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 Suhail on -
So very true!
BIjay J. Anand said: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.
-
Permalink Reply by Aashu Maheshwari on -
I dont agree with the above...Who are we to decide what art is and how it should be looked upon.. Its a perception...Art is visual symphony.
-
Permalink Reply by BIjay J. Anand on -
I never told anyone how to look at art. I simply stated my viewpoint on ethical issues of an artist working hard to make a painting or getting a team of workers to execute his ideas.
Also I really don't understand what part you disagree with considering you say that art is visual symphony and I say the same using different words.
Aashu Maheshwari said:I dont agree with the above...Who are we to decide what art is and how it should be looked upon.. Its a perception...Art is visual symphony.
-
Permalink Reply by Aashu Maheshwari on
-
Bijay - I was refering to the Question raised by Ashok.
As this was my first comment on the blog..i assume i had added you on reply with mistake.
-
Permalink Reply by Ashok Nayak on -
Sorry friends, the question was not that, it was meant for a open discussion on how artist use tools and is it necessary to disclose process of art making honestly or if not, is it a cheating or what?, see a most talented figurative artist will surprise you many more times with his/her skill , but there is no surprise if a hoarding artist do the same with the help of tool PROJECTOR...isn't it so?? There are number of modern days tools artists using now a days, some are putting those works in experimental art category, will you say me what a collector will do if the materials used to create that art work couldn't last long??
-
Permalink Reply by anjum siddiqui on -
There are many artists who are unable to draw. That is a fact. But at the same time you cant deny that they have an artistic bent of mind. I feel using a photograph and working with on it on the computer is creative enough. But should be mentioned. That is where the artists integrity comes in play.
There is no harm in using the computer and technology. This day and age its no big deal to do realistic work. In the 18th Century perhaps it was an amazing feat, when we had no cameras. And to see life-like images, which the artist created was no short than miracle. Nowadays its no big deal. We are aware of the many techniques available. Even using a photograph as a reference, makes it so much easier than it was in those times. Same goes for traced over projections. By using the different tech tools available, the artist merely saves time and needless labour in trying to get the right shine on the object or the correct texture of the cloth.
Like any other field, computer and technology gives us multiple options with just a click. Especially so in the advertising world, gone are the days when artist would painstakingly labour over copy and retouching artwork by hand.
And so, a painter does the same. But its his discerning eye which makes the painting. Its his mind telling the computer what to do. Or choosing that single colour from a million colour pallete. That is what real creation is.
I feel the point to be noted is that is that composition any good? Is that piece of art really creative? is it just a neat looking painting of a 'bowl of fruits' or has the artist really added something of a value to it? The means and method is secondary. The end result is what is important.
-
Permalink Reply by Suhail on
-
But Anjum, it is a sin if an artist isn't able to draw. It is the basic thing, the fundamental requirement. And yes i have seen such people who call tehmselves as artists and can't draw a line. And sorry, that lack of this basic skill shows in their paintings as well.
anjum siddiqui said:There are many artists who are unable to draw. That is a fact. But at the same time you cant deny that they have an artistic bent of mind. I feel using a photograph and working with on it on the computer is creative enough. But should be mentioned. That is where the artists integrity comes in play.
There is no harm in using the computer and technology. This day and age its no big deal to do realistic work. In the 18th Century perhaps it was an amazing feat, when we had no cameras. And to see life-like images, which the artist created was no short than miracle. Nowadays its no big deal. We are aware of the many techniques available. Even using a photograph as a reference, makes it so much easier than it was in those times. Same goes for traced over projections. By using the different tech tools available, the artist merely saves time and needless labour in trying to get the right shine on the object or the correct texture of the cloth.
Like any other field, computer and technology gives us multiple options with just a click. Especially so in the advertising world, gone are the days when artist would painstakingly labour over copy and retouching artwork by hand.
And so, a painter does the same. But its his discerning eye which makes the painting. Its his mind telling the computer what to do. Or choosing that single colour from a million colour pallete. That is what real creation is.
I feel the point to be noted is that is that composition any good? Is that piece of art really creative? is it just a neat looking painting of a 'bowl of fruits' or has the artist really added something of a value to it? The means and method is secondary. The end result is what is important.
-
Permalink Reply by Rajendra on -
Sorry, Mr Ashok, what you say cheating is not at all a cheating., you say artists use computers or other gagets and instead artwork should have been free hand drawing or paintings. Both are seperate issues; Artists laways mentions medium, whether it is oil, acrylic, water colour , pastel or digital print., it is up to buyer/collector to select what he wants,digital print or handmade painting. where is the question of cheating?
