When artists swipe...

[Nexus]

Photo reference is one thing, but I find outright swiping/tracing/"homages" to really lower my respect for both the artist and the art. Here is a recent thread on Newsarama on David Mack:

 

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=147491

 

Greg Land has long been the King of Swipes...looks like we have another contender for the throne. When I see this, the artist becomes less talented, less creative and just plain lazy in my eyes. I wouldn't want any art that I know was simply ripped off another creator. I mean, look at this:

 

http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=5208998&postcount=89

 

and this:

 

http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=5210373&postcount=97

 

And I'm only on page 4 out of 39! Anyone else feel this way?

 

Yet another reason why pretty art, on its own, has never been a priority in my collecting.

 

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

So So Sad.

 

Getting a Mack cover WAS on my list. But I can't rationalize to myself paying $XXXX for an "original" that is a direct copy/swipe/homage of anohter image.

 

I just pray an article like this doesn't surface regarding Dillon or Ormston

[*paull*]

To call it "swiping" is too kind.

 

I always said to myself that his faces never looked the same page to page. Now I know why!

[Mighty Hal]

Thanks for the post, Felix. I've been reading about this kind of thing for awhile now and I wondered how it strikes other collectors. I wasn't sure how to approach it -- and I'm glad that you did.

 

Like Mike, I've admired David Mack's work but the New Avengers cover (changed for publication) was really disheartening. And it really, really stinks.

 

 

[Mister Trent]

Al Williamson swiped from British artists Frank Hampson and Frank Bellamy.

 

I've seen lots of 'classic' Williamson strips where I've immediately recognised the original source material . . . things like DAN DARE (Hampson and Bellamy), HEROS THE SPARTAN and MONTGOMERY OF ALEMEIN (both Bellamy).

 

If I think on over the next day or two, I'll try to locate some examples to show everyone . . .

[buyatari]

to use a photograph for anotomy reference is one thing to trace the damn thing is something totally different

[Mac Man]

Wow... blatant plagiarism of an artistic form. I always liked the homage covers like Ron Frenz's tribute to AF 15 on his ASM 252 cover, but those examples are pretty sad.

[Mephisto]

My favorite is the one swiped from the Durex Ad.

[maloney414]

Copying from another artist is bad, when it's clear they copied.

 

But I don't mind if they draw from a photograph or use a model. Alex Ross has said he has people dress up in costumes and then he takes pictures and draws from them. He's still one of my favorite artists.

[Mighty Hal]

If Mack is posing the models and taking the photos, you're right. It's within his right to do that. Norman Rockwell did the same thing, Rowena does it, Alex Ross does it, there are boatloads of artists that do that very thing.

 

However, as I understand this situation, Mack was using someone else's photos to create his covers. That ain't right. It's a violation of copyright law to steal someone else's images in order to "create" your own artwork.

[buyatari]

If Mack is posing the models and taking the photos, you're right. It's within his right to do that. Norman Rockwell did the same thing, Rowena does it, Alex Ross does it, there are boatloads of artists that do that very thing.

 

However, as I understand this situation, Mack was using someone else's photos to create his covers. That ain't right. It's a violation of copyright law to steal someone else's images in order to "create" your own artwork.

 

I don't think those other artists traced the pictures either.

[r1982rhoads]

A lot of Dave Dorman's cover art for star wars were direct photo swipes from the movie stills/or pictures. For the longest time I wanted one of his covers, but my respect for his ability as an artist has declined dramatically.

 

 

[Monkeyman]

I think we have to keep in mind that this is production art. These artists are getting paid to produce art which will be used to produce a comic book. They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors like a gallery painter. They work to deadlines and get as much as possible done to earn a living. Although we as OA collectors don't like tracing, the artists and publishers just want to sell magazines.

 

Mike

[grandz-migration]

I think we have to keep in mind that this is production art. These artists are getting paid to produce art which will be used to produce a comic book. They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors like a gallery painter. They work to deadlines and get as much as possible done to earn a living. Although we as OA collectors don't like tracing, the artists and publishers just want to sell magazines.

 

Mike

 

That is true.

There was a time that I would get angry seeing tracings, or blatant copying done

on a artist, but as I get older, and I realize that there are more important issues to address,

these things don't bother me anymore.

 

Unless someone gets hurt mentally, or physically, or in the pocket book, I just discount them

as pay-per-job opportunist who are not talented enough, and have limited imagination.

 

These people make Frank Frazetta and other artist' look that much better.

[artshow-migration]

As the spouse of an artist, I disagree.

 

One of the reasons the production deadlines have shortened over the years is because there are 'workers' who choose to use this strategy to complete their work. They accept jobs, complete the work faster and for less money which also cheapens the rates that are offered to the entire artist community. If its continued to be recognized as acceptable-- eventually this is the only type of work you will see.

There are plenty of true artists who have worked through the years diligently to complete work that is creative and for which they can rightfully call their own. They did their jobs in the time that was permitted and received deserved recognition for what they did.

 

They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors...

 

If you are a collector posting here, you are contradicting yourself about the quality of expectation among the work. You set the bar folks... If you don't buy, it doesn't sell, either in the original art form, or in the published book form.

[mister_not_so_nice]

I think we have to keep in mind that this is production art. These artists are getting paid to produce art which will be used to produce a comic book. They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors like a gallery painter. They work to deadlines and get as much as possible done to earn a living. Although we as OA collectors don't like tracing, the artists and publishers just want to sell magazines.

 

Mike

 

Than quit asking $1500+ for a gallery like "painting" and sell me that cheap production by-product for $50. It is just quickly made, soulless production art afterall

[Monkeyman]

I think we have to keep in mind that this is production art. These artists are getting paid to produce art which will be used to produce a comic book. They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors like a gallery painter. They work to deadlines and get as much as possible done to earn a living. Although we as OA collectors don't like tracing, the artists and publishers just want to sell magazines.

 

Mike

 

Than quit asking $1500+ for a gallery like "painting" and sell me that cheap production by-product for $50. It is just quickly made, soulless production art afterall

 

It's only $1,500 because someone is willing to pay it. I wish that someone would sell me their useless pile of newsprint and ink with Detective 27 written on the front for $50.

 

Mike

[Monkeyman]

As the spouse of an artist, I disagree.

 

One of the reasons the production deadlines have shortened over the years is because there are 'workers' who choose to use this strategy to complete their work. They accept jobs, complete the work faster and for less money which also cheapens the rates that are offered to the entire artist community. If its continued to be recognized as acceptable-- eventually this is the only type of work you will see.

There are plenty of true artists who have worked through the years diligently to complete work that is creative and for which they can rightfully call their own. They did their jobs in the time that was permitted and received deserved recognition for what they did.

 

They aren't producing art to be sold to collectors...

 

If you are a collector posting here, you are contradicting yourself about the quality of expectation among the work. You set the bar folks... If you don't buy, it doesn't sell, either in the original art form, or in the published book form.

 

If an artist expects to make their money selling the art after it is published, then they should produce original pieces. If the are making their money being paid by the publisher then what do they care. The problem is that collectors will pay up even for traced pieces, so where is the incentive? The artist can produce stuff quickly and efficiently, get paid by the publisher AND sell for big prices.

 

Mike

[Mighty Hal]

The photo-swipe artwork always looks stiff to me.

 

A great comic cover or page almost seems to have an energy about it. I'm thinking of Kirby's best...or Colan's...or Adams' (either one of 'em)...or -- well, you know the roster. I love that stuff.

 

But a model that's been etch-a-sketched onto a cover always seems lifeless.

[CAP Freak]

Just noticed this one: