Well, there’s where part of the communication problem apparently lies.
FWIW, I thought your answer to my previosu question was quite direct and clear: Mr2001* does NOT believe that author’s “moral rights” should be enforceable.*
But the problem is, as you state yourself, “copyright” is a question of law. This means the definition of “copyright” has to be derived from the law, not from your or my personal ethical compass, and then we may proceed to argue if that is a fair or just law. As we have witnessed, even believers in Moral Rights can be in vigorous disagreement as to the scope of their enforceability
The OP question then becomes one as to the ethics of risking a violation of a law when all the facts necessary to make a a decision as to the law are not available. Some will say that in such a case the ethical thing to do is to not even risk possibly breaking a law, some others will say in such a case one’s ethically covered by having done his/her best to find out. The one hitch is that the latter choice sometimes comes back to bite ya.
So lobby for the abolition of moral-law copyright.
However, as scotandrsn mentions, copyright is NOT entirely a “privilege” – it is based on a recognition of the ethical principle that the fruits of my (speaking as the creative person) labor are mine. Not “humanity’s”.Mine (*) I have no ethical obligation to share them, and I can ethically impose conditions upon anyone with whom I DO share them.
(*)At this point, the issue may come to an irresolvable impasse and neither party be able to convince the other to the contrary, as it may involve mutually exclusive axioms.
The thing is, either the creator has the right to control its distribution in order to decide to place it on sale, or he doesn’t.
Then you must have some idea of the confusion I’m feeling - I don’t see how any other standard could apply. The notion that someone should be able to tell me not to write a particular sequence of words and give it to my friend, just because he was the first person to write those words in that order, makes no sense to me at all.
Why create, you ask? Because you get paid by the people who use your work! You can benefit from people using your creation even if you don’t have total control over how and when they can use it.
Maybe it would, and if you review my posts in this thread, you’ll see I’m not proposing any such system: As long as you are offering your work for sale, anyone who wants a copy has to buy it from you (or pay you once they make a copy, which has the same effect). They can only give away copies for free if you cut yourself out of the loop by choosing not to distribute it.
I think I’ve shown above how this is false. You can profit from your work without having exclusive control over the distribution.
I don’t see it that way - as I read it, the OP’s question is whether it’s ethical to make copies of certain works in certain situations, and my answer is yes.
That answer doesn’t depend on any particular legal definition of copyright. The question of ethics is entirely separate from the question of legality, unless for example, you’re acting on another person’s behalf, and your decision to make a copy could have legal consequences for someone else.
Don’t worry… that time will come when there aren’t so many other, much more important, targets for my activism. Until then, I’ll continue to donate to organizations like the EFF.
I suspect you’re right about the mutually exclusive axioms.
But although copyright law may be partially based on the recognition that the fruits of your intellectual labor are yours, a brief examination of the Constitution and the founding fathers’ writings shows that it’s also based on the public’s right to enjoy and benefit from intellectual works. That is precisely why copyright terms used to be limited[sup]*[/sup] and why there are exceptions for fair use.
Limited in comparison to a human lifetime, that is.
Could you clarify? I’m not sure what you mean here.
yosemitebabe, as I said before, I disagree somewhat with some of the opinions you’ve expressed in your superb post, but your post was so eloquent and I felt you were so correct and insightful in so many ways, that it really would be a violation of the spirit of your post and the way it affected me to bring up these minor points. I do want to come to my own defense here in regard to the points you bring up above.
First of all, I have found it stifling and unpleasant to try to paint things that don’t appeal to me. Therefore, most of the paintings I would like to paint and sell are those I have encountered in magazines, books and online. These have always been, so far at least, works by well known, wealthy, and for the most part deceased artists. While it is true that I would benefit as you say from the artist’s produce as you describe above, it hasn’t been my deliberate intention to capitalize on these qualities. In my simple-minded way, I’ve just been looking at it as though: “Hey, here’s a cool painting. I’d like to try to copy and sell it.” I don’t consciously think in terms of how can I capitalize on the talents, training, study, etc., etc. of some talented artist so I can make some money off of him.
