Traditional artists like Velasquez don't inspire me. I just do the things in my way, giving my style.
so, you want your art direction to be different from Velasquez? meaning it has been influenced by him in a "negative" way.
influence and inspiration come in so many forms, everyone wants to set their own trend, to forge a new path, and would love to make the whole art world turn round and say "WOAH THAT'S COOL!!!". but even the people who have the ability to do that, are influenced by others.
I very much stand by what I think Jo Coenen once told me, he said to be a good designer you need to read the newspaper, look at other people's designs, and then do something else. Every piece of art does not stand on it's own but is part of the time sense, the art that is being made at that era and the marks of what has been before.
It's very evident in architecture, I would say much more than in fine art. By analysing existing designs you can gain insight into what "design-steps" they took, and that you can take as "design-baggage" with every design you make. There is also transformation, it is not uncommon to purposefully reference to something by for example transform to their rhythm of grid.
Firmly believe in "making something your own", ea take the design principles that artist used and see what you can come up with following those design principles, but totally not necessarily having the same look.
About that, direct visual inspiration for me, is totally overrated. I think it's a good to find inspiration in other fields, like the rhythm of a bach-play, or it's musical notation. Anything can be inspiration, the more you can transform that from not so related fields, the merrier.
That said, I would consider the ACCEPTABLE to be unacceptable, it blatantly follows only the look, without actively thinking about the design.
You can't look at anything without getting influenced by it. Your art is good Blazier but I see the influences behind your work even if you don't realize it yourself.
Your are right in part, but if you dislike something a lot, if you hate it, you w0n't be influenced by them. We only get influenced by the things we like. I like nature and i mix what i like from it.
LOL, you know me better than i do myself.
Please, don't take things out of context, i'm seeing like some of you are misunderstanding them.
I'm influenced by everything and everyone. It’s my interpretation of those influences that makes my art unique to me.
I don’t have all of the answers, but that’s ok, I know that others have faced the same issues and they may be able to fill in the gaps for me. It would be silly of me not to learn from their experiences as I hope others can learn from mine. I feel that I would become stagnate if I didn’t allow myself to dip into the creative pool of others and be influenced.
Your are right in part, but if you dislike something a lot, if you hate it, you w0n't be influenced by them. We only get influenced by the things we like. I like nature and i mix what i like from it.
Man, I have to disagree with you there. I hate Rob Liefeld and Greg Land so much that I want my art to look absolutley nothing like there's. Therefore, I try to study anatomy as much as I can, I don't allow myself to hide scene components I can't draw (like feet), and I don't trace porn actors.
Joking aside, negative influences do count. They can contribute just as much to who we are as positive influence.
Your are right in part, but if you dislike something a lot, if you hate it, you w0n't be influenced by them. We only get influenced by the things we like. I like nature and i mix what i like from it.
You are inspired by the things you like. You can still be negatively influenced by things you hate.
I like BoBo's analogy about dipping into the creative pool of others and allowing yourself to be influenced and inspired by their work. The line is crossed when you take a bucket along with your trunks down to the pool.
The people who bring a pale to the pool normally leave something else behind...
Sandbag has a good point, there is, sitting there with an image of another person's work and drawing direct influence from it, and theres sitting there with no other image of someone's work but thinking about another person's(s) style and drawing from blank.
Hey so to change the topic a bit to something more in line, So have you guys ever heard the saying "If you change it 20% or more it's yours." total crap imo, but surprisingly I have heard it said in more than 2 studios.
Any thoughts on that?
I'd say it's the opposite, if there's more than 20% remaining, you're stealing.
And I'd say 20% is pretty damn generous, depending on what it is.
The flipside to that might be... you make a model for a game. Later on that model has to be changed a bit and someone else does it. Is the model still yours to claim creatorship?
Kinda hard to measure change in percent, though. From a pure technical standpoint, I could drag an image into Photoshop and drag two sliders and no pixels are the same as they were before - but the human eye can see it's still the same image, only warped. If I draw a 2D image of a 3D model someone else made, then the image is all mine, 100% original, even if it's someone else's design. How do you measure, in percent, how much "the same" a design is?
You can't. Similarly, imagine grabbing a model someone made and retexturing it completely. It's no longer the same character and a huge part of the visual aspect was made by you. How many percent of the outcome is yours? What if you take someone else's texture sheet and maps one of your characters or objects to match it? You made the model all by yourself. How many percent is that?
In a perfect world I'd decide that IF you know you've been influenced by another specific product, then you'll go out of your way to mention that and credit the creator of it. And no one would use any material that's not their own without permission. 'Course, that's never going to happen.
There are too many things to respond to, so I just want to throw in my two cents :P
I think it's sad that it's so easy to just literally steal other people's work nowadays (I mean like copy and paste or tracing). This is just stealing, so I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that.
However, you can look at a lot of the great masters, like Peter Paul Rubens, and consider things like this (from his wikipedia article):
"There, he studied classical Greek and Roman art and copied works of the Italian masters."
