Does an artist worth less or more when they are using reference photos for their drawings?
I guess it is always more amazing when someone can draw poses so realistic without references.... And I always wonder which artists use them, because I can't always tell.
Now I'm using some reference for my mermaid book... and I feel like I'm cheating... okay, I don't copy the exact same thing, sometimes only a leg, or a face inspire me, and I use them for a certain piece of illustration. I really feel like It's cheating, and I feel shit. I feel like it's not completely my work. But I'm sooo lack of time, and I need to hurry with it...
-
Mood:
Nervous -
Listening to: Panic! At The Disco
These days we have photography, it is useful and despicte the fact that they're art of their own you can use them without regret. Is a part of the training too, a lot of people goes to museums every day to "copy" paintings...
It is fun, it is useful, and you learn a lot. Enjoy it
(oh, sorry for my bad inglish... I hope you can understand what I tried to say
All art is derivative. There is no form of art that is totally original... 'originality' is a modern art construct... a silly concession to marketing concerns. (Paul deMarrais)
I can almost guarantee most artists have references on hand to help and the most realistic always have models to work from.
I don't think in anyway an artist is less for needing/using reference photos. Even if no references are used, everything an artist makes comes from learned images and data. Just one is more learned/memorized. Just respect copyrights and make what ever you use come out mostly original or only use direct reference photos in 'fair use', with permission/credit. Then it isn't cheating