The Poll you all Demanded! Boris! 0

[vodou]

42 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

...but if you start off with figures flexing on the ground and stick them up in the air, ....
 

Awesome Eric. I knew I had a big problem with this and other floating figures Boris but couldn't put it into words. Now I can't un-see the (unpainted) "floor" under their feet and knees. You read my (subconscious) mind!

And that is the problem with overly photo-referenced art. Perhaps there is only a discomfort coming from the subconscious, while the conscious is wowed! by the technical skill, but the wrongness cannot be completely ignored either, just overwhelmed.

[ESeffinga]

35 minutes ago, vodou said:

Awesome Eric. I knew I had a big problem with this and other floating figures Boris but couldn't put it into words. Now I can't un-see the (unpainted) "floor" under their feet and knees. You read my (subconscious) mind!

And that is the problem with overly photo-referenced art. Perhaps there is only a discomfort coming from the subconscious, while the conscious is wowed! by the technical skill, but the wrongness cannot be completely ignored either, just overwhelmed.

I also don't want to just pick on Boris. There are a number of fantasy artists that use poor photo reference. I think he was just the first I noticed it with when much younger. But many many do it. Mostly because it's hard to do well, and takes some effort. In some respects I'd relate it to something like the Uncanny Valley effect in a strictly visual sense. People know what is "right" innately. And they know when something is "off". Sometimes it's harder to see than others. The human body uses specific muscles to do specific things. So when someone draws their superheroes in full flex mode at all times, they come off as stiff, and "off". Where as when someone manages to imbue a drawing with casual gestures, and the little details that reveal naturalness of posture or the "truth" in a figure's movement, it may evade someone knowing why it looks right, but not be able to articulate exactly why.

And this is where good photo reference comes in. It'd impossible to get photo reference of say, a man fighting a dragon. But when someone takes the time to take photos of a model actually acting out the motions in a believable way, and then draws from a selection of that reference, they can imbue some life into those drawings that will come across as true, even if fudged in many aspects. The same with animals, cars, etc. And why so much made up mechanical stuff looks bad, and why we love work from guys that do fake or impossible machinery well, and make us believe.

But the thing is, without photo reference, sometimes those clues are missing. Lighting, what really happens when swinging a club or sword. And this is where it can be very instructive to the observant enough to pick up on them. Life drawing is also very important, but life drawing from real moving people, and not just just posed flesh and blood still-lifes, if you know what I mean.

Some super observant creators do well without photo reference, but a great many are truly enhanced by it. It's just a matter of knowing what to use, and what not to. You can actually see this in stock photography as well. The great material looks very casual, as if candids were taken of a real interaction or moment. The lousy stuff looks posed and full of artifice. You can tell when someone is acting out a motion or emotion, instead of experiencing it. Same difference with the reference pics.

But I digress...

 

By the by, I've heard over the years abut how Frank never used reference photos but I think sometimes the case is otherwise. And I do believe Doc Dave mentioned something about this before as well. Also I donn't think it a coincidence that Frank was into Photography. A great many artists are also photo savvy. It's a super instructional learning tool.

And Frank never let the real get in the way of a good image, as can be attested by such images as this doozy.

Ain't no way those arms are coming down past those horns, but hey, it looks cool, even being one of his scruffier pieces.

I remember there being a Fraz piece that sold on Heritage a few years back where the guy had waaaayyy to many ab muscles. Not anatomy at all, but again, it looked powerful and pretty darn cool.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by ESeffinga

[Bronty]

Great point about the horns.   Never liked the one with the extra ab muscles.    Its otherwise a great piece but that ruins it for me

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

 

 

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

 

By the by, I've heard over the years abut how Frank never used reference photos but I think sometimes the case is otherwise. And I do believe Doc Dave mentioned something about this before as well. Also I donn't think it a coincidence that Frank was into Photography. A great many artists are also photo savvy. It's a super instructional learning tool.

And Frank never let the real get in the way of a good image, as can be attested by such images as this doozy.

Ain't no way those arms are coming down past those horns, but hey, it looks cool, even being one of his scruffier pieces.

I remember there being a Fraz piece that sold on Heritage a few years back where the guy had waaaayyy to many ab muscles. Not anatomy at all, but again, it looked powerful and pretty darn cool

I was never a fan of that infamous 8-pack painting!  I've seen it in person many times and it just looks wrong every time. 

Frazetta absolutely used photo-reference. There are even photos of him using photos as reference!  I have no idea if he relied on it occasionally or regularly, but, those who perpetuate the myth of him "never" using photo-reference do not know what they are talking about.

Edited March 15, 2018 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

"correctly framed" = 

It's unbelievable how many poorly/ugly-framed pieces of art there are in our hobby.  Seeing comic art (including strip art and painted art) framed in those faux antique-looking gold frames like Old Masters is THE ABSOLUTE WORST.     

Not a big fan of that either

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

 

I was never a fan of that infamous 8-pack painting!  

10 pack!  Count em!

[ESeffinga]

Man I forgot how egregious they are.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, ESeffinga said:

Man I forgot how egregious they are.

And I never noticed till now. Wow. There's no un-seeing them. Another painting  now ruined for me.

[Bronty]

I happened across a google image of the art.    Seems like the original would look good.   Unfortunately not very high res

 

[F For Fake]

Been enjoying this meme series lately, saw this one on Twitter today and it struck close to home!

[BCarter27]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-BORIS-VALLEJO-PAINTING/323183166156?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649

Boris from 1988 hammered at $1800. Anybody here grab it? Or did it slip through your fingers?

Boris's market never goes soft, only a little flaccid.

Help me here... I'm running out of puns.

Seriously, well bought!

[vodou]

2 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-BORIS-VALLEJO-PAINTING/323183166156?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649

Boris from 1988 hammered at $1800.

...

Seriously, well bought!

I disagree. Not well bought.

Every work by a name artist has some basic signature appeal but...I'd rather go bigger for better or not at all than take this at $1825 (or even $500).

I hope the seller made money, but if not at least he's rid of it.