I don't think you are a bad artist even if you are directly copying someone else's work, but know that that's what you're doing and you're doing it to learn.
All I can think of is that the big stink is coming from, as I see it, Blaizer saying that he's more creative than a lot of people because he is "drawing from his imagination/nature" rather than using other people's ideas. Which is his point of view, but clearly we don't all agree that creativity is bound to what you do with forms not informed by man-made creations.
I think we're also delving into strange territory because we should make the distinction that Video Games are primarily Commercial Art; many of us are trying to get jobs in the industry or already are in the industry and enjoy seeing what we can come up with that would still make sense in the context of a game. Sure I have crazy spirally dreams and whatnot, and I make paintings of stuff like that sometimes, but this community is primarily focused on the commercial art of creating video games that people can connect with, and to that extent I think what Blaizer was saying about "games copying reality" makes sense; we are often trying to copy reality in game art.
Blaizer: I don't want to bash on you, because I would say you are a better artist than I am, but I think for virtually every piece on your site I can see either a purposeful or indirect influence from other artists that were most likely before you. So I'm not trying to attack you, but it's hard to stay impartial when you're basically saying virtually every artist isn't creative, and yet I don't see anything you've made that's reflective of that mentality.
I think I was trying to head somewhere with all this, but I'm tired and hopefully some of it makes sense :P
EDIT: In RE to the 20% thing, that's kinda what I'm driving at; if you're making a road texture, we're doing commercial art, so who cares if you get a road texture (as long as you either have the rights to it or credit the owner), if it looks right in game I don't think you should have to hand-draw every pixel of a 2048 Gears of War-style road from your mind because that's the "creative" thing to do.
Hey so to change the topic a bit to something more in line, So have you guys ever heard the saying "If you change it 20% or more it's yours." total crap imo, but surprisingly I have heard it said in more than 2 studios.
Any thoughts on that?
Yeah. Someone pulled an arbitrary number out of their ass.
Now stop trying to change the topic. This thread was interesting/entertaining to follow up until this point :poly124:
every new big personal project I start I get a whole bunch of reference material (photos and other peoples concepts) and chuck it in a folder, and blitz through it, 1 seond for one image. and it all merges together and gives me ideas. i think thats fine. as long as I put enough images in there. I reckon if I just had a couple or lots the same then I'd rip someone off without even meaning to.
well technically he's talking about creating something, not owning it.. and in my case in those situations I would (and have) put the version I created in my portfolio.
that issue is quite close to the whole credit discussion.. what if you make something, leave, and someone else remakes it? would the person who remakes it have done it differently without your base? does that count as influence? meh
My last post was probably too verbose, but I think this is what we're talking about with commercial art. This is entirely different than say making a painting that is trying to evoke an emotion; generally we are making things that become the property of a company so really they can do whatever they want and say whoever did it that they want, even though that sucks that's what they're paying you for :P
Particularly in the context of making art for a game company, I mean how is this different than if a graphic designer comes up with a really slick layout for a magazine, then goes on to another magazine; the previous magazine can keep that layout, and probably a new designer will come along and change it some. The guy that came up with it was creative, but maybe the next guy made it even better. Does that make one of them better than the other?
...Blaizer saying that he's more creative than a lot of people because he is "drawing from his imagination/nature" rather than using other people's ideas
hobodactyl, i don't say that man, you have misunderstood what i said. I'm not more creative than a lot of people, that's a bad conclusion.
What i've been saying is what an artist is more creative if he/she uses IMAGINATION and if he/she don't copy/steal/borrow. That's all, and it's a simple opinion that should not offend anyone.
People are so quick to defend an action that they do themselves, and yet will condemn it when someone does it in a way that offends them. It is almost like saying "well I only stole a tv, you stole from a bank!" To anyone against stealing, it shouldn't matter, theft is theft.
Stealing a tv IS different than robbing a bank. There are degrees here, and people perceive the degrees differently. Is this perception a result of self-justification? Perhaps sometimes but not always- and in the most important ways, not at all. The people that make exceptions for their behavior generally are found out and their opinions will not hold up. But anyway...
How do I feel about stealing? I give away for free practically everything I can, even if it costs me time and money to do so. There'd be less stealing if people gave more away or cared about it less (see? It is relative. If people don't care about stealing, who will care about stealing?). How many of us upload our personal projects, models, animations, etc., for use by others? Well, why not? What good is it on your HDD, sitting there. Wouldn't you be happier if someone took it and made something cool with it, if it helped someone along as a game developer?
It is safer to ask for credit, especially when you are almost sure it will be given. But if you ask, and it is denied, you shouldn't use it. If you use it without permission and get called on it, your chance is probably worse that you will be allowed to use it than if you asked, but you may not be caught. So it is a tradeoff- stealing is a gamble and only do it if you are aware of the risks.
