Do you have any marketable skills that will pay the rent?, in my opinion you are not an “artist”, I know that the prospect of staying home and creating computer “art” for a living is a powerful draw but something is missing here. I am not an artist so I must leave the house regularly and go to work, it sucks but life sucks sometimes.
Take my (free) advice, grow up and get a job.
Unclviny
No, you’re not getting it. It’s the “right of publicity”:
The right of publicity is generally defined as an individual’s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona. Protecting the individual from the loss of commercial value resulting from the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes is the principle purpose of this body of law.
So your simple-minded “they’re sluts so they deserve it” argument aside, they are both famous, and as such have a right to control how their persona is used. If Britney wants to appear nude in a bondage picture, she has the right to do so, and would probably command a very large sum of money for it. But some asshole computer-nerd does not have the right, morally or legally, to profit from such an image without Britney’s permission.
And Evil Captor, how many people would it take, all telling you that the excrement you are calling “art” is illegal, immoral, and devoid of any worthwhile content whatsoever, before it actually sinks into that thick skull of yours? You are not an artist, you are an immature person making cut & paste masturbatory pictures. Everyone is telling you so. You need to shut the fuck up and deal with it.
OK, it just seemed to me that the lighting on Christina’s head didn’t match the lighting on Christina’s body. There was a rim light on the right side of her head that wasn’t present in her body, but that could easily be done in the studio with barndoors or a snoot.
The reason I’m harping on about the lighting is because I’m articulating and explaining what it is exactly that looks “off” about the montage. Like I said, most people don’t know that’s what makes this montage look weird, but since I’m a photographer by profession, I’m able to pinpoint the nuances that separate a good Photoshop job from a bad one. Most people are able to look at an image and say, “Hmm…something about that doesn’t look right.” And I’m telling you what it is. And I totally disagree with you about the hand. It’s a big problem. You’re showing no respect to the viewer by shrugging it off and saying “Eh, nobody will notice or care.”
Have I done montages before? Of course. Are they easy to do well. Not at all. And attention to lighting IS one of the key points to Montaging 101. Any experienced Photoshop artist will tell you that.
I’m telling you this as a constructive criticism. I’m not trying to trash your work. I’m pointing out from a technical standpoint what can be desired. Don’t insult the viewer by having this attitude that they won’t notice or care. That’s just disrespectful and lazy. Don’t give me excuses that “this is the real world, real time, blah blah blah.” Artists do montages on deadline, and they do them well, and they do far more complicated jobs than you’re doing.
I guess what bothers me is your attitude – towards your viewer and towards your art. Yes, you should be a perfectionist. Yes, you should strive to get every detail just right. Yes, you should assume that your viewer is intelligent enough to notice defects in your work. And, no, you shouldn’t be happy with “good enough.”
And as for the copyright issues, you’re clearly in the wrong here too. I’m not sure about the image issues with Britney and Christina, but with the photographers who took that photo, if they find that you are using their images without their permission and compensation for profit, you can be sued. Trust me, it happens all the time. With a work like yours, you’d probably just get off with a cease and desist order from the photog. But if you run into the wrong guy, it could be worse. Copyright infringement carries penalties of up to $100,000. If you used one of my images without liscencing them from me, believe me, I’d have a word with you.
Good job, try and draw it away from you and onto me. Looks rather pathetic.
Your art is shit. It is shit.
I have to agree with others here, particularly pulykamell, who I believe was very polite and articulate.
Here’s something from the OP that I found particularly . . . troubling.
This, to me, shows a massive amount of disconnect. Your work wasn’t that good. I’m sure you have some ability buried in you somewhere, but man—is that it?
The way you played it up, I expected something much much better. I really was expecting something lovely, with rich, well-rendered shadows, subtle tones and a beautiful sense of color. I also expected that it would be hand-drawn, not some cut and paste Photoshop job (not that cut and paste Photoshop jobs can’t be cool—I’ve done a few in my day).
pulykamell comes from the perspective of a photographer and I think he has some excellent insights. I come from the perspective of a traditional visual artist who has always specialized in portraits and figure drawings (including lots and lots of nudes). So, I was really expecting a lot more of your artwork after that description.
Now, if I had decided I wanted to do some Britney/Christina bondage picture (God Forbid) what I probably would have done was drawn out the two poses from my imagination (I can sort of do that semi-decently, though I’m no Boris or Frazetta) and then I would have looked at several photos of them and drawn their likenesses (not one derived from any one photo). I could have watched some videos of them to help me get the likeness. Or, I could have pulled out one of my many sketches done in Life Drawing class and used that as a basis for a sketch.
Then I would have scanned these sketches in and colored and painted over them in Photoshop. And in the end, I could have called them my own. I don’t know if I could have legally sold them (if my likeness was good enough, probably not) but if I didn’t draw the faces from any one photo (so no photographer could say, “Hey, that’s from my photograph!”) then I couldn’t have violated any particular photographer’s copyright.
