Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Is it the paint or is it the painter.
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Continuing this thread a bit further I am going to bring up that dreaded word so beloved by amateur artists “COPYING”.
I hear the shrieks already especially from small art groups who meet for the company and the coffee.
I know a lovely lady who sells well( her pics) and to me they are so obviously copied.
I use pics as a reference especially if I am in a quandary over the colour of a Gibbons bum.so yes use them usefully .
To copy for me is to use someone’s else creativity . Then a bit like Chinese whispers the copies become les and less…if you grab my meaning.
So many wonderful things to paint. Look out of the window…yay use a photograph but you take it. Look in a mirror , shove a bowl of eggs in a bowl……but be ORIGINAL. Sylvs rant for today.
Posted
Agree wholeheartedly, photos can be a great source of reference, and I do use them for that purpose as I did in my recent posting of Faversham Creek, but only to get the scale of the historic Oyster House correct! The rest of it was from my imagination…
Slightly different, but on the same theme, there’s a couple of paintings on the gallery, a landscape and a portrait.
Both display the photos they copied from - very good copies indeed, but totally lifeless and without soul, why bother when you already have a photo?
Posted
No, completely disagree Bari…but then I would… have had this discussion before. You are copying ,yes but you are copying what YOU see. . Not someone else’s interpretation. Sit any amount of people in front of the same thing and you will have a completely different interpretation from each individual. That to me is what art is about.
And I hate it when someone says…”it’s just like a photograph” though never with me. . If you want a photo there are some great cameras out there and photography is an art form in itself. From what I gather Bari you stood and drew your farm buildings …give or take a brick or two.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
I do use photos a lot for reference, old ships , building etc that are no longer available what I them do is put them into my own settings. I never copy the ship etc exactly, I adapt it to fit the situation and do them in my colours but retain the shipping line logo , funnel colour if it’s appropriate. I do use my own photos when it’s woodlands etc as I have access to them .
I certainly will put my hand up and say that I copy but add to a degree. As wanting it to look like a photograph, oh have an iPad, iPhone and a really good camera to achieve that . If some one said my paintings looked like a photo, I would bd a big upset, but accept they it’s their view , there is certainly no way that any could be mistaken as a photo . I do admire some of the hyper realistic drawings that we see on Google etc , I think what it is I admire is the skill it takes to achieve the look .
On a slightly different note, I’m really enjoying this thread , just add your comments regarding any subject that’s bugging you , obviously to do with painting and not the state of the world etc. An example of using a photo for reference, I used one to get the stance of the horse right , the rest is imaginary and the colours will be my own choice . Edited
by Paul (Dixie) Dean
Posted
You know what they say “ There is nothing new under the sun”. So to create an image is most probably to simulate another from memory or reference, perhaps with some amendments. In my view all copying is fair unless it breaches someone else’s copyright. What really annoys me is artists who copy other’s work and claim it as their own.
If new artists carbon copy or photocopy to produce their work, they will never learn the basic skills of drawing - translating what they see to their hand.
For more experienced artist, I see nothing wrong in copying their own photos by whatever means they see fit.
Edited
by Linda Wilson
Posted
I’m doing exactly that at the moment Linda. I have an old photograph of Bill that I took many years ago I want to attempt to eventually paint a portrait of him and there is obviously no other way. .
I think your own photographs are part of the creative process anyhow. I still would prefer to sit on a hillside and draw from life but weather, time and other issues don’t always make it possible.
Yes I do agree about using other people work and claiming it as your own. Very wicked .
Yes copyright seems a bit out of the window sometimes Marjorie .
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
“It’s just like a photograph” is usually meant as a compliment. But it’s not - to me and many others at least. Painting what’s in front of you is not copying , either. You leave out what you don’t want, you “ compose” something, you pick out what fires you up. I’m a bit confused at some of the paintings I’ve seen on the gallery - obviously taken from a publicity photo - where does copyright come in here?
Posted
…some of the paintings I’ve seen on the gallery - obviously taken from a publicity photo - where does copyright come in here?
I don’t know Marjorie, but what’s the point of it anyway, unless it’s for practice which I doubt as they are proudly displayed on the gallery - we see dozens of such copies a week on the gallery! Pointless and boring come to mind!