Stuff about Art: Reference Pictures

[krisomniac]

I use refence pictures, and every time I do, I feel it raises heaps of moral questions about the nature of art and of imitation.


This is a topic that I'm very curious about.

Reference Pictures.

Not all of us have a three dimensionally accurate and unbiased imagination. If left to our own devices, most people draw their figures too skinny, the eyes too big, the angles of shoulders, hips, and spines inconsistently. If you have the luxury, a model helps you to see the propotions and perspectives that might otherwise me distorted in your rendering. What? You don't have your own personal nude models ready to pose for you at any hour of the night?

For those of us who aren't quite so lucky, some god invented the camera. He was one-upped by the god who invented internet image databases. She was outdone by the maker of the first digital camera.

The point is that there are countless references for the amatuer (I can't speak for professionals, never having done anything like that) artist to use when composing his or her figures. My question is this: how should one use and/or credit these references?

In science, as I work, you are expected to credit people for giving you any information less universally known that the chemical formula for water. In the fandom, in my artwork, I rarely credit the photographer (myself, often enough) whose images I review to better understand the orientation of an elbow relative to the shoulder of a man turned three-quarters from the camera. At what point is the art my own? Is it mine if I use a similar composition to one I saw somewhere else? Is it mine if I measure the proportions from a photograph? If I use the same curve of a back? study the shadows of a face? Does it matter whether I took the photograph or used one from someone else? How does copying a photograph differ from copying nature? What about the fanart portraits that clearly have the face of a real life celebrity? Do you credit a photomanip? Is that your own art ir a collaboration?

If I took the same liberties in writing papers that most people (myself included) take in fanart, I would have been kicked out of school years ago. I'm a little uncomfortable with this. I usually state when I've used refence photos from Getty, but there are some I downloaded into my banks so long ago that I couldn't hope to place them if I tried. I try to tell myself that the very nature of representative fan art (as opposed to absrtact) is some fusion of imagination and imitation. I imitate life, whether from my mind's eye, or my camera lens. I'm still uneasy, and so I'd love to know how everyone else out there feels about the use of reference images, how they use them in their own art, and how they see them used in the fandom.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and send this to any artists out there (I'm not crossposting to any art comms, but I suppose I could)

--

In other totally unrelated news, I'm kind of sad that my R/S artwork this weekend didn't get picked for the hp_art_daily. I know that it's not personal. It just didn't make the cut, and my confidence surely shouldn't be influenced by the oppinions of total strangers. But there's no accounting for feelings.

Comments

[nassima.livejournal.com]

For the hp_art_daily, are you sure? The artwork you did for me? I thought I had seen it... But maybe it was in the R/S newsletter. Anyway, it certainly deserved to figure in both. Maybe the one compiling the recs didn't see yours? It happens, especially when the place from where you're hotlinking has a glitch (photobucket does that, sometimes...)


You know, I've been wanting to make a post about references for a long time! But as all the meta things that pass through my brain, I never did. So I'm very glad you posted this!

I see different ways to use references.

The first is directly copying a picture of say, two men, poses and faces and clothes, labelling them Sirius and Remus, and posting them. If the original isn't specifically listed as copyright free, it's a copyright infringement -which isn't, for me, a problem of money, but a problem of moral ownership. There are ways to appreciate such a copy, though, and it's a great way to learn. So in my mind, anyone doing this should post the reference to the original, so that the copy can get admired for its real qualities, that are ability to perceive shapes in 2D and render them accordingly, and mastering of the medium used. If there are some variations from the original, this can be sometimes very enjoyable, such as adding symbols/character traits, so that anonymous characters in the original become clearly identifiable in the copy.

I've done such copies and always precised what was my original source (such as the pencil head of Bowie that's in my LJ). I felt that I learned a lot in terms of where the shading should be and how to make proper nostrils! And it was interesting to see that I was able to copy a photo in pencil and make a realistic enough copy. But neither young Bowie's beauty nor the angle and pose are mine. And it's so much easier than drawing from life! I had much more troubles trying to portrait Franck (while he was asleep, happily), and it took me much more time for a very average result.


Then, there's an artwork that gets heavily inspired by an original: the pose is recycled, or the settings, or the faces... But the composition is original, or the settings have changed. Then all depends on the degree of originality! And the degree of randomness of the elements taken from the reference. Clouds can't be copyrighted, but if an artist can identify their precise rendering of one cloud in the work of another, then comes the arguing... I know that it's what gets discussed by lawyers, because inspiration isn't illegal, while copy is. The only thing I directly copied in my fandom artwork is when I had to draw Sirius' bike (twice) because any bike that I invented or drew from memory wouldn't have looked like a real one. I changed the angle, though, which required a lot of technical explanations so that I could be sure of what bike parts would show... But as it's a random bike of the brand, and not from a particular photo, I don't think it qualifies as copyright infringement.

(continued below because I'm blabbering, as always)

[nassima.livejournal.com]

*doesn't shut up*

Then, there's the third way to use references: as a technical help. That's what I prefer doing, and I think that any artwork that aims to feel real should use references. Ideally, first comes the sketching of the original idea, without external help, then the gathering of a lot of pictures of settings, anatomy, patterns, textures, whatever... And then the final painting/drawing, using what was learned with these references. In such artworks, the composition, characters, settings are original, and no one could see the any particular relation between one reference and the final piece.

