are vectors/vexels really art? Options

[batman]

... 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.

[brooklyneast05]

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.