I figured, based on your description, that you would have done at least that much. I assumed that you would have had at least that much ability. Because even though I don’t consider myself a slouch in art, I would never crow about my artwork the way you have, unless it was REALLY good. Like almost Frazetta / Boris / Whelan good. (Which it never has been!) Based on your own description, I had figured that you were this really awesome, kickass artist who could draw fantasy pictures out of your head and had this juicy sense of color and knew artistic anatomy like the back of your hand. I mean, you really built yourself up there, buddy.
So I was astonished when I saw your link. I thought, “That can’t be it! CAN’T BE! Where’s this kickass art? Where?” I looked around the site a bit to find where this tasty piece of art was. I really just couldn’t figure out what the deal was.
Another thing—I’ve gotta say, never, nay never have I heard an artist spin, spin, spin their work so much. It’s not anatomically incorrect, it’s this! The lighting isn’t inconsistent, it’s this! And on and on. Don’t do that. Just don’t. An explanation here and there I can understand, but seriously—if that many people are having difficulties with the nuts and bolts aspects of your work (like light sources and anatomy), I suggest you listen to them rather than spin an elaborate excuse.
By the way, who did the rather regrettable pencil (or charcoal) drawings on the t-shirt page called “The Art of Bondage Store”? I couldn’t see anything bigger than a thumbnail, but some of that stuff looked . . . not very good. Kind of newbie. Especially the one called “Locked Down.” Serious anatomy problems there.
I, for one, have to stand up to defend my personal definition of “art”.
Does it provoke a genuine emotional response? Yes? Then it’s “good art”-- To me, at least.
Oh, if only Evil Captor wasn’t so clumsy and obviously sincere.
It’s shit, but with just a bit more chutzpah, it could have been really good shit. :mad:
But you’re still breaking the law and shouldn’t bitch when you get a ticket…
Jenaroph, I haven’t advanced any arguments about the legality of the image. You’re making a good point, but not one that is in dispute. In short, strawman city, baby.
For all practical purposes it does. They are colonizing the culture with their images, why should not other people who share that culture bring forth their own visions? It al seems very artificial and unnatural to me – like you’re arguing “divine right of kings” or something.
If you claimed to feel that way after personally posing pretty much naked for men’s magaazines and in ways that invite bondage scenarios (in cuffs, singing about being a boy’s slave, etc.) people might have difficulty accepting your proclaimed outrage as genuine. Now if your celebrity was for being a great English teacher or producing avant-garde plays not noted for nudity or bondage, yeah, that would be different. Like I said, I’m not creating memes about Britney and Christina that they haven’t already brought forth.
Bullshit. You =apple. They =orange. They’re professional celebrities. You, so far as I know, are not. The law recognizes that public figures have more limited rights than ordinary folk
Strawman argument. Implies I am arguing against copyright law. I am not. I am arguing for adopting a copyright system more like the Japanese one, which allows fans to produce and sell their own artwork, even frankly pornographic artwork, so long as they make it clear that it’s their work and not the originator’s. This system has allowed Japanese manga and anime to compete successfully with America’s much more well-established animation and comics publishing industry in the marketplace. I mean, you don’t see a lot of European stuff invading the U.S., but man, the Japanese are all over us.
It’s because the more open, creative, culturally rich system of the Japanese is BETTER than ours … creatively, culturally and ethically.
No, it doesn’t help the little guy other than the very minor protection of not allowing wholesale theft. Mostly it’s a foot on their necks. Did you go to that page about copyright that Jenorath linked to? You’re not even allowed to use CLIP ART in a lot of instances. Fucking CLIP ART! Fact is, if you aren’t a wealthy person, they got their foot on your neck, and your chances of succeeding at that much lesser. Let the people speak, I say.
This is great! I’d LOVE to do it! Man, it sounds like fun and everything. I could probably do it and wouldn’t have to raise my prices by more than, I dunno … a thousand percent! C’mon, you must have SOME knowledge of economics…
You are definitely NOT as sweet as Tupelo honey. Blowero, Never Have I, scooch over please, got a new one for the peanut gallery.
Your art is shit, shit, shit.
After all this time you don’t realize it, after all the negative feedback?
Awwwww, poor baby. What a cruel, cruel world it is where one can’t make free money by illegally capitalizing on another person’s fame without their permission. How sad - you might actually have to get a job or something.
Your argument is tantamount to saying you rob banks because your profit is less when you obey the law. It’s just economics, right?
That putz is never gonna realize it. He’s just gonna create the biggest “peanut gallery” in the history of the world. 
Thanks for the genuine concern for my economic well-being. I have worked for many years at stuff I didn’t care for in order to earn a living. Paid my dues and then some, bro. Still paying them, if you know what I mean. I’m now succeeding at more interesting work.