And I think one big area of your concern is that perhaps you are thinking I’m looking to copy the work of struggling or just emerging local artists. This isn’t the case at all. For one thing, I know this would make my name Mudd (after John Wilkes Booth’s unjustifiably villified doctor) among the local art and collector community. But also because I believe it would indeed be unethical in exactly the same way you do. (And as an aside, I don’t really go around complaining to artists or anyone else about my “frustrations” in this regard. I really haven’t even mentioned them to anyone, and they haven’t prevented me from finding plenty of public domain work to copy, but it seemed an appropriate way to explain to you my motivations in wanting to see shorter copyright protections.)
Let me give you some examples of some recent pictures I’ve been wanting to copy but haven’t because they appear to still be under copyright. My very first painting was a geometrical abstract that was originally painted by Frank Sinatra. It hung over the fireplace of his bedroom in Palm Springs. I saw a picture of his bedroom in an Architectural Digest and because I liked the painting and thought I could do a reasonably good job of copying it, I did. This is a pretty simple painting and once I finished it I found I was actually kind of embarrassed to have it around because even though it was painted in 1984, it looked so “sixties.” I was very surprised to find that almost everyone who saw it responded very positively to it, even some of my neice’s teenage friends, and friends who were boys on top of that! My middle aged sister in law wanted one for her entertainment room, and her sister who is an interior decorator wanted one, too. And not only that, but the sister’s airline hostess daughter wanted one, too.
As I said last night, I am hoping to follow Picasso’s suggestion and begin to make my living doing something I get the same enjoyment from as my free time, i.e. painting, and I know I could sell lots of copies of this painting, but because of revisions in copyright law, this 20 year old painting is going to continue to be off limits for decades.
I know perfectly well that the Sinatra family and the art world in general would not be impacted in the least by my local sale of several copies of this painting.
Another painting I would like to copy and sell because I like it is an odd painting done by Alexander Caldwell (an artist whose own contempt for copyright is supposedly fairly well known). It is a painting I saw once again in Architectural Digest hanging on the wall of a showplace home. It was painted in 1974 and so I might be able to legally copy it, but I wasn’t sure since his name and the year appear on the painting, thus meeting the pre-1976 criteria for copyright protection. Again, though, I’m sure no one would be harmed in the least by my painting and selling a couple of copies of this work. But I don’t because it appears still to be under copyright.
The remainder of the works I’ve so far been frustrated by being unable to paint are by such artists as Roy Lichtenstein (a Ben-Day dot sculpture of a woman in shadow that would make a wonderful painting), Georgia O’Keefe, Willem DeKooning, Kenneth Noland, a very interesting and successful painter from Iran named Sabzi (his older work, of course), Tamara de Lempicka, etc.
I would fully understand their feeling that way, if I were copying their work, or that of their peers. Perhaps I am naive, but it has been my thinking that if I could become skilled enough at painting copies of well-known works I would acheive a reputation as just that: a skilled painter of well-known works, with the idea being that instead of an ink on paper print of a well-known work, I could provide an acrylic or oil on canvas replication that would be much more enjoyable for someone to own.
Thank you for the compliments. And please remember I don’t go around complaining about these things. I only brought them up because it seemed appropriate to our discussion.
Yes, I know. But it has seemed a way I could most quickly get up to speed in terms of making a living from art.
You are most correct, my insightful friend. I’m already starting to gravitate toward imagining how to paint this or that local scene in some of the styles I’m practicing with. I recall Linda Ronstadt once mentioning how hard it is when you’re starting out because your ability doesn’t measure up to your taste. This is where I am now, but honestly, I can’t wait until the time comes when I’ll have developed the ability to capture a local scene in the style, say, of Van Gogh.
As I said above, I can see quite easily that you are right. And I’m looking forward to that time. It’s just that I suspect it will always be harder to sell my own work than a skilled reproduction of a well-known and beloved work. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I foresee a time when I’m making a living from copies, and painting my own pictures in my spare time.
No, I didn’t think you sounded harsh at all, and although I’ve excised much of your post that had the most meaning to me, please don’t think the message was lost. You’ve caused me to have a new appreciation for true artists and what they go through to acheive what they do. Your eloquence has given me a new perspective, and your words of encouragement have given me inspiration.