When I was a graphic design student there was this guy called james who literally would steal your ideas and he would even boast about it.
It used to really irk me as he was quite a good artist but that was just laziness or perhaps he just enjoyed trying to wind up people and 'get away with it' as he saw it.
He really crossed the line I feel, because his intent was to steal.
BUT he was probably doing what most magazine editors do, ie stealing ideas from the competition, but not perhaps so blatantly
I think its all about intent - we are all influenced by other peoples work , myself included, but I
would like to think that I have a different take on a given subject, even if its a subtle
difference.
I think we all know instinctively when the line has been crossed re plagiarism and TBH a little common sense goes a long way.
Blaizer I think you misphrased many of your statements, leading to more and more confusion. Also, I must say that
"Those who are influenced by other artists do not have style"
really is utter bullshit.
So Frazetta has no style huh? However if you look carefully he definitely learned alot from Bridgman. Yet you can't deny that F has is very own vibe.
One shall keep in mind that there is *growing as an artist* one one hand and *making an art piece* on the other hand .Two different processes.
Of course one needs to rely on imagination to reach a thing of his own - no point of doing art if there is no inner drive.
However to grow as an artist you ALSO need to study. That does not mean that the final piece needs to be a straight copy of whatever michelangelo biceps or cool looking hand. It's just that art studies is a tool to understand things you would miss otherwise. Like how shapes merge in and out, aso. That way next time you make a hand, you remember how it works.
Like when you went to school. Do you think you would be able to do basic maths if no one showed you the tools? Same goes for language. Some guys centuries ago decided to take babies away from their moms in order to prove that human beings would naturally speak latin if let on their own. IIRC the guinea pigs babies diedm, or something.
I would say, be careful with your statements. I know you are expressing something personnal but it turns out to be very offensive.
Also I could take your art as a counter example. I like your monsters, but I noticed a few times that artists commented on them by saying 'hey didnt you do the same model already?'
That doesn't mean those are bad models - it just means you need to expand your area of studies to express yourself even better when crafting cool monsters. I know I suffer from similar problems in many areas - be it anatomy, facial rendering, aso. Yet, being aware of such mistakes is what makes the artist's journey so fascinating to me. There is always room for improvement, better skills to learn, other craftmen to look up to. So one is never really stuck. EXCEPT... if one does the same thing over again from imagination.
I agree with Ruz - commonsense goes a long way. It's too bad that some guys copycat other pictures from the internet. They don't know all the great satisfying lerning challenges they are missing by doing so. Too bad for them.
Non creative persons seems to don't have the ability "to cook". For that reason they steal others ideas because the think they stole to nature... They lacks of pride IMHO.
painting by numbers you mean?
well, repetition is the base of all learning. A man may copy artworks for 50 years and one day make his own piece, that surpasses all that came before him. You cannot deny him the chance to do that, and by no means does it make him uncreative.
If we cut the chaff from this thread, I think we all agree that passing someone else's work off as your own is disgraceful. But inspiration is a total gray area.
I'm in the camp that says: "Its fine to be inspired by other artists, even steal ideas from them. This is how I evolve as an artist". (designer in my case
I hope that was a joke, but if not, thank you for proving my point. In comic book world, superheroes can put the entire universe and spectrum of human experience and morality into badass oneliners, but in the real world, there are infinite shades of gray and difference of experience and opinions and morals.
If one were to try and argue that stealing a dollar were as bad or worse than stealing a million, I'm sure they'd have no problem maintaining philosophical integrity, but would have a hell of a hard time making anything practical out of it.
I should have not said that phrase in the way i did, so sorry if someone get offended: "Those who are influenced by other artists do not have style". With influence, i mean -to copy from-.
Here, the people was talking about to get inspired/influenced/borrow/copy... too many terms with similar meanings. All very gray . It wasn't my intention to lead to confusion Pior.
It may sounds like bullshit, but it's not something so terrible, because when you get inspired by someone's work, and specially from an artwork, essentially, you copy something from it because you like it. That's why i prefer to take inspiration from nature. what do you say when a person have the same or similar style as another person? (same style does not mean they are not creative)
For example, those artists:
Kawarahima Koh & Satoshi Urushihara <--- Same style
Misato Mitsumi & Tatsuki Amaduyu & Nakamura Takeshi <--- Same Style
Could you say me who's the teacher and the pupil? who knows... who copied? the same... who knows.
I really don't know who is frazetta, and like you can see, i only know japanese artists. Time to google him
Also I could take your art as a counter example. I like your monsters, but I noticed a few times that artists commented on them by saying 'hey didnt you do the same model already?'
I'm making style , perfecting designs i have. To show similar designs makes people to recognize your work better. I remenber to answer some times that yes, that i make similar designs as a way to improve my old designs (new versions).
I'm not stucked as you may think. I'm not offended if someone says me what you pointed, as a hobbyst, i mainly do what i like the most and that's what really matters for me. I'm not so susceptible. Of course, that's not reason to be stucked in other areas because i don't touch them.
