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
There's nothing wrong with copying - and I dispute that you're a copyist: taking inspiration from others' work, even caricaturing it, leaves no one in any doubt about its provenance - provided we acknowledge the fact.
Taking a known painting, eg the Bougereau, and making minimal adjustments to it - without even acknowledging that the original is someone else's work - is downright misleading. You might say that it's hardly any mystery about the original in cases such as, e.g., Leonardo (or the claimed Leonardo): but Bougereau? Maybe M. Aldéhy would expect us to know the identity of the original artist, but that's quite an assumption to make.
I take the point about people feeling unwelcome, and I did feel at the outset - there have been several comments on Aldéhy before - and said of them, that I felt some of them had been leaping to conclusions too quickly. That's why I checked the website on which his work appears - I could see what he was doing, and my only slight surprise was the age of some of the works he showed: but there's nothing to stop anyone showing old work, and why not? Showing work without explanation, or context, may be entirely innocent in intention - but in view of some recent issues, it's not to be wondered at that some suspicions arose.
If in doubt, just say "after X", or some similar formulation - it's pretty standard practice, after all.
*"You", in this case, is Lew - I daresay that was obvious. As in - Lew, you're no copyist.
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
I so agree Lewis ,copying is an accepted occurrence...BUT most people refer to the artist they have copied from wether ,as I'm my case a parody or a caricature , and as in the paintings on the gallery today.
But to pass work of as your own and to hopefully make a sale isn't a friendly gesture. This site is a lovely place ,people come and go. Opinions are opined disagreements happen that's life, .....I still don't like copying for profit and not acknowledging the source...." cross me heart and hope to die " .
PS Dog in a Pearl earring actually made some money for a local animal rescue centre so perhaps I'm talking nonsense....and made money from my dressed up doggo.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
Sylvia...I don't think he's passing off other people's work as his own. There are many artists who work in this way, I don't think they are trying to deceive anyone. This is a work by Cesar Santos...
He's used a Mondrian background for one of his paintings. He produces a lot of work like this, using many famous artists. On his website he doesn't give their names. He calls this type of painting 'syncretism', meaning in this case the reinterpreting of classic art. I like it. It's copying other people's art, but not to cheat anyone. I think the artist you're referring to does the same thing.
I like it so much I painted this a few years back...
I've copied a Mondrian (but used different colours), I've copied Cesar Santos' concept of combining Mondrian with a figure study, and finally I've copied an art reference photo for the girl. I'm a copyist. I'm not passing this off as a Mondrian. If anyone bought my pic and thought it was a Mondrian frankly shouldn't be allowed out. I like this painting, it's one of my better ones...you don't have to like it...but that doesn't make me a bad person. Robert has a valid point about these artists assuming people will know they're copying other artists. But life isn't perfect. Does the fact that I've copied this picture (x 3) make it my work? I don't know. But I certainly made this image.
I've banged on enough about this, I don't expect agreement. We have certain subjects that circle the forum on some kind of orbit...copying, in all it's forms, is one. I suppose it's only natural as new people join the forum, that's what discussion is about. It's a subject that can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Another that constantly comes around is DIGITAL...we must be about due for that again.
So the next time that these perennials turn up, I've promised myself I'll retire to the Orangery and read a book. And now I really must think about what I'm going to copy next.
He's used a Mondrian background for one of his paintings. He produces a lot of work like this, using many famous artists. On his website he doesn't give their names. He calls this type of painting 'syncretism', meaning in this case the reinterpreting of classic art. I like it. It's copying other people's art, but not to cheat anyone. I think the artist you're referring to does the same thing.
I like it so much I painted this a few years back...
I've copied a Mondrian (but used different colours), I've copied Cesar Santos' concept of combining Mondrian with a figure study, and finally I've copied an art reference photo for the girl. I'm a copyist. I'm not passing this off as a Mondrian. If anyone bought my pic and thought it was a Mondrian frankly shouldn't be allowed out. I like this painting, it's one of my better ones...you don't have to like it...but that doesn't make me a bad person. Robert has a valid point about these artists assuming people will know they're copying other artists. But life isn't perfect. Does the fact that I've copied this picture (x 3) make it my work? I don't know. But I certainly made this image.
