Hey guys, I'm new here so i apologize if I'm posting this in the wrong place!
I, as most people, sometimes use reference to make illustrations and sometimes don't.
The question that keeps nagging in the back of my mind is... when is referencing wrong? Or rather, is there a wrong way to go about it?
I've worked on a project recently where I referenced outfits a lot. I looked up random pictures on google and tried to mimic the folds, texture, etc, of a piece of clothing. And I mean, using it as direct reference.
I keep wondering if there's something wrong with working this way. The final result is a concept design of a character that has their semi-realistic clothes based on pictures of existing ones. Maybe you would be able to tell it came from the picture if you looked at it, maybe not.
And I can't help but think 'what of the person who took that photo?' 'what about the copyright of that clothing/shoe/whatever it is'
What're you guy's thoughts on this? When you have to produce realistic/semi-realistic work, do you reference clothes (or... anything else for that matter, i suppose)?
Posts: 1,098
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
34
James Gurney wrote a good article on that matter in his blog: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com.es/200...rence.html
My personal opinion, is that reference should be used as a guideline, something to help you fill the holes in your visual library. You could say that it is better to work with and without reference, dependending on your needs.
Posts: 340
Threads: 10
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
23
I think references are crucial for painting. Probably after drawing thousands different costumes you're going to draw them from memory but until that you need references. The best way to avoid direct copying whole design from someone else is to use as many photos as you can and mix different ideas. After reading J.Gurney and Loomis books I don't feel guilty at all using references or 3d models. Artists since camera was invented where using photo references and before that they where using live models for references :D so every way to make good painting is good. You know probably this quote "Good artists copy. Great artist steal."
I don't know if this would be answer to your question about producing realistic work but this steps made by Federico Barocci opened my eyes. No one ever just sit in from of the canvas and made realistic painting without any studies. From http://www.amazon.co.uk/Imaginative-Real...rds=gurney
Quote:"Old masters developed a thorough working method that helped them visualize scenes from history and mythology. Sixteenth century painter Federico Barocci (1528-1612) planned his paintings with a series of eight steps, according to his biographer, Bellori.
1. After deciding on his idea for a picture, Barocci made dozens of loose sketches to work out the gesture and arrangement of the figures.
2. He then made studies in charcoal or pastel from live models.
3. Next he sculpted miniature figurines in wax or clay, each draped in tiny costumes to see how they would look under various lighting arrangements.
4. He proceeded with a compositional study in gouache or oil, considering the overall pattern of light and shade.
5. With that completed he produced a full-size tonal study or “cartoon” in pastels or charcoal and powdered gesso.
6. He then transferred this drawing to the canvas.
7. But before proceeding with the painting he produced small oil studies to establish the color relationships “so that all the colours should be concordant and unified among themselves without hurting each other.”
8. Then he went ahead with the finished painting.
Barocci may have been more meticulous than some of his contemporaries, but his process was not unusual, and virtually every artist followed at least some of these steps. He was a big inspiration to Rubens and many others who followed after.
These basic steps have been followed all through the history of imaginative picturemaking, right down to William Bouguereau, Norman Rockwell, and Dean Cornwell."
Posts: 140
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
6
I think it's an interesting topic, and there really is no right or wrong, just opinions and what you want to get out of doing art.
My personal opinion is that direct reference takes away a lot from the art, whenever I find out that any of my art heroes use direct refs I'm heartbroken, but the main reason I do art myself is the pursuit of technical skill and knowledge, so that is why. In my mind the goal should be to possess enough fundamental knowledge that direct refs are never needed, I agree however that the artist must always look at photos and the world around him/her to get new impressions and new ideas to use when painting, but there's a massive diffrence between studying to understanding what you see and just blatantly copying what you see.
For professional work there are very few rules however, you'll find that most artists unfortunately rely on photos and matte painting and 3D models and whatnot to get their results. If something looks too good to be true, you can be sure it isn't true, wether the artist is willing to admit it or not.
I think no employer is ever likely to care how you get your end result unless you are openly mimicing or stealing art, the only one's who'll care are grumpy purists like myself :-)
Thanks for all the input, guys!
The Gurney link was actually very helpful.
I think my problem is kind of like Simonarpalmer's where I always came with this 'purist' view about reference.
But I suppose that Gurney's arguments are very close to what I was imagining. I feel a bit more at ease now, I guess =)
I just need to make sure my energy and ideas come out first and then bring various references instead of one single, and make something new from it.
Just swinging by to throw in my two pennies.
My problem with reference (moral and legal issues aside) is its efficiency, or lack thereof.
A person using reference is basically taking an open book test. It's convenient, but if your competition doesn't need the book to know the answers, I can guarantee you that they will finish first, and in the professional world time is money.
Now, obviously, when you don't know the answers and you don't have time to study (perhaps an upcoming deadline), you do what you have to do.
Check out Brad Rigney. He is very honest about when he uses reference, and it is rarely. If you ever get a chance to watch him paint, take it.
Posts: 112
Threads: 5
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
6
Do you know what people like Greg Manchess, Greg Hildebrand, Donato Giancola, James Gurney and Dan Dos Santos have in common? Yes, they all use references. They all use the best references they can get their hands on. They preferably use references they shot themselves, but they won't go without just because some kid on the internet sneers at references. That's why their art is so good. You can make up all the rules you want about what is cheating and what is not, but other artists don't have to follow your rules, and if they use references and you don't guess who is going to have the best art.
I agree, but I have to add, I've sat in front of Gurney as he whipped out some crazy work in colored pencil with no assistance. If he found himself in a refrenceless situation, he would complete the job on time, no question, and it would look better than a lesser artist, regardless of the amount of reference they use.
Now obviously, you cant complete a race with a broken foot and no help and insisting on doing it anyway due to some misplaced sense of "honor" isn't going to impress anyone either, but you also wont win many races if you insist on running with crutches every single time.
To elaborate on my Brad Rigney (cryptcrawler) example, he does his personal work with no reference. If he comes to a part that he is wrestling with, he closes the work>finds reference>studies his ass off>deletes his studies>closes his reference>then goes back to painting. Rinse, wash, repeat. The logic is simple, this is a personal piece, time isn't an issue, and by avoiding an opportunity to learn, he is only hurting himself. HOWEVER, when it comes to professional work that all goes 100% out the window. If it takes painting over a photograph to get it done and on time, he'll do it.
Ultimately, we must all do what we need to do to get a proper finished product, but we must also work hard to ensure that our competition isn't drawing circles around us while we crawl through an image library to find a hand in the correct position. Not a rule or a moral argument, just common sense in the industry.
Posts: 34
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
2
I like to compare the whole topic to the process of learning a new language. When you start out you spend a lot of time studying words, repeating grammatical structures and all this stuff, just as you do when you start out with drawing and painting. At some point you become proficient enough to express yourself through this language, even without looking everything up in a dictionary. Sometimes though, you don't find just the right word and you work around it - just like you do when painting something and you're not getting that one spot right because there's a little bit of knowledge missing. That's where the dictionary respectively a reference comes in handy.
If you're a professional translator, it's totally normal to work with dictionaries; actually it is even when you're a writer in your native language, because sometimes you need to be reminded of the possibilities to express something in the most elegant way. However, you can never fake being proficient in a foreign language by just using a dictionary and sticking randomly translated words together - just as you can never fake being a good artist by just sticking references together without having studied the basic structures. The more you use your language, the more words and phrases get stuck in your mind and the less you need to look things up.
|
