painters or collage artists - discussion thread
 

so this is just an open topic free for discussion

We all know how fluid and changing the visual fx industry is and how technological advancements have impacted on the art side of things. More and more tools and utilities are used to creat production art.

I can understand the reasons on why there has been such a change in production. Quick turnarounds, faster pace and so on.

And i have seen this progress impact on artists personal artworks where the tools (photos,3d renders etc etc) have come more and more frequently used.

i dont want to say that this is a wrong or right way to approach your art, but only to point out that i think it has a negative impact on pure painting practice. I have seen many artist do a great leap in image quality as soon as these tools were utilized in their art. But once put into a position where painting is the only way , they struggle.

Often when i made such discoveries there is a bit of sad let down. Because art is i think a lifelong pursuit. Its not ment to be a quick effortless path.

I have seen situations where mattepainters can't paint when they have to, and where artists blatantly take moviescreengrabs to create their "own" artwork.


so here is my take on pros for using too much tools in your art:

pros
* its fast, less work
* it's adds realism


cons
* you are becoming dependent on the tools
* your painting skill suffers
* once forced into a scenario when painting is a must, you will suffer through the process. and art directors,supervisors will see your skills different when painting and when doing collages.


So with that said, yes i have used tools but i mainly do it at work because of the pace.And when i do use these tools, its mainly for texture,color or specular effects.

With my personal art i force myself to paint more and less photos/3d.I also love life drawing because that still clings to the old school artistry and skill.


i am curious to see what the opinion is around here on this progress in the digital art world.


and please , no bashing or trolling :)

I don't have the same time pressures, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about what you say. What I am currently moving into is using 3d to create custom high dynamic range references which I then print out and use as a reference for a traditional painting. This at least forces me to paint. At the same time it results in a physical artwork rather than a digital file. Hopefully the work comes closer to what the eye might have seen than simply painting from a photograph, or a collage of photographs. Hopefully I have learned something in the process since I am the one who arranged the lights. Admittedly, there is still the philosophical crutch of no longer painting what I observe to the best of ability, but instead "observing" until I think I see what I would paint.

I do see an awful lot of stuff I consider derivative and perhaps that is an inevitable result of people recycling too much.

I think if you are aware of the things you are overstepping in terms of work, and fully know and why you are doing it. Then that feels more forgiving. For instance if you know and are aware of a lighting situation and know how to do it because of past experience then it should be more forgiving to take a short cut.





a few years ago over at cgtalk , when digital art was really booming and growing, some people even considered using reference as these guide tools .And some images and artists were really put in a spotlight because of either denials or admitting to using it. Now a couple years after in the digital art world it's just simple copy/paste techniques.So there is not even so much effort put into studying and replicating reference.

I think it's a bad habit for an artist to do that for over a long period of time. Instead of sketching out ideas and bringing them to 70 ish percent completion most of the work starts by finding base photos to construct the artwork on top of.
And that i personally feel is hard to call a work of your own, unless you took the photos yourself of course :)

Agreed. If it weren't for a good life drawing professor I wouldn't have any idea about the "where" or "why" of lights and I'd hobble myself using front lighting every single time.

Anyone who is just putting a photograph in a hidden layer to copy from is inherently limiting themselves closely to the neighborhood of what is there and what can be photographed. How could you cross into hard core surrealism that way?:-?? The drawing will be more of the same.

Photo refs can be very useful for things like understanding what kind of things might be attached to the outside of a combat vehicle or whether Chrysanthemum leaves come out of the stem in alternating fashion. Photo refs lead to a dull drawing, though, if they are being used to avoid dealing with perspective. Those camera lenses are just not as good as the human eye.

Great thread!

I have noticed a recent trend of photobashing and lifeless, dull 3D paintovers; especially in the movie industry. Also, on the other side, I noticed a lot of illustrations that were obviously copied from a photo.

The thing that anoys me the most about this is that the reason to hire someone like myself and Levi is not just for our drawing skills but more than anything, for the ability to design, change and addept to whatever they throw at you.

If the trend keeps growing, there will be no need for a concept artist or an illustrator because everyone knows how to make a collage in photoshop nowadays.

Or am I just being a stubborn dinasaur?

collage is art :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage

but i understand your point -

if you are going for a realistic look
i think it is a huge timesaver and thats all ...

i you got talent you can achive the same look like in photos, it only cost time ... time you don't have in production ...

but if you go for a non realistic stylized look thats when your style comes to play and your personality thats your art ... this kind of artist is most interesting for me :)

sorry for my english - but had to contribute quite interesting discussion

i agree with you Kan.

