Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Photographs or paintings?
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
I may be cynical or just a killjoy, but I have been suspecting that a couple of our members have been manipulating photographs and posting them as paintings. I have nothing against using photographs as source material, but there is no point in reproducing them exactly except for a learning experience. However looking closely at some pictures, they do not have any kind of simplification, which a normal artist would naturally do. Neither do they eliminate the unnecessary, except by over exposure.
Without mentioning any names, what gives them away is the lack of comment about material, size or difficulties in producing them and sign of real brushstrokes.
It is quite easy in Photoshop or other photo editing applications to apply an oil painting or watercolour painting effect - you can even choose the brush size. but I don't like them being passed off as paintings. Am I the only one who notices this?
Posted
Difficult one - there is still a strong element of artistic skill in manipulating computer images to arrive at an image with artistic merit and some of those that appear in the gallery are of considerable merit. Should they be treated on an equal footing? Well I'm not persuaded and would agree that the artists should be up-front in declaring their techniques / methods etc.
Posted
Don't forget that Hockney among others has employed computer software, Canaletto championed camera obscura, and going back even further Do Vinci is reputed to have used the light box it so if it was good enough for them well .............
What I would say is that these methods should never be employed until you have mastered the art of drawing in the first place.
Posted
I have nothing against digital art and went on a course to find out how to do it. I have tried it and posted examples here, but I made it clear that it is digital. It was by no means easier or quicker. However I did not use any photographic image. You can draw and paint on a computer, which is different to loading up your photos and manipulating/editing them or applying the watercolour or pastel effect.
When we upload our paintings/drawings POL asks us to tick boxes for what kind of work it is, but how do we access those categories for other artists work?
If you are looking for the suspects, try surnames beaconing with R.
Posted
Hmmm, well, I'll take a peek...
We have a couple of artists who produce nearly all, or actually all, of their work on their computers or pads, and are quite open about that. None of us would have any problem with that - it's just using digital means to produce pictures, it's not, I'm sure, easy, and the first one to do that here was, I think, Skylar Brown (whom we've not seen for some time).
That's very different from enhancing a painting by digital means and pretending the result is all down to your skill with a brush, or applying some arty application to a photograph and calling it a painting. And I can't imagine what the point of it is - are people that desperate for praise?
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I think I may know whom you meant - I'm reluctant to name names in case I've got it wrong, but if the artist you mean is the one I think you mean, he did make it clear a good long time ago now that he works with digital media: he's not trying to pull the wool over our eyes - what you see is what he's painted with whatever it is digital artists use: so no deception intended, and there is skill and artistic judgement in it.
If you'd like to PM me and tell me whom you had in mind I could confirm that for you.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
A lot of artists don't give any details about their paintings but I don't view them with suspicion but I would like to know how they achieved their work, purely out of interest. There was one artist, some time ago who used photos and paint and combined it, all digitally etc, but she admitted that. I think I know who the artist isthat has been questioned, and, if it is him, he has stated he uses digital art, but he doesn't repeat that information everytime he uploads to the gallery, we just know it is.
However I have 2 things to say - one is that all work, no matter how it is achieved has a place in today's art world whether some people like it or not and there have been far too many artists and critics who decry people's art because it is not "proper art". This stops certain people from showing their art. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with using tracing, or lightboxes etc for those people who cannot or don't want to draw but instead enjoy the painting process. Let's open up the art world to everyone and encourage all who want to draw or paint or digitally produce art, however they want to do it. It is the personal enjoyment to themselves. I am always encouraging people and telling them there is no such thing as "art police" Please let's not discriminate and become too precious. Lets keep this society for artists not purists.
Posted
I respect your opinions Sylvia and I agree with a lot of your sentiments except the term "honest" art. As Michael rightly said Di Vinci, Canaletto etc etc all used aids in one way or another, all those years ago. Who decided this was unacceptable - who decided what was "honest" art - who decided to set themselves up as "art police". So what is wrong with copying a portrait of a celebrity he would never see in his lifetime - and a fantastic artist he is too. And what do you mean by "salacious". If it is the artwork of who I think it is, there is no harm in having a sense of humour. I have seen nothing "salacious" or suggestive, only body forms - an acceptable form of art, as old as the hills.
Art used to follow the usual format of drawing and painting but no longer. Art in any form is an expression of enjoyment for that artist and nobody should deride that, indeed I am all for it as I know from personal experience that art can be a life-saver. A huge amount of artists on this site unfortunately, have had a lot of trauma in their lives which has affected them deeply. Why would they all wish to go down the "honest" way of art, why can't they express themselves in any way they wish. I am a great advocate of encouragement and I take a personal delight in their enjoyment and, after all, art is saving the NHS from a lot of expense! I love to see their enjoyment - that is what life and art should be about.
I like to think that I view all art (perhaps not pickled animals) in an un-blinkered way.