Advice on commissions and references?

[tunavoice.livejournal.com]

EDIT: I just want to say thank you everyone for your input! I've gained some new ideas and insight on referencing and will be using new methods to do so. I apologize if I am unable to reply to every comment on here, but I really appreciate the discussion and the ideas that have been presented.

Hi, this has probably been asked before, but I really wanted to ask people who have had experience in the commission field. I've been really on the fence about this and want some confirmation.

Recently I had a commissioner who gave me complete artistic freedom over their commission. Their character made me think of a dynamic pose, so I went on a pose referencing site and referenced it for the commission- absolutely no tracing or copying was involved. It was a photograph of a live model used from a site called pixelovely I believe, used to practice figure drawing. It was just referenced with the naked eye, and the pictures- my sketch, and the referenced pose- do not match up at all. I'm not good with dynamic poses, so that's why I used a reference. I wanted to get everything right and give the commissioner a good quality commission as advertised.

When the sketch stage of the commission was finished, I linked them both the sketch AND the referenced photograph, so they could be made aware of what I did, and they seemed to be perfectly okay with that and were very happy with how the commission was turning out. However if the commissioner were to have been uneasy with the use of a reference I would have redrawn the sketch free of charge because I wasn't sure.

Is referencing (NOT tracing, but actual referencing) for the sake of getting something right an okay thing to do with commissions? I just do not know, because you're being paid for the work, and I usually get the idea that most people would want you to come up with your own poses entirely. I've seen a lot of folks say that this is not a Good Thing to do, but a lot of times tracing was involved in an attempt to pass it off as referencing. This might seem like a no-brainer, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. What are your thoughts?

(If I word anything badly, please tell me and I'll do my best to clarify! English is not my first language.)

Comments

(frozen)

[edenpilgrim.livejournal.com]

Again I will say that while this is a legitimate technique there are several pitfalls in relying too heavily on it. More than a few of those pitfalls show up in the work of even this amazingly skilled artist you cited as example.

You can really tell when he begins to actually paint the figure. I would have suggested that he cast a light on that model so that he could more appropriately gauge light and color for his image or at least key it to make his piece more effective. With a personal studio of his caliber he certainly has the means to do so.

It really goes without mentioning to say that the pose he chose was a little bizarre. It is certainly a dynamic pose and a visually interesting one but I do not think I have ever seen a human run in that fashion before. I am also unsure what is going on with that... gun? The large object the figure seems to be toting around. Given the pose he chose from photo the item appears entirely weightless. Given the surroundings in the image it COULD be a zero gravity environment, however, though that doesn't really matter in my eyes when my suspension of disbelief is being pushed as much as it is at this point. I am actually unsure if the figure is meant to be carrying that item or it is part of the environment they are in and they are clutching onto it. Along with casting light on his model it may have also been a good idea for him to have her try to hold an object of at least moderate size or weight while taking that pose.

I don't mean to rag on the guy. He's got loads of talent and there are certainly aspects of his work that impress me, particularly in his sketch work and his ability to render form with traditional media.

Artists study the figure, light, color, and form as a means of learning about their environments and learning how to express certain truths about the world around them through their art. In art in design there is not really a 'right and wrong', as Peter puts it, but there is 'more effective and less effective'. This particularly comes into play when one considers the overall goal of the art/artist in question.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

...He does light the model, quite extensively. That blue light you see on the face? He lit that on the model.

I can see what you mean, but I disagree with essentially everything. I think it is pretty clearly supposed to be a no-gravity or low gravity environment where the weight is a magnet, the pose isn't running so much as space walking, and even if it were running, realism is not always king. Sometimes it defers to composition, exaggeration, or feel. Either way, I don't see how your method would give superior results, if anything it would lead to potentially more issues. How are any of the 'flaws' you pointed to in this work fixed by using the other method?

There are going to be problems with any technique, but really now we're getting into nitpicky stuff that I really don't want to discuss with you. There are professionals who use exact photo reference extensively. I'm not one to correct them, but it seems like the industry norm, rather than what your prof is advocating. I'm not saying that he's wrong, only that many professionals would disagree with him so I don't think it's appropriate to be pushing it like it's the only option (especially considering that your prof seems to have a certain niche and tends to do more graphics).

