deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
May 25, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 93

How do you feel about redrawing photographs?

:iconcnids:
=Cnids May 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Is it a technically impressive feat that transcends the source material, a rip-off of a pre-existing image, or somewhere in between?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconronanq:
~RonanQ May 29, 2012   General Artist
It is a technically impressive feat, but I don't think it transcends the source material if done exactly. It is then a copy. I guess this is kind of subjective, I enjoy representations of reality or of someones mind or idea than the actual thing, but that just me. I mean we have cameras so why not put your own unique twist on a subject, after all that's what makes it unique.
Reply
:icontubanome:
I believe that the skill to perfectly copy a photograph is a science, not an art. Mechanically, it takes a lot of skill-- a highly trained eye and hand-- but as artists since the dawn of time have taught us, art is about expression, not replication. Just as I don't consider a mundane photograph (like "click-- there's your picture") to be art, I do not consider the exact replication of even a particularly artistic photograph to be art.

In replicating a photo line-for-line, you are exhibiting your understanding of how drawing works. Good for you. But to me, that has never been a factor in art.

To directly answer the original question: Yes, it is a technically impressive feat. No, it does not transcend or in anyway expand upon the source material.
Reply
:iconsamrickim:
~SamRickim May 29, 2012  Student Photographer
Define "mundane photograph."
Reply
:icontubanome:
For instance, a Facebook profile picture or a random snapshot of nothing in particular. Photography with no skill nor creativity behind it. A photo, in general, is a duplication of some other form of art (nature, for instance) whereas it just takes a little something special to be considered art.
Reply
:iconsamrickim:
~SamRickim Jun 7, 2012  Student Photographer
Not that I disagree with you, but couldn't you say that of any sort of art form?
Reply
:icontubanome:
Why, yes, I could. And I would. However, the form in question was duplication of a photograph by drawing/painting. So I only really addressed that, and used photography itself as an example of "when 'art' isn't art." If you'd like I could make a list of other things that aren't art. :P
Reply
:iconsamrickim:
~SamRickim Jun 7, 2012  Student Photographer
See, but couldn't you argue that when you draw, you're simply duplicating what your eyes see (like a photograph does)? So in reality there's no difference except for one image being static?

Sorry if I'm confusing, running a temperature and feeling kind of groggy. I'll try to explain better if needed. :dummy:
Reply
:icontubanome:
I could argue that. And I would. I don't consider the exact duplication of anything to be art, merely science.

Art is not drawing what you see. It's drawing what you don't see.
Reply
:iconsamrickim:
~SamRickim Jun 8, 2012  Student Photographer
So what about realistic portraits, and such, that are drawn from life and not from a premade image?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconluminousbrink:
~luminousBrink Jun 7, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I can see where you're getting at, but what if one uses something they see, copies it some, then changes it up and adds their own tweaks and visions, or shapes and colors to it, to where it would be their own art that was inspired by real life? For instance, someone copies a picture of a face in a basic form (contour, eyes, nose, lips, etc) but then they add their OWN colors, shapes, and style to make something that used to be exactly what they saw but now isn't. It would then be their OWN, in some essence. In the beginning, they HAD to draw what they saw because it would help lead them to the final piece of their vision. One can't simply draw what they DON'T see ALL THE TIME to be considered "art", in my opinion. But, the term "art" is subjective, so I respect your thoughts on the matter.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: