[SCWatson]

This covers plagiarism, tracing, and other issues we have been encountering recently in the activities. Please make sure to copy this into your FAQ sections, and provide a prominent link to that post underneath your Activity Header.









Thanks,
~Shane

[Peter_Coene]

Thanks Shane, I've got a question though. What about matte paintings that use elements of the above, for example collecting photographs (taken by the artist) and collaging them together to create a new image, adjusting bits, painting over parts, and using photomanipulation in other areas? This is commonly used in the industry and can be found in just about every effects heavy movie.

[davepalumbo]

just kickin around the site and saw this thread, old though it may be, felt like throwing in 2 cents. Though I'm 100% in agreement on the definition of plagiarism by swiping and tracing/painting over found web images, I have some issues with pretty much all the others.

The condoning of finding and replicating (without tracing) images off the web or elsewhere is a tricky subject. Though it's something certainly widely practiced, there is an expectation of using that material as a support, point of departure, or clarification. It can be taken well beyond that though, a person is only limited by their abilities as a draftsman. Many times I've seen professional artists called out for using a photo from a magazine or something and replicating almost exactly. This is certainly the greyest of areas though (can a line be drawn? what is informing and what is plagiarizing), just to say that a person grabbing refs from outside sources still needs to use the ref correctly.

The other issues are easier for me to speak my opinion: I'm sorry to say but I think it's nonsense to disqualify pieces for having been traced or photo-manipulated despite having produced the reference yourself. On tracing, for one thing, how can that even be policed? It can't. And are you serious that people can plagiarize themselves? It's silly and it would disqualify some of the greatest illustrators of the 20th century.

As to photo-manipulation, this is not a style which I'm personally a big fan of, though in the 2 years or so that I've been working as an art director I've learned that it holds a valuable place in the world of illustration. There are entire genres (urban fantasy, paranormal romance, matte painting, a wide swath of the advertising and editorial field, etc.) which are dominated by photo manipulation and it's not because it's cheap or easy or anything like that, it's because that is the look which the consumer responds best to. It is a 100% legitimate illustration technique.

Now, there is such a thing as *poorly executed* tracing and *poorly executed* photo manipulation, but practice makes perfect and one will never learn or improve if they don't try and fail many many times. And many people experiment in these methods and then drift away from them or abandon them altogether. That's just part of learning who you as an artist. It's making decisions, not taking them second or third hand based on the prejudices of your teachers, that make an artist worth anything. I think I understand the reason for discouraging these methods: the fear that they will be used as short cuts and crutches and impede the growth of ones abilities. Either that or the ridiculous complaint by romantic purists that others are "cheating" by using them and taking an unfair advantage (despite that this path is open to them as well, they choose not to use it). To both of these arguments though, I say that artists should be free to walk their own path, make their own mistakes, and in the real world, nobody is going to care one bit. If people use tracing as a substitute for knowledge and experience in observation and drawing, it's going to show and it's going to look bad, plain and simple.

Sorry to pop in out of nowhere and argue an old thread like this, but I feel it's actually kind of damaging to reinforce this whole "tracing and photo manipulation is morally wrong" attitude. If you want to bar these practices from the competitions for whatever reason, I'm in no place to challenge that, but I take a serious issue with categorizing them as plagiarism and chastising people on a moral level for using them. These practices are widely used in the real world of illustration, I see no reason to teach people to tie an arm behind their backs and then send them out to fight for their lives. To me it's the same language and the same way of thinking as people who look down on photo reference or digital art. Exactly the same arguments are made in those cases (it's a crutch, it's cheating, it's a substitute for honest ability, etc.), but we all agree that such arguments are ridiculous

Like I said, my two cents

[Ankaris]

Thought I would chime in here too..

One of the best ways of learning anything, I have found is to separate out the various problems that appear to be combined as one. The best example of this is learning to drive a manual car, what Americans call, stick shift in busy traffic.

As a young driver learning to drive the vehicle AND deal with traffic at the same time, you increase the chances of an accident. So you separate the problems. Learn to drive in traffic in an AUTO and learn the stick driving on a track away from traffic. The student is then comfortable and more receptive to each individual skill. Only later on should they drive the stick shift on the road under actual traffic conditions when, and only when they have developed the CONFIDENCE to do both at the same time.

Art is the same. As an electronic engineer turned photographer, turned matte painter/digital painter, turned oil painter, I have always tried to identify and separate out the various problems that can be solved independently of one another. Colour, value and lighting can be practiced on a traced line drawing over and over again without regard to getting the drawing right. This can be utilised in such a way as to practice painting style or simply experimentation. The point being, the drawing aspect can be ignored for the time being (on that particular job/task/project). Drawing skills should most definitely be practiced away from colour and value. Composition can be worked on with basic cut out shapes and line, no need for drawing or colour. Eventually all of these disparate skills will combine naturally and organically within the artist as they get more and more comfortable with them.

Suggesting that any form of photo usage is immoral is at worst damaging to people's confidence and at best, just impractical advice. As Dave points out, using photo ref IS a major part of the industry, ANY imaging industry so assigning a moral judgement to the practice is silly.

As someone who's predominant skill is in environment (matte painting) I have found painting the human form a challenge. So when I was commissioned to paint an entire mural full of figures, I photographed them and then traced my photo's. The painting of those figures actually bares little resemblance to the original photographs! But as deadlines and skill factors come into it, eliminating one set of problems UNTIL you're comfortable or more confident is not only practical it's in some ways essential.

Never underestimate the power of self confidence to bolster an artist or the lack thereof to tear oneself down. Forcing young and/or inexperienced artists to handle the traffic and the stick shift at the same time can undermine that confidence and put the brakes on further development.

Hope that helps!

[arttorney]

The other issues are easier for me to speak my opinion: I'm sorry to say but I think it's nonsense to disqualify pieces for having been traced or photo-manipulated despite having produced the reference yourself. On tracing, for one thing, how can that even be policed? It can't. And are you serious that people can plagiarize themselves? It's silly and it would disqualify some of the greatest illustrators of the 20th century.

I think this is a pretty important part of the healthy discussion going on here. SC Watson made his plagiarism FAQ in the wake of a really egregious tracing incident in Characterforge and that probably is somewhat reflected in the tone of his authorship. I agree that if the artist has taken his own photograph (or produced a 3D digital piece with stock objects to render and trace), how could anybody know?

At the time I had pointed out that 3D people can take photos of textures to map onto their works. I got the impression that SC Watson is more concerned about people taking advantage of the system, than about morality of such practices.

There obviously is some gray area that might bear further discussion. I'll bring it up with the powers that be and see where everybody stands these days.