I have been seeing a lot of this going around. It is a photograph-- and it has been painted on. No big deal right? Not unless the artist claims to have painted it...
Photography is naturally a valid form or art, painting on a photograph has been done for years. Even back in the day artists used the camera obscura as a means of transferring images to canvas. What bites my ass is when artists employ these techniques and then say they painted by hand-- not referring to any of the tools they used. I feel it is in some way fraudulent, not true. Why the heck not say you painted over a print... I mean -- we know you did it!
What do you think about it?
Posts
Well I understand your frustration, but at an art event there was an artist selling like hot cakes his work where he states that he took the photographs and painted on them as you have stated. But what bothers me, was they were all iconic photos that I had seen on the internet,Beatles, Jimmy Hendricks etc.
ReplyDeleteWell what can you do about it ? It is an old style brought back to life. IT IS A NEW AGE OF EXPRESSING ART. On the other hand I know a photographer who takes his own photo's and then had colors them. So what is right or wrong.........it is all in hand of the buyers.
If people like art they buy period.
I have NO problem with people painting on the photographs. I do have a problem when they paint on them -- then say they painted the whole thing by hand.
ReplyDeleteS
I think it should be pretty easy to tell if a photograph is a photograph or a painting if you see it in person. having said that, digital artwork has been often referred to as digital painting, so it wouldn't technically be fraudulent.
ReplyDeleteBig problem not to tell your audience the truth. Always own up to your methods. Sometimes it may not matter to the onlooker or buyer if the image is successful but it will matter a lot if not told from the beginning. Honesty and integrity is very important to the artist who would like to be around a long time.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand copyright law; every person has copyrights for his/her photos, so if someone paints over someone else's photo which they find in a book or on the internet, then they risk being taken to court.
ReplyDelete(btw I've always wondered how collage artists get away with using other's images.)
I see no problem with painting over one's own photos, although I would prefer to be told as such.
Yours appears to be a digital painting... no mess to clean up. (wink) Many people are opening photos in Photoshop and using filter effects... with no artistic vision or talent involved.
Oh... as long as it's on my mind... there are Angel Laws protecting rubber stamps and other crafty items such as scrapbook papers with printing on them. The laws are different per manufacturer and come with limitations as to how many items you can make to sell using say... a specific rubber stamp. Printed papers can be used to make notecards for sale at craft fairs, but not digitally scanned to sell as reproductions.
ReplyDeleteOnce you start painting on a photograph, it instantly become a mixed-media piece and should be labeled as such. There is no stigma to such a label. I also think its important to be accurate in definition of any work that you produce to further educate the buyers understanding and demystify it, thus allowing works of art to become more assessable to the general public.
ReplyDeleteI see your question launched people into other territories filled with good information and topics worthy of further discussion.
I am enjoying the dialogue and wealth of information the ArtHash has spawned and offers.
Honesty today is an elusive thing, and the art world isn't immune from copies, fakery, theft of photos,etc. I say let the artist do whatever but hope that they have some kind of integrity.Buyer beware if it makes a difference when they purchase.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you there. If you photographed a subject and painted on it, at least have the GUTS to admit it. Artists should have enough faith in their work to explain their process and let the buyer/viewer judge it for themselves. I make art that starts with a drawing which is then altered in Photoshop and then drawn onto the canvas. I feel that the audience should know that.
ReplyDeleteyep, tell them is my opinion! you'll look ethical when you reveal it and unethical later on if you don't. i don't think a true artist....a true creative soul would try to hide that....a wanna be perhaps.
ReplyDeletethis picture looks like it is digitally manipulated to me. ? digital art is an artform in itself, just any joe on the street could not do that. it takes a sense of artistry and design to pull of a good piece even that way. irregardless......speak the truth! you'll retain your sense of dignity and honor.
The photo was digitally altered-- It is one of mine-- just used it for an example. I like all of your thoughts on the subject. Looks like honestly is always the best policy.
ReplyDeleteS
People who trace photos are OK. People who trace photos and claim that it's original art are sad. If all you can draw or paint are stick figures then stick with that. The worst stick figure is better than the best trace art, always.
ReplyDelete