Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Quandary .
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.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
When I was meeting with a watercolour group , to further challenge myself , I started studying works by David Bellamy whose work I admire and to that end I used his colour pallet and tried to replicate his work to see how far I could progress . It took a long time , making colour wheels and such to try to attain what I wanted and I was pleased with the result . The question I would like to put is , while the work is in my collection and not for publication or replication , is it appropriate to post it to my site listing it as a study and a tribute to his work .Your comments would be appreciated as I do not want to cross any boundaries but it would be nice for me to show for your comments . I will say that the skills that I learnt while engaging in this project helped me to understand watercolour very quickly .
Posted
Personally, if I were copying a particular work (eg. for my own pleasure or to learn a technique ) , I would also say "this is my copy of... " because it's not just "in the style of" or " after" it's a copy. I've seen quite a bit of work on the gallery where some people don't make this clear .
Posted
Personally, I’m not overly keen on trying to copy another artist’s work in its entirety, unless, as Marjorie says, trying to learn that artists technique etc… which can be really helpful.
I was more referring to painting your own subject but adopting the style/palette etc of that artist, in which case I would possibly add the words ‘inspired by’.
Posted
Agree with Marjorie and Alan - I did think a while ago of copying one of my favourite Corots, but thought again. "Inspired by" is one thing, but while I'm sure you CAN learn a lot by copying a painting, what you learn could be accomplished in other ways; after all, had I pursued my thought, I don't know what material Corot used; I don't know what the light was like at the time; I can't know what was in his mind - and anyway, my boy Jean Baptiste Camille had already done it, who do I think I am to copy him? In other words: whatever I might have learned, I wouldn't have come to any clearer understanding of the methods Corot really employed. However: each to their own.
Posted
Personally, if I were copying a particular work (eg. for my own pleasure or to learn a technique ) , I would also say "this is my copy of... " because it's not just "in the style of" or " after" it's a copy. I've seen quite a bit of work on the gallery where some people don't make this clear .I was always taught that "after" referred to a copy and should be signed so, on the piece. No matter how good or bad the copy was. It signifies that the inspiration, design and construct was by the original artist. If I'm wrong I'll pull down my couple of pieces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_painting_reproduction?wprov=sfla1
Edited
by Norrette Moore
Posted
Norette, no, you're not wrong: 'After' Cuthbert Threepneedle is really all you need: people are always likely to say 'yes, and a long way after, too', but we just ignore them.... it's quite enough to let us know that this is not a genuine Threepneedle, qui n'existe pas, but your version of his painting. 'Inspired by' is a little different, maybe - suggesting that you know he painted nothing like this, but that this is what you have taken from his work to inspire you in making yours. These are quite clear categories, well established by usage over many years: no need to take your work down.Personally, if I were copying a particular work (eg. for my own pleasure or to learn a technique ) , I would also say "this is my copy of... " because it's not just "in the style of" or " after" it's a copy. I've seen quite a bit of work on the gallery where some people don't make this clear .I was always taught that "after" referred to a copy and should be signed so, on the piece. No matter how good or bad the copy was. It signifies that the inspiration, design and construct was by the original artist. If I'm wrong I'll pull down my couple of pieces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_painting_reproduction?wprov=sfla1
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2