... after talking to two people who are convinced that my vectors are easy to do and not creative in any sense, i've sort of just become... discouraged. i feel like a fraud just copying over someone else's creative concept, photo, creation, etc. even when i do add my creative nuances, it feels cheapened now that i'm using someone else's work as my base.
for example.
idk.
(this is where you say "don't listen to him, mel, keep doing what you're doing, we still think its cool" ... really, really in need of encouragement after being told that i shouldn't be proud of what i do)
>.<
but seriously... what are your takes on this issue?
oh yeah, ok he called it "painting over a photo" which i guess is a good analogy.
but who the f*ck doesn't use something else as a base? i never said i was an illustrator.
If graphic design is considered digital art, then why shouldn't vectors and vexels fall under that umbrella? Look at all the graphics that people make using stock images that they get from other people; the world of graphic design basically wouldn't exist if it weren't for designers using stock photography to create graphics from. Don't let those people discourage you from making vectors; they have no right to say that vectoring is easy and not creative if they've never done it themselves.
man i am not making friends over at deviantart lolol
i agree and disagree.
hard? yes. creative? not in this instance.
vectors certainly can be used in creative ways, but i don't find this to be a creative way. i do agree that it's tracing. there's no added concept. there doesn't seem to be any real point to vectoring the picture to look exactly like the photo. i think it depends on people's idea of what art is. if art is a means to convey a concept then this doesn't do anything. it just depends on whether you think the art is in the message or whether it's in the technical work. there's people who paint photorealistic paintings that look exactly like photos. i think the art there is more in the technical ability to accomplish it. the art here is in the technical ability too. it has that wow effect when you find out it's vectored.
i completely disagree with christy that "the world of graphic design basically wouldn't exist if it weren't for designers using stock photography to create graphics from." that's false and a giant misconception held by at least 50% of cb i think. the world of graphic design isn't in any way reliant on stock photography to make graphics. graphics don't have to be photographic and the vast majority of design work doesn't use photos. photos in graphic design are a relatively new concept thanks to the development of computers and evolution of printing processes. even today the majority of graphic design work being done has nothing to do with photos.
even though i don't consider it exactly "creative", this doesn't mean i think you should give this up. it's interesting, like i said, in the way that photo-realism in fine art is interesting. it's interesting that you've been able to accomplish such realism. however, i think what would be better would be to consider the ones you've done as practice and technical development and figure out how to put a concept behind your technical ability. when you start to say something or convey something with your vectors, then people will not view it as just tracing and more as art.
^ i agree with you. i didn't vector this to be creative. it was 100% about technique. but i never really claimed that this was super creative or anything and even explained that this was a practice in gradients and that the original concept is not my own. i don't know, i don't like being attacked for "stealing artwork." i'm not making money from this and i will fully admit to it being the property of Marvel and the photographer and whatever.
i think they are overreacting with the stealing artwork shit.
deviantards will always be retards, they don't understand that anything can be a form of art.
i wouldn't say you stole the picture. it's more like re-enacting the drawing in a sense of you tracing and recoloring it. plenty of famous people do that, i don't see them getting bitched at seriously.
basically, if it's your passion to do vectors/vexels, then those opinions shouldn't really prevent you from continuing on. i find your artwork to be amazing, so keep doing what you do best
^famous people do get in trouble for it. shepard fairey just got done being sued for his obama campaign posters which was a lot less copying than this.
i don't think melissa needs to worry about it, but just saying, the rights are in the hands of the photographer not the tracer unless a lot of creative changes are made.
it's not that design on cb is bad (although it is a lot of times), as much as it's just not...design. it doesn't end with this kind of stuff. this stuff isn't what professional designers typically do, make little avatars and junk like that (in regards to the queue, not your post mel lol, this is off topic). design is more about thinking and problem solving than using photoshop, at least when you have real clients giving real work. graphic design wasn't invented when computers were, that's the point a lot of people are missing. computers have just allowed for new ways of doing things.
you've seen a lot of good graphic design, you just don't realize it. we live our lives inside the world of design. it's everywhere. everything you buy, every store you go to, every business you use, what you see online, the mail you get, the magazines you buy, the signs you see, the maps you look at, it's all designed.
Dude, they had a f****t Invader Zim character for an avatar. They don't count as a person let alone have an opinion. I would ignore comments that don't give you anything to work with. The second comments even admitted you had good technique, but the rest was mindless bitching. That did nothing for you, them, or your art.
blah blah blah what JC said. You know JC if I had the mind of a 70 year old I could probably say sweet shit like that too.
Dear God. I was just about to point out the Invader Zim icon. Dis-gust-iiiinnnngggggg.
And who is this prude to declare what art is and isn't? Silly person needs to flatten that pretentious collar of their disgusting country club polo and calm the heck down. And what really chops my hide is who is this person to say that you shouldn't be proud of your creation? God, talk about abusive. Plus, her gallery is like....awful.
And, uh, hold up a sec. This chick was comissioned to do WoW graphics. TALK ABOUT FRAUD.
Judging based on avatars/icons..? But I agree. If you go and look at tutorials, they all show that you create selections of the image and create layers, then color it in yourself. Every. Single. Tutorial. Even on DeviantArt.
That ToonDeaf girl's a f*cking bitch. Her latest comment on my comment to her. Omg. Don't even get me started on this bitch.
Iunno, I don't think you have anything to feel ashamed about. I think I see, a bit, where ToonDeaf is coming from. Vectoring an Ironman poster is a little different than vectoring a stock photo, or even a copyrighted photo of a celebrity. Not to say that photos aren't art, but for the poster, someone had to draw/CG it, which, I think, people feel involves more.... art-ing (creativity and all that) than photography.
That said, ToonDeaf seems to think you "stole" the artwork by making a vector of it. I disagree because a) you openly stated that your base was the Ironman poster which is copyright Marvel etc etc and the vector was done for practice in gradient technique b) it's for personal use and you're not making money off of it and c) it's a friggin' amazing piece of art. Yes, art, if not in terms of creativity then definitely in terms of skill and technique, like JC said.
It's something you should be proud of! Whether or not it's art, what you do is amazing. I would hate to see you stop vectoring because of something like this.
If the end product looks almost exactly like the original, I don't think it's art. I appreciate the work that goes into them, but you might as well just post the original image. You can't even tell the difference sometimes.
I guess my thought is just that if you can work with vector so well, why not put the skill to a more creative use? Still, I don't think it's anything people should get their knickers in a twist over. There will always be those art elitists that have all their little rules that in the end just mean "My art is the only art that looks good and is created correctly." Then people follow them like they're Jesus and you get all that bandwagon shit. You see a lot of that with Daily Deviations. Someone gets featured, someone else doesn't like the style and gets all jealous that it was chosen over their own art.
I wouldn't be too upset. Just maybe stick with stock images from now on. People wouldn't get copyright crazy but you'd still be able to use the same technique.
Didn't Andy Warhol apply this same technique to Campbell Soup cans and pre-existing photographs to "create" his POP ART? I also believe artist Shepard Fairey does something similar, and both these artists are far more recognized than these people complaining from DeviantArt o.O . No offense to them:D
i see you have a bong in your personal photo even though i know that's not you
i'm not sure that i understand what you're asking me, fact of the matter is though, cb's field of products is no longer in demand because customizable sites such as xanga are no longer popular. just a change in the internet's tastes
lol i'm just joking
http://www.iamjpg.com/love/?p=180