I don’t want to appear maudlin here, but I’m quite damn impressed with you , and I thank you for taking the time to enlighten me as you have.
More information (if you want it ) will follow in my response to your next post, but I wanted to address the items above in the proper context.
To a degree, yes. I worked through about the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the book. Its great benefit to me was in convincing me that I (and anyone, really) truly could draw if I went about it the right way.
No, I haven’t. I’ve been concentrating on painting for the most part.
As I said in my previous post, this is because I’ve been focussing on trying to get to the point as quickly as I can where I can earn a respectable living as a “reproduction artist.”
Indeed. When I first found out I could create works of art, I wanted to be like Picasso (no, not in the genius sense ) and learn how to be proficient in all types of art…oils, acrylic, pen and ink, watercolor, pencil work, etc. However, I’m learning what I suspect everybody learns (even Picasso was attending art school long after his vaunted “First Communion” was painted), these things take time.
Well, it’s what I think *will * make me the most money, and also because of interests, positive responses, etc.
At this point, I should probably confide in you another reason for my apparent reluctance to concentrate on developing my own individual skills, such as you suggested earlier in terms of sketchbooks, practice, etc. Unfortunately, I came to an appreciation of beauty and art rather late in life. I’m currently 55 years old, and retired since last year due to certain limitations caused by several non-life threatening illnesses. I’m figuring that barring unforeseen difficulties, I have around 20 or so more years ahead, and, while I don’t want to interject a downer into the conversation, the fact is that I don’t feel I have the time ahead of me to allow for 5, 10 or 15 years of practice and struggle in order to become the kind of artist we would both (I’m sure ) love for me to become.
So for that reason I find I am indeed tending toward short cuts and trying to compress learning time so as to become at least respectably proficient that much sooner. I know where my next meal is coming from, but since I had to retire 10 to 15 years earlier than I had expected money is still a significant factor in my artistic ambitions.
Oh, how I wish I had come to this 30 years ago…but oh, how glad I am to have finally come to it at all.
Starving Artist, this has been a gratifying exchange, and I’ll get to responding (at great length, I am sure) to your posts in a while. Gotta log off for the moment. Thanks for explaining so much to me; it is enlightening.
I didn’t think that you did. However, many in the art community would think that, especially if it became more “personal,” (you started to copy the works of living artists).
That’s good to know, and for the record, I think you’ve got a dandy plan there: to copy public domain works and sell them. Sounds like it works for everyone!
The thing is, “public domain” works right now mean (usually) dead artists. No one really minds you “riding on the coattails” (to put it crudely) of a dead artist. Because it’s done all the time.
However, if the copyright laws were changed so that living artists, possibly struggling living artists, could lose rights to their work after 20 years, many “riding on the coattails” artists would start to exploit them. Not you, perhaps, but many would. They would be seen in the artistic community as parasitic creatures, waiting to pounce on something as soon as the 20 years were up. Why bother to learn color, or anatomy, or composition? If they can accurately replicate color and can use a grid or projector (no need to even learn how to draw) then they can leech off of the efforts of others.
And even though you would be horrified at such a concept, it would still happen. Because some people have no scruples and are lazy. Oh my word, lazy, lazy, lazy. They won’t bother to develop any more skills than are absolutely necessary. I’ve seen it time and again.
Also, even if you copied a 20-year-old artwork (if it were in public domain) work from an established and rich artist, you might be painted with the “parasitic” brush. It is something that would not set well in the artistic community. That person is still alive and the profits they get from their work are the result of their sweat and struggle. They’re entitled to those profits, without having the bother of a bunch of less-able leeches draining away a little money here, a little money there.
This is really cool and I understand your excitement.
And there’s nothing you can do about that. That’s just a fact.
Just a few, sure. But the thing is, when you start to decide for other people how they will become impacted, you’re treading on dangerous ground. And even if you use the utmost discretion and caution (which I believe you do), there is nothing stopping someone else with less common sense from copying my work and selling it, just because they see that I have a nice fancy website and obviously must be doing well (financially). That’s not their call to make. (And no, I’m not rolling in dough. ;))
And that’s a wise move.