-
Permalink Reply by anjum siddiqui on
-
As a purist, you are right. The lack of basic drawing skills reflects in the works too. But this tech-happy computer age has given birth to new kind of artist. And this can be anyone and everyone. Skilled or unskilled. Its a pity, yes, but that is how it is.
Suhail said:But Anjum, it is a sin if an artist isn't able to draw. It is the basic thing, the fundamental requirement. And yes i have seen such people who call tehmselves as artists and can't draw a line. And sorry, that lack of this basic skill shows in their paintings as well.
anjum siddiqui said:There are many artists who are unable to draw. That is a fact. But at the same time you cant deny that they have an artistic bent of mind. I feel using a photograph and working with on it on the computer is creative enough. But should be mentioned. That is where the artists integrity comes in play.
There is no harm in using the computer and technology. This day and age its no big deal to do realistic work. In the 18th Century perhaps it was an amazing feat, when we had no cameras. And to see life-like images, which the artist created was no short than miracle. Nowadays its no big deal. We are aware of the many techniques available. Even using a photograph as a reference, makes it so much easier than it was in those times. Same goes for traced over projections. By using the different tech tools available, the artist merely saves time and needless labour in trying to get the right shine on the object or the correct texture of the cloth.
Like any other field, computer and technology gives us multiple options with just a click. Especially so in the advertising world, gone are the days when artist would painstakingly labour over copy and retouching artwork by hand.
And so, a painter does the same. But its his discerning eye which makes the painting. Its his mind telling the computer what to do. Or choosing that single colour from a million colour pallete. That is what real creation is.
I feel the point to be noted is that is that composition any good? Is that piece of art really creative? is it just a neat looking painting of a 'bowl of fruits' or has the artist really added something of a value to it? The means and method is secondary. The end result is what is important.
-
Permalink Reply by Pratibha on -
An artist is an artist in the way he breaths, in the way he lives and in the way he thinks..if any one is pretending to be an artist..he is only cheating himself.. art is real..like life is real..and the medium be it computer or clay it does'nt matter..so do'nt be disturbed..You have to be honest while looking at a piece of art..did it change your life or you are just pretending that it did..
-
Permalink Reply by Sharmistha Dutta on -
Dear Suhail,
Kudos for taking on this hot topic! And you have trully given a fitting reply.
I think you can't call anything 'cheating.' It is such a kiddish term.
Art, (whether its films, painting, poetry or story telling) always imitates life.
One should be clear about what is one refering to, digital art or painting, they are two seperate mediums and arts.
Digital art is supposed to be digitally created.
In painting, You can take the 'help' of technology to create your own art and its always one's own interpretation.
It would be foolhardy to not take advantage of technology like photography, lighting, camera, studio, photoshop etc, to better one's work. That is the sole reason that they have been created. Not to be ignored.
Also a painting or any art is made of two things, the idea and the execution. I am sure in a painting the computer doesn't do the execution for u!
I would like to add here that it doesn't matter whether you reveal your use of tools or not. It would not make anybody a good and bad artist :) Its one's trade secret, good if u reveal, better if you don't.
And I agree with Shanti Chandra Shekhar here. A lot of very well known Renaissance artists like Vermeer and others used to set up their studios for days on ends to get the perfect lighting, mood and postures of their models. A lot of books have been written on this. These great artists created perfection in their 'own style.' Nothing wrong with that, ultimately they created masterpieces, which the future generations have admired.
But having said that I am a little wary of blatant copying, where an entire image is transferred from a source like a magazine and printing it on a canvas. The National Geography case is an eye opener here. Thank you Radhakrishnan ji for bringing it out in the open.
But even here, the artist has to finally do the painting and application of colours, which is actually tough! A lot of very well known artist these days are using this method to create art.
The bottom line is you can not and should not ignore technologies. Who knows what you might see in the future. Its best to learn it, accept it and move on.
(I know a lot of people are going to hate me for such blatant admission, but its okay :))))))
-
Permalink Reply by Ujwala on -
i think cheryl put it perfectly. use what suits you to make your art. let others use what suits them/is available to them. only do not copy anothers work and pass it off as your own. I draw and paint because I enjoy it projecting images or gridding doesnt appeal to me. That doesnt mean that I think another artist using it is cheating. It's just something that I currently do not use. I'd like to add one more thing as a buyer when I look at a painting or drawing hanging in the gallery I'm looking for what appeals to me and not dwelling on how the artist got there.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2010 Created by IAN Editor
