Gil Elvgren Pin Ups with Photos of Models

[Monkeyman]

This is the second time I've come across this and thought others might be interested.

 

Mike

 

 

http://www.theloop.ca/style/trending/news/photo-gallery/-/p/6189/Unbelievable-photos-of-pin-up-girls/2309106

[J.Sid]

Funny that comic artists frequently get trashed for using photo reference, despite being under tighter deadlines.

[Bronty]

well.... its not precisely the same.

 

Swiping a pose from say a magazine cover photo isn't quite the same as what Elvgren was doing - hiring a live model, posing her in the precise way he wanted, and taking his own photos of her.

 

What he did isn't much different than using a live model for a sitting, particularly since no model could reasonably be expected to hold those cutesy Elvgren poses for any length of time, let alone long enough for him to paint it out.

 

I don't see an issue with an artist taking his own photographs, but swiping someone else's photographs I'm not a huge fan of. Perhaps it shouldn't matter. But for my money when I pay for something I'd like to know the artist had a little more creativity than to just redraw a found photograph.

 

I'd have much less problem (in fact, no problem) with an artist having 20 different photos in front of him for anatomical/clothing/lighting reference but drawing something new using the reference.... than an artist slavishly redrawing a found photograph to a "tee" the way some comic artists have been known to do.

 

There's creativity in the former, and creativity in what Elvgren did, but redrawing a found photograph for purposes of illustrating a comic book? The creativity is really compromised.

[delekkerste]

There was a book published last year, "Gil Elvgren's Private Stock", which published his stock of reference photos, including a ton of nudes.

 

My guess is that virtually all comic book artists use at least some photo references and/or models. If you say that Frazetta never did, you would be wrong, as there are photos of him painting using models. There's no shame in it, unless you're blatantly ripping off well-known images like certain artists out there.

[Aman619]

the elite illustrators ALL hired models... it was a generally accepted expense that the more lowly artists couldnt afford (publications wouldnt pay for it for everyone, as all reference materials came out of the artists' meager fees for the job).

 

The best artists (old school) always painted from life. It was a luxury they could afford.

 

[AtlasFan]

Alex Raymond, Al Williamson, Lou Fine - and a lot of other great artists all used poloroids for art references in the 50's - that was the age of the photo-realistic comic strip!

 

I think it would be very interesting to have an ongoing series of snapshot references books published - with a side-by-side of the final artwork where possible.

[mangbus]

Modern guys like Paolo Rivera use references often. It is just another tool available to him to ensure he continues to produce amazing art! He has a great post every Wednesday that he calls "Wacky Reference Wednesday."

 

Check out his blog > http://paolorivera.blogspot.com/

[Monkeyman]

I think that using models is pretty much standard for all artists. Certainly no different than painting a landscape while standing in front of it or from photos. The problem for me is when the art is traced from photos. I guess it shouldn't really matter how production art is created as long as it serves its purpose to tell a story or advertise a product, but tracing doesn't sit well from a collector's perspective.

 

Here is an example from Greg Land.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=232767

[Aman619]

I agree there's a difference between tracing from life and tracing right on an overlay. But in the end, seems non artists are bothered more by the methods artists utilize to paint realistically. After you trace the edges and eye placement etc, it still takes a lot of talent to finish the image!!

 

Nearly all representational art starts with something they are looking at, right? Very few artists can or even try to paint realistically from memory.

 

This discussion is similar to David Hockneys investigations into whether the Old Masters "cheated" by using lenses to capture realistic images.

[Mio]

Drawing skills are important in all art, but it is time consuming and (especially in painting) drawing is the least impactful. Drawing does not get much credit; but if there are errors, it is really distracting. Many just skip the step, despite being able to get to the same result with much more work.

 

Boris V / Julie Bell take their own photos and trace outlines and key points and work from those. This doesn't debase their art. Skill in composition and execution of painting is all we really see in their work.

 

Every pose possible has already been done by someone, and exists in a photo somewhere. The most you will ever do is have slightly different lighting or a slightly different body type. Using others' base photos is not such a crime. There is still creativity and difficulty in executing a painting/drawing from a photo, even where you directly copy some key points. A painter copying another painter's painting is less credible, though (but great for learning).

 

Old masters often used a camera obscura and relied heavily on assistants to take short cuts and get the drawing right (and assistants also did some of the under/over painting). This doesn't debase their work either.

 

Almost all artists work from life or photos. It is the best way to get the key points and outline right, quickly. There are some artists who do not use reference anything and use only memory/imagination; unfortunately, it usually shows.