Seriously. It’s just best that you put this to rest. I mean, I know that you know that the law probably isn’t going to change, but it’s just not worth the thought anymore. It ain’t going to happen. And if it did happen, we’d probably have two sets of artists: the ones who do the original work (a result of years of effort), and the parasitic artists. That would be a rather controversial situation, don’t you think?
That sounds like a great plan, for the older, public domain works of dead artists. Great plan.
See? It’s already starting to happen!
Welcome to my life. Welcome to everyone’s life. You get used to it.
The more time you spend with the Right Side of the Brain book and others like it, the sooner that will happen.
Of course it will. But that’s the path you’ve chosen to take. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way, because it would be exactly the same way for me. If I was selling reproductions of Manet and Monet alongside of my own paintings, which do you think would sell better! I mean, come on! That’s a no-brainer!
The sooner you start creating your own works, the happier you will be. I am not discouraging you from doing the copying of old works plan, because it seems to be working for you and you’ve found a market for it. But you are not going to be really happy until you start to branch out. (And I’ll let you in on a secret: odds are, that your own original works will SUCK at first. It’s part of the process. We all go through it. It won’t last forever. Just get through it, the sooner the better. Time’s a wastin’. So, chop chop! Do it NOW! :D)
Thank you. You are very sweet.
In regards to your continued studying of the Right Side of the Brain books and the Keys to Drawing books: I understand your feeling of time constraints, but don’t assume that you can’t sell any of your own work without 5 years of rigorous study. It’s an ongoing process. All through art school, I did sell works. Not just all works. Not the crappy anatomy sketches, not the boring color studies, but plenty of other stuff. And even before art school, I was selling stuff regularly, by copying photographs in either pencil or oil. I had a basic understanding of rendering (having practiced and doodled so much) and I’d had that great oil painting teacher.
You’re already establishing yourself as having some mastery with rendering and paint. If you are accurately copying these paintings and getting them looking good enough to sell, then I’d say that you’ve already progressed greatly. You may have a few rough edges here and there, but obviously you’ve got what it takes.
And if you can understand how to accurately represent colors, then you probably don’t have a “tin eye” in regards to color (you probably have some innate color sense). So, further study of color theory will probably be exciting for you.
So as you study, you sell. Spend some time continuing with the reproductions (since they sell and are helping you learn) but try to really push your own education. The sooner, the better. It’s not one of those things where you finish the book and proclaim, “Whew! I’m done! I’ll never open another drawing book again!” You’re always learning. Learn, paint, sell, learn, practice, sell, paint . . . See where I’m going? You’ll just continue to get better as the days pass. We all do this.
Starving Artist, in reviewing my post here, I hope I didn’t leave you with the impression that I thought all artists who do reproduction work are “parasitic leeches.” I think you’ve definitely left the impression that this is not your desire or intention.
But I do believe that there was only a 20-year limit on copyright, that there would be a definite stigma (in the art community) against those who made a living primarily from the copying of living and contemporary artists. And yes, some of these artists would definitely deserve the “parasitic leech” title.
However, the “leech” stigma might be lifted somewhat if the reproduction artist was obligated to give some small percentage of royalties to the original artist. (Not that I want there to be a 20-year copyright limit, mind . . . )
In the case of the freezing homeowner, they have no recourse. It is not possible to suddenly provide the home with gas, oil, or a fireplace before the inhabitants either die from cold or are driven from their home. This creates such an overwhelming need on the part of the consumer for that particular resource that it would be absolutely unethical to respect the rights of the rights of the Electric Company to profit from distribution of that resource, and they must be required to provide it against their wishes not to.
Our OP’er wishes to view Amos ‘n’ Andy, and can’t find a legitimate copy to buy. You are suggesting, then (by your claim that the same standard applies), that they have an overwhelming need for Amos ‘n’ Andy comparable to our electrically-heated home dweller’s need for electricity in the dead of winter that renders it unethical for Amos ‘n’ Andy’s copyright holder to withhold legal product? You can’t possibly expect me to take such an idea seriously.