With the ability "to cook" i mean that taking parts from different sources from real world (nature), you can imaginate and create something new. for example, mixing a crocodile with a hornet and having humanish proportions. It may result ridiculous if is "cooked" bad and with bad ingredients too (like the greek method of mixing).
Ok, without wading too deeply into the heavy discussion going on here, lemme just make one point...
No two artists have the exact same style.
Don't bother bringing up examples, I won't change my mind I believe a person's style is just as unique to them as a fingerprint. Yes, some of us do stuff that looks very similar to other artists of the area, but when it comes down to every detail, every stroke, every line, the style is never going to be the same. It's a matter of how no two people are the same and how each one of us have our own individual upbringing and life experiences and just something of the essence of who we are. This is what affects our style, in not just visual art but any type of art and really just any and everything in life.
This problem always seems to me to be one of INTENT.
So using the example of the 'alien' shown on pg2, the BAD isn't overtly bad unless the artist intentionally never made mention of the source of his version, where he drew his idea from.
We all know it's impossible to design/think in a vacuum so it's really just a question of being honest about the ideas you have, no one really looks down others using work for the further expansion of ideas or thoughts - as was mentioned already, the 'bad' just looks like a different species on the same planet - it becomes bad when it's fobbed off as being 'original' when there's clear reference to something else without mention being made of that fact.
Yeah, and the "woman" he's talking to is the Devil in disguise trying to tempt him, srsly.
No, I wasn't joking, 420. This comic was the first thing that sprang to my mind after the first part of your post. I first read this comic probably 15 years ago and that panel always stuck with me. Maybe it's not realistic to bring comic book morals into a real world discussion, but the morals espoused within helped to form my outlook on bending/breaking the rules.
What it says to me is it's worse to steal one dollar because it's pointless in the fact that what good is a dollar going to do you? You've lost just as much integrity in the action as stealing lots of money. It says don't sell yourself out for a fleeting moment.
Sure, stealing a tv and robbing a bank are different, but they're both stupid and they're both wrong. Apples and oranges are different but they're both fruit. You can argue schemantics all day long if you want.
Stealing is stealing. Maybe one draws the line between stealing from your friends and stealing from strangers. Maybe one draws the line between stealing from small and big business. Maybe one draws the line between stealing little things and stealing big things. Maybe someone just likes drawing lines that they step over, step around, or smudge.
I have to say, though, the Daredevil argument, or the TV versus robbing a bank, really doesn't transfer well. Clearly if I went and stole the Mona Lisa that would be just as bad as if I went into your apartment and stole a painting you made (assuming you aren't famous). This implies I am taking the ownership of an ITEM from someone else, whereas we are generally saying "don't copy and paste and then push the pixels around!"
I have a book cover from some crappy old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure that I bought recently, and I realized it really reminded me of a picture I had seen in some "Learn-To-Draw!" book I bought a while back. I compared the two side by side, and it is VERY obvious the newer picture was made with the older as reference (it's some spikey lizard dude in a torn up robe in a particular pose, so it's pretty clearly "copied"). However, the new one is still entirely hand-painted, and has it's own changes and improvements, not like it's traced or anything. So did that artist steal the piece? I think they would have a hard time denying they weren't using the older piece as an almost direct reference, but it's still their own work.
with the choose your own adventure book and the learn to draw book is it obvious its two different artists or one artist using two different mediums?
In art class in high school we were taught the finer points of stealing art, not that it was encouraged but just as a cover your own ass, whoops you found out your accidentally without truly meaning to steal, something like a handy number of making sure there's 10 count em 10 obvious differences between your work and the artwork your offending.
I mean hell my first character that I consider "my own" is a school girl with a robotic arm and she blows stuff up, I am sure there's 15 different ones in manga, I haven't searched to see if I am copying anything cause I am 99 percent sure I am not.
I don't mean to steer the conversation elsewhere with that statement.
It's very easy to kind of pick on Blazier, because although he doesn't see it, we all know that we have been influenced by artists and what they have learned in the years before us.
With that said, I think he brings up some really interesting thoughts and just merely thinking them, I think gives him an uperhand in creating art that is more untainted by other artists work.
I'm not saying if you simply believe you have your own style-that you magically will. But if you admit that you steal-and you constantly look at other peoples artwork to add elements to yours, then how can you every be completely satisfied with your work?
I guess it just comes down to this... We all have been influenced, whether we admit it or not, but developing your own style is something you do once you have gotten down the basics(that you learned from other artist hard work/viewing nature) and deviate in your own direction. I think there is just a point where you take off the training wheels and become more original.
It seems to me you copy to get good, but once your good you won't copy. As far as pushing pixels, I get internet pics to blend and overlay on portions of paintings/textures all the time. I plan to keep doing it.
This has been around probably as long as art itself. Any kind of creative ideas really.
