. Of course, life models, photo references, they should be ok to study from, to learn, but to publish as your own artwork, idk.. I would respect uch more an artist that could do awesome stuff and crosshatch like Moebius without using references so similar to the picture...
BTW, stickies are a good thing: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=123346
By the title i didn't thought it would analyse this aspect of using references...
now, i'm not questioning any kind of Gir's work. I absolutely love his work. One of my favourite's of all time. But knowing his potential to creative work, i didn't thought that using refenreces like that was necessary...
References is necessary.
If Rembrandt, Vermeer and Velasquez felt the need to use reference than I sure as shit do...(yes, a life model is reference, it's just a 3d expensive one..)
Agreed with you, Flake. But wouldn't the Ultimate Artist, the genius, one of a kind, able to do that amazingly work such as all the mentioned here, without any of these? Or better, just absorving that information when LEARNING ?
I'm speaking in a purely theoretical, maybe utopian way, btw.