I have a 15 year old student who might believe she will die if she doesn’t hear a new System of a Down song, but she has failed to prove this conclusively.
Moreover, your posts suggest to me you have a broader perspective on this: Every member of society has such an overwhelming need for a continuously refreshed stream of artistic and intellectual product that, in your perfect world, everyone who creates anything better fork it over good and quick or their right to make money off it is negated.
You have a hell of a long way to go before you have demonstrated that such a need exists on any scale. If I write a song and refuse to record or perform it, show me how civilization grinds to a halt.
So David can’t use a particular sequence of words because bad old Goliath copyrighted them first? Tough shit for David. He has the ability to create other words and play Goliath to some other David. Thusly the arts and sciences are progressed.
Remember: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Suppose Goliath is one of several publishing houses that unknown author David has sent his manusvript to in hopes of getting a book deal. Under the system you promote, if no one contracts to pay David to publish his book, Goliath can decide that David has ‘failed to publicly distribute in a timely manner’ and may feel free to place David’s entire work on their website (without compensation to David) as a public service and promotional tool to demonstrate the sort of submissions they get.
What the hell exactly would David’s motivation be to ever write again?
Like others have mentioned: If I can’t at some point restrict or condition free access to my product, then my “right” to market and sell it is kinda badly eroded. And a real power to restrict and condition, implies a de-facto power to deny (denial being just the top limit of restriction).
Now, in your system, at first glance, that could conceivably be achieved by making all work be nominally for sale, but at exhorbitant rates and royalties – but wouldn’t then your “abandonment” clause kick in?
As stated before, we’re likely dealing with mutually exclusive axioms.
OTOH, there is such a thing as restricting free access to the point it becomes unreasonable or abusive: thus the time-limit, fair use, and the lively debate going on in this same thread among artists who believe in moral rights, as to how far should they extend. But that’s separable from whether “moral right” should exist at all.
(BTW, legally speaking copyright exists even if the person/s entitled to it may not be identifiable; once someone’s found who can prove it’s them, it’s in full force as if there had been no discontinuity and they can go after violations that happened during the interregnum. Letting it pass unrenewed, were renewal required, would not be “abandonment” but mere term expiration. It is trademark that can be declared “abandoned”, as it does not have an absolute time limit but persists as long as the holder uses it and acts to protect it.)
No, not at all. You clearly made a distinction in your opinion regarding doing reproduction work of well known famous (and dead ) artists’ work and that of living and/or currently working artists. (Also, did you check out Arnold Smith’s site I linked to in the other thread? If not and you’d like to, here’s the link:
I’d be interested to know your opinion of him, as although I didn’t know of him until just a few days ago, he is basically doing what I’ve had in mind for myself once I had developed the skill and ability.)
I also felt that while you were somewhat conflicted, you were basically encouraging the painting of the types of reproductions I had in mind as being a good plan and idea (please correct me on this if I’m wrong, but with the caveat that I should concentrate on developing my own work…and soon! (You know…“Time’s a wastin’. So, chop chop! Do it NOW!”) I loved this, by the way.
I understand and am very much inclined to agree (now ).
I can very easily see how a situation could develop such as you described in which such “leeches” line up to pounce on work once it has reached the twenty year limit. I can also see a situation developing where a significant market could develop among collectors and the public in general who regard it as the smart thing to do to wait until copyright expires and then buy the lower cost reproductions that would inevitably begin to appear shortly afterward.
I would have no objection to this whatsoever. In fact, I would be quite in favor of it.
Oh, and let me take this opportunity to correct a couple of minor errors in previous posts:
a) “I *had * seen,” rather than “I seen.” Aaauugghhh!
b) “Alexander Calder,” not “Caldwell.” (I knew that felt funny when I typed it.) :rolleyes:
I think he’s doing something very interesting. He’s altering and changing Van Gogh’s original works (doing painting versions of drawings, etc.) and that is requiring skill and understanding on his part (to be able to successfully make these changes and make them pleasing to the eye). And he’s good at it too—so yes, that sounds like a worthwhile and challenging area to pursue.
I’m glad. Yes, I think you will be happier if you are cultivating your own work. I think that after a while, it would weigh on you to feel that you couldn’t do it (even though you could, but the longer you take, the more you’ll hesitate).