I personally believe that sooner or later, the imposter will be exposed whether through a keen random observer, or through the rigors of employment.
We've had several instances in design communities where someone rips code and other assets and a lot of the time doesn't even bother to try and cover it up.
But in the end, true talent is not in danger of any real significant damage from hacks.
I've seen ten different remakes of some of my maps, and only a few ever asked for permission. I always give permission, and in the end, I don't care about the others really. I did the original, and I can prove it to anyone it matters to.
Of course these people should be confronted and treated accordingly too. Don't get me wrong.
I see a heavy manga/anime/japanese game artist influence on most of Blaizers monsters, I didn't want to sound like a jerk before
I don't know if this a confusion born of different languages, influenced by doesn't mean you copy them. But maybe I'm totally wrong, Da Vinci was influenced by Verrocchio while Blaizer is only influenced by nature.
It's a word. That is his name, so, proper noun. Daredevil. 'Dare... Devil' makes no sense.
I agree whoever this peope guy is, he really needs to clean up his posts.
I'm all for letting your inner comic dork flag fly, but wow, you put on the shorts, the cape and the cowl. Meow!
It's only theft if you believe in ownership, which is just a concept we all agree on in modern society.
Being a Navajo native living in pre-Columbus north America, I have no concept of ownership and property.
I guess you were trying to be funny, but the concept of ownership is indeed something that people do not really understand and that has taken a radical turn for the worse in the last 100 years or so.
In fact Smith, who is often described as the founding father of capitalism, very correctly deduced that ownership and property arn't concepts of their own (as often though of in todays society), but inherently linked to usage.
In other words, you are only entitled to own something if you actually use it... or at least that is what logic would suggest and how the law would be if the world wasn't such a fucked up place.
considering the banishment of "ownership" is quite possibly the single most dangerous thing to the continued livelihood of the professional artist...It might not sound as scary to every "game artist" because we rarely get to own what we produce, however to any Illustrator or Graphic Designer this is a horrifying thought.
I can only assume that those offended by the stealing analogy have once stolen themselves and feel badly about it. Even though it is from a comic book that Daredevil line is actually a good quotable; people may want to say that stealing a dollar (or a candy bar, or anything else of "little value") is "not that bad", but you're violating your principals (assuming you have any) for something that you should have no reason to be unable to acquire legitimately. If that's not pathetic I don't know what is.
Replies
so, you want your art direction to be different from Velasquez? meaning it has been influenced by him in a "negative" way.
influence and inspiration come in so many forms, everyone wants to set their own trend, to forge a new path, and would love to make the whole art world turn round and say "WOAH THAT'S COOL!!!". but even the people who have the ability to do that, are influenced by others.
It's very evident in architecture, I would say much more than in fine art. By analysing existing designs you can gain insight into what "design-steps" they took, and that you can take as "design-baggage" with every design you make. There is also transformation, it is not uncommon to purposefully reference to something by for example transform to their rhythm of grid.
Firmly believe in "making something your own", ea take the design principles that artist used and see what you can come up with following those design principles, but totally not necessarily having the same look.
About that, direct visual inspiration for me, is totally overrated. I think it's a good to find inspiration in other fields, like the rhythm of a bach-play, or it's musical notation. Anything can be inspiration, the more you can transform that from not so related fields, the merrier.
That said, I would consider the ACCEPTABLE to be unacceptable, it blatantly follows only the look, without actively thinking about the design.
I love insects.
Your are right in part, but if you dislike something a lot, if you hate it, you w0n't be influenced by them. We only get influenced by the things we like. I like nature and i mix what i like from it.
LOL, you know me better than i do myself.
Please, don't take things out of context, i'm seeing like some of you are misunderstanding them.
yes sir? you edited your post! i make you LOL right? hehehe
I don’t have all of the answers, but that’s ok, I know that others have faced the same issues and they may be able to fill in the gaps for me. It would be silly of me not to learn from their experiences as I hope others can learn from mine. I feel that I would become stagnate if I didn’t allow myself to dip into the creative pool of others and be influenced.
- BoBo
Man, I have to disagree with you there. I hate Rob Liefeld and Greg Land so much that I want my art to look absolutley nothing like there's. Therefore, I try to study anatomy as much as I can, I don't allow myself to hide scene components I can't draw (like feet), and I don't trace porn actors.
Joking aside, negative influences do count. They can contribute just as much to who we are as positive influence.
I like BoBo's analogy about dipping into the creative pool of others and allowing yourself to be influenced and inspired by their work. The line is crossed when you take a bucket along with your trunks down to the pool.
The people who bring a pale to the pool normally leave something else behind...
Any thoughts on that?
And I'd say 20% is pretty damn generous, depending on what it is.
The flipside to that might be... you make a model for a game. Later on that model has to be changed a bit and someone else does it. Is the model still yours to claim creatorship?