There will still be the need of colorkeys which are still very much painting heavy...thank god. Conceptwise the trend has shifted more towards using photos and renders.For production people this is everyday norm. Some people even look at you odd if you even mention painting a concept in some studios....Which to me is absurd.

what i think many beginning artist don't realise is that as soon as they start working in productions they will soon see that the key thing to supervisors, leads and art directors is to have complete and full control of every aspect of a concept. this means control of composition lighting, materials so pretty much everything and anything. BUT if you work too much with flat photos it becomes harder to address the concept.

Imagine your AD comes back to you and says "cool but can you move the sun to the other side, but we really love the detail in this piece so dont change that" Now if you are only familiar with photos and less paint, this will be a struggle for you....And honestly rightly so to.


some people say "just stick to photos and you wil be fine"

my response is , maybe , atleast for a while.I can guarantee that one day you will come to a point where photos are of no help(as an example:imagine that you haveto paint buildings made of cotton, or a cartoony character rendered in real light)



A practiced artist trains his visual eye with years and practice. He will be able to see things differently if he exposes himself to most things that art has to offer. Styles, experimentation, mediums, influence of inspiring Artists. And once he is there he will see subtle little things that can make an image from great to awesome.

with photos this practice and skill will be very limited.

yes collage IS art, i never argued against it. My important point is to not neglect the painting side of things because that practice will have a positiv impact on your skill and career, in the end you may end up using less photos when you become a better painter. Your strokes will be more precise , colors etc etc


also in this discussion i think it's better to separate us between productionwork and our private work.We know the reasons why photos/renders are used in production.

Confused Artist??? Wacom Cintiq 12wx or Bosto Kingtee 14wa
 

Hello all. As you can see, I am a newbie to this forum. I am also a newbie when it comes to computer art. I am an artist by lifestyle but not employment. I love to paint, draw, carve, etc. Unfortunately, my current living space doesn't allow for the painting or carving, and I would rather draw right onto my computer than onto a piece of paper which I then have to scan.

So, after having said all of that, I can't decide between the Wacom Cintiq 12wx or Bosto Kingtee 14wa. wacom’s products is famous, but also have some bad comment in the internet, such as the acrylic cover surface, easy to scratch and old model, 14wa is good in specification, but not much people know this brand

Hopefully you will assist providing me with the guidance I so desperately need.

an interesting thought that occured to me recently is that Mattepaintings being done as they are now, and its pretty much widely known(with usage of lots of photo elements) usually get less response when they are posted on gallery sites.These are way more polished and worked out then conceptart using photo elements. Which are Not as polished to that level. Since photos are accepted for mattepainting people are less inclined to approve and give credit of that type of work.

but let me tell you folks, the digital concept art world is not to far from the mattepainting approach, they use these elements all the time too.And unfortunatly painting has suffered in individual artists developments. If you are interested in comparing these effects. You can easily study a persons artwork when he was junior and focused more on the painting side , and then compare the material last posted using more photographic elements. There is a often a very significant quality jump. If you dont believe me, look for yourself :)


Even though i have been talking about this important issue to maintain and practice painting i still need to give credit to the help and speed that photo elements give.But they never teach you to be astronger painter. Only practice does that.

As for mattepainting i can tell you its a long and labourous process to do full real mattepaintings. It is Not just copy/paste and i think alot of mattepainters on this site deserves more credit then they get to be honest. Alot of the works goes through months and months of iteration and polish and when it gets posted people dont give credit as they should for all that hardwork.But...thats just my view :)






on a side note :
Its always cracks me up to see comments for these concepts like "my god it looks so real!" yes its real because most of it are reused elements :)

sofar i have spotted elements on this site originating from Alien, lord of the rings, bladerunner, Swat, Seven and so on

I think your choice is right,and a good solution for lots of artists who have faced the same problem.

I have to say, overall I agree with you but it's really a tug-of-war between skill and professionalism. If your boss wants a finished piece of art, 99% of the time he's going to be very worried about time. As they say, time is money. So, if someone else with a lot of painting skill can create great art, but you can create similar style art using tools in half the time, you are going to get the job.

I think my personal solution to this problem is that when an artist is in the work place, he really needs to worry about time. Using these tools are a gift and if you want to succeed, you need to know how to utilize them to the best of your ability. However, when you are at home, working on your personal artwork, you should really not be using tools as much as you can help it. Try to paint everything and continue to work on your skill, just don't do it while you're on the clock.