To get side-tracked for a moment, I’ll share a story from art school:
There was this guy, he was a little older than the rest of us (in his late 20s, I think) and he had this awesome color sense. Great color. A real gift. He did airbrushed illustrations and logos and stuff like that and was already making a good living. But he was also taking classes.
He didn’t ever learn how to draw. He just traced all the images he used in his illustrations. He got away with this because a lot of illustrators do trace (to save time) but he couldn’t draw. Not a line. Nothing. Most of the students who traced did draw (even though some of them were rustier than they should have been, since they really needed to spend more time drawing instead of tracing). And just for the record, I don’t trace, never have, and have frequently seen how too much tracing stifles potential (I’m pretty anti-tracing, but that’s a whole other issue).
Anyway, in this class I was in with him, the teacher expected us to draw something from life during one session. So far this guy with the great color sense had been able to work around and wiggle around his inability to draw, but this night, there was no escaping it. He sat there, making some pathetic awkward doodle, while the rest of us drew. And he was depressed. I mean, really depressed and humiliated. We all told him that it was no big deal, that he could still learn how to draw, and after all, look how awesome he was! But he would have none of it. He bitterly said, “It’s too late. I’m too old.”
I just thought that was so pathetic. (I hope he changed his mind later. It wouldn’t suprise me if he did.) He had reached a certain level of success and he’d gotten praise for this success, but he’d taken shortcuts and now his pride was telling him that he shouldn’t have to go back to “square one” and struggle with the newbies. And so he was afraid to do it. Afraid that people would look at him like, “You do all this awesome airbrush work, but you can’t draw any better than that?” And so he decided to avoid all of that by just never attempting it.
So, yes. I think you should develop your own personal skills RIGHT AWAY. Before you get really, really proficient with your reproduction art, like some big “hot shot,” start working on these other areas. Don’t “paint yourself into a corner” (sorry, I couldn’t resist) like my friend from art class. You’ll always regret it.
Even if you don’t ever sell a lot of your own original work (but I think you will do okay selling it), just knowing that you can do it will give you that extra measure of confidence and satisfaction. So, really, there is no time to waste.
If there was a way to make it work, it would be a far cry better than just taking away the rights of the original artist. However, upon further reflection, I don’t see how it would really work . . .
Unless someone could set up a voluntary system where some artists would allow their work to be reproduced in exchange for a royalty, then that would be nice. But I think that too many leeches would just bypass the paying of royalty thing, figuring that they’d never get caught. Figuring that anyone who saw their reproduction would assume that they were paying royalties. (But I suppose there could be a system where they would have to provide proof of royalties being paid.) But still—it sounds too convoluted and many artists would never want to go for it. Oh well.
As I’ve said, I’ve already begun to form compositions in my mind of local scenes I’d like to paint in this style or that and I would indeed be happy to have the ability to paint what it is that I am envisioning.
And yes, it’s true that I have been hesitating in terms of developing drawing skills in favor of working to produce (by, dare I say it, tracing and grid work) my reproductions.
My feeling has been that while it would be handy to be able to draw well, I just really couldn’t justify the time it would take…both in developing the skill itself, and in actually sketching out the image by hand before painting it. I’ve justified the use of grid work due to the fact that I’ve seen studies by Degas in which he used grids to compose (at least some of) his paintings, and after learning that Van Gogh struggled quite a lot to learn to draw and even devised a large and cumbersome device that he had to assemble and disassemble to provide him with a grid to work from when working outdoors. I also learned that the wonderful artist Durer used one as well. All of this has led me to believe that using a grid and then tracing the resulting image was a quite legitimate way of working, and from there I came to feel that tracing pictures printed from a computer printer were just as acceptable.
All the while though, I’ve been aware in the back of my mind that I wasn’t developing my drawing skills and that eventually this would be constraining. I remember telling a friend in my earlier and quite enthusiastic period of art discovery that I wanted to learn how to do everything: oils, watercolor, pen and ink, pencil…you name it. I told her I wanted to be versatile like Picasso…able to work in virtually any medium and not be constrained by lack of know-how in any particular way of working.