You can't. Similarly, imagine grabbing a model someone made and retexturing it completely. It's no longer the same character and a huge part of the visual aspect was made by you. How many percent of the outcome is yours? What if you take someone else's texture sheet and maps one of your characters or objects to match it? You made the model all by yourself. How many percent is that?
In a perfect world I'd decide that IF you know you've been influenced by another specific product, then you'll go out of your way to mention that and credit the creator of it. And no one would use any material that's not their own without permission. 'Course, that's never going to happen.
I think it's sad that it's so easy to just literally steal other people's work nowadays (I mean like copy and paste or tracing). This is just stealing, so I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that.
However, you can look at a lot of the great masters, like Peter Paul Rubens, and consider things like this (from his wikipedia article):
"There, he studied classical Greek and Roman art and copied works of the Italian masters."
I don't think you are a bad artist even if you are directly copying someone else's work, but know that that's what you're doing and you're doing it to learn.
All I can think of is that the big stink is coming from, as I see it, Blaizer saying that he's more creative than a lot of people because he is "drawing from his imagination/nature" rather than using other people's ideas. Which is his point of view, but clearly we don't all agree that creativity is bound to what you do with forms not informed by man-made creations.
I think we're also delving into strange territory because we should make the distinction that Video Games are primarily Commercial Art; many of us are trying to get jobs in the industry or already are in the industry and enjoy seeing what we can come up with that would still make sense in the context of a game. Sure I have crazy spirally dreams and whatnot, and I make paintings of stuff like that sometimes, but this community is primarily focused on the commercial art of creating video games that people can connect with, and to that extent I think what Blaizer was saying about "games copying reality" makes sense; we are often trying to copy reality in game art.
Blaizer: I don't want to bash on you, because I would say you are a better artist than I am, but I think for virtually every piece on your site I can see either a purposeful or indirect influence from other artists that were most likely before you. So I'm not trying to attack you, but it's hard to stay impartial when you're basically saying virtually every artist isn't creative, and yet I don't see anything you've made that's reflective of that mentality.
I think I was trying to head somewhere with all this, but I'm tired and hopefully some of it makes sense :P
EDIT: In RE to the 20% thing, that's kinda what I'm driving at; if you're making a road texture, we're doing commercial art, so who cares if you get a road texture (as long as you either have the rights to it or credit the owner), if it looks right in game I don't think you should have to hand-draw every pixel of a 2048 Gears of War-style road from your mind because that's the "creative" thing to do.
Now stop trying to change the topic. This thread was interesting/entertaining to follow up until this point :poly124:
You never owned it, the company owns it. Unless you're a modder of course.
Particularly in the context of making art for a game company, I mean how is this different than if a graphic designer comes up with a really slick layout for a magazine, then goes on to another magazine; the previous magazine can keep that layout, and probably a new designer will come along and change it some. The guy that came up with it was creative, but maybe the next guy made it even better. Does that make one of them better than the other?
hobodactyl, i don't say that man, you have misunderstood what i said. I'm not more creative than a lot of people, that's a bad conclusion.
What i've been saying is what an artist is more creative if he/she uses IMAGINATION and if he/she don't copy/steal/borrow. That's all, and it's a simple opinion that should not offend anyone.
Stealing a tv IS different than robbing a bank. There are degrees here, and people perceive the degrees differently. Is this perception a result of self-justification? Perhaps sometimes but not always- and in the most important ways, not at all. The people that make exceptions for their behavior generally are found out and their opinions will not hold up. But anyway...
How do I feel about stealing? I give away for free practically everything I can, even if it costs me time and money to do so. There'd be less stealing if people gave more away or cared about it less (see? It is relative. If people don't care about stealing, who will care about stealing?). How many of us upload our personal projects, models, animations, etc., for use by others? Well, why not? What good is it on your HDD, sitting there. Wouldn't you be happier if someone took it and made something cool with it, if it helped someone along as a game developer?
It is safer to ask for credit, especially when you are almost sure it will be given. But if you ask, and it is denied, you shouldn't use it. If you use it without permission and get called on it, your chance is probably worse that you will be allowed to use it than if you asked, but you may not be caught. So it is a tradeoff- stealing is a gamble and only do it if you are aware of the risks.
It used to really irk me as he was quite a good artist but that was just laziness or perhaps he just enjoyed trying to wind up people and 'get away with it' as he saw it.
He really crossed the line I feel, because his intent was to steal.
BUT he was probably doing what most magazine editors do, ie stealing ideas from the competition, but not perhaps so blatantly
I think its all about intent - we are all influenced by other peoples work , myself included, but I
would like to think that I have a different take on a given subject, even if its a subtle
difference.
I think we all know instinctively when the line has been crossed re plagiarism and TBH a little common sense goes a long way.
"Those who are influenced by other artists do not have style"
really is utter bullshit.
So Frazetta has no style huh? However if you look carefully he definitely learned alot from Bridgman. Yet you can't deny that F has is very own vibe.