I also find it pretty tactless to try to rip into an artist that's pretty darn well respected because you don't agree with his techniques. I doubt that you would want me to rip into your professor so please do me the same courtesy. I know that I'm not as good as either of them, so I don't think it's my place to criticize every little thing. What I can say is that the Mechanic tutorial was commissioned or at least produced by Massive Black/ConceptArt.org, so they obviously endorse what he's saying. Sterling Hundley also talks about using reference, but abstracting it, etc. which is great. Your reference isn't a ball and chain and I don't mean to say that. Your reference is a starting point and helpful for details, but you can take it all sorts of places. This gesture drawing tutorial is a great example of that. However, I have never seen anyone say you should only take reference and then use it at a different angle or only use it in tiny bits and pieces (except online).

(frozen)

[edenpilgrim.livejournal.com]

"...He does light the model, quite extensively. That blue light you see on the face? He lit that on the model."
And then he took a photo. A camera sees light differently than a human being does.

"realism is not always king"
Have you ever heard of the uncanny valley? The more realistic an artist attemtps to make an image/figure the more noticeable these 'nitpicks' become.

"There are going to be problems with any technique, but really now we're getting into nitpicky stuff that I really don't want to discuss with you. There are professionals who use exact photo reference extensively."
There are different techniques for what is needed in different situations. If you want to paint a portrait of Johnny Cash then it is appropriate to use exact photo reference. If you are trying to invent characters and believable cartoons then it is often better to do many studies of live figures to learn how the body works so that they can draw a moving figure from multiple angles.

" I'm not one to correct them, but it seems like the industry norm, rather than what your prof is advocating."
What 'industry' are you speaking for exactly? Commercial illustration? Portraiture? The 'art' industry is so extensively broad that you can't really say 'this is what -everyone- does'. Designers have to know enough about whatever they are designing to be able to invent things that are new, feasible, and believable. For the record my professor is advocating painting and drawing from life as opposed to drawing from photo because drawing heavily from photo will limit your art. I encourage you to read the rest of Peter's essay before you comment any further.

"I also find it pretty tactless to try to rip into an artist that's pretty darn well respected because you don't agree with his techniques."
Just because someone is a 'professional' does not mean every aspect of their work is golden. I mentioned in my previous post that I found his pencil sketches and his ability to render form very impressive. I actually would love to crack open Donato's sketchbook and see what kind of wonderful things you can find inside. However, there are obvious pitfalls in his work that show up that can be traced back to using to using photo reference too heavily.

You're right about reference not being a ball and chain, but that doesn't mean it cannot become one. The point is to learn, not to lean on a crutch. If you don't have at least a little understanding of what is going on under the skin of your model then all you are doing is copying poses.

Also. I don't have time to view the Sterling Hundley video at the moment but that cartooning from gesture tutorial is pretty great. Thank you for sharing.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

I really don't want to continue this argument with you. My only beef is that this way of referencing is completely legitimate, and I think if I only had the same pitfalls as Donato, I'd be pretty damn happy with my work (and I think most of the artists here would say the same thing).

Photo reference isn't the be all and end all, but I dislike this idea that you have to go out of your way to distance yourself from it and that is the only proper way to use it. You do have to know how to go beyond it, and that's through a lot of life drawing, but I just disagree that you need to keep your reference arm's length away (so to speak) and I've cited a couple of artists that are clearly using it more closely.

(frozen)

[edenpilgrim.livejournal.com]

Maybe it wouldn't be an arguement if you would take the time to notice that I said it -was- legitimate. I would greatly appreciate it if you would actually take the time to read what I am typing in my above posts before you responded again. I believe you are turning a rather neutral discussion into something more akin to bickering.

I will say again. References are valuable learning tools but photo references in particular have weaknesses that artists need to be aware of. The goal is to leatn, not to be overly dependent.

(frozen)

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

This has gone well beyond answering the original issue brought up by the OP. I think you both have thoroughly addressed your sides, and as it has gone beyond the scope of what the OP asked, and is getting mildly aggressive, I am freezing this thread.