However, once monetary concerns came to the fore in an important way, I confess I’ve felt compelled to focus myself in a more limited way and to take advantage of short cuts for the sake of expediency…all the while knowing it will eventually come back to bite me on the butt.
To quote Professor Higgins: "Damn! Damn! Damn! " You really are determined to make a true artist out of me aren’t you?
Oh, well…I guess it’s time to stop fighting it. What do you think of Kimon Nicolaides’ book, “The Natural Way to Draw”? I bought it shortly after “Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain,” but because it required so much time to work through (3 hours a day for a year) and it appeared to require using live models on occasion, I never did anything with it. I suppose I could draw for an hour a day for three years (which he suggests as an alternative) and use magazine photographs of people in place of live models. What do you think?
True, there just doesn’t seem to be an answer that adequately addresses everything that should be addressed to make it fair and workable for all.
Damn! I didn’t get to finish editing that. One of the cats, in an attempt to jump up onto the nice, warm monitor, slipped on a notepad and came crashing down on the keyboard with one paw firmly hitting the “Enter” key. I didn’t mean to just say “snip” in regard to your very appropriate and helpful art school story. I just meant to excise the parts I didn’t feel it was necessary to respond to. The story itself was dead-on and and inspirational and I appreciate your telling me about it.
Well, there are two different issues going on here.
Yes, Durer used the grid. And you’ll see in Betty Edwards’ book, she shows how to use the grid. The grid is good because you are drawing, just in smaller chunks. But to never do anything other than the grid is almost similar to tracing. You really aren’t going to ever feel comfortable branching out on your own.
Now, even though I have a strong “no-tracing” stance, I do realize that some artists—great artists—never do learn how to draw. And they find a way to work around that. Some of these artists work in a more abstract, funky style so it doesn’t really matter. If you happen to work in that kind of style most of the time, it probably doesn’t matter to you either.
However, I saw in art school (and since then), people who ultimately became slaves of their tracing or their grids. Some of them wouldn’t admit it, but it seemed obvious to me. There were things that they couldn’t do, because it would require drawing new lines, or making up something—and that was beyond them. So some of them (the ruder ones that were in denial), would act as if it “didn’t matter” when in fact it did. And they were bitter about it.
If you start to alter these master works, like that Van Gogh painter guy that you linked to before does, you might end up wanting to draw out something just a little different. You need to have the confidence to be able to do that. And that means you need to be able to draw.
I think that a lot of painters who do draw, and draw well, but they will use a projector or a grid to transfer a large image onto a canvas. That’s pretty standard. So, I’m not telling you that you should start sketching out your images on canvas before you paint. But I think you will benefit from learning how to draw, and I’m glad you are willing to do that.
If you look at my Geocities site, (pardon me for the shameless plug), you’ll see two pencil drawings on the main page. These faces were drawn from my imagination—without any photograph or model. These people don’t exist. I just made them up.
Drawing like this is very fun, very gratifying, and I never, ever would be able to do it had I not done a lot of drawing. You can’t trace what isn’t there.
Now, drawing from the imagination isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, so there are many artists who draw well, but never make up imaginary people, like I have. There’s nothing wrong with not being able to do that, or simply not having any interest in doing that. But there’s a great deal of freedom and enjoyment if you discover you can do it. And you’ll never discover whether you can or not unless you learn how to draw.
And even if you don’t want to draw from your imagination, you will always find benefits in knowing how to draw. For one thing, potential clients will probably expect you to. Maybe not all, but some. And there will be those who will be a little disappointed to learn that you can’t draw.
So yeah, you already know the answer and you already know that you should learn how to draw. And as I said before, your early efforts will probably SUCK. This is normal. Don’t give up. It will get better.
Yeah, it will. And you don’t want to be one of those bitter people who proclaims that it “doesn’t matter,” while all the time you are feeling bitter inside? No, obviously not!