One shall keep in mind that there is *growing as an artist* one one hand and *making an art piece* on the other hand .Two different processes.
Of course one needs to rely on imagination to reach a thing of his own - no point of doing art if there is no inner drive.
However to grow as an artist you ALSO need to study. That does not mean that the final piece needs to be a straight copy of whatever michelangelo biceps or cool looking hand. It's just that art studies is a tool to understand things you would miss otherwise. Like how shapes merge in and out, aso. That way next time you make a hand, you remember how it works.
Like when you went to school. Do you think you would be able to do basic maths if no one showed you the tools? Same goes for language. Some guys centuries ago decided to take babies away from their moms in order to prove that human beings would naturally speak latin if let on their own. IIRC the guinea pigs babies diedm, or something.
I would say, be careful with your statements. I know you are expressing something personnal but it turns out to be very offensive.
Also I could take your art as a counter example. I like your monsters, but I noticed a few times that artists commented on them by saying 'hey didnt you do the same model already?'
That doesn't mean those are bad models - it just means you need to expand your area of studies to express yourself even better when crafting cool monsters. I know I suffer from similar problems in many areas - be it anatomy, facial rendering, aso. Yet, being aware of such mistakes is what makes the artist's journey so fascinating to me. There is always room for improvement, better skills to learn, other craftmen to look up to. So one is never really stuck. EXCEPT... if one does the same thing over again from imagination.
I agree with Ruz - commonsense goes a long way. It's too bad that some guys copycat other pictures from the internet. They don't know all the great satisfying lerning challenges they are missing by doing so. Too bad for them.
Being a Navajo native living in pre-Columbus north America, I have no concept of ownership and property.
painting by numbers you mean?
well, repetition is the base of all learning. A man may copy artworks for 50 years and one day make his own piece, that surpasses all that came before him. You cannot deny him the chance to do that, and by no means does it make him uncreative.
If we cut the chaff from this thread, I think we all agree that passing someone else's work off as your own is disgraceful. But inspiration is a total gray area.
I'm in the camp that says: "Its fine to be inspired by other artists, even steal ideas from them. This is how I evolve as an artist". (designer in my case
I hope that was a joke, but if not, thank you for proving my point. In comic book world, superheroes can put the entire universe and spectrum of human experience and morality into badass oneliners, but in the real world, there are infinite shades of gray and difference of experience and opinions and morals.
If one were to try and argue that stealing a dollar were as bad or worse than stealing a million, I'm sure they'd have no problem maintaining philosophical integrity, but would have a hell of a hard time making anything practical out of it.
Here, the people was talking about to get inspired/influenced/borrow/copy... too many terms with similar meanings. All very gray
It may sounds like bullshit, but it's not something so terrible, because when you get inspired by someone's work, and specially from an artwork, essentially, you copy something from it because you like it. That's why i prefer to take inspiration from nature. what do you say when a person have the same or similar style as another person? (same style does not mean they are not creative)
For example, those artists:
Kawarahima Koh & Satoshi Urushihara <--- Same style
Misato Mitsumi & Tatsuki Amaduyu & Nakamura Takeshi <--- Same Style
Could you say me who's the teacher and the pupil? who knows... who copied? the same... who knows.
I really don't know who is frazetta, and like you can see, i only know japanese artists. Time to google him
I'm making style
I'm not stucked as you may think. I'm not offended if someone says me what you pointed, as a hobbyst, i mainly do what i like the most and that's what really matters for me. I'm not so susceptible. Of course, that's not reason to be stucked in other areas because i don't touch them.
With the ability "to cook" i mean that taking parts from different sources from real world (nature), you can imaginate and create something new. for example, mixing a crocodile with a hornet and having humanish proportions. It may result ridiculous if is "cooked" bad and with bad ingredients too (like the greek method of mixing).
LOL principles, he's a hero, isn't he?
No two artists have the exact same style.
Don't bother bringing up examples, I won't change my mind
So using the example of the 'alien' shown on pg2, the BAD isn't overtly bad unless the artist intentionally never made mention of the source of his version, where he drew his idea from.
We all know it's impossible to design/think in a vacuum so it's really just a question of being honest about the ideas you have, no one really looks down others using work for the further expansion of ideas or thoughts - as was mentioned already, the 'bad' just looks like a different species on the same planet - it becomes bad when it's fobbed off as being 'original' when there's clear reference to something else without mention being made of that fact.
Yeah, and the "woman" he's talking to is the Devil in disguise trying to tempt him, srsly.
No, I wasn't joking, 420. This comic was the first thing that sprang to my mind after the first part of your post. I first read this comic probably 15 years ago and that panel always stuck with me. Maybe it's not realistic to bring comic book morals into a real world discussion, but the morals espoused within helped to form my outlook on bending/breaking the rules.
What it says to me is it's worse to steal one dollar because it's pointless in the fact that what good is a dollar going to do you? You've lost just as much integrity in the action as stealing lots of money. It says don't sell yourself out for a fleeting moment.