For example, I looked at a lot of photos of the ocean and of rocky coastlines before colouring the Azkaban pic. I didn't copy any of them, but they helped me getting the wave patterns, the texture of foam and the colours right. I also looked at paintings of the ocean and sky, to try and understand the technique. Sometimes, I realised that though I understood how it was done, it definitely was too advanced for me... Likewise, I looked at a lot of military architecture from the 17th-18th century before making the final version of the fortress, but the Azkaban fortress with its different towers and the round wall is completely mine. I needed to see how the mood for such building was set -in the thickness and angle of the walls, in the heavy towers with their slate roof, in the way the windows are so scarce...

Before I made the Sirius in a cave pic, I actually did resarch on the geology of Scotland, to be sure that limestone cave are believable there. I looked at examples of scottish caves, but the particular cave that I drew completely came of my imagination.

For anatomy, I don't like to copy poses (though I really should do some copies for kisses, because I'm so bad at imagining them! -where are the noses?). But I need a lot of technical references, especially for the parts of the body with which I don't feel at ease. For a lot of them, I look at my own body in a mirror. It works for shoulders (I have wide shoulders), necks (more or less - I've realised that my necks look to feminine, and I'm currently trying to amend that), and even abs (yes! I have apparent abs...) but certainly not for hips. So I've an enormous problem with drawing men's hips, and also the sides of the ribcage. So I'm gathering various photos from online, which help me understand the articulations, bones and muscles, and how they work. And there are other sources! I dug out of the basement a book about massage that is very useful. And Masters from the Renaissance and more, from the Baroque, painted wonderful nudes. Caravaggio, especially, makes gorgeous, wonderfully detailed portraits of nude men. But I never copied directly a Caravaggio! Maybe I should. It would be fun transferring his Jesus Christ in the fandom...


And finally, you know that my illustration god is John Howe. And he says, more or less, that the more fantasy a story is, the more real looking the drawing shoud be. Magic works when we can measure it by our own standards! So an alien vegetation should have familiar elements that make us feel the strangeness even more. And people should have clothes we can relate to our own, that refer to things we know (celtic, medieval, classic...). And more than everything, it must look like it could work: armours that articulate properly, swords that look like the hero could lift them, wings that could fly. And for all of this, how do do it if not by researching and using references?

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

I totally agree, about the technical reference. I think that's what I meant by "reference"

Certainly I gather from as many sources as possible, so that I do not take too much from any one. But still...

I'm also extremely impressed by the ammount of research you do. I think the only time I went into such detail was to draw the pups on the scottish coast (which I had to look at many images of before I got a feel for the rocky coastline)

Mmmm. Caravaggio is brilliant. And I think you can learn SO much from copying art. That's why I do it on my own. I practice the proportion and angle from photographic reality, and inevitably design my own lines around it. By the time I'm done with a piece it FEELS so much like mine that it's hard to remember how many other images helped me to get it to that point. Then I feel guilty for wanting to take the credit. You know what I mean?

I just feel that the lines get especially blurred in fandom, and I need to ground myself sometimes. Thank you for your input. It actually helped to make my quandary much clearer.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

I think it largely depends on what your reference is, and how you compose the picture.

I actually have a book of photo references, because let's face it- I'm not getting a model any time soon! Those photo references tend to just be people against a plain backdrop in whatever situation. And in that case, I definitely don't think there's any academic dishonesty there- those books are made for that sort of thing- so people without 3-D minds and without access to models can have some sort of reference.

On the other hand, I tend to really go outside the reference there. I use those pictures for understanding how the body works- but not for the face, the setting, the clothing (especially since they're usually naked)...

If I tried to faithfully copy something, or nicked something that was truly unique, then I would feel differently, and yes, I'd cite my source. But a lot of where I'm coming from, I never really worry about it.

Or heck. Right now, my current art project is drawing from references because I don't know what animals always look like. Naturally, I can't get a giraffe to come pose for me. :) So I have to use photographs. (Granted, I'm not distributing it, and I'll just share the photos of the finished project with certain people, but still!) But yeah- no qualms of conscience from me!

Not nearly as intelligent a post as nassima's, but I guess it just isn't something I think about as much, either!

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

No I agree. Although sometimes I think that I DO borrow too heavily from a source image that is *exactly* what I wanted to show. No matter how much I change it and draw my own lines, scenes, faces, hands, props, I still see someone else's work in something I really really want to call my own -- even when I cite. (which I do pretty poorly around here)

I dunno. Good luck with the giraffes. What's it for? And if you ever want pictures, I took TONS for a pic I was working on for ignipes of giraffe heads, feel, and movement.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

I definitely know what you mean... I just don't know what the solution to your ethical dilemma is! :)

As for the giraffes, it's for Toby's room. We're painting an African savannah type thing on the walls. The corner has a wild syringa tree, and then so far I know for sure there's a giraffe, a hornbill, and some other type of bird that I forget what it is but finished the sketch of already. I know there will be a zebra, and probably some elephants in the distance, and if I have room a cat of some sort (maybe a lion, or maybe a tiger even though that's not remotely geographically accurate, just because tigers are cool and are brightly colored). I've done some of the sketches for it so far and it's coming out really, really cute. Finished the giraffe, though!