Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: batman May 24 2010, 05:23 PM

... 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.

Posted by: tokyo-rose May 24 2010, 05:50 PM

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.

Posted by: batman May 24 2010, 06:10 PM

man i am not making friends over at deviantart lolol

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 24 2010, 06:18 PM

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.

Posted by: batman May 24 2010, 06:24 PM

^ 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.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 24 2010, 06:27 PM

i think they are overreacting with the stealing artwork shit.

Posted by: Cum May 24 2010, 07:00 PM

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

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 24 2010, 07:07 PM

^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.

Posted by: tokyo-rose May 24 2010, 08:36 PM

Cristy

I really am limited in my knowledge of graphic design, so now I know I was wrong in saying that. A big part of it is that a lot of queue submissions that I see here involve photo manipulations rather than anything else. I guess I just haven't seen enough (good) graphic design, since CB obviously offers a skewed view on what graphic design can be.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 May 24 2010, 09:02 PM

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.

Posted by: spambot May 24 2010, 09:54 PM

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.

Posted by: synapse May 25 2010, 02:44 PM

Invader zim was a pretty cool show.

Mel,

I like your vectors cause of the technique you use. The point of a vector is to trace over a photograph, or some other source. If you didn't do that, then like you said it would be an illustration.

Posted by: technicolour May 25 2010, 09:52 PM

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.

Posted by: ArjunaCapulong May 25 2010, 11:26 PM

I guess i was supposed to post this here instead

don't worry i didn't read this whole topic but i'm sure i'd be interested if i had time

Posted by: TheOn3LeftBehind Jul 2 2010, 03:47 PM

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.

Posted by: venti-anemoi Aug 10 2010, 03:55 PM

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.

Posted by: schizo Aug 10 2010, 04:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Butterface89 Sep 25 2010, 06:53 AM

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

Posted by: Butterface89 Sep 25 2010, 07:16 AM

Brooklyn East, that was one of the most intelligent explanations I've heard. It's realistic. My 2 cents is this: I found that what was said about the "bad graphic design in the queue" a little insulting. Do you really expect a professional graphic designer to sit up and make avatars and stuff to submit here? I mean, for what? People submitting here do it as a hobby or for fun, or whatever. It's voluntary.

Now if CB offered to pay people, then you'll be surprised at the level of talent that will come this way. But when something is unpaid, you'll find most people walking away. So, as long as it's free, you take what you can get. Not meant to be offensive, just realistic. You know?

Posted by: Simba Sep 25 2010, 07:22 AM

I think there used to be incentive in the sense of prestige there was in getting a graphic accepted to createBlog, but as interest in createBlog and what it had to offer fell, this became irrelevant.

Posted by: Butterface89 Sep 25 2010, 12:42 PM

That's terrible. That actually made me laugh when it shouldn't have. I think I'll post a question about this because people keep saying "the prestige fell" and what Createblog had to offer is "no longer in demand". I've lurked around for some months before joining, but what I saw pleased me. Real crazy layouts! I saw toilet paper layouts and stuff up there; it was crazy! Never seen anything like it-"anywhere", so artistic....but now...it's starting to look like stuff you'll find on every other site. Very conservative.

Simba, I'm not sure if you mean something like that, but no, people don't need what's already out there.

Posted by: Simba Sep 25 2010, 03:12 PM

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

Posted by: Butterface89 Sep 26 2010, 03:10 PM

Thanks, Simba. Response much appreciated:D I don't know what the bong in my photo or whether this is me in my photo has to do with Art/Vectors being "real" or not. I'm sure you didn't mean it but that sounded kinda like you were trying to insult me by brining up what my picture looks like. Weird.


Oh P.S. No offense but since you 'did' bring up personal avatars, you have a WOMAN in your personal pic but then it says MALE just below it. o.O. Want to shed some light on that?

Posted by: Simba Sep 26 2010, 07:03 PM

lol i'm just joking

Posted by: Butterface89 Sep 26 2010, 07:26 PM

Ha ha, I 'caught' you:DD Nah, I'm just playing, too. Yeah, let's drop this. But seriously, thank you for responding to my initial comment about the vectors. I understood what you said about "prestige", and when I said I laughed at that...I just meant...something about the idea of "prestige" over money just made me laugh. There was a time when I was totally for that but I guess new economic times call for new ways of thinking. At least on my part. But again, we were talking about "professional graphic designers".

But you know what, there is so much talent out there. It's amazing. Even to offer an artist a 'little' bit of money, and they will probably take it, just for the chance to do what they love (and be able to buy a sandwich here and there), you know? xoxo


Sorry, Brooklyn East, I re-read my response to what you said and it sounded like I was against what you said when in fact I was agreeing with EVERYTHING you said. I was referring to what "another responder on here" said about the bad graphics in the queue and stuff like that. I can't comment to them directly. You know why. Anyway, cheers.

Posted by: gojira Aug 12 2011, 03:53 PM

http://www.iamjpg.com/love/?p=180