HOW DO ARTISTS CHEAT?
I find it disturbing sometimes when I think about all the ways that artists can "cheat." The simplist way, is to use a photograph, play with it on the computer, then claim you did a painting or drawing. I've also read about ways artists have traced over projections of photos, and other techniques that just don't take the same talent as free-hand work. I think the best way to show your abilities is to do it all without a computer, and to use photos only as something to look over at as a reference. However, the software is available, and your competition can use it with nobody knowing about it. How do you compete these days without digital tricks? I am open-minded and just thought this would be an interesting topic for discussion. What is cheating, and what isn't?
Ashok Nayak
http://www.ashokartgallery.com
Ashok Nayak
http://www.ashokartgallery.com
Tags: art, artist, artists, contemporary, practice
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cheryl Braganza on -
During the Renaissance, many artists used the grid-line system and had assistants to paint for them. They signed the work and they became masterpieces in museums. No one questioned their methods. We must accept that technology has taken us forward in leaps and bounds and it is acceptable for artists to use what is at their disposal, as long as we do not "copy" someone else's work and sell it as our own. In China right now, there are warehouses of hundreds of artists, all copying one painting which is then sold across the world as "handpainted". In my opinion, that is not cheating, just very clever marketing.
-
Permalink Reply by Umesh U V on -
Many of the top-rated artists play around with photographs and claim it as their painting but is it not the buyer or collector who need to be intelligent and stay away from these paintings; however none have guts to say it in the open. If no body shows interest to these so called artworks; then the artists will change their perception and start taking painting more seriously and quality works will come upfront. This is my opinion! what say.....
Cheers to the artists who toil hard to get the best work without the use of technology.
Umesh U V
Art Consultant
http://affordindianart.com
-
Permalink Reply by Ashok Nayak on -
The feed-back on this topic has been very interesting! I think the main thing to remember is to disclose it if you are manipulating photographs, or using software that provides you with something similar. All of these approaches take talent, and a demonstration of your ability to use software creatively. My main message was targeted at intentional deception on the part of the artist. As long as a description of the tools is disclosed, anything goes. These days, the posibilities are unlimited.
Ashok Nayak
http://www.ashokartgallery.com
-
Permalink Reply by Umesh U V on
-
I beg to differ that demonstration of tech tools is creativity in the mainstream visual art world.
Those who are in the Advertisement Field (print & publishing) get exceptional mind-blowing results from manipulating images on the computer but do we care to buy them if they are sold as artworks in the galleries.
I fear none of the Government Art Colleges have computers and artists don't even know to switch them on leave alone to use them?
-
Permalink Reply by Ashok Nayak on
-
At the beginning, I asked the question:"What is cheating?" I can see from the posts that very talented work is produced with high-tech tools such as projectors and other tools. I'm just trying to nail down where deception is used. My conclusion is that an artist should try to showcase some talent with free-hand work, and to expand into the digital areas freely, but with some disclosure. However, it really boils down to what people like to look at and what they are willing to buy.
Thanks for all reply and i expect many more thought will come to this discussion.
http://www.ashokartgallery.com
-
Permalink Reply by Shanthi C on -
When I read David Hockney's Secret Knowledge some time ago, I felt let down. It took me some time to digest his theory that a number of Old Masters used devices like the Camera Obscura. I had always thought that the artists did a number of sketches and studies before doing a portrait or any painting. But then, a number of Renaissance artists designed their paintings and had their apprentices do the under painting. I am glad that now these paintings are attributed to the artists' studios rather than the individual artist. I love Vermeer's work and when I read about his use of the camera obscura, it did not diminish it as he used it very cleverly. I think if an artist acknowledges openly the technique used and that the strength of the art work lies in its design or concept, then it is not cheating. Personally, as an artist, I love the process of creating and compromising on it does not serve the purpose.
-
Permalink Reply by ANU BAKHSHI on -
I believe there are NO shortcuts. With integrity and sincere efforts...the results are far superior. Sooner or latter QUALITY of work shall win and this shall be clearly demonstrated.
-
Permalink Reply by andreas w gerdes on -
"cheating", happens in all areas of life +love. art was, is and will be part of this. good work and good faith make the difference in the long run. my believe is that passionate people do go the extra mile to make things happen and stand out with their being +doing, including their art work. ciao.
-
Permalink Reply by Awanti on -
The world of art is so vast and so wide open, that actually putting a finger on something and saying 'This' is cheating or wrong is quite impossible. Cheating, or copyright breaches are based on a certain percentage of difference between the original and the copy. These are quite tough to determine.
Digital art is a new technology within the world of art. Oil painting in its early days also had to prove itself like photography a bit later and like digital technology today. It is a tough decision, but made easier if the artists try to understand and master the technology so that they use digital media like another artist would use canvas and paint, or stone. The technology itself becomes a tool and then the art work that comes out of it is art work and not 'copy' or 'cheating' and whether one likes it or not is a personal decision. At least from what I have seen around there are very few artists who actually do that - use technology as a tool and not to 'transform' one complete art work into another - then again - both uses of technology are fine. Honesty about how an artist has created the work is important but honesty alone will not stand the test of time in an art history situation, not like an 'good' work of art can hold its own through decades if not more. That is what remains to be seen, how is digital art accepted or like the technology it uses, is it open to change and out-datedness?
-
Permalink Reply by Gayatri Manchanda on -
I think that will all the technology going around it is naive to think that only free hand work should have any value. No offence. It can come under the catagory of digital art, as distinct to painting in the traditional style, and can show it's own skill and creativity. I am all for it , but i myself paint in the usual way. Believe me, being able to use fancy technology does not neccessarily make a good artist.
-
Permalink Reply by Suhail on -
Technology is just a tool!
Teach a genuine artist, how to use computers and give him a graphics software to work in, he will definitely come up with something interesting. I know of people who are equally adept at working on sketchpad, canvas, watercolor paper and computer as well.
And let me tell you that computer doesnt do things for you like a magic wand. You have to work in it. Use your skills and senses. Had it been otherwise, all computer savvy people would have produced artworks.
And yes lets just mark it separately as Digital Art.
A true artist nevere gets threatened by anyone or anything. One's work speaks for itself.
And everyone who paints a canvas or sketches doesnt always produce good work,
One usually gets to see poor work in galleries. Once in a while there is a sparkling piece of work seen.
And digital art still is in infancy. And will never match the feel of a canvas or a watercolor. Different media for different purposes.
And dear Ashok, a fake doesnt need technology to cheat, he may do it on canvas as well by copying it.
Plagiarism is rampant and age old.
-
Permalink Reply by BIjay J. Anand on -
For me when I stand in front of a beautiful work of art it hypnotizes me. It takes my senses to a higher level of being and my spirit to another realm of consciousness.
How does it matter then whether it was made by a grid system, photoshopped or camera obscuraed? How does it matter if it was made on canvas or paper or linen or glass or acrylic or a cement wall.
And it certainly doesn't matter whether it was made by one hand that toiled on it for 5 years or by 50 "assistants" in 2 days.
What matters to me is the power of that work to galvanize me and root me to the ground like a 100 year old baobab.
What matters to me is the mind that could conjure up that concept, that genius who could then manifest that concept onto his chosen medium of expression and the power of that expression to take me to another world.
Then it might be a Gaitonde who sometimes looked at a blank canvas for months before his first application of color on it or it could be Takashi Murakami that has factories to "manufacture" his multimillion dollar art.
I salute that mind and put this genius on the highest pedestal possible.
© 2009 Created by IAN Editor