I’m sorry if this bothers you on some level. My advice to you is to go out and find rewarding work yourself instead of crabbing on others who are doing so.
In the meantime, I think you know what I think your free advice is worth.
[QUOTE=blowero]
No, you’re not getting it. It’s the “right of publicity”:
The right of publicity is generally defined as an individual’s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona. Protecting the individual from the loss of commercial value resulting from the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes is the principle purpose of this body of law.
[quote]
Blowero! Dude! A semi-rational post. Way to go! I’d address your points at length, but they mostly reprise arguments I’ve already responded to. Frex, the preceding paragraph deals with current law, which I’m not disputing, OK? I’m saying the law is immoral and stupid and unfair, but I’M not saying it’s not the law.
[quote]
So your simple-minded “they’re sluts so they deserve it” argument aside, they are both famous, and as such have a right to control how their persona is used. If Britney wants to appear nude in a bondage picture, she has the right to do so, and would probably command a very large sum of money for it. But some asshole computer-nerd does not have the right, morally or legally, to profit from such an image without Britney’s permission.[/qoute]
See, you go in there using argumentum ad hominem and blow what might otherwise have been a sound point. Too bad.
So long as some people like my stuff to pay coin for it, there’s absolutely nothing any number of you can say. Money talks, you walk. 'Bye now.
blowero, please link to a thread where a large amount of people disagree with you, so Evil Captor can disregard your opinion because other people disagree with you, which also makes you a jerk.
IIRC, my response to your earlier post was that:
A) I acknowledge that there were problems with the lighting and the arm and the hand.
b) And I said that I would fix them eventually.
c) I said I would not make fixing it up a priority until the work had a more viable marketplace. If any such exists. Ebay is by far my best marketplace, so the work is pretty much “in abeyance” for all practical purposes. Should I come up with a better marketplace, I’ll rework it.
So, what part of “Yes” don’t you understand?
Well, yes. I should strive for perfection. And not be happy with “Good enough.” And peace and understanding should guide the planets. And love should steer the stars. And goodness is better than badness … Point is, criticism via platitude is not all that constructive, really.
Dude. I’ve explained this already. Go to Ebay. Do a keyword search for Britney and Christina and look at the hundreds of listings featuring scans of their laddie mag pics. Now, tell me it happens all the time again, and try to keep a straight face when you do.
I’m betting the guys who photographed Christina and Britney got paid for their work. I doubt it was a “work for hire” situation so they probably retain copyright, but ethically, they just wanna rain on everybody else’s parade so theirs will be sunnier.
Y’know, if there was some sort of acocunt where one could quickly and easily deposit a resonable portion of one’s sales on something like that two or three percent say – I’d happily do so. But the main way copyright works in the U.S. seems to be to keep regular folk from making money. Sorry, no sale here.
I’m glad my description conveyed some of the excitement I felt about the artwork to you. Perhaps I wrote TOO well, and that is why you were excited about viewing it.
Well, I gotta tell ya … there’s an easy way to make my work look bad if you have artistic talent. Just show how much better you can do the same theme and blow me right out of the water. As you’ve already noted great descriptions of the artwork you’re GONNA do doesn’t always match the artwork itself.
[quote]
Another thing—I’ve gotta say, never, nay never have I heard an artist spin, spin, spin their work so much. It’s not anatomically incorrect, it’s this! The lighting isn’t inconsistent, it’s this! And on and on. Don’t do that. Just don’t. An explanation here and there I can understand, but seriously—if that many people are having difficulties with the nuts and bolts aspects of your work (like light sources and anatomy), I suggest you listen to them rather than spin an elaborate excuse.
[quote]
Yeah, I did have some fun spinning my work, but a lot of it was tongue in cheek. but I did acknowledge the problems and promise to rework them. So, what part of “Yes” don’t YOU understand?
I think I have already explained my feelings on talkers vs. buyers and the relative importance of their opinions to me. Your best criticism would probalby involve not buying my work. I’m cool with that.
“Strive for perfection” is not a platitude in art. I make jewelry as a hobby, and I’m just not done with a piece until it doesn’t have any flaws that I can see or feel. Visible solder line on the inside of a ring? Time to break out the sandpaper. And if a piece just won’t quite come out how I want it to, and can’t be fixed, then I melt it down and try a different method. It’s finished when it’s perfect to my eyes and fingers.
Hm.
Okay. What sort of legal problems do I theoretically face from an image I photoshopped, link to follow? Obviously it’s not for sale, it’s just a character picture. I don’t even remember who the actress/model was anymore, only that I couldn’t pronounce her name.
Go to my web page and click on ‘Sarah’s Page’.
I am aware it was a copyrighted image. I did not take it. I did not get permission to use it, from the photographer or the individual shown. So what degree of wrongdoing is mine?