Everyone swears by that book in Life Drawing classes and I know it has its place, but I confess I didn’t really enjoy it. I wouldn’t discourage you from learning from it if you are so inclined, because it’s got a lot of good concepts in it, but I don’t think you will suffer greatly if you don’t get into it. The Right Brain book is great, and another one that I consider an underappreciated gem is Bert Dodson’s Keys to Drawing. I am really impressed by this book. His drawing style is a little more “loose” (it may look somewhat sloppy at first) but this guy is fantastic, and shares many helpful truths. I highly recommend him.
I’m not sure that this woman is your cup of tea or not, but I’ve always loved the color work of Helen Van Wyk. She’s got lots of painting books on Amazon.com, or you might find one of her books in the library or the local book store. I think her book on color is great. She has a traditional painting style, very nice, but if her look is not what you are after, you might find her painting tutorials only marginally useful. But I think that her stuff about color might be very interesting to you.
Well, foolish you, you got me started on rambling on art, a subject that I can carry on about for a very long time!
Yes. I remember reading once that Renoir often said that to paint something he had to be able to see it. While this doesn’t necessarily mean he couldn’t draw freehand, it does seem to indicate he couldn’t draw from his imagination.
Yes, I seem to be gravitating at this time toward a more impressionistic and/or impressionistic style. I haven’t done much with it, and nothing for sale, but I’m about 1/4 of the way though an impastoed copy of one of Van Gogh’s sunflower paintings. Certainly, this doesn’t mean much yet, but so far it’s the most fun way I’ve found to paint, and the way that so far feels the most natural to me in terms of doing my own paintings. When I envision painting lake or country scenes around here I think I’d like to paint them in Van Gogh’s style; if they are restaurant, bistro, bar, or cityscape scenes, I’d love to be able to paint them in the style of this guy: http://tsar-art.com. Both styles clearly would require an ability to draw, but Tsar’s much more so, IMO. (And for that matter, if I wouldn’t be imposing too much, any advice you could offer in regard to developing this [Tsar’s] style would be much appreciated. At this time I don’t even know where to start.)
But that aside, however, I’ve really felt all along that drawing is to painting pretty much what punctuation is to writing. It’s hard to create original works that have real depth without the ability these skill provide to create nuance and detail.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I’ve been gravitating toward an acceptance of this for some time now. I even purchased a pad of newsprint several weeks ago to doodle and sketch on. It appears, though, that I needed to have the importance not only of doing it, but of doing it as I progressed, stressed to me by someone whose experience and opinions had sufficient weight so as to overcome my inertia in this regard.
Indeed. First, let me compliment you on your drawings. They are very good. I had seen your site some months back when were talking originally. It’s very good. My only complaint is that there aren’t enough examples of your work.
Oops! I’m sorry, I just learned that I have to bail for a while. I will address the rest of your post when I come back online later. Thanks again, I truly do appreciate your efforts.
It’s funny you mention this. I read this just a few weeks ago. The author said whenever you stretch in your artistic efforts, you are going to suck in the beginning and that it is to be expected. He also said it never lasts…it’s just something that has to be worked through. The alternative is to stay with what you’re already doing because you already know how to do that, but the result is that you never progress further. So he said you’re better off to just jump in and get the “suckage” over with so you can progress to the next point of “suckage,” then get through that, and so on. Such is the nature of progress.
That has been my impression as well. Thank you.
Again, thanks. I’ll see if I can find it. You’ve spoken well of it a couple of times before and it sounds interesting. (And speaking of loose styles, I really enjoyed your “looser” drawings also, especially the one on the opening page of the woman who was a movie extra, and the woman you refer to as being “hippy.” I liked both of those quite a bit.)
And speaking of loose styles even more, I read on the Wet Canvas site (perhaps you’re familia with it) that while there are thousands of people who can paint realistically, there are very few who can truly paint well impressionistically. Would you agree with this?
You are most perceptive. I do indeed need to learn more about color.
Hah! *You’re * a rambler? Bosh! I think I’ve demonstrated you’re clearly no match for me.
But please, I’m finding our discussion very gratifying as well. Feel free to ramble all you like!
My middle aged sister in law wanted one for her entertainment room, and her sister who is an interior decorator wanted one, too. And not only that, but the sister’s airline hostess daughter wanted one, too.
) will follow in my response to your next post, but I wanted to address the items above in the proper context.
