I'm unsure if this issue has been addressed.

Do you think that it is fair to congratulate, and perhaps even put a drawing into the showcase, if the artist copies an image exactly? I can imagine how wonderfully some people do copy images. It looks exact, and very sharp. But alas, it is still copied. It is almost like plagarism. There was no originality, not even changes, to some images. And while others slave away at creative drawings, with unique designs and skills, and receive little praise, due to their difference, those who take nothing of their own into their images are praised. Is this fair? And what do you all think of the people who copy images (try to at least be polite about your thoughts for this question)?

Please remember, this is an opinionated question, seeking an opinionated answer. If you think you're right, you're wrong, and you can choke on your own lack of innovation.

I don't like when people do exact copies, but It is harder to draw exact copies of pics on these applets then in real life. It takes alot of work to copy something exacty, and It is helpful to use refs when you don't know how to use the applets perfectly.

Yes, I certainly do think it's fair.. it takes a lot of talent, skill and work to draw an image exactly like someone else did.

I can see where you are coming from there KY, but I agree with Momma. It takes alot of skill to perfectly copy somthing.

Absolutely.

well look at it this way, if someone uses a photograph as a reference or looks out their window and copies what they see to the exact detail, should that be held against them because it was already created and they just copied it to whatever medium they choose?
a job well done is a job well done, original or adapted or copied. The most important aspect in art, in my opinion, is being able to see what you're looking at and be able to translate that into your drawing. whether you copy it or if you add your own original spin to your subject. If its done well its worth recognition.

Being devil's advocate here, sure it takes alot of skill to copy something exactly. But an artist is someone who interprets what they see/feel/think in one form or another into another medium. So when someone creates something from a still life they are still interpreting what they see. They don't see the same exact thing as everyone else and they choose to present it in such a way that is perhaps meaningful which is where the creativity comes in such an exercise.

Sure, copying some photo or image that has already been interpreted in some way via composition and format doesn't make it less skillful or invalidate it from being entered into the showcase. But it would be nice to know if the artist actually thought up and produced everything about the image which would increase the value of the image. Therefore the exact copy of some other image is skillful but decreases the value of the image.

In my opinion it wouldn't be bad to copy something and put your own ideas into it, what's the point of copying something exactly the way it is other than an exercise in doing so? Things are usually more interesting when someone takes the time to add something more.

To me, the copied pic is fun for the artist who did it, for the others is boring to see the same thing 2 times, copying is more for skills load than art.

If I remember well Marcello told me once that drawing realistic pictures is great as technical skill, but other styles are more interesting. I also remember Cloxboy saying that drawing realistic pictures is not very impressive unless done with style and that it is much harder and more interesting when done with physical media. I think that realistic drawings are very impressive even when done on oekaki drawing applets, especially when they are funny or perverse! >;)
|XOD|

lol @ xod. you always include 'perverse' in your comments. but yeah, you're right, it's more interesting and harder when there's more styles included in the picture. I think I figured that out when I first started using watercolor. I found it to be a little harder than acrylic because with watercolor I had to start out light and then make my way to dark. I was used to the acrylic paint where I could start with dark and overlap other paint. When I was using watercolor to paint a sunflower (seen here), I tried to make it look more like the picture but if I did, it would look sorta boring without the slight orange and reds on the petals. The scan didn't turn out very well 'cause the background's suppose to have a very light mixture of blue, purple, pink, and green instead of just plain blue. Well, my point is, I don't really think that making an exact replica of a picture show an impact of an artist's style or expression. It just shows they have a very keen observation such as the lines, the colors, the tones, light and dark areas, and texture but other than that, little amount of creativity and originality is involved. I also agree with others that it can be boring at times to see how most of the art is basically copied--as if the artist seem to be "stuck in a rut" of that kind of art. I think it's a reasonable that some may say it is fair to place it as a Showcase because I do think it takes a lot of effort and straining your eyes to look for every detail of the original because even I can't stand continually staring at a certain picture for hours and hours just to make mine look exactly like it is. This is why I preferred drawing random crud. lol

I think that copying a photo, isn't so much art for everybody else, as it is for the artist to understand the subject. Obviously a physical medium such as paint, pencil, or whatever else you use are harder to reach a copied look than on oekaki, due to the fact that you are using a medium with texture, and some limits that oekaki does not have (such as a large color spectrum, blending tools, undo, etc.) But some well-known works that are alleged copies of subjects have been named as art as well. Art is a way for an artist to express the way they interpret something, whether it is a subject or not, and, mind you copying a photo exactly would not be a way of expressing that which art is supposed to be to most people, but the skill that one puts in to copying or working from a reference might be what the artist interprets as the art itself. Art, after all, could not be art at all if we did not put any effort into it, so as Ky said, it really is an opinionated view on whether you think "copying a photo" is art or not.

What I want is a sexy girl model to stand in front of me completely naked every time I feel like drawing. >;)
|XOD|

I think it's an Art, I just don't think it defies creativity and originality (which in fact, isn't original anyway). It also doesn't really show passion whatsoever (even though it took quite a lot of detail in accuracy and perfection). I think it's more focussed on skills rather than expression. I don't think I've been to a lot of museums and many of the art that I've seen had to do with abstract, surreal, expressionism, cubism, nonobjective, and prehistoric but not so much on realism-modern-art. Maybe I've seen one, but they might just be photographed. So yeah, maybe that's why some people wouldn't really consider it since it's pretty much looking at a photograph. I don't think I could really appreciate the Art but maybe just "how" the Art is done.

Thats what I was saying, was just to appreciate the art of how the artist went about recreating that image, but as is stated, it is simply my opinion.

Again, art is a very broad subeject. There's also a difference between copying straight off photos and drawing from "real" objects. If you've tried both, most will find the real objects to be harder to draw (rather than copy things off photos). Seeing that this is the case, I don't appreciate people mixing these two together to say that they are the same thing. Another thing is, say for example, painting landscapes might include you "finding" a nice image to draw off of (which could have photographer qualities in cropping and what to include in your image etc) and not have so much style in itself. But this doesn't subtract from the image cause it doesn't have "style." It includes other elements of skill. Art doesn't always revolve around "style," just so you know...

I try to appreciate all types of art for what they are. I think realism is fun to view, some of it is a true testament to skill and craftsmanship, which I can appreciate. When I look at a piece of art, I try to observe the artist's intentions and enjoy or dislike the piece (or parts of the piece) from those observations. I'm attracted to stylized work more often than realism because stylized work tends to be more expressive and unique, in my opinion.

I attended an art festival in Denver today, there were so many types and styles of art, it's nice to view so many varieties at once. I think appreciating or at least acknowledge all types of art has given me a better understanding of why I like a piece or have a preference at all for a particular piece of art or style.

Yeah, I agree Clox, stylized work does tend to be more interesting to view and just stare at, but realism has its benafits too. Sounds like that art show was fun though, there are a lot of neat pieces throughout Denver throughout the city in general, which makes it really fun to go visit when we do.

I like how Cloxboy draws the spooky faces, they are distorted and monstrous but they look realistic... hehehe. >:)
|XOD|

I like how XOD draws long pink worms that spew white acid!! They are so cool!! They even have mustaches!! ^,^

Yes, I draw pink worms. These worms have a strange defensive mechanism, if touched, they grow bigger to scare potential enemies. When inactive they like to hide inside their seath-like skin. They also like to live inside pink, moist flowers. Some of them also infest little dirty, foul-smelling tunnels. <:)

0_o Woah.