I've banged on enough about this, I don't expect agreement. We have certain subjects that circle the forum on some kind of orbit...copying, in all it's forms, is one. I suppose it's only natural as new people join the forum, that's what discussion is about. It's a subject that can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Another that constantly comes around is DIGITAL...we must be about due for that again.
So the next time that these perennials turn up, I've promised myself I'll retire to the Orangery and read a book. And now I really must think about what I'm going to copy next.
Posted
I think I might retire to my orangery as well Lew ...if I had one , my shed will have to suffice. . Just to (hopefully) knock this discussion on its head. your use of the Mondrian / Cesar Santos painting is like my Vermeer take off.
None of which I find in the least bit offensive or as I said originally stealing.
I did ,and do find work passed off as all my own work and as copied as closely as the one that started this whole rigmarole offensive and wrong. If it is actually painted the work is incredible ....grrrrrrr let's stop this now. Circles spring to mind.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans
Posted
I agree with Lew about valuing an artwork which is an acknowledged copy of another, whether manipulated or not. Personally, I value a work when I consider how much work has gone into it. As well as the aesthetic pleasure it gives when looking at it. I get astounded at, say, a Canaletto or a Bellotto. But when I look closely at a few of them I see many of the characters and gondoliers are exact copies of those in earlier pictures. It was no doubt some poor soul in the artist studio whose job it was to fill in the detail.
But my reasoning in disliking digital copying is again related to the amount of work involved. As someone with a looong background in IT, it would take me no more than a day to learn a new software paint package,. Then after that I would be able to load in photographs, or art masters to manipulate and pass off within a matter of minutes.
I imagine many if you wonderful artists here would find digital art as difficult as I find say painting a drop of water in oil. But I would say that an impressive drop of painted water would take more than a matter of minutes, from prep to finish. So I add much more value to something painted over a digital image.
AI is going to accelerate over the coming months, #Artbots are filling social media. (sadly a hashtag that was once used to spread knowledge of art masters).
The genie is out of the bottle.
Edited
by Norrette Moore
Posted
I very rarely contribute to this forum, but Ifeel the need to support Lew on this. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in copying an existing artwork; it is the motive behind the copying that might be objectionable.
Clearly an intention to pass off a copy, for the purposes of a sale, as an original, is not only objectionable, but, probably, criminal. However, as has been mentioned, copies of more well-known works are unlikely to succed in deceiving a potential buyer, so it may be the less generally known artists who are at risk.
I have made a number of copies; well-known works which I happen to find both interesting and attractive (e.g. impressionist and pre-raphaelite). I do this as a challenge to see if I can produce something which bears some resemblance to the original. I do not offer these for sale. Even if I did, no one could possibly mistake them for anything other that what they are - just a modern copy. They are on 3D streched canvas and carry my monogram. (There are also differnces between my ability and that of the original artist.)
Am I doing wrong?
Posted
You are doing nothing wrong ar all Trevor in fact art in schools is often taught in this way...or was when my youngest son was doing his exams. ,go for it, enjoy. But if you do post it in a public place it should give credit to the original artist.
Norrette digital art is just another way to create art. I had a small go a few times but prefer traditional methods would love to see something you have done.
AI terrifies me .
Posted
Hi Sylvia, If I find a moment over the weekend I'll give it a go, just to demonstrate my argument. But I havent tried anything since the mid 90s, and my software is over 20 years old. Today the software does everything at the click of a button....pastel, oil, watercolour, charcoal, enhanced tone, hue, contrast ...you name it. But I havent got this software, and don't intend to get it.
Tackling the weeds in the front garden at the mo!
Posted
Trevor - no, you're not. Neither is Lew. What you do, and he does, is interpretation - offering a new face to old (some very old) work. I've got to add - well, I'm going to - that M. Aldéhy's work doesn't really trouble me at all: Bougereau, for example, is long past caring whether anyone adapts his work or even dirctly copies it: no one is going to take Aldéhy's work as fakes - but it would be good, to put it no higher than that, if he'd refer to the originals, as people might want to compare them. However - that's for him to decide. Et pas de probleme....