Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
So sad....Another copyist
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
Whilst I agree that it is indeed sad when a 'professional' artist seeks to make a living out of direct or slightly altered (albeit satirically) versions of known works of art, I think it would be a little harsh if, in general, we applied this to the POL gallery. How many of us whilst learning have copied great works, or even lesser works to be found in teach yourself art books, or indeed inspired by invitations in Leisure Painter or The Artist? I put my hand up to having posted this type of gallery entry, acknowledged for what they were, but non attracted opprobrium, thankfully. A search for 'Pearl' in the gallery brings up a fair few versions of 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' and I wouldn't want to discourage fellow amateurs from posting more.
Posted
Bit sad to see exact copies of anything except for practise. Can't see the point at all. A work of any sort is art if it's original, and we're not all Leonardo Da Vinci. I've done enough bad work in my time, but it isn't a sin and doing your own versions is fine as long as your honest and don't try to profit from them. The world is already full of sunflowers and Mona Lisa's but, like the chances of anything coming from Mars, "still they come"...
p.s. Digital is an art in itself, but, like carving and sculpture etc, should I.M.O have a separate world of its own and not be confused with sticky fingers and pots and brushes (and all their cousins from fingers to palette knives etc). Rant over...(-:
Posted
You must be messy Tony.
I think there is a place for all creativity . If you use another artists work then acknowledge it. Lots of people do so no problem. I see a problem when you pass something of as your own. That is stealing.
Plus copyright is in existence up to 75 years after an. artist dies. We all learn in different ways personally to copy anything isn't creating it is what it is a copy. Rant over.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
I must say, I've copied a Vermeer, Sargent, Caravaggio and Zorn all part of a learning process for me as I am self taught and I say exactly what they are as I'm always trying to teach myself about portraiture. What this is, is trying to pass off works of art, albeit, with a few minor alterations, as your own work. Very disappointing. The work looks good, so why not just say it's a copy of a work of art.
Posted
Exactly Denise . Though to be really correct the artist it is taken from should be named. The concept of one of my paintings was copied...not exactly I admit but it was MY creation nobody else's . I wasn't happy. Beatrice Cloake who posted prodigiously on here at one time has had many of her works stolen ,recreated onto photo canvas and passed off as others work.
The Beatles would have been a bit miffed if Hard Days Night
was credited to another band.
Ooops a thought , Dog in Pearl Earring was taken from the concept of Vermeer.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
I've copied Renoir, Vermeer, Leonardo, Morisot, Manet, Monet............all to try an improve as an artist. I've never pretended they were anything other than my copies though and all were signed. My versions weren't as good either!
I still think the gentleman behind all this is out of order pushing a commercial website on his postings. If he wants to sell pictures do it like the rest of us, put 'for sale' next to them. It smacks of looking for business rather than wanting to share art. I put my website next to my postings but I'm not trying to flog prints and T shirts.
Posted
The title of this thread is 'so sad...another copyist.' 'There's no point.' 'There's no point in 'fiddling' with other peoples work.' Well, I'm a copyist...so presumably I'm sad. When I copy another artist, the 'point' is I admire, respect and even envy the artist. Mostly I do it because I like doing it. I'm 'another' copyist who posted a copy of a Mucha work today. Every time we take another artist's idea or concept we're COPYING him/her. Forget about doing 'your version' of it, you're copying. I did a copy of THE GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING...it was a parody...but still a copy.
I've looked at the artist's website cited in this thread, he's definitely using other artists work but I don't think he's trying to fool anyone.
I think there are few artists who just use the site in the hope of selling work. They don't seem to join in the forum or comment...so what? That's their choice. A new artist posted pastel copies of famous artists today. Tony's point...POL is open and welcoming,...will that artist feel welcome if he wandered into this thread? Put that idea into the 'fat-chance' department.
Copying is long established in art, and I've no doubt in my sad way I'll copy a few more.