Sure, stealing a tv and robbing a bank are different, but they're both stupid and they're both wrong. Apples and oranges are different but they're both fruit. You can argue schemantics all day long if you want.
Stealing is stealing. Maybe one draws the line between stealing from your friends and stealing from strangers. Maybe one draws the line between stealing from small and big business. Maybe one draws the line between stealing little things and stealing big things. Maybe someone just likes drawing lines that they step over, step around, or smudge.
employ some common sense whilst working and don't be an arsehole. Not a world beater
unfortunately, amongst the hand-wringing "tortured artist" brigade, common sense rarely applies. Well, you make your own problems, bollocks to you
i think he's referring to bill clinton in the middle
I have to say, though, the Daredevil argument, or the TV versus robbing a bank, really doesn't transfer well. Clearly if I went and stole the Mona Lisa that would be just as bad as if I went into your apartment and stole a painting you made (assuming you aren't famous). This implies I am taking the ownership of an ITEM from someone else, whereas we are generally saying "don't copy and paste and then push the pixels around!"
I have a book cover from some crappy old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure that I bought recently, and I realized it really reminded me of a picture I had seen in some "Learn-To-Draw!" book I bought a while back. I compared the two side by side, and it is VERY obvious the newer picture was made with the older as reference (it's some spikey lizard dude in a torn up robe in a particular pose, so it's pretty clearly "copied"). However, the new one is still entirely hand-painted, and has it's own changes and improvements, not like it's traced or anything. So did that artist steal the piece? I think they would have a hard time denying they weren't using the older piece as an almost direct reference, but it's still their own work.
COMMON SENSE PREVAILS!
In art class in high school we were taught the finer points of stealing art, not that it was encouraged but just as a cover your own ass, whoops you found out your accidentally without truly meaning to steal, something like a handy number of making sure there's 10 count em 10 obvious differences between your work and the artwork your offending.
I mean hell my first character that I consider "my own" is a school girl with a robotic arm and she blows stuff up, I am sure there's 15 different ones in manga, I haven't searched to see if I am copying anything cause I am 99 percent sure I am not.
I don't mean to steer the conversation elsewhere with that statement.
With that said, I think he brings up some really interesting thoughts and just merely thinking them, I think gives him an uperhand in creating art that is more untainted by other artists work.
I'm not saying if you simply believe you have your own style-that you magically will. But if you admit that you steal-and you constantly look at other peoples artwork to add elements to yours, then how can you every be completely satisfied with your work?
I guess it just comes down to this... We all have been influenced, whether we admit it or not, but developing your own style is something you do once you have gotten down the basics(that you learned from other artist hard work/viewing nature) and deviate in your own direction. I think there is just a point where you take off the training wheels and become more original.
Okay, i normally think that picking on peope for grammar is annoying and pointless, but that is abhorrent and hurts every time i read it.
http://www.answers.com/topic/daredevil
It's a word. That is his name, so, proper noun. Daredevil. 'Dare... Devil' makes no sense.
I personally believe that sooner or later, the imposter will be exposed whether through a keen random observer, or through the rigors of employment.
We've had several instances in design communities where someone rips code and other assets and a lot of the time doesn't even bother to try and cover it up.
But in the end, true talent is not in danger of any real significant damage from hacks.
I've seen ten different remakes of some of my maps, and only a few ever asked for permission. I always give permission, and in the end, I don't care about the others really. I did the original, and I can prove it to anyone it matters to.
Of course these people should be confronted and treated accordingly too. Don't get me wrong.
I see a heavy manga/anime/japanese game artist influence on most of Blaizers monsters, I didn't want to sound like a jerk before
I don't know if this a confusion born of different languages, influenced by doesn't mean you copy them. But maybe I'm totally wrong, Da Vinci was influenced by Verrocchio while Blaizer is only influenced by nature.
I agree whoever this peope guy is, he really needs to clean up his posts.
I'm all for letting your inner comic dork flag fly, but wow, you put on the shorts, the cape and the cowl. Meow!
Not cool.
I guess you were trying to be funny, but the concept of ownership is indeed something that people do not really understand and that has taken a radical turn for the worse in the last 100 years or so.
In fact Smith, who is often described as the founding father of capitalism, very correctly deduced that ownership and property arn't concepts of their own (as often though of in todays society), but inherently linked to usage.
In other words, you are only entitled to own something if you actually use it... or at least that is what logic would suggest and how the law would be if the world wasn't such a fucked up place.
I can only assume that those offended by the stealing analogy have once stolen themselves and feel badly about it. Even though it is from a comic book that Daredevil line is actually a good quotable; people may want to say that stealing a dollar (or a candy bar, or anything else of "little value") is "not that bad", but you're violating your principals (assuming you have any) for something that you should have no reason to be unable to acquire legitimately. If that's not pathetic I don't know what is.